26 replies to this topic

[Paul A H]

Handley Page Halifax B Mk. I/II/GRII

1:72 Revell

The second of the RAF’s famous four-engined ‘heavies’ to enter service, the Halifax was originally designed to meet the same Air Ministry Specification as the Avro Manchester. In common with the Manchester, the H.P.56 design was developed from a twin-engined design into the four-engined bomber that we are all familiar with. Although overshadowed in popular culture by the Avro Lancaster, the Halifax was built in prodigious numbers and served with enormous distinction.

The type’s first operational raid was on the French city of Le Havre on 11 March 1941. By the end of the war it was reckoned that the Halifax had dropped 224,207 tons of ordnance on Hitler’s Fortress Europe, at the cost of nearly 2000 aircraft lost. The Halifax was a versatile design and it adapted for a wide range of roles including anti-submarine warfare, reconnaissance and electronic warfare. The Halifax continued to serve after the end of the Second World War and examples of the type were still in service with the Pakistan Air Force in the early 1960s.

It feels like a lifetime ago that Revell announced their Halifax, and despite rumours that the kit would actually be a re-release of the old Matchbox mould, we are finally able to hold a brand new Halifax in our hands. The kit arrives in the same deep, end-opening box as the Revell B-17G released back in March. Inside are 13 sprues holding an impressive 338 parts (not all of which are used – more of this later). A this is a brand new kit, it should come as no surprise that it is beautifully moulded with crisp, finely engraved panel lines – certainly finer than the aforementioned B-17.

In common with the B-17, it features a nicely detailed interior. Inside the front fuselage there is a full set of parts to represent the cockpit and the crew stations for the engineer, radio operator and navigator. The instrument panel, radio and other equipment feature nice, raised details, although a few decals are provided if you don’t fancy painting these parts by hand. The fuselage sidewalls are also detailed with raised ribbing at the front and rear ends. The roof of the bomb bay sports two large wing spars, which should give the finished model plenty of strength. This is the same method of construction used in the B-17 kit. It worked very well for that model, so it should work equally well here.

The main landing gear bays have to be assembled before the wings. They feature some fairly simple but reasonably delicate surface details and should look fine once in place. The wings themselves slide onto the aforementioned wing spars and hopefully will fit as well as the wings on the B-17. The doors for the wing bomb cells are heavily engraved on the inside, which should make them easy to open up. This tees things up nicely for the aftermarket producers, and I’d be amazed if we didn’t see some kind of detail set, photo etch or resin, for these areas within a matter of months. Turning to the engines, there are 4 different types of engine exhaust to choose from, so you will need to check references carefully for the particular aircraft you want to model. The shape problems that the three-bladed airscrews suffer from are already well-documented (not pointy enough) but this will be no trouble at all to put right with aftermarket alternatives. The wing tips are separate parts so it may well be that a B Mk. III with extended wing tips will appear at some point.

All of the control surfaces are moulded separately, so a number of different configurations can be depicted. Both pointed and squared vertical tails are provided. Two different types of main gear legs are provided as well. The bomb bay doors are moulded in a single piece scored down the middle. This part will need to be cut in order to depict the bomb bay in the open position. The doors will also need to be scribed lengthwise to represent a hinge line that Revell have missed. The bomb load is taken care of by ten bombs, and an H2S radar fairing is included for the GR.III version. Yet more options are catered for on the clear sprue, including a choice of noses and turrets.

Two marking options are included:
Halifax B. Mk. II Series I, 405 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force, based at Topcliffe in July 1942; and
Halifax GR. Mk. II, 58 Squadron, Royal Air Force, based at Stornoway in Early 1945. The decals are the usual Revell fare: crisply printed, nice bold colours but slightly matt.

Conclusion

Those modellers that have spent the whole year nervously checking the latest newsletters from Revell in anticipation of this kit won’t be disappointed. A few minor niggles aside, this has all the components of an excellent kit and it should build up into a beautiful replica of an important and often overlooked aircraft. To paraphrase Harold MacMillan, fans of British aircraft have never had it so good. Now I wonder what treasures 2012 will bring?

Revell model kits are available from all good toy and model retailers. For further information visit

[Navy Bird]

Now I wonder what treasures 2012 will bring?

I'd like to see Revell (or Airfix) do a new tool 1:72 Stirling!

Cheers,
Bill

[Paul A H]

So would I! Not long to wait before they publish their lists for 2012

[Aeronut]

The wing tips are separate parts so it may well be that a B Mk. III with extended wing tips will appear at some point.

If you look at stages 98 and 99 in the instructions you'll find the extended wings tips shown.
Also, I don't know why stage 72 is in the instructions at all, its the glider tow hitch.
The kit might not be perfect but its a good starting point for a Halifax being far better than the other available kits.

[lancfan]

I'm looking forward to this one- the missing section of sprue between the wing halves is very intruiging. Can't wait for the second version of this, also I wonder if we will be treated to Hercules engine pods/nacelles at some point.

David.

[Radleigh]

Really fancy an old bomber, with these new kits coming out it's tempting!

[Julien]

I just saw Hannants is playing Santa with this kit "RRP £19.99 Discounted price £17.77"

[rs2man]

I just saw Hannants is playing Santa with this kit "RRP £19.99 Discounted price £17.77"

Models For Sale have it at £16.99

[2wheels]

Bought one at my local.

And after the new tool Stirling, how about a Sunderland MkV

[Lennyb72]

I'd like to see Revell (or Airfix) do a new tool 1:72 Stirling!

Cheers,
Bill

Now that would be fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mottlemaster]

It may be worth opening up your box to take a look at the sprues as my set which arrived today have some deformaties in the main wing parts sprues K and F I hope mine is an isolated case but worth alook ,especially if you are planning to build it over Christmas.








Would you recomend getting back to the shop i made the purchase from or directly with Revell.


Regards Alistair

[stevehnz]

I'd go back to the shop in the first case, if they'll replace the kit or swap out the bits (assuming they've got stock) it'd be quicker than trying to do business with Revell this time of year. If they are out of stock & can't get it in then you'll have to fall back on Revell but I'd think its up to them to make it right & take it up then with Revell themselves.
Steve.

[Graham Boak]

Under UK law, it is the job of the shop to replace or refund. Thankfully, in our hobby the key manufacturers go beyond the legal requirements, and will provide help directly to customers, but Steve is right to go to the shop first, especially at this time of year.

[Mottlemaster]

Thanks for the advice . hope to get this sorted before the big christmas shutdown

Alistair

[Seahawk]

Under UK law, it is the job of the shop to replace or refund. Thankfully, in our hobby the key manufacturers go beyond the legal requirements, and will provide help directly to customers, but Steve is right to go to the shop first, especially at this time of year.

It's fairly obviously "not of merchantable quality"!

[Merlin]

I think you need to mention all the errors this kit has, its going to take some serious surgery beyond many modellers abilities, list includes engine nacells far too wide, the real nacelle shape will fit inside the kit shape and thats including the kit plastic thickness !, also the intakes are the wrong shape, (should be more curvaceous and not straight sided both on the main part and the smaller trough), prop blades (as mentioned) Upperwing nacelles very wrong, ailerons, H2S pod (is a joke), spinners, scallop fwd of canopy,..to name a few. See the halifax Options thread. The errors are not minor but major shape issues. Just what are Revell playing at when references and the real thing are available ? They should not get praise alone on this one, engines and nacelles are going to be a tough cookie to fix.

Merlin

Edited by Merlin, 15 January 2012 - 04:31 AM.

[Julien]

I think you need to mention all the errors this kit has, its going to take some serious surgery beyond many modellers abilities, list includes engine nacells far too wide, the real nacelle shape will fit inside the kit shape and thats including the kit plastic thickness !, also the intakes are the wrong shape, (should be more curvaceous and not straight sided both on the main part and the smaller trough), prop blades (as mentioned) Upperwing nacelles very wrong, ailerons, H2S pod (is a joke), spinners, scallop fwd of canopy,..to name a few. See the halifax Options thread. The errors are not minor but major shape issues. Just what are Revell playing at when references and the real thing are available ? They should not get praise alone on this one, engines and nacelles are going to be a tough cookie to fix.

Merlin

I think if you read the review the issue with the props is mentioned. As for all the other "problems" I have seen at least a few people arguing the merits or otherwise of the kit and I have seen differing views. It is not the job of a review to get into a discussion about these just mainly talk about the plastic in the box which this has done.

Revell should be praised for giving us new tool kits, and to be honest 99% of people who buy this kit wont have even read the "on line" discussions and will build what they think is a nice looking halifax, me included.

It makes me wonder why companies even bother sometimes to do new kits as "modellers" seem to want to spend their time pulling them apart.

Julien

[Merlin]

As for all the other "problems" I have seen at least a few people arguing the merits or otherwise of the kit and I have seen differing views.

Differing views,.... I would be interested to see how some say it looks correct, like those in wartime pictures because it doesnt. That is at the end of the day the aim of a model, to have the look of the real thing. Corgi have it better so why can't Revell.

It is not the job of a review to get into a discussion about these just mainly talk about the plastic in the box which this has done.

If a review is not going to mention the errors, I wish it would say so, I read a review, as do others, to know whats good and bad, to know what I am letting myself in for, I dont want the kit sitting on the shelf awaiting an aftermarket fix. We need to know if its going to cost us more money to fix it. Anyone can open a box and see whats on the sprues so just being told this isnt much benefit, to have a review check the kit out with reality, pics and plans, something we cant do when in a shop or at a show, is useful. I would like to see reviews warn us of any extra spending and major surgery if a kit has bad errors, and this one has such. Blades, spinners, intakes, engine nacelle, fairings, H2S pod all are VERY different to how they should be and thats quite a few items mentioned ! Its that word ' VERY' in this case thats the issue and Revell and others will carry on with such errors unless they are a little more wary of such being pointed out. They know they can get away with sloppiness and errors of this magnitude as reviews turn a blind eye to them. We spend the money on a kit then the damage is done, cant take it back saying inaccurate when one comes to build it and gets the references out 6 months or more later. Modellers dont always search through threads to find out the truth. I rely on reviewers to be honest and say how the kit is, warts and all. When errors like this are not mentioned I start to wonder, are kits supplied by the manufacturer and one is honour bound to give only praise ? It invalidates subsequent reviews when errors are excluded.

Revell should be praised for giving us new tool kits, and to be honest 99% of people who buy this kit wont have even read the "on line" discussions and will build what they think is a nice looking halifax, me included.

I agree they should be praised for considering it, but to then blow the chance of getting it correct in some major areas and getting the look right is so disappointing and frustrating. I would rather they not spoil the chance for another manufacturer to do so and for that manufacturer to get it right. Would Airfix now consider doing this aircraft when it exists ? No. They would get it right, though spoil its realistic look with trenches for panel lines.

Navybird says

I'd like to see Revell (or Airfix) do a new tool 1:72 Stirling!

Cheers,
Bill

So would I, but limit that request to Airfix from what we see here, if they can sort out their guy with the panel line engraving tool ! If Revel can do this to an aircraft that can be measured, what would they make of one that is extinct ? ! I hope Revell dont tackle the stirling, I am fearful at the thought.

It makes me wonder why companies even bother sometimes to do new kits as "modellers" seem to want to spend their time pulling them apart.

Modellers dont like pulling kits apart, they are frustrated that such avoidable errors are given them by people who should know better and yet again surgery and more money is called for. They want to give praise, and finding bad errors is just so puzzling, so annoying.

I think if you read the review the issue with the props is mentioned.

review says

(not pointy enough)

Looking at the montage below, and I recommend seeing the excellent build by Megas at http://www.helmo.gr/...c...6&Itemid=41
we can see the problem, pointiness sounds almost fixable with a file, Revell have given us blades that need binning, its every part of the blade, not just the tip, look at the root area !!! To say its not pointy enough is almost as if the review doesnt want to say anything negative at all. Everyone is going to have to fork out more money to fix a wrong looking halifax here, not just the blades, but the spinner (should be a cone, not something akin to a Lancaster), and so as to get the spinner right, as anyone can see Revells are far too big, also the engine nacelles which are far too fat ! See the intake shape also, the whole look of the engines is wrong. The fairings on top are not fixable without a lot of filler. Ailerons are also wrong folk say. I can also now see the DF loop pod is somewhat different from the pics I montaged. Seeing the amount of surgery involved, with better wings from another manufacturer replacing the kit ones in a thread so as to fix the issues, I am just bemused as to what Revell are up to.




There are too many faults to be overlooked in a review I feel, modellers need to know the truth. Revell and any other manufacturers thinking they can get away with what is sheer lack of care need to be made to rethink such. Its just as easy to get things right as it is wrong and takes just as much effort to create the shapes, if only they were to look at something like a photo or plan whilst doing so. We ARE pleased to see new models but please do try harder, even an hour spent studying photos and plans would have avoided this. Wasted opportunities to get it right is such a shame. Revell seem to have at least one member of staff who is unable to study a shape and follow it, that spinner, the blades, and on a previous kit, the fin on the Ju88A1, sharp edged as opposed to an edge like that of a wing leading edge and half the thickness of the real thing, not to mention the side view of the rudder. I have other examples. I think we are likely to see more of this shape erroring unless something is addressed there.

Merlin

Edited by Merlin, 15 January 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[Paul A H]

Hi Merlin

Many thanks for the feedback on my review. As you, and others, have pointed out, I did indeed miss some of the issues concerning the accuracy of this kit when I wrote my review. Whilst these issues will be more important to some modellers than others, it was certainly not my intention to omit any mention of them in the first place. I definitely didn't set out to avoid saying anything negative at all. When and if I find that a particular kit is not accurate, I will always point that out in my review.

When errors like this are not mentioned I start to wonder, are kits supplied by the manufacturer and one is honour bound to give only praise ?

I can state categorically that this is not the case. If I have failed to pick up on an innaccuracy then it is through my own human error alone.

Paul

[general melchett]

It's a shame that this one is so far out, must admit I had high hopes for it and can't understand the reason for the shape issues, sloppy research?, poor references, who knows. We (Bomber Command sig),noticed the problems at Telford with the test shot on display there, the engine nacelle width, shape, props and spinners, U/C length, ailerons, etc, etc....stuck out like a sore thumb. The Revell guy said that they were aware of the errors but had no plans to rectify them!,(not that they would, with the amount of money already spent on the moulds).
Have to agree with Merlin on the things that he says about the kit and what should and shouldn't be. I also agree that we should be grateful that these models are being attempted but try at least to get it right.
Those of you that know me know that I enjoy modifying older models to try and bring them up to current standards and improve on accuracy but I'm not a great fan of having to do this amount of work on a brand new kit!!..shouldn't happen, especially with a company such as Revell who normally are pretty good when it comes to accuracy, as stated it takes as much effort to mould an incorrect piece as it does on an accurate one..doesn't anyone even bother to check if it's correct or not.
Oh well, maybe next time....

Edited by general melchett, 25 January 2012 - 09:47 AM.