FZ6 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Like many others on this forum I've been excited about this kit being released since it was announced and remember the speculation that this was a new tooling and not another reissue of the Matchbox kit. My initial excitement seeing it in stock in my local model shop rushing home like an excited school boy to inspect the contents. It looks like a Halifax in the box and the props seemed to be the only issue. I could tell that the engines were different bit I knew the Matchbox ones were oversimplified so I put it down to that. Naturally the next step was to compare it to the Matchbox kit and it was then I noticed how much wider the new Revell intakes were I thought maybe the Matchbox ones were wrong but after offering the nacelles up to plans I finally realised that the Revell nacelles are wrong and this is the most difficult obstacle to overcome if you wish to build an accurate halibag from this kit. This kit has been discussed at length Here and I posted some of my findings in this thread but to save trawling through 200+ posts some of us thought it would be a good idea to start a definitive 1:72 Merlin engined Halifax thread listing the errors in both the venerable matchbox kit as well as the new Revell kit along with options for correcting said errors. If I've missed anything please feel free to add to it and I can edit this post and include all the errors at the top. I've not included info on the Airfix Mk.III as I don't have one of these kits. Matchbox Halifax Pros Mostly accurate outline with exceptions. Correct engine nacelles. Correct Ailerons Cons Simplified incorrect interior. Fuselage 2.5mm too long Fuselage Portholes and Crew access door 4mm too far forward. Thick clear parts with incorrect windscreen shape Simplified gun turret detail. Bomb bay has crude detail and is too shallow. Engine fairings on top of wings incorrect. Simplified engine nacelles including exhausts and radiators. Simplified undercarriage and landing gear bay. Simplified tail wheel. Very few panel lines. The ones included are a mixture of trenches and raised lines. Elger has done a fantastic build of this kit correcting the errors and it can be seen Here Revell Halifax Pros Overall dimensions and outline look mostly correct Very nice interior and turret detail for this scale. Fine engraved panel lines Many alternative parts for different variants included in kit. Thin clear parts Detailed bomb bay Detailed landing Gear bay and undercarriage. Cons Propellers incorrect Engine Nacelles too wide. Spinners too large a diameter due to above problem and should be conical not rounded Engine radiator intake shape incorrect. Engine fairings on top of wings incorrect. Ailerons Incorrect. Starboard side of fuselage in front of windscreen slopes away where the windscreen is asymmetrical Small window behind teardrop bubble fairing should be square not rectangular on most versions (easy to correct with masking) Auxiliary air intakes too small Undercarriage Legs too long Undercarriage bays too wide Main Wheels and Tail Wheel too small in diameter Tailfin Leading Edge angles in too steeply at the top edge DF Loop Pod inaccurate H2S fairing shape incorrect Boulton Paul Turret Sits too high and has shape issues Framing on front turret incorrect There is a door next to the flight engineers panel which shouldn't be there. Flight Engineer has a seat which shouldn't be there. The Radio Operators table is too small and the radio equipment is too flat but not a lot will be seen of this anyway. There should be a double folding seat near the Navigators table Aftermarket Items available Aeroclub three blade propellers (Without Spinners). (Not currently available?) Aeroclub four blade propellers (With Spinners). (Not currently available?) Aeroclub Resin radiators for Matchbox kit. (I think they might have done three different types. (Not currently available?) Aeroclub Z Nose (Doesn't match new Revell Fuselage) (Not currently available?) Aeroclub Dowty Link undercarriage. Quickboost Resin Gun Barrels (For Lancaster) White Ensign Models Etched Bomb Bay White Ensign Models Etched Interior Detail White Ensign Models Etched Exterior Detail White Ensign Models Undercarriage Set White Ensign Models Bomb bay doors Pavla Resin Interior including nose Falcon Vac Formed canopies. Useful References Osprey Halifax Squadrons of World War 2 - Jon Lake ISBN 1855328925 Halifax at War - Brian J.Rapier ISBN 0711015546 Wings Of Fame Volume 8 ISBN 186184008X Flypast Magazine December 2008 Model Aircraft Monthly November 2011 Air Modeller Issue 29 April/May 2010 (Nice 1:48 Halifax MK.I) Aerodata International No.7 Handley Page Halifax Merlin engined variants ISBN 0 905469 50 X - this includes plans by Alfred Granger The Handley Page Halifax by K.Merrick ISBN 0946627606 Below is an illustrated comparison of the two kits. First up are the Propellers. I have put together a comparison of the original Matchbox kit props, the new Revell Props and the Aeroclub ones. The Revell may be sanded to give a better representation but may need extra material adding in places if they are to be made completely accurate which could be tricky to get right on all blades for all engines. Prop Blade Comparison Halibag Props by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Nacelles I’ve dry fitted an outboard nacelle from each kit and the Revell ones are much wider. In fact they are so wide you can just about pass the Matchbox one through the inside of the new Revell ones. Halibag Nacelles 2 by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Halibag Nacelles by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Halibag Nacelles 3 by Mark Maclean, on Flickr If you cut a section out to make the nacelle narrower then the whole nacelle would have to be reprofiled to get it circular at the front. It may also affect the fit of the landing gear on the inboard ones. Not a correction that is going to be easy and get right all four engines Top Wings Another area that differs on both kits is the area where the engine nacelle fairs into the wings. I’ve done a couple of comparison shots with drawings and photos and neither kit looks 100% in this area so some correction will be required here whichever kit you have. Halibag Wings by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Halibag Top Wings by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Lower Wing The new Revell kit has a fully boxed in wheel well but old Matchbox kit has a hole the size of the wheel in the wing so this area may need some modification. If attempting to fit the new Revell landing gear bay into the Matchbox wing You will need to cut away some of the wing to get the gear to fit. Halibag Lower Wings 2 by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Here the Nacelles are fitted to the wing and you can clearly see how wide they are from below. Funnily enough as pointed out elsewhere these nacelles are the same width as the ones on the Hercules engined Halifax probably an attempt at multi tooling to maximise on parts. I've been using scaled up copies of the plans from the Osprey Halifax Squadrons of World War 2 book. Halibag Lower Wings by Mark Maclean, on Flickr I assembled a Revell Landing Gear Bay and here I have offered it up to the Matchbox nacelle and it is a bit wide if you reduced the width of the bulkheads it may be possible to fit the gear bay into the nacelle but you'll also have to adjust the arms the landing gear attaches to as they will be too close together. Revell Bay Matchbox Nacelle by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Ailerons Finally I've done a comparison of the Matchbox and Revell ailerons. Once the two halves are joined together they look a bit wider but have a strange wedge in them. The Matchbox ones seem to match the plans and photos better. Halifax Ailerons by Mark Maclean, on Flickr H2S Fairing As pointed out the H2S Fairing differs on both kits. As can be seen from the pic below the Matchbox one looks to be the more accurate of the two. Halibag H2S Fairing Side by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Halibag H2S Fairing top by Mark Maclean, on Flickr By flattening the top and building up the sides with Milliput I think it will be a fairly simple task to correct the kit part. Halibag H2S Fairing by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Fuselage This shot shows the issue with the fuselage. On the Revell fuselage it slopes away too steeply however I don't think the matchbox one slopes away enough so the truth is somewhere between the two. Halifax Fuselage by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Corrections There are now a few options available to try and build an accurate Halifax. A couple of these are. Build the Matchbox kit correcting the fuselage errors, adding the detail where required replacing the transparencies with a vac formed alternative. This is a lot of work. Use the Revell Fuselage and the Matchbox wing and engines. Graft the Matchbox Nacelles onto the Revell Wing. Correct the Nacelles and the other areas on the Revell kit. I'm going to try the latter option as I have the Matchbox kit, the Revell kit and would prefer the option of building two Halifax kits as opposed to just the one. Props The props are going to be tricky to correct and ideally require replacing and if Aftermarket come to the rescue this may mean a compromise due to the large spinners. If the correct sized spinners are used the nacelles will need reducing down. Nacelles Well I've taken a saw to one of my Revell nacelles and had a go at correcting it. It looks a bit rough at the moment but I'm pleased with the results. First of all I reduced the width of the nacelles from the join lines. Unfortunately I took off too much plastic and had to build it back up a bit. Once I was happy I joined the two sections together. Halifax Corrected Engines cut lines by Mark Maclean, on Flickr I then split the radiator into four sections along the centre and along the panel lines as shown and remove a section from the centre. Halifax Corrected Engines cut lines 2 by Mark Maclean, on Flickr The nacelle was then joined together and filled out with plasticard where I cut it too much plastic off and reshaped it top and bottom to get it more circular. Below you can see where the wing fairing needs blending in as well as the filling that is required. Corrected Nacelle Wing Fit by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Comparison photos are shown below of the Original Revell nacelle, the corrected one and the Matchbox one. Halifax Corrected Engines 1 by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Halifax Corrected Engines 2 by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Here we have a shot of the lower wing with the nacelles loosely fitted in place. This shows off the difference in width perfectly. The corrected outer nacelle will actually fit inside the unaltered inner nacelle. Corrected Nacelle Wing Fit Lower by Mark Maclean, on Flickr The next step will be to try correcting the inner nacelle. This will be a bit more work as I will also need to adapt the landing gear bay to fit. Ailerons File the Aileron at the trailing edge of the wing to the correct shape and scratch build new ailerons. Fuselage This should be a fairly easy correction as the starboard side in front of the window can be built up with filler and sanded smooth. I hope this thread will prove useful for people wanting to build a merlin engined Halifax and it can be added to with other peoples suggestions and success/Failure stories in correcting these errors. If I've missed any errors on either kit let me know and I'll add them to the list. Regards, Mark Edited September 15, 2019 by FZ6 Relinking photos 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Thought I post this here too ... Found a head on shot that depicts the asymmetry of the canopy, Revell does not seem to be far off even if is not clear how the slope is blended in on the front fuselage. It needs a bit of rounding off of the edges that are too sharp. It's photo # 111 on page 12 if you use 'Halifax' to search .. Edited January 4, 2012 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miduppergunner Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Very useful - just possible Revell might appreciate it too - as they own Matchbox they could give away with every Halifax kit a Matchbox kit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I do not know if you can throw the Airfix one into the mix to come up with some of the fuselage corrections but certainly you can use the radial engine necel l on the Revell kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I'm looking at the wing graft route on the Matchbox wings. If this is successful, I'm confident that the same can be done with the Airfix wings as they are much the same in design in respect of how they mate to the fuselage. I also highly recommend the White Ensign external set as it details the wheel bays and Herciules engines nicely on the airfix kit with little effort. As soon as I can get some dry fitting done, I'll post some pics. Having just built the Airfix kit, I'm confident that this is a goer. Neil Edited January 4, 2012 by woody37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Another option I would have tried if I had one is to try and graft the now sadly unavailable Paragon Lancaster MK.II Conversion set onto the Revell Nacelles to make a MK.III. If anyone attempts to adapt the Revell Wing for a MK.III you'll need to delete the outboard wing cells as they were replaced by an extra fuel tank on the MK.III so some rescribing will be in order and the upper wing fairings will need modifying too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Add to 'cons' inaccurate detailing on clear nose rear fuselage has four windows either side which only appeared on prototype (?) undersize mainwheels and inaccurate tail wheel undercarriage length is suspect decal sheet is poorly printed. Revell re-release of Matchbox kit is much better and gives 3 options instead of only two too many 'extra' parts Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Ken, Quoting the post at the top in it's entirety repeats all the photo's and everything, and thus looks messy. I'm sure there's a forum rule about excessive use of the quote function. Can you amend your post to not quote ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Add to 'cons' inaccurate detailing on clear nose rear fuselage has four windows either side which only appeared on prototype (?) undersize mainwheels and inaccurate tail wheel undercarriage length is suspect decal sheet is poorly printed. Revell re-release of Matchbox kit is much better and gives 3 options instead of only two too many 'extra' parts Ken Cheers Ken, I'll add them to the list. I noticed the red on the decal sheet is much brighter than it was on their Matchbox reissue. Are the extra parts really a disadvantage? I can imagine it is if tooling for too many options prevent you from building accurate variants. I have assembled the Elevators and rudders and found some discrepancies as well. I'll report on these later with photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PilotOfficer Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Another 'con' of the Matchbox kit - the three blade propellers are much too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarLos Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I am following this and the other thread and if I agree with most critics to the kit I also think that the good looking Granger drawings are being used too much as god spell. Photos can be more useful about the shape of certain items (air intakes for example) and a good scan of the photo bellow (and similar others) could be useful to decide on the nacelles width (assuming there are known figures for the wing's chord EDIT: half span is more accurate) and shape. Carlos Edited January 5, 2012 by CarLos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I am following this and the other thread and if I agree with most critics to the kit I also think that the good looking Granger drawings are being used too much as god spell. Photos can be more useful about the shape of certain items (air intakes for example) and a good scan of the photo bellow (and similar others) could be useful to decide on the nacelles width (assuming there are known figures for the wing's chord EDIT: half span is more accurate) and shape.Carlos Totally agreed, good to see someone gets it too. Plans are often enough the reason even for mistakes that are copied from kit to kit. One example is the Fairey Albacore that doesn't have have an asymmetric cowling like every kit has (at least those in 1/72), it comes from that the indention for the carburetor intake was misinterpreted, a photo from above gives it away ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Ken,Quoting the post at the top in it's entirety repeats all the photo's and everything, and thus looks messy. I'm sure there's a forum rule about excessive use of the quote function. Can you amend your post to not quote ? When one is seething with rage, one tends to make mistakes. I shall endeavour to correct such mistakes in future either here or in the Afterlife :-)) Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Totally agreed, good to see someone gets it too.Plans are often enough the reason even for mistakes that are copied from kit to kit. One example is the Fairey Albacore that doesn't have have an asymmetric cowling like every kit has (at least those in 1/72), it comes from that the indention for the carburetor intake was misinterpreted, a photo from above gives it away ... That's why I sent, as did others to the best of my knowledge, not only the Granger plans but the Marriott plans as well to use as croiss reference From what I have been led to believe, the CAD artist had to use the reference material from Revell only Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) When one is seething with rage, one tends to make mistakes. I shall endeavour to correct such mistakes in future either here or in the Afterlife :-))Ken You can use the Edit feature to take at least the pictures out of the post you quoted .... It's not the fault of those who sent them plans, they didn't use photos either most likely. Edited January 5, 2012 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) It's not the fault if those who sent them plans, they didn't use photos either most likely. Or go to Hendon, where there is most of MkII Halifax.... what I find odd, as Revell own the Matchbox tooling, and there is plenty or info about what's right and wrong on that kit, they then make some completely new errors of their own..... Glad it's not my scale... Mark, very good work on the problems and possible corrections. Cheers T Edited January 5, 2012 by Troy Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) That's why I sent, as did others to the best of my knowledge, not only the Granger plans but the Marriott plans as well to use as croiss reference From what I have been led to believe, the CAD artist had to use the reference material from Revell onlyKen I think we are starting to get a little off topic here. We can contunue discussing this at length in the older thread. I was under the impression this thread was about actually discussing what might done (assuming anything can be done) to rectify Revell's c*** up! Howver, I do agree, it would be most interesting to see just what was the "Revell only" reference material which was was supplied. And I sssume when you say CAD "artist" you actually mean CAD "engineer" or CAD "designer?" Cheers Edited January 5, 2012 by chaddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I think drawings cannot be used exclusively as they are down to the information available at the time the drawings were made, artists interpretation and it is difficult to transpose a 3d object onto 2d drawings and then back again. The drawings I'm using are scaled up ones from the Osprey book and I'm only using them for comparison as it's the easiest way to show the differences. I'm cross referencing the differences with photos as well. Speaking of photos I have found a couple of useful ones on the web. From Wikipedia From WWII Vehicles.com http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/...age-halifax.asp Modifying the Undercarriage Bay Well I've been busy reducing the width of the inboard nacelle and although I did a better job than I did on the outboard one it could have been neater. I then trimmed the landing gear bay to fit I modified the kit parts of the undercarriage as shown below. Halifax Undercart narrowing by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Once assembled you can see the difference in width of both parts. Halifax Undercart bay comparison by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Here is the bay fitted to the wing. As you can see I need to add a shim of 40 thou plasticard to the Wing in light of the fact the nacelle and bay are now thinner. Halifax Undercart bay in wing by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Here we have the Nacelle dry fitted to the wing. It needs tidying up still but shows that it can be done. As you can see though the arms that the undercarriage struts sit on are in the wrong place now and require replacing completely. Nacelle on Wing by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Further Comparisons. The Main wheels are undersized. The plans and the Matchbox kit have a wheel diameter of 23mm compared to the 21mm of the Revell kit. The wheel hubs of the Revell kit have nicer detail than the Matchbox ones though. This might account for the longer legs on the Revell kit to compensate for the smaller wheel. Main Wheel by Mark Maclean, on Flickr The tailwheel is also way too small. The Revell one is 9mm in diameter compared to 11mm on the Matchbox parts as well as the plans. Tail Wheel by Mark Maclean, on Flickr I built up the early vertical tail surfaces last night to compare and the leading edge of the upper part seems to slope in too steeply when compared to the plans, Matchbox parts and photos. Tail Comparison by Mark Maclean, on Flickr A comparison shows that the Matchbox part is better in outline but the 'wedge' along the hinge line is much bigger due to the thicker horizontal tail surfaces of the Matchbox kit and the trench like rudder hinge lines. In this case I think the Revell one is easier to correct and will look better. rudder comparison by Mark Maclean, on Flickr In this photo we can see that the elevator extends too close to the rudder on the Revell kit but the Matchbox it doesn't extend far enough after looking at drawings and photos I would say that the truth is somewhere between the two. It will need filling and rescribing if it bothers you. Elevator Comparison by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Finally we have a comparison of the two decal sheets. As you can see the Red differs dramatically between the two sheets Decal Sheet Comparison by Mark Maclean, on Flickr Edited September 15, 2019 by FZ6 Updating Photo Links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) That photograph of the 10 Sqn Halifax nicely shows the the Perspex blister on the underside of the fuselage, aft of the crew entry door. Cheers Edited January 5, 2012 by chaddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) .......In this photo we can see that the outboard rudder hinge line differs on both kits. The Matchbox one is much further in while the Revell one is really close to the rudder after looking at drawings and photos I would say that the truth is somewhere between the two. It will need filling and rescribing if it bothers you. ...... I don't think so, photos again prove Revell is correct with that at least Edited January 5, 2012 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 I don't think so, photos again prove Revell is correct with that at least Sorry I described this poorly. I was referring to the elevators. I've edited the description and will see about comparing some kit parts to photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I've done a bit more research today on the tail surfaces using plans as well as photographs. When I initially looked at the Horizontal tail surfaces on the Revell kit I thought they extended too close to the rudder. I think the photos I was looking at made the Revell kit look incorrect in this area as the rudder was deflected making the area between the elevator and rudder appear larger. The picture below shows the differences Tail Comparison g by Mark Maclean, on Flickr This photo shows that the Revell kit is about right in this area and is not out like I first thought. Some rescribing is required on the Matchbox kit to correct it in this area.The matchbox fuselage aslo seems a little flat where the tailplanes fair into the fuselage and it lacks the bump the Revell kit has. Below is a rudder comparison using the Granger Drawings, a suitable photo and the respective kit parts. rudder comparison by Mark Maclean, on Flickr The difference is only very slight but I do believe that the top leading edge slopes back a little too steeply making it a little too narrow at the top. I have had a go at modifying this part by sanding it back so it is flat then adding a couple of lengths of plasticard then sanded back until I was happy with the shape. Corrected Rudder by Mark Maclean, on Flickr The conclusion I've drawn is that the Revell kit is better in these areas with only a slight modification required to the Horizontal Tail surfaces if you feel it is necessary. Edited September 15, 2019 by FZ6 Updating photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miduppergunner Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Continue to be impressed with your work old chap. Certainly anyone intending to rehash the kit will find this vey useful and be in your debt. It also demonstrates very well what is wrong with both kits and enables one to assess whether to buy new - or fall back on a Matchbox that might be in the "stash". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Yes, well done on both the work and the photography. You are starting to make me think I could do the same, which is always one sign of a well written tutorial. More likely just to do the Airfix one with Falcon transparencies, though, I think. I sold my Matchbox one a couple of years ago and now wish I had kept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 This photo shows that the Revell kit is about right in this area and is not out like I first thought. This is exactly what I meant ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now