FullSutton77 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Interesting that you should say that, but shouldn't there be three different Rotol 3-bladers? The Mk.I had the smallest, and the Mk.II had two different sizes - 12ft 10in and 13 ft from memory because I can't find the reference in what I have to hand. I would assume that the different prop went with the different engines, but that's perhaps a dangerous assumption. Don't know if this helps, but 'The Aeroplane' April 24 1942 (describing the Mk2) says: The motors drive Rotol constant speed full feathering airscrews with Weybridge wooden blades of 13 ft diameter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 David Yes, I like to play about with flying models too. Haven't finished one for a while though. There are loads in various stages of completion but the last flying scale model I completed and flew was an own-design electric RC Hurricane in 1/16 , and before that a 1/8 scale Miles Magister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 By auxiliary inlets I meant the side/cheek inlets and the two on top of the inners. I like your inner wing bays, but I already have the WEM set, which is a little too deep but should be fixable. The one thought about using the kit parts is that the doors will appear too thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Cheers Graham, I would be interested to hear how the white ensign one fits. Do you think it just a case of trimming some off the top of the etched parts or will to have to reduce it evenly top and bottom? The kit doors are far too thick and will be replaced with plasticard of a suitable thickness. I'll have to look at the auxiliary inlets on the sides as I've not got to studying these yet. The ones on the top of the inboard engines the intakes are way to small and once you start narrowing the nacelles the vanish completely. In the photo only the last prop blade is made using a stirrer and I won't be making any more using this route although I'm sure the stirrers I have accumilated will be useful for something. The other ones were made from spruce which was purchased from my local model shop and is a lot smoother. I'd be interested in trying either lime or sycamore though to see how that works out. so would be interested in taking you up on your kind offer miduppergunner. The one I made for my Albatros was spruce and mahogany I think and worked out quite well. I'm completely new to working with wood but found it really enjoyable. Here is a pic below of my Albatros Prop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Probably shouldn't say it here, but wood is my favourite material in all the world to work with. Wooden aeroplanes are just the loveliest things, and I would have a wooden car if I could... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miduppergunner Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Agree with you WIP -love wood. Ships/boats have to be of course. Mark, if you PM me your address I will put some bits in the post to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Fabulous workmanship Mark, great to see it coming together, those wooden props would be the wipped cream on top ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 I would like to do a wooden ship some day. Thanks David I'll send you a PM. I did a little work on one of the Nacelles last night. After flatening the bulge where it kinks out at the base and rounding the corner it is starting to look much better. I plan to have a bash at the radiator later so all being well I can post some pics. I have an Aeroclub Boulton Paul type C turret and compared it to the Revell one in the kit. The front half of the Aeroclub one is much flatter in outline either side of the gun so think the Revell one might need a bit of work. I have an Italeri Hudson as well so can dig that turret out for comparison too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Probably shouldn't say it here, but wood is my favourite material in all the world to work with. Wooden aeroplanes are just the loveliest things, and I would have a wooden car if I could... Another excuse to buy a Morgan- if I remember right they have a wood frame? Well, I finally summoned the courage to wade through this thread. I save my AMS for 1/48 in danger of falling into 32nd, but I applaud all of the initiative and creative thinking, and critical analysis. There has been some great presentation of comparisons, kit to kit to drawing to photograph. I don't know if this sort of stuff is going on all the time with you 72nd chaps, or is there something special about the Halibag that draws it out? And thank you, too, for possibly making my stack of Matchbox ones leap in value! bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miduppergunner Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Another excuse to buy a Morgan- if I remember right they have a wood frame?Well, I finally summoned the courage to wade through this thread. I save my AMS for 1/48 in danger of falling into 32nd, but I applaud all of the initiative and creative thinking, and critical analysis. There has been some great presentation of comparisons, kit to kit to drawing to photograph. I don't know if this sort of stuff is going on all the time with you 72nd chaps, or is there something special about the Halibag that draws it out? And thank you, too, for possibly making my stack of Matchbox ones leap in value! bob I think Bob it is simply the case that they have risen to a pretty daunting challenge set (unintentionally I trust) by Revell - who ought to be hanging their heads in shame!! So let us applaud the efforts we are seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think Bob it is simply the case that they have risen to a pretty daunting challenge set (unintentionally I trust) by Revell - who ought to be hanging their heads in shame!!So let us applaud the efforts we are seeing. With me it is two fold. I really like the Halifax and want to build a decent model of it. This Aircraft is a really under represented type in kit form in all scales and I thought the Revell kit would be an easier route to the Halifax and bought it. If I knew what I know now when I went into the shop I might not have purchased it. However now that I have it I want to do the best job I can with it. Also noticed today that Tigger Models do a 1:32 Halifax. That would be an interesting kit to go AMS on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Last night and this morning I've been working on a new radiator for my inboard nacelle. Here is a comparison of the inboard nacelles before and after correcting them. you can tell by the thickness of the plastic how much I've removed to round the bottom corners and to flatten the sides. Inboard Nacelles by Mark Maclean, on Flickr  Here is my first stab at making a new radiator. I drilled three suitable sized holes in some 80 thou plasticard and then cut the plastic to a suitable shape to match the front of the nacellle until I had a shape I was happy with. I then curved some 10 thou plasticard and glued it in three layers to build up the sides until I was happy with it and then made up the central part with the centre bit from the kit radiator New Rad by Mark Maclean, on Flickr  This photo shows what the new radiator is like compared to the original one. Inboard Nacelles w rads by Mark Maclean, on Flickr  The Radiator matrix sits a bit too far back on my new radiator so I will make a new one further forward which should also give it more strength. There is more work to do on it but I thought I would share pics of it as it stands at the moment so you can see how it is coming along. Constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks, Mark Edited September 15, 2019 by FZ6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovering Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It's a pity how much work is required to make it look right. Do you think they based the cowling size on a Lancaster given it's a Merlin too? Here is an interesting photo.. the radiator seems to sit a fair way inside the ducting. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Greg Very good Greg...!! Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Mark, what you've done there is incredible, hard to believe it started out the same as the one next to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) FZ6 great article, and Revell should be taken to task over the amount of fixes this latest state of the art kit needs. Can you update your Revell cons list with :- Engine intakes Undercarriage unit Undercarriage nacelle/bay Upperwing nacelles Tailfin leading edge Rear fuselage shape above tailplane DF loop pod Spinner shape as well as diameter Wing panel lines and access panels differ to plans (unless plans incorrect). Mid upper turret 'sit'. Mainwheel diameter Tailwheel diameter Everywhere I look this kit is wrong. looking at the comparison shots at http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thre...ish+looks+great! I also think the front turrets differ with the metal rear half areas ? How do the exhausts compare by the way ? The following quotes seem to sum up this situation. Looks like a lot of work made unnecessary by Revell, very sad that it should be like this in this day and age of tool making. I am shocked by what I am seeing. It is clear they couldnt care less what they kit, the majority of people buying this will not know of these issues or care, its roughly looking like a halifax, one fed on burgers and buns as opposed to wartime rations !.... and they wont even compare it to the real thing. Revell are playing to that market. They are not in the same league as Dragon or Tamiya. High street kits and kids is their game. Ken What I am really looking forward to are the 'printed' reviews in the modelling press. Be intersting to see how many say that the model "just clicks together" or "minor inaccuracies" galfa So far is very clear that wings/engines/propellers/whells of the new Revell Halifax are a mess. galfa But what about the fuselage ? yes, is the fuselage ok, most problems lie beyond it ? Different team on those parts maybe ? We see though the chamfer fwd of canopy and turret fit and some mention of length, oh and the rear fuselage above tailplane and the DF loop. midupper gunner ..... Revell - who ought to be hanging their heads in shame!! Merlin Edited January 16, 2012 by Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) FZ6 The intake in this montage (to show the spinner and blade problem with the kit) may assist your new intake build, note the internal fairings as opposed to just a flat face with three holes. It is clear to see that Revell just got this area totally wrong. see also the excellent build by Tsonos Megas from which these came at http://www.helmo.gr/index.php?option=com_c...6&Itemid=41 where he shows his approach to the engine area etc. Should by the way have been Senior Champion in my book !..what was chosen did not better this !...and as for this years choice with obvious errors and not having a crowd of viewers around it...lets just say Nat champ should be errorless and notable, or at least errors not immediately obvious..but I digress...best not go down that road ! Revell didnt do any research....why ? If they had they would have found this as I did in 10 mins, I google images Halifax Mk II and saw a photo of a decent halifax, clicked it and hey presto, Megas's article. it also featured in a magazine or two after we saw it at SMW Telford. Dr Alan Clark also built one from scratch and again he would have details. I would love to hear Revells explanation on all this. Given the cost of tooling why not get the reconnaisance right first. Merlin Edited January 16, 2012 by Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZ6 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 Greg, That is a great picture and says a lot. I found it very amusing and makes light of Revell's errors. Merlin thanks for your input. I've input most of the cons you mentioned in the post above with the exception of the panel lines until I've studied them a bit more and confirm they are out compared to the drawings and photos. I also think the shape of the fuselage above the tailplane isn't too bad when compared with photos. so I've left that off the list for now as well. The montage is very useful and demonstrates what's wrong with the Revell kit. I have an issue of Air Modeller magazine with the first part of the build articel for this model and it is very impressive and some of the techniques are an inspiration for building my FM kit. I've done a bit more work on my radiator. I still think it looks too deep in height so I have rounded the front of the nacelle at the base to give it an upward curve as it reaches the radiator. Trouble is I've gone through the plastic so need to pack it out before I go any further. I'm going to make a radiator face with built in fairing a little closer to the radiator opening which should improve things. I'll post some more pics when I get the chance to do a bit more on it. The radiator is proving trickier than I thought to get right and don't fancy making four and trying to get them identical so might give casting copies in resin a try to see if I can make it easier for me. An interesting observation. I've just been reading the bit on the side of the box of the Revell kit which explains the model features. They explain at great length all the features and detail on the model but nowhere in the discription do revell claim the model has an accurate outline. So Revell have never claimed it was just accurate just finely detailed with loads of features. Maybe they don't consider shape accuracy a selling point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 An interesting observation. I've just been reading the bit on the side of the box of the Revell kit which explains the model features. They explain at great length all the features and detail on the model but nowhere in the discription do revell claim the model has an accurate outline. So Revell have never claimed it was just accurate just finely detailed with loads of features. Maybe they don't consider shape accuracy a selling point. I've made that very point a number of times in 'accuracy' threads on here & other forums - in nearly 50 years of modelling, I can't recall ever seeing mention of how accurate a model is on the blurb on a kit box?? I wonder if manufacturers did, whether they could lay themselves open for claims of misrepresentation under the Trades Description Act..... Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miduppergunner Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I wonder if in fact Revell are being rathe coy? This from a website:- Build your Dream Build Your Dream! Some 50 years after the first plastic model kit was developed, faithfully reproducing the real world in miniature to perfect scale has lost none of its fascination. Thus dreams of all shapes and sizes can be transformed into a small slice of reality. Our range of model kits covers many of these exciting topics and offers a variety of skill levels for both young and old as well as newcomers and pros. Whether milestones of aviation, outstanding seafaring achievements, de luxe models of the automobile industry or sensational science fiction - every single plastic model kit is developed with meticulous attention to detail and guarantees a precision fit. Introducing 80 to 100 new items every year, we ensure that your modelling table is never lacking in variety. and... "The authentic model-building experience for generations. Since 1945, Revell has been the leader in plastic model kits. Our designers are passionate about scale model authenticity and model building. Choose from our huge selection of accurately detailed cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, spacecraft plus much more ......" I think they must come very close to implying "accuracy"perhaps without actually committing themselves. Hence is this because they in fact do not hold accuracy in high esteem? Elsewhere they have talked about commitment to accuracy though. Clearly any action would be expensive and not really worthwhile. It would be difficult to prove any loss or detriment on the part of the plaintiff, I think. Apart from still being bemused as to why in principle accurate rendering of things like nacelles and wheels - ailerons and propellors etc. seems no more difficult than the production of accurate renderings I find it difficult to defend Revell on this one and conclude that it is just a case of "That will do" on their part. Edited January 18, 2012 by miduppergunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat C Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I can't recall ever seeing mention of how accurate a model is on the blurb on a kit box?? Keef - amusingly Cyber-Hobby make this very claim about the intakes on their forthcoming Sea Venom kit, and then illustrate it with a CAD showing inaccurate ones. http://www.dragon-models.com/html/5096poster.htm Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Keef - amusingly Cyber-Hobby make this very claim about the intakes on their forthcoming Sea Venom kit, and then illustrate it with a CAD showing inaccurate ones. http://www.dragon-models.com/html/5096poster.htm Pat Ah - but will it be on the actual box Pat....??!! If it is, let's get 'em....!!! And David, I also don't defend Revell (or any other manufacturer) for not getting things 'more right', & indeed it does often seems a case of that will do is good enough. And unfortunately, as has been mentioned many times in threads like this, their sales appear to show that indeed it will do for most purchasers.It does seem to be increasingly a case of us... Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Didn't Airfix used to have the sales line..... 'Just like the real thing'!!!!!! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWFK10 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I've made that very point a number of times in 'accuracy' threads on here & other forums - in nearly 50 years of modelling, I can't recall ever seeing mention of how accurate a model is on the blurb on a kit box??I wonder if manufacturers did, whether they could lay themselves open for claims of misrepresentation under the Trades Description Act..... Keef In an old copy of 'Plastic Aircraft Models', there was a survey of Canberra kits. One of the author's comments on the original Frog offering (a PR7, dating from the 1950s) was: "Frog's claim of 'modelled from official plans' makes one wonder which officials had such funny ideas of certain Canberra dimensions". Revell used to make similar claims at that time: I'm looking at some pictures of box tops in the Schiffer book on the company, carrying a statement that the kit is "scaled from official prints" - which I suppose is meant to imply that it's ultra-accurate. I seem to remember that some of the blurbs in Revell catalogues of the '70s still claimed that the kit they were describing was based on "official plans". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 In an old copy of 'Plastic Aircraft Models', there was a survey of Canberra kits. One of the author's comments on the original Frog offering (a PR7, dating from the 1950s) was: "Frog's claim of 'modelled from official plans' makes one wonder which officials had such funny ideas of certain Canberra dimensions". Revell used to make similar claims at that time: I'm looking at some pictures of box tops in the Schiffer book on the company, carrying a statement that the kit is "scaled from official prints" - which I suppose is meant to imply that it's ultra-accurate. I seem to remember that some of the blurbs in Revell catalogues of the '70s still claimed that the kit they were describing was based on "official plans". That's the get-out phrase "based on" official plans. Not "in accordance with" official plans. Cheers 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