Revell Lancaster

[Heraldcoupe]

I know there was a fuss in some quarters about the outer wing dihedral on the Revell Lancaster. Other than this, none of the online reviews I've found have any reference to other problem areas. However, I've seen references in posts on BM to the pilot's seat position being wrong, and the mid-upper turret being at the wrong height.

Is there a summary anywhere, preferably online, of the little niggles with the kit? I'm about to start work on my first of these, so a heads-up on any fixable inaccuracies would be helpful.

Cheers,

Bill.

[avro683]

Hi Bill.

Brett Green did what I have termed as a "simulbuild" of ll three availavle 1/72 Lancasters. It's available from H********e as a free download. Apart from what you have mentioned, the kit main wheels are a real let down being the wrong size and having no hub detail whatsoever. I have also found that the bulkhead at the rear of the bomb bay needs rubbing down for the fuselage halves to close properly and there is a surprising amount of flash throughout my example.

HTH

Tony

[Heraldcoupe]

Brett Green did what I have termed as a "simulbuild" of ll three availavle 1/72 Lancasters. It's available from H********e as a free download.

Thanks Tony,

I downloaded that a while ago, I had skimmed through it earlier and I was surprised that it left out some things I already knew!

Both of my kits seem OK from a flash perspective, I'll keep an eye on the bomb bay,

Cheers,

Bill.

[Graham]

Yip that mid upper turret sits to high, the wings and the main wheels as mentioed previously plus the guns need to be replaced with the quickboost ones also the "H" aerials and pitot tube look a little over scale to me. One thing no one has mentioned is the front turret I can't quite put my finger on it but it looks a little odd maybe too curved??

Graham.

[tonyot]

Yip that mid upper turret sits to high, the wings and the main wheels as mentioed previously plus the guns need to be replaced with the quickboost ones also the "H" aerials and pitot tube look a little over scale to me. One thing no one has mentioned is the front turret I can't quite put my finger on it but it looks a little odd maybe too curved??

Graham.

Hiya Graham,

I`ve noticed the problem with the Revell Lanc nose turret and its also missing a frame line too, but to be fair I did mention them both in my article in a recent issue of MAM!!

Cheers

Tony

[Stephen]

Replace the main wheels and guns.Other than that it looks the part to me.

Stephen

[Miggers]

Here's my build Herald.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10354

If you read through,I think I highlighted most of the little niggles that I found with it.

On the dihedral front,I reckon it's about right for an unloaded wing,i.e,not in flight.

The wheels are 'orrible,replace 'em with Airfix or Paragon's smooth jobs.

The guns are horrendous,replace 'em with Quickboost oval or round hole ones dependant on what your chosen kite is fitted with.

Mark

[Heraldcoupe]

On the dihedral front,I reckon it's about right for an unloaded wing,i.e,not in flight.

That's my conclusion too. I wouldn;t get into an argument with anyone over it, but I think it's a fair representation.

The wheels are 'orrible,replace 'em with Airfix or Paragon's smooth jobs.

Still undecided as I've not had to commit to the paint scheme yet, but this is most likely going to be a post war GR MkIII in Dark Sea Grey. That would mean treaded tyres in any case, but the kit parts are rather shapeless and not worth the bother of improving!

The guns are horrendous,replace 'em with Quickboost oval or round hole ones dependant on what your chosen kite is fitted with.

If this does and up as GR MkIII, it will be unarmed,

Cheers,

Bill.

[Miggers]

Paragon do a nice set of diamond treaded jobs too I think chum.

They're for the Hase kit,but naturally will fit the Revell.

I'm just going to put a few more pics up of mine.

Mark

Edited November 28, 2008 by Miggers

[deecee]

Here are a couple of areas you need to look at and decide for yourself whether or not to correct:

Ailerons - they are wrong! Look at the cord width of top and bottom aileron and you will see that it is the same. The bottom width is correct, but the top surface should be narrower than the bottom ( as on most aircraft of this period). The top should measure 8mm, the bottom 10.5mm. Hasegawa have this correct. And if you want to be really accurate the aileron actuators are the wrong shape – again Hasegawa have this feature correct. ref. Lancaster at War vol.1, p77. And you just wouldn’t see that awful wavy surface to them as moulded! Finally, Revell have not indicated the dinghy hatch on the inboard starboard wing – it is a panel so should be marked as such. Hasegawa have done this.

Fuselage escape hatches - the forward fuselage escape hatch is in the wrong position. Revell have moulded it too far back – it should be a good 6mm further forward, a significant distance. The aft hatch is in the right place. Yes, Hasegawa have got these positions right! ref. p90, 127 same book.

Both these points are upper surface features and very noticeable, particularly the ailerons, not like something underneath or inside the cockpit which you could easily miss. I am surprised nobody has noticed this or just hasn’t got round to pointing it out yet.

Best 1/72 drawings – Alfred Granger in Aerodata no.10

Happy modelling,

David

[DHP]

I know there was a fuss in some quarters about the outer wing dihedral on the Revell Lancaster. Other than this, none of the online reviews I've found have any reference to other problem areas. However, I've seen references in posts on BM to the pilot's seat position being wrong, and the mid-upper turret being at the wrong height.

Is there a summary anywhere, preferably online, of the little niggles with the kit? I'm about to start work on my first of these, so a heads-up on any fixable inaccuracies would be helpful.

Cheers,

Bill.

The wing dihedral is a good four degrees down. Don't go for that 'unloaded' nonsense, they are dead wrong. It is, after all, a LANCASTER you are building, not a Lincoln. The Lancaster wing did not flex 4 degrees in flight.

A few months ago, when all they hype was on-going about the various Lanc kits, Airfix, Revell and Hasegawa, I built the Frog kit, which was an interesting exercise.....but the dihedral is correct.

Cheers,

Derek

[AnonymousA667]

The Lancaster wing did not flex 4 degrees in flight.

Pics of Lancs in flight carrying Grand Slams appear to show the wings at rather more than the book quoted 7° and eye witness accounts suggest the wings were seen to flex visibly on take off at this load. That would suggest that the wing structure is pretty flexible. Although I would concur that a 4° deflection is unlikely I would be surprised if there were no deflection at all according to how the wing is loaded, that is how large structures tend to behave. If there is an engineer who could quote me x+y=z and show me my POV is cobblers, then I would accept that and I also accept that the Revell wing is a bit on the flat side - but my perception of Lanc wings with the A/C at rest is that it looks different to when the A/C is in flight. I guess this whole question is one where POV's are unlikely to align. Ted Taylor has shown with his builds that fixing the dihedral, should you want to, is pretty straightforward.

peebeep

[Miggers]

Sorry Derek,but I agree with Paul(peebeep)here.

I base my info on PA474.She was re-sparred some years ago and is not flown to anywhere near the weights of a wartime Lanc,but there is still enough flex in the wing to make airborne(loaded)dihedral noticeable than on the ground(unloaded)shots.

Here's a pic of her on the ground,

This is my own picture of her taxying in after her display at Coningsby last year.I have pictures of her in flight,but as they're not mine I won't post them,but I'm sure you can find one on the 'net to make your comparisons.

Grand Slam Lanc wings were known to "flex and re-flex like an overstrung bow" (so reckoned Phil Martin,ex-617 Grand Slam Lanc pilot)once relieved of their 22,000 lbs of weapon and the aircraft usually lifted some 600'.

If the wings didn't flex like a bow they'd have snapped off and there certainly wouldn't have been a 600' ascent.

As Paul mentions,if there is an engineer who can quote the x+y=z and show us we're wrong then fair enough,but my POV too is that the is a noticeable difference 'twixt a loaded and unloaded Lanc wing.

Mark

Edited November 29, 2008 by Miggers

[Barracudadude]

Pics of Lancs in flight carrying Grand Slams appear to show the wings at rather more than the book quoted 7° and eye witness accounts suggest the wings were seen to flex visibly on take off at this load. That would suggest that the wing structure is pretty flexible. Although I would concur that a 4° deflection is unlikely I would be surprised if there were no deflection at all according to how the wing is loaded, that is how large structures tend to behave. If there is an engineer who could quote me x+y=z and show me my POV is cobblers, then I would accept that and I also accept that the Revell wing is a bit on the flat side - but my perception of Lanc wings with the A/C at rest is that it looks different to when the A/C is in flight. I guess this whole question is one where POV's are unlikely to align. Ted Taylor has shown with his builds that fixing the dihedral, should you want to, is pretty straightforward.

peebeep

This was discussed in depth on another website, and it was pointed out that while there may be some difference between the deflection of the wing at rest and in flight, it would not happen at the dihedral crank point, but spread out along the entire surface. The outer wing panels are significantly lacking in dihedral. Without the dihedral fix, the Revell Lanc makes for an odd looking build. It seems to me that the Hase kit may just be the easier way to a good Lanc. Too bad too, as the Revell kit has a lot of nice detail. But if I have to be replacing wheels and guns, and rescribing ailerons, and lowering turrets and cutting the outer wing panels to correct the dihedral, which necessitates having to shim the outboard engines to correct the datums... well, it just takes all the fun out of it for me.

The funny thing is that Airfix got it right so many years back. For years, everyone has espoused the accuracy of this kit. Now, Revell has tooled up a new kit and not followed accepted and respected drawings. Now suddenly, the Airfix kit and the drawings are wrong? Is this new information, or is it simply trying to rationalize the inaccuracy of the new Revell kit? Remember, this kit was designed by the same guys that have given us the new Revell Mosquito with the short maingear and oversized wheels, bulbous spinners, and odd canopy frames at the base.

Not trying to stir up arguments. Just trying to get to the truth, or at least a close approximation!

Roy

[DamienB]

I've taken a lot of photos of the BBMF Lanc over the years and measured a few of them this evening.

On the ground the dihedral is between 3.73 and 3.8 degrees in all of the shots I checked.

In the air it's not quite so simple, as the outer wing flexes into a curve - out as far as the mid point between wing tip and outer engine, it's between 5 and 5.5 degrees dihedral; outboard of that point it's more like 6 - 7 degrees. The dihedral appears to increase in turns, which makes sense as the wing loading goes up.

Speaking as a pilot I'd be impressed to find an aircraft where the structure does not flex in flight!

[tedtaylor]

Revell took all the measurements from the one in Hendon so perhaps the real one don't match the drawings.

the wing dihedral is often quoted as 7 degrees but where is that measured from , the top surface, the under surface, no, from the spar itself inside the wing so the top will be less and the lower more because of the taper of the outer wing.

When I made my model I made the angle to suit my eye view from variuos pics and memory of the BOB machine, I realy was not that much of an expert or engineer to want more as long as it pleased me, if you recall I built 3 models and only converted one wing structure but no one ever comments as to why is one different and every one calls the Lancasters not halifaxes or stirlings so they must look a bit like the real thing.

cheers

Ted

[Barracudadude]

Revell took all the measurements from the one in Hendon so perhaps the real one don't match the drawings.

the wing dihedral is often quoted as 7 degrees but where is that measured from , the top surface, the under surface, no, from the spar itself inside the wing so the top will be less and the lower more because of the taper of the outer wing.

When I made my model I made the angle to suit my eye view from variuos pics and memory of the BOB machine, I realy was not that much of an expert or engineer to want more as long as it pleased me, if you recall I built 3 models and only converted one wing structure but no one ever comments as to why is one different and every one calls the Lancasters not halifaxes or stirlings so they must look a bit like the real thing.

cheers

Ted

Hi Ted,

Given the other mistakes in the design of this kit as discussed above (top turret, ailerons, etc), it seems that while their measurements may have been accurate, they did not all make it to the final plastic. Unless the Hendon Lanc has non standard ailerons and a raised up top turret, that is! :-) Having been Product manager for 21st Century Toys for 5 years, and having overseen the development of probably 75 models in that time, I know how easily things can get screwed up between drawings and tooling, even between master pattern and tooling. It's very frustrating, and expensive to fix. It's a process made more difficult by having the tooling created by companies that do not have a real understanding of what it is they are working on. It's just plastic parts to them. The language and cultural barriers are substantial. They do not understand at all that this stuff is bought predominantly by adults. Very fussy adults!

Yes, it looks more like a Lanc than a Stirling, but isn't the whole point to get better kits as time goes by? If the Revell Lanc is less accurate than a kit produced... what... 20 years ago, isn't that a step backwards? My Dad flew Lancs with 1654 HCU, so maybe I'm a little biased towards getting it right.

Roy

[Heraldcoupe]

Well a few new points have been brought to my attention here! All very interesting, and I certainly didn't mean to open any kind of attack on the Revell kit. So far I am enjoying building this, while I have found a few otherwise unmentioned "issues" of my own.

I've started another thread regarding the size of the raise pilot's station, so I won't re-hash that here. The navigator's table is also somewhat narrower than it should be, so I have replaced this with a new one cut from plasticard to closer resemble what can be seen in photographs.

Does anyone have an opinion on the cross section of the outer wing? I found that one wing had a distinct tendancy to turn up at the end, while the other turned down, albeit to a laesser degree. While fixing this, I felt the wings taper rather severely at their outer edges. Has anyone else noticed this, and is it wrong, or just something I've failed to notice on the real aircraft?

Cheers,

Bill.

[tedtaylor]

Hi Ted,

Given the other mistakes in the design of this kit as discussed above (top turret, ailerons, etc), it seems that while their measurements may have been accurate, they did not all make it to the final plastic. Unless the Hendon Lanc has non standard ailerons and a raised up top turret, that is! :-) Having been Product manager for 21st Century Toys for 5 years, and having overseen the development of probably 75 models in that time, I know how easily things can get screwed up between drawings and tooling, even between master pattern and tooling. It's very frustrating, and expensive to fix. It's a process made more difficult by having the tooling created by companies that do not have a real understanding of what it is they are working on. It's just plastic parts to them. The language and cultural barriers are substantial. They do not understand at all that this stuff is bought predominantly by adults. Very fussy adults!

Yes, it looks more like a Lanc than a Stirling, but isn't the whole point to get better kits as time goes by? If the Revell Lanc is less accurate than a kit produced... what... 20 years ago, isn't that a step backwards? My Dad flew Lancs with 1654 HCU, so maybe I'm a little biased towards getting it right.

Roy

Roy what you say is true but I didn't comment on any of that just the wing angle. As I said I am not an authority on the rest.

I think the whole point is to make money for Revell GMBH

Ted

Edited November 29, 2008 by tedtaylor

[DHP]

Revell took all the measurements from the one in Hendon so perhaps the real one don't match the drawings.

the wing dihedral is often quoted as 7 degrees but where is that measured from , the top surface, the under surface, no, from the spar itself inside the wing so the top will be less and the lower more because of the taper of the outer wing.

When I made my model I made the angle to suit my eye view from variuos pics and memory of the BOB machine, I realy was not that much of an expert or engineer to want more as long as it pleased me, if you recall I built 3 models and only converted one wing structure but no one ever comments as to why is one different and every one calls the Lancasters not halifaxes or stirlings so they must look a bit like the real thing.

cheers

Ted

I saw your three Revel Lanc models posted somewhere. I noticed that you photographed them from the high 6 o'clock position, which made it difficult to see whether you fixed the dihedral or not. Francis Mason's book on the Lancaster quotes the outer wing dihedral as 7 degrees on datum. Not the upper side of the wing, nor the lower side, but the datum. This is given as a leading particular, and does not refer to whether the wing is airbourne or not.

After all these years, I have to say that I think the second edition of the Lancaster by Airfix, is still the best in terms of overall accuracy. I have the added advantage of being within an hours' driving distance of the 'other' flying Lancaster, which makes it rather easy to spend time admiring her..

Cheers,

Derek

[AnonymousA667]

After all these years, I have to say that I think the second edition of the Lancaster by Airfix, is still the best in terms of overall accuracy.

You're certainly not alone in that, quite a few of us are still enthusiastic about the old Airfix kit I think.

peebeep

[tedtaylor]

I noticed that you photographed them from the high 6 o'clock position, which made it difficult to see whether you fixed the dihedral or not.

Cheers,

Derek

I guess you must have missed the pic of the wing in bare plastic that I altered.

[Barracudadude]

Roy what you say is true but I didn't comment on any of that just the wing angle. As I said I am not an authority on the rest.

I think the whole point is to make money for Revell GMBH

Ted

Hi Ted,

I hope my comments did not come off as an attack. I am only making a point to the group in general. I used your comment as a jumping off point, but my real interest is only in furthering the understanding of these issues. I do not have all the answers, but I do want to try to prevent conjecture from replacing known facts. As my good friend Derek says above, the dihedral break on a Lanc's wing is a known entity. Trying to rewrite history in order to make a new kit accurate is counter productive. I'm not saying that you, or anyone here , is trying to do that. If Revell were to fix the few errors in their kit by some retooling, their's would be the new King on the block, and I'd get rid of my Hasegawa and Airfix Lancs. Until then, I'm holding on to them. Wish Hasegawa would retool their main canopy to correct the escape hatch problem.

I'm a fan of Revell GMBH. They have produced some beautiful kits. Crossing my fingers for them to do a Halifax family!

Roy

Edited November 30, 2008 by Barracudadude

[DamienB]

I'm curious as to how measurements from photos of the real thing are so glibly ignored, and a single book figure is taken as the gospel truth instead.

It's clearly an angle that will vary with loading; same as height of an aircraft will vary with payload due to varying oleo depression. I'm all for accuracy but doggedly hanging on to a single number when it's a measurement that covers a range in reality is being a bit blinkered.

[AnonymousA667]

Trying to rewrite history in order to make a new kit accurate is counter productive.

I don't think anybody has been trying to do that here, although some of us have commented on what we see and interpret from photographic evidence. From my own meagre instruction in engineering I would deduce that the outer panel is a pin jointed cantilever that would deflect according to how it is loaded. That might be static load whilst the A/C is at rest on the ground and would include self weight plus superimposed loads from fuel etc, in which case the panel might droop. Or dynamic load whilst the A/C is in motion, in which case the panel dihedral might increase. OTOH, seeing as I have no training in aircraft structures I could be barking up the wrong tree completely, but my reaction is still my perception from looking at different photos of Lancs at rest and in motion - and I have quite a few to choose from in my own little library.

I'm not particularly anxious to defend the Revell kit, although I think some of the criticism in this respect is a bit harsh, but I am pretty keen to get to the bottom of the whys and wherefores of the dynamics of the Lanc wing structure. I think it was the description of Sqdn Ldr Calder's (?) A/C in Brickhill's 'The Dambusters' that got me started down this route.

peebeep