Revell Lancaster

[nsmekanik]

Glad to be of service , I took a few other detail shots of the thing so I might as well put them all up, for anyone else how might be interested.

this would be the right wheel bay

[chadders]

Yes, that is a very good price. No wonder one of the members here has ELEVEN in his stache.

I've got 12

Mark

[nsmekanik]

just in case anyones loking for some engine detail.

They've got 2 outta four engines running as of this summer, but it will never be anythig more then a static display.

Off and on I'm puttering away at the Hasegawa thingy, with all of Eduards extras, I pooched the control yoke wheel, of course, so things are at a bit of a standstill, It would be nice if some one would crank out a more to size tail wheel, and, of course , a control yoke for it. My main to niggles whith that kit so far.

Edited December 7, 2008 by nsmekanik

[kitnut617]

I've slowly plodded my way through this thread and I'm left shaking my head in despair. As I'm in the design and drafting business I've had numeruous requests to make drawings from photos taken and I can tell you it is virtually impossible. There are numerous variables to take into account if attempting to do this. A photo is only good for a visual to place an item in a particular area ( I take them all the time but only use them as a reminder) and if there isn't a tape measure placed right on the object there is no way you can determine anything accurately. I defy anyone to accuately make a drawing from a photo or a bunch of photos if there are no references applied to an object before hand, it doesn't matter if you have a drawing which says it's this dimension or not, if you don't have something of known size physically atached to the object you can not reproduce an accurate drawing.

The photo that Mark posted is a good example, do you know what distance you are really from the aircraft and what angle from it you are taking the photo. What you can see here is not the real dyheadral, what you can see is a line taken somewhere along the chord and from the inner engine end it's maybe about 12 inches back from the datum line on the leading edge, the wing tip is something else because as the chord decreases in depth from it's thickest point to the it's thinnest at the wing tip you will be able to see further back over the chord. The real depth of the wing is not visable and the real dyheadral point is beyond view in this photo.

A lot of people argue that they can scale of a photo, personally I'd like to see them do it.

Robert

[keefr22]

I've slowly plodded my way through this thread and I'm left shaking my head in despair. As I'm in the design and drafting business I've had numeruous requests to make drawings from photos taken and I can tell you it is virtually impossible. There are numerous variables to take into account if attempting to do this. A photo is only good for a visual to place an item in a particular area ( I take them all the time but only use them as a reminder) and if there isn't a tape measure placed right on the object there is no way you can determine anything accurately. I defy anyone to accuately make a drawing from a photo or a bunch of photos if there are no references applied to an object before hand, it doesn't matter if you have a drawing which says it's this dimension or not, if you don't have something of known size physically atached to the object you can not reproduce an accurate drawing.

The photo that Mark posted is a good example, do you know what distance you are really from the aircraft and what angle from it you are taking the photo. What you can see here is not the real dyheadral, what you can see is a line taken somewhere along the chord and from the inner engine end it's maybe about 12 inches back from the datum line on the leading edge, the wing tip is something else because as the chord decreases in depth from it's thickest point to the it's thinnest at the wing tip you will be able to see further back over the chord. The real depth of the wing is not visable and the real dyheadral point is beyond view in this photo.

A lot of people argue that they can scale of a photo, personally I'd like to see them do it.

Robert

..and you forgot to mention not knowing what focal length lens was used, hence whether there's telephoto foreshortening, or wide angle distortion, or....!!!

Keef

[Byron Boyd]

When built, the wing dihedral was set at 7 degrees. This is also the quoted figure in the Air Publication for the Mark 10 Lancaster. You can, of course, build your model any way you want, but the irrefutable fact is that the Revell kit is a bow-wow. And... I don't see how ever much loading will reduce the on-ground dihedral by four degrees...

So, let us agree to disagree.

Derek

Very interesting string here - lots of very, very useful modeling information here. I think that John B. probably has the right of it - the Hendon Lancaster, through no fault of her own, has fallen saddly out of spec wrt the wing dihedral. The RoG people who crawled all over her made the seriously flawed assumption that she was in a combat-ready state, and captured that Out-of-Spec configuration in the final product. Wouldn't be the first time - I could talk length about some basic failings of the He-177, Obscureco just released a new horizontal stabilizer to correct a major fault in the Bv-222 V-2, and don't even get me started on the corrections necessary to turn their P-47M (and D) variants into somewhat reasonably accurate models!

On the other hand, I'm not sure I would go straight to bow-wow. If, for example, one actually wanted to model the Lancaster at Hendon as she appears today, you would have to drop the dihedral to it's current Out-of-Spec configuration. With the RoG kit, you're already set! Quickboost already makes Lancaster gun barrels, oval and perforated, the dihedral fix is pretty well documented, and not particularly strenuous as corrections go. I'll bet that somebody will be releasing accurate Lancaster tires within the next six months, and as somebody else has already pointed out, it's probably not too difficult to lower the dorsal turret. From my perspective, I would probably try to fit the Martin turret and turn it into a true Mk X - a much more difficult proposition, but those Canadians had such wonderfully colorful nose art! I'll bet you could probably sweet-talk the folks at Paragon into making separate control surfaces that would be 'pose-able', and accurate in the bargain. I see endless possibilities...

One of the things I enjoy about modeling is the challenge of fixing some of the more glaring imperfections, and it is forums like this and people like you that help tremendously by showing me what to look out for.

Thanks!

Byron

[daz greenwood]

Well I'll be building my Lanc OOB as it's modelling and I'll be having fun with it no matter how inaccurate it is.

As I'm a modeller and modelling is fun (or supposed to be)

Edited December 12, 2008 by daz greenwood

[keefr22]

Well I'll be building my Lanc OOB as it's modelling and I'll be having fun with it no matter how inaccurate it is.

As I'm a modeller and modelling is fun (or supposed to be)

Well said Daz

Keef

[Av8fan]

Well I'll be building my Lanc OOB as it's modelling and I'll be having fun with it no matter how inaccurate it is.

As I'm a modeller and modelling is fun (or supposed to be)

Thanks Daz.

Mine will be OOB.

I was going to say more, but this discussion has been beaten to death on this and many other boards.

I will leave off with this:

It's important to know where a kit excels and where if anywhere it needs help(if you choose to worry about it). One persons dross is another's gold. Me I am happy to have a new kit that looks to be a fun build. When I build, I build for fun. I try to do my best, which is no where near the work here or elsewhere.

Happy modelling to all.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Av8fan

[Heraldcoupe]

It's important to know where a kit excels and where if anywhere it needs help(if you choose to worry about it).

That's my outlook too. I'd rather know up-front so I can make a judgement call - some aspects bother me and need to be fixed, others I choose to live with. Nothing worse than getting towards the end of a build, only then finding something which is so wrong it hits you every time you look at the finished article.

I've compiled all of the observations on this kit into a word document, for future reference.

Cheers,

Bill.

[Miggers]

The bottom line to it is this;

It's a damn nice modern kit at a very good price that has a couple of very useful features(unshrouded exhausts,paddle blades).

OOB it makes a very,very nice looking model of a Lancaster that will make a lot of people very happy.

With a few modifications,better wheels and guns it can be turned into a very,very,very nice model of a Lancaster.

You pays your money and takes your choice gents,you pays your money and takes your choice.

Robert:You're absolutely correct in what you're saying.I posted the pic of PA474 because to me,it shows a flat outer panel dihedral that made me perceive

that the Revell wing is good for an "unloaded",i.e,not subject to aerodynamic forces or not in flight(someone though unloaded meant no petrol in the tanks)wing.

Byron:Paragon already make a very nice pair of resin mainwheels to replace the crappy ones supplied in Hasegawa's kit.Naturally,they'll fit the Revell one too.Mine actually has a pair of Airfix ones.

Mark