Anyone got the Fly 1/72 Whitley yet ?

[woody37]

It seems rather expensive, but I'm tempted to get one. Has anyone got one, if so, what's your opinions ? There doesn't seem to be much ont internet about it.

Cheers

[Heraldcoupe]

While it's difficult to read througha translation engine, the response on this Czech model site doesn't seem too favourable:

http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=5...7886a3#p1170058

Cheers,

Bill.

[Ed Russell]

the response on this Czech model site doesn't seem too favourable:

I agree about the difficulties of reading it but there seems to be a lot of generality and a lack of specificity in their comments.

(The only guy to make extended comments is saying it's a re-hashed Frog one, which seems to be not so from my quick look, he says thigs are "fairyland" and "bad shape" which doesn't cut it for objective analysis.)

I have had a quick glance at the kit but I'll wait until I do some measuring before I make a comment.

Others have commented to me that it is excellent - leaves the Frog one behind in every respect.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Ed Russell

[woody37]

If they'd like to send Mike one for a review, I'd be willing to take it off his hands and give a build review

Edited October 16, 2011 by woody37

[Hypnobear]

I saw loads of these Whitley kits at Duxford today on Hannant's stall - seems a really small box for the kit it contained, but at £45 you can keep it, Ill just/did buy a load of Secondhand stuff!

[woody37]

Bloody hell, they're going for £35 ish on Ebay.

[Paul A H]

If they'd like to send Mike one for a review, I'd be willing to take it off his hands and give a build review

My towel is already on that particular sun lounger! Hopefully we'll get a review copy soon. I'm certainly looking forward to taking a good look at it.

[justplanecrazy]

It seems rather expensive, but I'm tempted to get one. Has anyone got one, if so, what's your opinions ? There doesn't seem to be much ont internet about it.

Cheers

Not bloody likely at the price shown at Hannants!

[CarLos]

Hi have Fly's Caproni Ca.101 and it is a nice kit - but I don't know about accuracy. You may have a look at the parts here:

http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/ca..._Caproni_Ca101/

With so much info on the Whitley out there it would be a shame if the kit is a failure...

[2wheels]

I've ordered one from Poland, which including postage was still £5.81 cheaper than Hannants

Destination will be the stash for the time being, but if nobody elese has any photo's up I'll try and post some when it arrives.

Prices for the Frog/Novo/Chemetic kit were still in the £20+ or even £30+ area, so I don't consider it to bad. As I'm intending to build all the types operated by 502 squadron, it's a must have aircraft for me.... Now..Just have to get my modelling mojo back..and find the time!

[Redboost]

Personally I think the "issue" is a bit exaggerated and judgind the kit on one comment translated by an online translator is not fair.

The problem seems to be the shape of engine cowling that repeat the Frog ones, because the kit is its clone. The fuselage lenght is shorter by 0.5cm for Mk.V, what should be OK for the early versions plus some other omissions usual with any kit. Anyway, for me this is good enough the spent the money - I can't imagine building the Frog one instead.

[woody37]

Any chance of more pics of the sprues ? The ones I've seen were a bit limited. How are the transparencies ? I wouldn't of touched the Frog without vac form replacements.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

If anyone wants these kits - don't forget we (MJW Models) can get them too. I don't see any reason why we can't do them for less than £40 but I can work out a price if anyone wants either of the Whitley's that have been released so far. Remember, anyone local who can collect the kit(s) won't pay the postage, so it will likely be cheaper than buying them from the Polish on Ebay. PM me if interested.

thanks

Mike

[woody37]

Hi Mike,

I might be tempted at some point, although I don't really know enough about the kit to spash out that much. The Halibag will take priority though !!!!!!

Cheers

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

No worries Woody - We'll get a price anyway and post in our forum section. We'll obviously be able to get the Revell Halifax when it's out and again we'll post a price on here as well. In the meantime if you want anything you know where we are!

thanks

Mike

[Ed Russell]

judging the kit on one comment translated by an online translator is not fair.

The problem seems to be the shape of engine cowling that repeat the Frog ones, because the kit is its clone.

I agree with Libor and, rather than judging the kit by words, here are some pictures of the Fly kit compared to a Frog one. I think that they show that the Fly one is not in any sense a 'clone' of the Frog one, particularly around the engines but you make up your own mind.....

There is certainly a bit of resemblance in the box tops!

The fuselage halves are about the same length but there are detail differences.

The shape of the wings and tails is approximately the same but the surface treatment is different.

There are obvious differences in the engine shape although they are not major.

The detail parts are finer in the Fly kit.

Obviously the next thing for the devout Whitley enthusiast to do is round up as many pictures as possible and find a plan they can trust..... good luck! Next thing is to make both kits, correcting appropriately as they go..... then give us their verdict!

I think the problem here is that the Frog kit is not really that bad, so when someone like Fly produces a pretty good kit there is always the thought that they copied it from another one. I think there is sufficient photographic evidence here to show that this is not the case. If I were a really well funded company with a committment to accuracy and produced a really good 1/32 Mustang entirely from original material there would be howls that I had copied the Tamiya one..... such is life.

[pigsty]

Thank you for finally laying my curiosity to rest! Now I have only to come to terms with the price ...

I think the problem here is that the Frog kit is not really that bad, so when someone like Fly produces a pretty good kit there is always the thought that they copied it from another one. I think there is sufficient photographic evidence here to show that this is not the case. If I were a really well funded company with a committment to accuracy and produced a really good 1/32 Mustang entirely from original material there would be howls that I had copied the Tamiya one..... such is life.

This is a perennial problem. For some reason a significant portion of the on-line modelling world seems pre-programmed to see copying everywhere. It's almost got to the point where if two models of the Farley Fruitbat have the same number of wings, one has to be a copy of the other. The fact that two people trying to make scale replicas of the Fruitbat are bound to come up with something similar, seems not to occur to these people.

Edited October 19, 2011 by pigsty

[Redboost]

I apologize for using word 'clone' as I did not realize it may be a bit misleading. Actually, the Fly kit is not a clone of the Frog kit, just the main parts were used as a base for the master patterns, then adequately reshaped, rescribed amd modified. Unfortunately, there are some certain shape mistakes around the cowling anyway, at least as the too straight lines, inlet faces of the radiator opening, radiator itself and the missing 'bulge' are concerned.

[Giorgio N]

I apologize for using word 'clone' as I did not realize it may be a bit misleading. Actually, the Fly kit is not a clone of the Frog kit, just the main parts were used as a base for the master patterns, then adequately reshaped, rescribed amd modified. Unfortunately, there are some certain shape mistakes around the cowling anyway, at least as the too straight lines, inlet faces of the radiator opening, radiator itself and the missing 'bulge' are concerned.

A process that is not uncommon in the world of short run kits.

[keefr22]

.... here are some pictures of the Fly kit compared to a Frog one.

Could you by chance post a pic of the transparencies please? One of the main 'faults' of the Frog kit was that it didn't have the front turret moulded as a full transparent 'dome' (if that makes sense) - does the Fly kit?

Cheers

Keef

[GrzeM]

Here you have a picture of the transparent parts. Edited October 19, 2011 by GrzeM

[keefr22]

Here you have a picture of the transparent parts.

Thanks! That looks OK!

K

[Richard M]

Isn't one of the main problems of the Frog Whitley that the width of the rear fuselage is far too narrow, which affects the sit of the rear turret - the fix being to insert plastic shims to widen it by a good few mm? Does the Fly model correct this?

[Ed Russell]

Isn't one of the main problems of the Frog Whitley that the width of the rear fuselage is far too narrow, which affects the sit of the rear turret - the fix being to insert plastic shims to widen it by a good few mm? Does the Fly model correct this?

The Fly kit is 2 x 6.2mm across the rear at the turret break and the Frog kit is 12.1mm total. So if there is a problem in this area of a "good few mm" then it hasn't been fully addressed.

As I don't know much about Whitleys but I am keen to learn could you post an overhead photo of the rear and/or a plan that you trust to show me what you mean.

Edit - There are several build articles commenting on the narrow fuselage but no pictures or even plans. It looks like the rationale behind the fuselage being too narrow is that it won't fit an Airfix Lancaster turret.

A good build article here

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/whitleymkiiimd_1.htm

However, there is a review by James Goulding of the Frog kit in the June 1970 Aircraft Illustrated where he comments on the front turret having a specious lip which is easily removed but makes no comment on the rear turret. He describes the kit as "a very fine basic model which has, above all things the one essential quality - an accurate outline".

Interestingly he calls for deeper panel lines (lol) but doesn't quibble about the 17s 6d asked for the kit.

Presumably if the Frog one is accurate in outline so is the Fly kit.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Ed Russell

[Richard M]

The instructions for the Falcon Vacuform Canopy "RAF Bombers World War II part 1" set for the Whitley which I have states a 3mm shim is needed,

Using the drawing as a guide, cut away the nose and upper fuselage decking at the lines marked X. It is not necessary to cut a slot for the nose machine gun, just drill a hole in order to fit the machine gun from the inside. The kit rear fuselage is far too narrow in plan views; widen it with a wedge 3 mm wide at the extreme rear end. Also cut away the shaded area marked Y. Considerable detail needs to be added to the inside of the turret. Careful study of photographs of FN20 turrets (also used on the Lancaster, Wellington and Stirling) should help with detailing.

Suggested references: Profile 153; AirEnthusiast No.9, Feb-Mar 1979; Scale Models International, August 1986.

Several other builds and articles I have seen, like the Mark Davies one which appears on HS and IPMS Stockholm have stated it is too narrow, I will have to have a dig around my references to see if I have any plans, it has been a couple of years since I acquired 2 Frog Whitleys and had a look for reference material for their builds.