Revell Halifax Options

[miduppergunner]

This topic is now very entertaining and addictive with you chaps clearly making a silk purse from the sows ear - well done - ingenuity will triumph over disaster! I have not noticed other like sites doing this. BM rules and all that!!

[Giorgio N]

Have to say that I find such errors very annoying and unexcusable in a modern tooling, more so when the manufacturer was supplied accurate drawings.

What I'm trying to understand is if the kit is an advancement over the previous matchbox tooling and from what I read I'd say it is but introduces some new errors that the matchbox kit did not have (the nacelles mainly). Now personally I'd probably try to adapt the matchbox nacelles as I have an original matchbox kit in the stash, but I'm very curious to see what you guys will achieve with the corrections.

[Tango India Mike]

Well, I'll still be making the multiple purchases that I'd planned to. I have three Matchbox kits and an Airfix that are all looking for a decent fuselage each. As far as I can see, the Revell's nose problem is easily rectifiable and its interior furnishings will save a lot of the work I'd have to do otherwise. It's a shame the kit isn't better, but it'll still serve my purposes.

[miduppergunner]

Hmmmm ...... hear tell that there are problems with the fuselage too - would it not be cheaper to correct the matchbox fuselage. After all producing a reasonable comparison of the surface detail between the two maybe tedious?

[rossm]

Hmmmm ...... hear tell that there are problems with the fuselage too - would it not be cheaper to correct the matchbox fuselage. After all producing a reasonable comparison of the surface detail between the two maybe tedious?

Rumour - e.g. on the instructions for the Falcon canopy set - says the Matchbox fuselage is not without its problems. There is/was a Pavla set to correct this but I've even seen a mention that it fails to achieve its aim.

I have a Matchbox kit, Pavla correction, Falcon canopy set and Granger plans but getting them together is lower priority than my income tax form just now.

Will let you know the outcome in due course,

Ross

[Seahawk]

Hats off and congratulations to FZ6 and other brave souls who are trying to make this kit look abit more like the real thing. The discrepancy between the revised outer cowling and the fairing on the wing shows the magnitude of the task though: more than the thickness of the plastic.

I admire you brave sherpas and shall be happy to follow in your footsteps as long as the snow (or other unpleasant soft stuff) doesn't get too deep.

[FZ6]

Hats off and congratulations to FZ6 and other brave souls who are trying to make this kit look abit more like the real thing. The discrepancy between the revised outer cowling and the fairing on the wing shows the magnitude of the task though: more than the thickness of the plastic.

I admire you brave sherpas and shall be happy to follow in your footsteps as long as the snow (or other unpleasant soft stuff) doesn't get too deep.

Thanks,

I'll be continuing my endeavours in another thread so the corrections can be found easily. Hope my work pays off and I don't completely wreck the wing. The nacelles are so wrong though that I have nothing to lose cutting up the kit parts anyway as that I wouldn't have been happy using them as they are.

[chaddy]

Thanks,

I'll be continuing my endeavours in another thread so the corrections can be found easily. Hope my work pays off and I don't completely wreck the wing. The nacelles are so wrong though that I have nothing to lose cutting up the kit parts anyway as that I wouldn't have been happy using them as they are.

Looking forward to your new thread.

Will you post a link here for interested parties to follow?

Cheers.

[FZ6]

Looking forward to your new thread.

Will you post a link here for interested parties to follow?

Cheers.

The discussion on creating a decent Merln Engined Halifax from these two kits continues Here

I've got together as much info as I have to get the thread started off but if anyone has any other info or ideas that will help fellow modellers, please feel free to contribute.

Cheers,

Mark

[SeaVenom]

Yes, it was a nice thought. But I'm afraid "it's the thought that counts" doesn't quite cut it for me: after having given me cupboards full of unwearable pullovers and useless calendars, it came within an ace of giving me a cupboard full of useless Halifax kits.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's useless. I know there's inaccuracies....but it still looks like a Halifax.

But on the other hand I can see why people are annoyed and disappointed. It is inexcusable considering the resources available today and I'm still baffled why Revell (who've been fairly good at accuracy over the past few years) have done these errors. Why didn't they check and get some Halifax expert?

Again, the only reason I can think of is cost cutting. I wonder if Revell have cut research and development funding. If so....that could backfire on them.

[reromp]

Hi All,

We are planning to release some smaller resin sets for the Halifax in the very near future. (propeller set, wheels at first round) Can somebody help us with wheel measures? (diameter, width)

Cheers,

Csaba

www.sbsmodel.com

[woody37]

Here's one completed....

http://www.clubhyper.com/forums/plasticpixframe.htm

[hovering]

Hi all,

Yes, I too am keenly following this and now the thread by FZ6 as I want to build a Mk V series 1 Special.. so I'm waiting until they release that version. Fingers crossed they don't give up before then!

It's strange if they fattened up the Merlin to match the Hercules, because the fairing on the wing is going to make the Hercules look odd too.

Here is the plan comparison I've done and a shot of the kit wing borrowed from FZ6.

btw.. this is a direct link to the build woody37 posted.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47751/messa...72+Halifax+done

[FZ6]

That seems to confirm the theory. If Revell produced a Hercules engined variant though they would need to produce a whole new top wing because of the difference in fairings and probably a new lower wing too because there are fewer bomb cells in the wings as the outboard ones were deleted and replaced by a fuel tank I think.

In fact after studying the sprue layout if Revell released a B.III and replaced the Merlin Sprues with Hercules Sprues and added the correct wing, The only parts used on both versions are the landing gear bays and doors as well as the undercarriage. So if Revell have taken this route they have have ruined a great kit just so they can reuse a few parts.

[FZ6]

Hi All,

We are planning to release some smaller resin sets for the Halifax in the very near future. (propeller set, wheels at first round) Can somebody help us with wheel measures? (diameter, width)

Cheers,

Csaba

www.sbsmodel.com

Csaba

That is good news.

The Revell wheel hub is about right it's the tyre that is too small Wheel diameter should be 23mm Tail wheel should be 11mm

The props might be a tricky one to do if you do the blades the correct size and shape but to fit the existing large kit spinners it may make the diameter too large with the blades being further away from the centre of the hub.

Hope this info will be useful.

Mark

[Merlin]

The standards set elsewhere by Revell have been pretty good too, their recent Ju-88 in 1/72 is outstanding. A shame they seem to drop the ball with major Allied subjects,

Cheers,

Bill.

Not having ever purchased Revell until their Ju88A1, and then had to purchase new fin and rudder (both hopelessly wrong), fuel dump, prop blades, main wheels (revell had later variant larger wheels) and being aware of other fixes to do such as add the missing canopy frames, remove hand holds, file down f/lage bump, not to mention all the missing pipework in the cockpit, poor canopy fit, I am just a little wary of Revel being still the Revell I avoided all these years having seen some of their offerings, also partly because they never made Luft and RAF subjects of use to me. I buy the 1/32 He111 and immediately see they have the nose glazing wrong, no flat panels below midpoint at fwd area and the nose blister very wrong with frames too thin and no flared ends, no curve heading back inwards in to the gun mount of the glazing and a diminutive gun mount. As in both cases they had full access to the real thing the major mistakes they make are sheer sloppiness. They have staff issues with those that do the transition from site info to actual shapes not speaking english I gather though dimensions and photos should cross any language barrier.

The inexcusable errors on this halifax, a mark I have wanted to be kitted correctly for 30 yrs, in my book shows me Revell are a waste of space, lets see Airfix do the 1/48 stirling now, but let the japs do the panel lines as Airfix have ruined the spit and 110, those panel lines totally spoil the real look, they are worse than matchbox trench lines, the Airfix spit is immediately noticeable amidst other 1/72 spits and can never be a show winner with panel lines looking like gaps for moving surfaces !

When Revell did the He111 1/48 they got the engines completely wrong along with the nose glazing again, my kit was never built as fixing it is a major task. Any comparison to WW2 photos showed the errors immediately.

They are not interested in basic shape accuracy, even when sent plans of areas they should look out for they still get those areas wrong.

This halifax has fundamental errors of engine nacelles far too wide and intakes incorrect, wrong spinners profile and diameter, paddle prop blades (just what were they looking at for that one ? ! ), nacelle fairings onto upper wings a work of fiction as is the H2S blister, ailerons, to name a few. Such should never have happened if they had even bothered to view and measure the real thing at Hendon and looked at easily available plans. They just didnt bother, there is no excuse and its about time they were publicly embarrased over this and other mentioned errors.

The aircraft should at least look right but as soon as a few photos are compared to this Halifax the errors stand out. They need to employ staff who undergo tests on shape spotting, carefully designed to weed out the unobservant, and those unable to read plans and use rulers. There is no excuse, there are better people unemployed with the ability to follow such drawings and take basic dimensions. Ju88 fin had a sharp jet edge and was half as thick as it should have been, come on now, when on site get a thickness measurement and notice the thing is rounded at the front.

Majority of modellers dont care or dont observe, so Revell dont care, why then did Airfix by and large get their models right, why do the japs manage to do so usually. No excuse, just sloppy.

Merlin

Edited January 15, 2012 by Merlin

[miduppergunner]

I rather feel you have said what a number of others have said already.

As a matter of interest do you sympathise with some views expressed upon the basis that Revell are hoping to minimise the re-tooling for when (???) they produce the Hercules engined version?

[Merlin]

As a matter of interest do you sympathise with some views expressed upon the basis that Revell are hoping to minimise the re-tooling for when (???) they produce the Hercules engined version?

I can't forgive Revell for one moment if they have opted to make this Halifax inaccurate thinking ahead to any hercules version to save costs. Such methods carry only a risk of being remembered for the errors, not why they were made. Bad publicity can be damaging. If they didnt want to get this Merlin variant right and were more focused on a hercules one, forget it altogether. They should have gone straight for the Hercules and focused on getting it right. If we are going to be seeing kits released with errors simply because a subsequent moulding needs such for a different variant thats a sad day. Now they have spoilt the chance of e.g. Airfix to do it right as the bulk of sales will happen to folk who naively expect it to be right, who are not even aware that when such kits are made, the manufacturer may just go and do what they did here.

Have Revell explained their errors with the Hercules version or is this just speculation ? Did the hecules have the fairings on the upper wings we see here as being incorrect for the merlin or are they the same, no, they are much shorter, in which case then the topic of a subsequent Hercules molding explaining the errors is null and void.

Merlin

Edited January 15, 2012 by Merlin

[Merlin]

Here is a montage of shots that illustrate the problem with spinners, blades, intakes, and I have also spotted a tweak needed to the DF loop from these shots. Just how many errors does this kit have, has anyone done a careful analysis ?

I recommend viewing the excellent article by Megas on how he built his MkI series 1, let these be an encouragement to see the full article. It would be interesting to get Megas's comment on the kit.

Merlin

[woody37]

Judging by the drawing above, the wing was clearly not designed to fit a Hercules variant, so it's just wrong, not compromised. I agree, it's not good enough, but with most sales going to the naive, Revell have no reason to care, their business model works for them and clearly, well engineered models is more important than design accuracy.

[AWFK10]

I can't forgive Revell for one moment if they have opted to make this Halifax inaccurate thinking ahead to any hercules version to save costs. Such methods carry only a risk of being remembered for the errors, not why they were made. Bad publicity can be damaging. If they didnt want to get this Merlin variant right and were more focused on a hercules one, forget it altogether. They should have gone straight for the Hercules and focused on getting it right. If we are going to be seeing kits released with errors simply because a subsequent moulding needs such for a different variant thats a sad day. Now they have spoilt the chance of e.g. Airfix to do it right as the bulk of sales will happen to folk who naively expect it to be right, who are not even aware that when such kits are made, the manufacturer may just go and do what they did here.

Have Revell explained their errors with the Hercules version or is this just speculation ? Did the hecules have the fairings on the upper wings we see here as being incorrect for the merlin or are they the same, no, they are much shorter, in which case then the topic of a subsequent Hercules molding explaining the errors is null and void.

Merlin

I believe I was the first (on this thread, at least) to suggest the possibility that the nacelles might have been tooled primarily for a Hercules-engined variant but what I said was:

"Comparing the width of the underwing section of the kit nacelles to the scrap view of a Hercules-engined aircraft in the Warpaint plans, it looks to me to be a pretty close match. I'm wondering if Revell's idea was that they'ld be able to kit a Mk III or Mk VI by just providing new upper wing halves, with integrally-moulded nacelles, and the Hercules cowlings. I suspect that they may have looked at one of the survivors/reconstructions, replicated the underwing nacelle shape from a Hercules-engined Halifax and used it to extrapolate the shape of a Merlin cowling - which therefore ended up far too fat."

Agreed, the fairings on the upper wing are certainly incorrect for a Hercules-engined variant but that doesn't disprove the original hypothesis. However, the fact that they're also incorrect for a Merlin-engined variant does lend some weight to the view that this whole mess is simply down to sheer carelessness, rather than a deliberate fudge to get the most out of the moulds.

[miduppergunner]

Thank you Merlin. I asked the question simply because I share your views largely but am not conversant with the technicalities of re-tooling etc. nor converting an image to a 3D "model" - which has been suggested is another difficult process. I have stated elsewhere that this offering is probably a result of the lack of application and a form of carelessness. All be it inexplicable.

I think it is right to consider if there is a possible valid explanation - e.g. the possibility of a re tool for a different version and that initially conclude - from perhaps (understandably) a less than full depth investigation, that that may be the reasoning. However with the benefit of the copious information now before us from these excellent topics on this Board it would I feel be a very generous person who could now totally support Revell.

For what it is worth I have still had no reply to my request for their comments. I do suspect that by now they may have read the topics - and I am also forming the view that BM is unique in it's publication of the information. That has to be worth a commendation.

Surely it would be very useful for the results of the efforts on this Board to be displayed at SMW this year.

Edited January 15, 2012 by miduppergunner

[tonyot]

It would be nice if Revell issued a new sprue with corrected nacelles, spinners and propellers which would address the main problems with the newly released Halifax kit, with corrected instructions telling you which parts from the existing sprues to leave off, as if we don`t know by now! I believe that the main wheel recess in the lower wing is too wide, but I could personally live with that (with the result that the rear of the nacelles would be a bit too wide), if it meant that this was the only way to get some more accurate engine cowlings. Obviously new wings are what is really needed and ideally these would be included on any new sprue,.......but will this ever occur...I doubt it and I`m do doubt wasting my time typing this.

All the best

Tony O

[woody37]

The Revell gear, with a smidge of fettling does fit into the Matchbox bay which is fortunate. I've had to skim the inside of the u/c bay sides and main legs, but only very lightly. This has made the wing donation much less of a problem. There does need to be new attachment points made for the legs though as the Revell ones are narrower, so I just stuck a couple of pieces of plasticard in for the legas to butt against. I'll put some pics in my build some time this week to clarify.