Jump to content

Revell Halifax Options


Mike M

Recommended Posts

The Y3 code is of 518 Sq., which became 202 Sq. postwar. There were Met Mk.IIIs built, or perhaps converted, and operated by 518 (and others) but there don't seem to be any pictures. The postwar Mk.VIs were, from available photos, all in BC colours. That site has a habit of presenting profiles in generic form, as the aircraft would have been, rather than based on actual evidence. The Q code letter is not given in the aircraft listed in All the other squadrons... I believe this example is generic/wishful thinking, though I'd like to be proven wrong.

The GR units, 58 and 502, also had Mk.IIIs by 1945 but then were operating at night in mainly Norwegian waters, so were in the BC black camouflage.

Hi Graham

I came across a photo in warpaint halifax, page 31, it shows a halifax VI, Y3-A, no serial visible, of 202 Sqn in coastal colours, photo credited to peter green.

can't post the photo but same as profile of Y3-A in link

http://www.202-sqn-assoc.co.uk/meteorological.html

cheers

Jerry

Edited by brewerjerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, and I can't even claim not to have the Warpaint. I note that aircraft Q is in the black scheme whereas the originally posted profile has it in white.

The Warpaint also has a photo of a Met.III, but in black, and supposedly on a fighter affiliation exercise: I'm not sure of the value of this to a Met crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I'm about as excited as you all seem to be, and it will probably months before it hits our shores! I was hoping Squadron would put it on their pre-order list, but it hasn't hit their radar yet.

It sort of looked to me that the Z-nose is molded integral to the main fuselage, and to convert to the later style nose, there are a couple of L-shaped parts (36, 38?) that you would cement over the Z-part. But the instructions were 2-D, so I will wait for the more formal reviews.

Yeah, other than those odd propellers, it sure looks nice from here. I'm planning to add a couple to my collection when they arrive.

Byron

PS - Oh, I see, now - the special parts for the Z-nose look they are on the clear sprue...

Edited by Byron Boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the pre-issue sprue photos - I think they are still available via 1/72 Modeller site, if not here somewhere - you will see the Z nose. Looking at the instruction sheet for the clear parts, it is missing. Not even shaded out as Do Not Use, just missing.

And it still hasn't reached Preston. They say anticipation is always better than reception (just another load of pieces of plastic, eh?) but they are testing my patience. Maybe I need to go do something medieval to a spare Matchbox Hali.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the pre-issue sprue photos - I think they are still available via 1/72 Modeller site, if not here somewhere - you will see the Z nose. Looking at the instruction sheet for the clear parts, it is missing. Not even shaded out as Do Not Use, just missing.

And it still hasn't reached Preston. They say anticipation is always better than reception (just another load of pieces of plastic, eh?) but they are testing my patience. Maybe I need to go do something medieval to a spare Matchbox Hali.

Hmm, a Hudson with a BP Type C nose turret. That'd be different. Are you going to add a spare Halifax bomb-aimer's transparency underneath? I think it might need rebalancing with perhaps the longer Lodestar tail.

Ive started my Revell Halibag Graham and I`m really enjoying it, what a nice kit! I`ve always said that Preston was in a bit of a backward time warp, but then again thats coming from an ex Blackburn lad, perhaps you`ll get one soon and if so please give my regards to Mark and Liz!!Thanks for the heads up about balancing out the Hudson with a Lodestar taiplane but I don`t intend to use the Halifax nose turret on it, when you get your kit you`ll realise that a decent Hudson mid upper turret can be made from the nose and mid upper parts of the new Halifax and this is what I was referring to! I certainly don`t want to use the Halifax glass nose on it either as that would just be stupid, or at least very sarcastic,

Tony O

Edited by tonyot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it made quite a nice (as in ugly and exceedingly unlikely!) whatif. I'm not sure how far back to go on the nose to match the width of the Type C, and I suspect it would leave precious little room for the nav/bombaimer. And more powerful engines - perhaps it should be done to a Ventura rather than a poor little Hudson.

Best current delivery guess is Monday. I'm glad to hear that it is going together well: I expected it would but it is impossible to judge that from photos of the sprues. Is there any explanation in the instructions as to why they have provided spare turrets? Is there some subtlety in the framing between variants?

Aeroclub did do the type C turret, and I have picked up another from somewhere - perhaps MPM Hudson? There was also one on the Minicraft RAF Ventura, but I never saw that. What was missing on the Matchbox example was that the turret simply wasn't deep enough: only the front part was provided. Presumably in aid of having it movable for junior modellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Y3 code is of 518 Sq., which became 202 Sq. postwar. There were Met Mk.IIIs built, or perhaps converted, and operated by 518 (and others) but there don't seem to be any pictures. The postwar Mk.VIs were, from available photos, all in BC colours. That site has a habit of presenting profiles in generic form, as the aircraft would have been, rather than based on actual evidence. The Q code letter is not given in the aircraft listed in All the other squadrons... I believe this example is generic/wishful thinking, though I'd like to be proven wrong.

The GR units, 58 and 502, also had Mk.IIIs by 1945 but then were operating at night in mainly Norwegian waters, so were in the BC black camouflage.

Some info on 518/202 here:

http://www.ulsteraviationsociety.org/#/met...ghts/4537747370

Two examples of 518 squadron aircraft: RG831 (Y3-H) crashed in Lough Neagh in 1948 and carried black undersides etc. And RT923 (Y3-A) crashed at Aldergrove in 1949 and was painted in white/grey. Both those were Hercules engined Mk III aircraft though. So even post war some still had black undersides.

If anyone can explain how I upload photo's here PM me and I'll ( attempt to)put some Halifax stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. Y3.A is the aircraft in the photo in the Warpaint, although not identified as RT923. It was 202 Sq by 1949, I think.

Photo 3 in the Ulster site is clearly taken on the same mission as that in the Warpaint described as Fighter Affiliation. A few publicity shots for the unit makes more sense.

The ones in Gibraltar later are usually described as Mk.VI: I wonder if they kept the two types on separate bases because of the different engines, or whether there was a mix?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I built the Matchbox version years ago I found that the turrets in the kit were too thick to enable much interior detail to be included - particularly the "mid upper'" on the B1 II and so used the alternatives - I think from Aeroclub and Falcon?

Edited by miduppergunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miduppergunner: I'm not interested in competitive modelling, so you are unlikely to see any of my Halifaxes on the board. Assuming I actually finish any more this decade - with only four finished Halifaxes in fifty years the prospects don't seem promising! You look to have done a good job with the Matchbox kit, although from the rear view it hides the worst flaws around the engines and nose - the latter presumably sorted by the Falcon parts. Perhaps you did address the other issues, they just can't be seen.

Paul: I enjoyed the review, and particularly recommend that you brought out the fine surface detail, something no-one else has commented on. I think it could have been improved by saying which specific variants the kit did offer, and which came as unused options, or not at all, although these have been discussed in this thread and others. I think the 3-blade propellors seem to have rather more wrong than just the tips, I think they should be meatier nearer the roots, and I'm afraid there is not, as yet, any aftermarket replacements. Hopefully they won't be long in appearing. This is the first view I've seen of the boxart, and it would have been worth pointing out how smoothly curved the radiator lips appear rather than the squared-off kit parts - the art appears closer to the original. Re the wing bombbays: White Ensign do already produce parts for this, based on the Airfix kit, together with much more etched brass that should apply equally well to this kit.

Alex: the bombs are to the prewar design, but I believe they are 500 pounders rather than the 250 pounders which (I think) come in the Heyford kit. I'm unsure whether the Heyford bays can take the larger bomb - suck it and see, but don't attempt more than the 3,500lb max payload of the Heyford would have permitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Graham. The postman handed the kit to me about 7 hours ago, and because I wanted to get the review up today I didn't have the time to research all of the possible options. I'll be building mine in the new year though, probably once Eduard have released the inevitable tranche of photo etch details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There looks to be a very wide range of options. Even so, there were more there to be found. A pair of twin Vickers for the Mk.I side positions would have been wonderful - and very usable on a lot of other kits!

Just to satisfy one of my queries, can anyone tell me what part 112 is supposed to be? Could it be - surely not - a Preston-Green ventral gun position? Or is it the parachute hole for an SOE or Airborne variant? Either way, very welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the bomb load used to "upgrade" the old Matchbox/Revell Heyford kit? Or is it a different type of bombs?

Alex

Looking at the bomb bay in my Heyford, the centre bomb bay appears to have larger central sections with smaller outer sections, so I suspect these would quite easily fit 500lb. The problem will be is that the bomb bay is only deep enough to hold 'half' a bomb, they aren't full bombs, so use of weathering agent to give the illusion is quite important:

DSC02406.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miduppergunner: I'm not interested in competitive modelling, so you are unlikely to see any of my Halifaxes on the board.

I don't do competetive modelling either Graham, however I am inspired by the builds that people do on here, so I like to contribute to this inspiration for others with my builds. Without a gallery of members builds, i wouldn't visit here that often !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps competitive was the wrong word - let's substitute comparative. Unless the subject is of particular interest (such as a French Halifax), I never look at the in-progress or made-up models. I would visit just as often were there no galleries. I am inspired by the subject matter not by what other people can do with it. For me, the value of a discussion board is the transfer of information about the originals and assistance in judging the relative value of the the available models. A good modeller can make a silk purse from a sow's ear; I know that I can't, but hopefully I can make an inaccurate model look rather more like what it is supposed to look like.

I can see the value of showing a photograph to illustrate a point - as with the Heyford above. But as far as putting up a photo of a model just because I can.... it has less than no appeal. Research and discussion is for everyone, but the actual modelling is a separate matter. Everyone has their own approach, and that's mine.

Edited by Graham Boak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked through my stash of aftermarket items and found I have a Halifax " Z " fairing that was made by a company called CANOVAK. I had ordered these from the UK back in the late 80's, through MilSlides.

I also have two sets of Aeroclub 4 bladed props, 4 props in each. I should be able to get 4 good ones out of them, as a few arrived badly bent. I also have 1 set of 3-bladed props, too.

Included in my stash are 3 sets of the Galley radiators and a pair of the Mk.V Dowty undercaggiage legs.

Though the products are not available, you can see most Aeroclub items here: http://www.joesmodels.com/a_product_listing.html

Chris

Edited by dogsbody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Woody,

thanks for the picture. I was hoping it could replace the small bombs outside, since they are better visible. Maybe I will build the bomb bay scratch, we'll see... btw very nice Heyford you made!!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the value of showing a photograph to illustrate a point - as with the Heyford above. But as far as putting up a photo of a model just because I can.... it has less than no appeal. Research and discussion is for everyone, but the actual modelling is a separate matter. Everyone has their own approach, and that's mine.

I wasn't critisising Graham, just giving a perspective. There's lot's of people who benefit from your technical input Graham including me, your contribution is very much appreciated :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Woody,

thanks for the picture. I was hoping it could replace the small bombs outside, since they are better visible. Maybe I will build the bomb bay scratch, we'll see... btw very nice Heyford you made!!

Alex

Cheers mate,

The Heyford smaller bombs are 19mm in length (and I ssume 250lb), it would be interesting for someone who's bought the Halifax to measure the bombs in there, as you say, they may fit. I'm not sure what the capacity of the wing pylons was, perhaps they could accomodate 500lb, in which case, you'll be safe anyway !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps competitive was the wrong word - let's substitute comparative. Unless the subject is of particular interest (such as a French Halifax), I never look at the in-progress or made-up models. I would visit just as often were there no galleries. I am inspired by the subject matter not by what other people can do with it. For me, the value of a discussion board is the transfer of information about the originals and assistance in judging the relative value of the the available models. A good modeller can make a silk purse from a sow's ear; I know that I can't, but hopefully I can make an inaccurate model look rather more like what it is supposed to look like.

You've perhaps highlighted both the problem and the solution in one go there - a reticence to share your own work because of, if I'm reading this right, a self-perception about a shortfall in skills ("A good modeller can make a silk purse from a sow's ear; I know that I can't"), while equally professing little interest in absorbing and learning from the work of others that may be of value in raising those skills. I'm interested in how you can make an inaccurate model look rather more like what it is supposed to look like, its a pity that amongst fellow modellers - who are happy to share their work across a spectrum of skill levels - you lack the confidence or self belief to share those skills on a forum about modelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to digress a little further but I find this accuracy issue irritating from the point of view of making models. I see it as a deterrent!

It is clear that there are probably no kits that are completely accurate and most have a number of failings. I can perceive the reasons for this - primarily cost! Whilst it may not be anymore costly to produce an accurate kit than an inaccurate one - it is costly initially to "examine" the original aircraft (if there is one) in sufficient detail from which to produce drawings etc. to produce the accurate kit. I suspect few manufacturers do anymore than work from a plan that is already available, without checking its credibility, and some photos.

I like to produce as accurate a rendition as I can. But I find frequently that the more you delve into this area the more of the kit you can end up discarding, or replacing with AM parts - which makes a bit of a joke of the purpose of buying the kit on the first place. It seems sensible to me then that I should be ready to compromise - and this I indeed do. I can appreciate a well built model that may contain a host of inaccuracies as much as one that may be the subject of much remedial work. As well I can benefit from techniques that remedy failings in the accuracy.

Hence when people like Graham indicate ( "I can make an inaccurate model look rather more like what it is supposed to look like" ) .that this their forte I would appreciate seeing how! I would like to compare my effort - where I know the warts are - with another where the accuracy issue has probably been more intensely addressed.

But rivet counters worry me not - all W & P frankly!

Edited by miduppergunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...