Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Mike M

Revell Halifax Options

Recommended Posts

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.

You are 100 percent correct, and the problem was my own lack of understanding. I had always presumed the 'Z nose' to be a description of the early turreted Halifax, for fairly obvious reasons. However, less than two minutes searching on Google revealed that you are, of course referring to the Tollerton fairing, or Z nose.

The initial sprue shots did indeed show a Tollerton fairing which does not appear in the more recent photos displayed here. Perhaps RoG felt that the cost to add a third scheme would boost the overall price into a higher tier, resulting in decreased sales figures???

In any event, please forgive my ignorance.

Byron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't share or even understand the attitude that using aftermarket to improve a model is somehow making a joke of buying the kit in the first place. They are a short cut to a better model - as is buying a kit rather than a sheet of plasticard and doing it all yourself. I'm not looking forward to having to reshape 12 (or 16) propellor blades on the new Revell Halifax, knowing that this will only produce a better but still inadequate approximation: I'd prefer to buy replacement parts that look more like the originals, and improve the spinners at the same time. I did it on the Matchbox kit, so I've nothing to prove in the way of perseverance or skill, but once is enough.

Thanks for the amateur psychology but don't give up the day job. Consider that I have been modelling for nearly sixty years, and give me sufficient credit to have used this time to develop some idea of what is good, and how this compares with what I am capable of producing with my own skills and (importantly) the time I am willing to spend on any one subject. Like Elizabeth Bennett, I am quite certain that my skills could have been better were I willing to dedicate more time to improving them, but I'd rather spend my time on other things. I accept that this may be biased by being the other side of 65. Time spent increasing my skill level seems less like a good investment, particularly where other peoples' ideas of what makes a good model differ from mine. This does not mean that I refuse to extend those skills under all circumstances: I suspect you (JM) are confusing this with my attitude to pretty pictures of made-up models, partially or whole. If I may quote from a book I was reading today:

"Modellers tend to copy other modellers and so mistakes multiply."

The reference is actually to railway modelling, but the principle applies across the board. For anyone interested in accuracy as a prime driver, the sources must be the originals, not other people's Nth generation derivatives.

Which takes me to the suggestion that others could learn from my modelling approach. The techniques I use are simply those of looking at what is available, thinking about it, and applying knife, file, filler and drill. Plus whatever other tools are appropriate. Where I have found any particular hint or tip, I have been willing to share it on the net as appropriate, but I fail to understand how looking at my finished models helps anyone in this direction. I reserve the qualification that at times where a detail is being considered, a picture may be worth a considerable number of words, but generally I prefer the words, being less open to distraction. Throw in some traditional British reserve over blowing one's own trumpet; and rather than publishing photos of models of doubtful merit, the one great piece of advice I can give is simply expressed in words.

BUY THE BOOKS. And think about what you are reading/looking at. Just because it has been repeated in many books, that doesn't make it right.

Can we now get back to discussing the Revell Halifax? Which still hasn't appeared in my local LHS, so I'm stuck with distant interpretations. I'm getting really frustrated that I can't get at those squared-off radiator intakes to see just what can be done to save them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we now get back to discussing the Revell Halifax? Which still hasn't appeared in my local LHS, so I'm stuck with distant interpretations. I'm getting really frustrated that I can't get at those squared-off radiator intakes to see just what can be done to save them.

Sure ... but like you I have not got the new kit - and am not planning to purchase one at the moment. Like you I am well past 65 - have many interests that rank in priority over plastic modelling, but unlike you, have as well, a bit of a problem assembling other peoples handiwork. Shooting myself in the foot perhaps?

But please, when you have seen the kit, do share you ideas for saving parts. And although I have quite a bit of material on the Halifax, could you disclose your sources (it sounds as though you have a substantial library). For example is the Granger plan reliable? Or the Kent one in the Warpaint Book?

It does seem that like Airfix, Revell are raising the standards and that is most encouraging. Clearly plastic modelling is very much here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect you (JM) are confusing this with my attitude to pretty pictures of made-up models, partially or whole.

Not at all, I'm merely quoting the disparity of your own words, that you have no interest in viewing or learning from others modellers or their techniques, but equally express that you cannot "make a sows purse out of a pigs ear". Its nothing to do with "Modellers tend to copy other modellers and so mistakes multiply" or "pretty pictures", its skill sets and techniques to produce models (accurate or otherwise) rather that the actual model per se - in that regard I've learned more about high gloss finishes from car modellers and their models than aircraft, and I don't build cars.

I'd disagree that those who do take the time to share their efforts are "blowing one's own trumpet" just as I'd disagree that the armchair musicians become white noise after a while. If people didn't aspire to do better, and share how they did it, we'd be making 21st century kits to 1960s standards of modelling.

Edited by Jonathan Mock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we perhaps have a separate philosophy and psychology of modelling thread somewhere else please, maybe in Chat? At the moment this thread should be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we now get back to discussing the Revell Halifax? Which still hasn't appeared in my local LHS, so I'm stuck with distant interpretations. I'm getting really frustrated that I can't get at those squared-off radiator intakes to see just what can be done to save them.

Sure ... but like you I have not got the new kit - and am not planning to purchase one at the moment. Like you I am well past 65 - have many interests that rank in priority over plastic modelling, but unlike you, have as well, a bit of a problem assembling other peoples handiwork. Shooting myself in the foot perhaps?

But please, when you have seen the kit, do share you ideas for saving parts. And although I have quite a bit of material on the Halifax, could you disclose your sources (it sounds as though you have a substantial library). For example is the Granger plan reliable? Or the Kent one in the Warpaint Book?

It does seem that like Airfix, Revell are raising the standards and that is most encouraging. Clearly plastic modelling is very much here to stay.

The plans that I supplied to Revell (as did others) were those of both Granger and Marriott with, I think, the Marriot having more details. As far as I can remember, the Marriot drawings were published by Nexus in what was then Aeromodeller to 1/144th. scale and covered all variants. What nobody seems to have done with the Revell kit is to actually check it against these plans for accuracy in this or that area

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ken - that is helpful - must admit I had assumed that some comparison with plans had occurred, given the depth of the discussion etc.

I am also interested in your comment about supplying plans to Revell. I was "investigating" the evolution of a model and got into some interesting revalations. I wonder if you would mind enlarging on that please? PM if you prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more observations please on the contents of the box - and likelihood of a WIP please. Sorry if this seems pushy but the LHS (who I try and support) is still awaiting a delivery I am quite interested in this kit. A rare event as some will know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got mine delivered today, along with some 2000lb bombs for the MkIII to acompany some Ex Lanc 500lb.

I'll be building it in the new year though, promised the missus I'll have a break and free the dining room up !!!!

It's a big box (almost twice the thickness of the Lanc box) and the best way I can describe it is just like the Lanc, beautifully detailed, just those ruddy props to deal with.

Hopefully someone will get some masks out soon to make life easier. Very excited about building this, the bomber command shelf is growing quite well :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got mine yesterday, very nearly started it today but have a few things to finish off first. If it builds as good as it looks in the box I'll be very happy and will end up buying more

Scott C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just picked up one of these today myself and I'm really impressed by the kit options with the only downer being the prop blades but I presume someone lie Aeroclub or quickboost will be along th the rescue with some replacements at some point.

I have a Revell reopop of the Matchbox Halifax in the stash which I'd to convert into a Coastal Command aircraft with an Aeroclub Z nose and had replacement Aeroclub and Falcon bits lined up for it. I'm almost tempted to ditch it and use these parts on the new Revell kit but may hang on to it for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone tried offering up the Airfix Hercules-engined wings to the new Revell fuselage?

I have been pondering the same thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bomb doors are also represented as single items per side rather than being split, so they will need cutting up if modelling them open or at least re scribing if they are left closed. The H2S fairing is included and there are two large Boulton Paul twin gun mid upper turrets, which are not too bad and look like they may be somewhere near the correct shape, ie not completely round in plan view, but longer and more pinched in at the front where the guns project out. For some reason there are two of the very similar nose turrets too, so my Italeri Hudson will be receiving one of these!

I thought this too Tony, however on closer inspection, they're not. The outer section of the doors are moulded into the fuselage with deep scores to easily remove them, only the inner doors are moulded seperately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps,

I've just got one of these in my greedy mitts and on the whole I'm mighty impressed with the detail included, especially at the price.

I have no plans of the Halifax so I'm afraid I can't enlighten you as to its accuracy or not. Further to the issues that have previously been noticed on this thread, has anyone else noticed the shape of the H2S fairing? Did it really come to a point at its aftmost extremity as portrayed in the kit? It may have done but it's therefore different to previous renditions of both Lancaster and Halifax, which have a rounded rear end.

As I have no plans, I have no idea if this is 'right' or 'wrong'. Does anyone else have a view?

regards,

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaps,

I've just got one of these in my greedy mitts and on the whole I'm mighty impressed with the detail included, especially at the price.

I have no plans of the Halifax so I'm afraid I can't enlighten you as to its accuracy or not. Further to the issues that have previously been noticed on this thread, has anyone else noticed the shape of the H2S fairing? Did it really come to a point at its aftmost extremity as portrayed in the kit? It may have done but it's therefore different to previous renditions of both Lancaster and Halifax, which have a rounded rear end.

As I have no plans, I have no idea if this is 'right' or 'wrong'. Does anyone else have a view?

regards,

Martin

Martin,

The plans in Warpaint 46 show it coming to a point - but only just and not as sharp as that of the kit part, the plans by Arthur Granger in the much respected Aerodata monograph show it to be slightly blunter, this agrees with the plans in Osprey's Halifax Squadrons of WWII.

It's one of those areas that's really difficult to pick out on photos.

Personally, I think the kit part is to pointed and will be giving mine a quick swipe with a sanding stick when I do my CC aircraft.

Wez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the H2s looks strange, i will be making it more 'bulbous' if I use it. Looking at images of the one on 'Just Jane', I'd say that it's very wrong, however why they would do this beats me. A beautiful model in most respects, but a few glaringly obvious errors that even an amateur like me can see. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if I may suggest that the "errors" could be listed and pinned so that idle chaps like me can consider what remedies we might incorporate? And what versions can be built from the Box. (Ignoring transfers).

Although there seems nothing dramatic I agree that it is curious that manufacturers seem to deviate for no particular reason. Can getting the H2S wrong be any less difficult or advantageous than getting it right? That Revell had the Granger and Merrick plans seems fairly certain and of course there are countless photographs. This seems to contradict efforts made elsewhere with the kit?

Edited by miduppergunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,

Thanks for the replies on the H2S radome. I think my suspicions have been confirmed.

Yep, it's a curious error, and I will be correcting it (together with the prop blades). However, despite the greeblies that appear to have crept in, overall detail wise it appears to be streaks ahead of any of the previous kits of the Halifax available, is a very good price and I for one am looking forward to building it immensely.

regards,

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the replies on the H2S radome. I think my suspicions have been confirmed.

Went into the stash earlier and found my Matchbox Halibag, came back with a set of Mr Aeroclub's 4-bladed prop's, 0.303 and 0.50 cal Brownings and late Gallay radiators. I took a look at the Matchbox representation of the H2S radome - it's very similar to the current Revell boxing insofar as it's quite pointed at the rear end :hmmm: , maybe Revell aren't so wrong after all.

The Aeroclub prop's come come complete with spinners so there's no issue with them fitting the kit spinners, I just need to offer them up to the Revell cowling to see if there's a lip/overlap.

I also need to compare the Aeroclub guns to the Revell, may not use the 0.303's but I don't think Revell give you a 0.50 cal for the CC option - they used these to suppress flak on a run in to bomb/depth charge U-boats, they featured additional internal bracing to take the strain/additional weight.

I don't plan to use the Aeroclub radiators as the kit's are very good.

Wez

Edited by Wez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I study pictures of the assembled model, the more the engines look grossly over size, not just the hubs. I'm comparing the width of the nacelles relative to the fuselage, if you take a similar approach with photgraphs of the real thing, they way to big :(.

Photo's of the real thing appear to show the nacelles tapering in shape from the wing leading edge to the prop, however these seem to run parallel and only begin to taper just before the pro0p if that makes sense. They look like a cross between a Lanc and a Halifax.

I'm sure someone will be more scientific than I !!

Edited by woody37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at dogsbody's links I am also asking about the intakes on the cheeks of the engines.

Anyway they look like a caricature, aren't they much too flat?

Edited by occa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various Halifax H2S drawings:

From the Warpaint booklet:

]WarpaintHallyH2S0012.jpg

WarpaintHallyH2S001.jpg

From Osprey Combat Aircraft No.14, Halifax Squadrons of World War 2:

OspreyHallyH2S0012.jpg

OspreyHallyH2S001.jpg

From Aircraft Archive - Bombers of World Was Two:

KAMerrickHallyH2S001.jpg

And another prop drawing from the same Archive book above:

KAMerrickHallyprops001.jpg

Chris

Edited by dogsbody

Share this post


Link to post
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...