Revell Halifax Options

[Howard of Effingham]

the worst of the faults with this kit is by far the nacelles.

a resin set to correct this fault alone is going to be costly.

i should say that i did see and handle a test shot of this kit at the model club i go to shortly after SMW2011

and before the kit was released by revell, but decided to say nothing at the time as i had no means of

proving what i had seen. you wonder now if anyone noticed this fault [with the nacelles] at SMW and told the

revell rep's there and then, with the made up example they had on their stand that it was wrong.

still in the last few days, i have been wondering a couple of points on this kit.

#1 has anyone from the britmodeller community contacted revell to say what's wrong with this kit?

#2 one wonders how aware revell are of the on-line response to this kit, so far?

as for a bias against the halifax, well its more likely to be a bias against handley page and modelling the

a/c they designed. who knows? i don't.

i am though very glad that revell have done a new tool halifax and i think that we oughta be very glad of that.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Howard of Effingham

[CarLos]

as for a bias against the halifax, well its more likely to be a bias against handley page and modelling the

a/c they designed. who knows? i don't.

I wouldn't mind a (slightly) inaccurate V/1500.

[Wayne rc]

Paul AH, I know we are off topic here but the new revel

[Ken]

the worst of the faults with this kit is by far the nacelles.

i should say that i did see and handle a test shot of this kit at the model club i go to shortly after SMW2011

still in the last few days, i have been wondering a couple of points on this kit.

#1 has anyone from the britmodeller community contacted revell to say what's wrong with this kit?

#2 one wonders how aware revell are of the on-line response to this kit, so far?

as for a bias against the halifax, well its more likely to be a bias against handley page and modelling the

a/c they designed. who knows? i don't.

i am though very glad that revell have done a new tool halifax and i think that we oughta be very glad of that.

I sent an e-mail to Revell with a link to this site and in particular to the comments regarding the Halifax. Personally I doubt if they will respond and even more, I doubt if they will correct the faults.

Ken

[pigsty]

Disclaimer: this reply comes from someone who will buy a Lancaster and a Halifax only if a new and good Stirling also appears this side of the end of the world.

The definitive Halifax, to me, has Hercules engines (I know this is irrational!) just as the definitive Lancaster has Merlins. I'm therefore relieved that the wings and engines appear to be built around the Hercules rather than the Merlin, although I do of course sympathise with everyone who wanted this to be the last word in Merlin-engined Halifaxes. The other mistakes seem less catastrophic and, who knows, in the sixty years or so that it will take me to whittle away the stash, I may be up to fixing them.

I don't share others' pessimism about whether Revell will listen to the complaints. They did go back over the 1/32 Hunter to amend the ailerons, albeit only in a new variant, and they did this even though the Hunter was reputedly a slow seller and "everyone knew" that there wouldn't be any more after the FGA.Mk.9 because of that. They even junked their original Fw 200 and gave us a much, much better new one a couple of years back. It may take some time, but I suspect the message will sink in and, in a few years, a rather nice range of round-engined Halifaxes may turn up and surprise us. And hopefully a corrected outer wing for the Lancaster might be nearby. At that point I might well be in the market for both.

[woody37]

Now if they was to bring out the Z Nose and sort the engines out while they're there, I can speak of at least one happy chappy here

[miduppergunner]

I sent an e-mail to Revell with a link to this site and in particular to the comments regarding the Halifax. Personally I doubt if they will respond and even more, I doubt if they will correct the faults.

Ken

And so did I .... so at least there are two of us. I am minded also to write direct to the Top Man but am making one or two enquiries at the moment to see if there is a short cut, so to speak. Correcting these faults will be costly and if word gets out then the sales of the present offering may well be dismal. Although I feel that Revell may well have ben careless but just possibly the nacelles in particular might be due to assisting with the production of another version (but that does not explain the ailerons. That being so then I cannot see them making corrections. Perhaps instead they will issue vouchers for the AM parts?

[AWFK10]

Disclaimer: this reply comes from someone who will buy a Lancaster and a Halifax only if a new and good Stirling also appears this side of the end of the world.

The definitive Halifax, to me, has Hercules engines (I know this is irrational!) just as the definitive Lancaster has Merlins. I'm therefore relieved that the wings and engines appear to be built around the Hercules rather than the Merlin, although I do of course sympathise with everyone who wanted this to be the last word in Merlin-engined Halifaxes. The other mistakes seem less catastrophic and, who knows, in the sixty years or so that it will take me to whittle away the stash, I may be up to fixing them.

I don't share others' pessimism about whether Revell will listen to the complaints. They did go back over the 1/32 Hunter to amend the ailerons, albeit only in a new variant, and they did this even though the Hunter was reputedly a slow seller and "everyone knew" that there wouldn't be any more after the FGA.Mk.9 because of that. They even junked their original Fw 200 and gave us a much, much better new one a couple of years back. It may take some time, but I suspect the message will sink in and, in a few years, a rather nice range of round-engined Halifaxes may turn up and surprise us. And hopefully a corrected outer wing for the Lancaster might be nearby. At that point I might well be in the market for both.

I think it may depend whether the issue with the nacelles was a genuine mistake or whether it's the result of a deliberate decision to produce two variants of the Halifax with the smallest possible investment, by using as many common parts as possible - even if that meant compromising on accuracy. If it's the latter, we'ld have to assume that Revell weighed the sales they were likely to lose among the enthusiast market against the additional sales they thought they could make to the majority of modellers by offering two distinct kits, and made a cold-blooded commercial decision that the compromise would pay off. If so, they're not likely to be moved by complaints. I'm in no position to say that's what did happen, of course, and you could argue that the other faults, such as the undersized wheels and inaccurate ailerons, tend to suggest that it's simply down to carelessness. I do think that, sooner or later, Revell will issue a reasonably accurate Hercules-engined Halifax, albeit still featuring the other, less drastic, faults. I wonder if that's where they expected all along to make most of their profit from these moulds.

[SeaVenom]

the worst of the faults with this kit is by far the nacelles.

a resin set to correct this fault alone is going to be costly.

i should say that i did see and handle a test shot of this kit at the model club i go to shortly after SMW2011

and before the kit was released by revell, but decided to say nothing at the time as i had no means of

proving what i had seen. you wonder now if anyone noticed this fault [with the nacelles] at SMW and told the

revell rep's there and then, with the made up example they had on their stand that it was wrong.

still in the last few days, i have been wondering a couple of points on this kit.

#1 has anyone from the britmodeller community contacted revell to say what's wrong with this kit?

#2 one wonders how aware revell are of the on-line response to this kit, so far?

as for a bias against the halifax, well its more likely to be a bias against handley page and modelling the

a/c they designed. who knows? i don't.

i am though very glad that revell have done a new tool halifax and i think that we oughta be very glad of that.

Maybe but I think the most noticable fault is the prop blades. Instead of pandering to the Aftermarket....Revell should tool up the correct blades.

Agree that despite the inaccuracies it's still great that Revell chose to do a new Halifax though.

[woody37]

So... to sum up (and to save wading through 9 pages of opinions) what ~exactly~ is wrong with this kit please ?

Minor issues:

H2S Radome is wrong shape - easily replaced from spares or build with miliput

Slab in front of cockpit appears a little 'too' slab like - easily corrected with miliput

Wheels wrong size ? - not noticed this myself, but mentioned.

Astrodome looks too high at rear of cockpit - not much you can do, but I'd live with it (perhaps cut it off and make ones own)

Minor / Major depending on view point -

Ailerons wrong, would have to scrach new ones

Major

Nacelles far to big - only solution is to replace them some how

Props wrong shape - Hamilton instead of Rotol

Hubs also too big

IMO, it's the nacelles that are the only real stumbling block, for now probably less work to use the wings / engines off the Matchbox kit than try to start hacking things away

[chaddy]

Now if they was to bring out the Z Nose and sort the engines out while they're there, I can speak of at least one happy chappy here

You and I both!

[Wayne rc]

Paul AH, Sorry my post went wrong earlier, yes the new Revell B 17G is as bad even worse than the Halifax, and the faults even more difficult to correct IMHO, ie the nose tapers to much and the plexiglass as a result is way too small, the wing chord is way too thick esp at the root and there is almost no dihedral, and the cowlings look wrong, I built the 1970's B 17F, and this had a much better resemblance, What gets me is the fact we have pretty good Forts from Hasegawa, and Academy which is the same moulds as the newer Airfix, You would think that B 17's would be a bread and butter kit for a major company..... And I would'nt consider an important aircraft like the Halifax an obscure or esoteric type......... I understand that many modellers don't mind forking out a fair amount on upgrades for an old or limited run kit esp on more obscure types...... I didnt know that the older Matchbox Halifax was the same as the Revell one that has been on the shelves a while.... Im sure that the old Airfix would turn out nicely with a bit of work, and or resin upgrades.... But an all new tooling in the 21st century should not need major surgery just to make it look like the prototype......... Is it down to Airfix to show proper respect to British classics ? Its a shame that it seems that the majors ie Tamiya Hasegawa, Fujimi, Revellogram, consider British types other than the Spit, Lanc, Mossie, and at a push Typhoon and Tempest and Beau, to be esoteric types...... Well Byron from the US doesnt seem to think our beloved Brit subjects unimportant, so what the heck ! What is wrong with you Revell, we all know you can make kits that build fine OOB or at least provide a good canvas for the more dedicated who would never expect 100% perfection. But it seems crazy to have to resort to cross kit the old Revell (MB) to make a half decent model...... I have no problem with doing that with older kits. But latest hot from the molds, no way !

[woody37]

I hope Graham Boak is OK, I was expecting him to contribute to this thread. If you're there Graham, let us know you're OK.

Cheers

Neil

[thx6667]

Correcting these faults will be costly and if word gets out then the sales of the present offering may well be dismal.

Revell are most likely going to be selling this kit in the tens of thousands, the number of people who are going to be interested by the alleged errors will probably be a small fraction of that. I would suggest the vast majority are not going to ever hear that "word" nor indeed be bothered if they did.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[Ken]

You and I both!

And up goes the cry "John Adams, where are you when we need you most ? " :-))

Interestingly enough, I did a quick search on the Big H's site under "Halifax" and only the new Revell kit appeared - no Revell re-release of the Matchbox kit !!

Ken

[miduppergunner]

Revell are most likely going to be selling this kit in the tens of thousands, the number of people who are going to be interested by the alleged errors will probably be a small fraction of that. I would suggest the vast majority are not going to ever hear that "word" nor indeed be bothered if they did.

HMMMM ... could have worded that better - what I meant was that if Revell let it be known (perchance to dream) they had taken the observations on board and they were going to make corrections then the present offering would not be taken up by as many, as there would be those who would await the new tooling. But whilst certainly some of the errors mentioned do not fall in the category of "alleged" but are "fact" I still do not expect Revell to take any action to correct such errors as can be sustained. Certainly the kit will sell and sell very well. As does the Sun Newspaper as an example.

I now do not care, in truth. Because they are inexplicable I would like to know why Revell chose to produce the kit with these errors - one tends to think there is a purpose - but the ailerons do defeat my imagination in this respect. I recognise that to some my criticisms of the kit and Revell generally seems blasphemous, and to blaspheme the Gods is a nasty form of cleverness.

[thx6667]

HMMMM ... could have worded that better - what I meant was that if Revell let it be known (perchance to dream) they had taken the observations on board and they were going to make corrections then the present offering would not be taken up by as many, as there would be those who would await the new tooling. But whilst certainly some of the errors mentioned do not fall in the category of "alleged" but are "fact" I still do not expect Revell to take any action to correct such errors as can be sustained. Certainly the kit will sell and sell very well. As does the Sun Newspaper as an example.

I now do not care, in truth. Because they are inexplicabley I would like to know why Revell chose to produce the kit with these errors - one tends to think there is a purpose - but the ailerons do defeat my imagination in this respect. I recognise that to some my criticisms of the kit and Revell generally seems blasphemous, and to blaspheme the Gods is a nasty form of cleverness.

Best way to find out "why" is to ask Revell at SMW!

It's a more than fair point to contact Revell and point out the (discussed) errors, if only that it gives them a record of what people have found wrong with the kit, but beyond that I think any notions that somehow "word" from a few forums with make or break the kits wider reputation is somewhat optimistic.

Far from "blasphemy" (sic) this thread has ably demonstrated how to constructively critique a kit without the emotional hyperbole and grandstanding that would have happened had it come out of China.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[FZ6]

Well I've taken a saw to one of my Revell Nacelles and had a g at correcting it. It looks a bit rough at the moment but I'm pleased with the results. I could start another thread with this if it would make it easier to find but thought I would post it here.

First of all I reduced the with of the nacelles from the join lines. Unfortunately I tool off too much plastic and had to build it back up a bit. Once I was happy I joined the two sections together.

I then split the radiator into four sections along the centre and along the panel lines as shown and remove a section from the centre.

The nacelle was then joined together and filled out with plasticard where I cut it too much plastic off and reshaped it top and bottom to get it more circular.

Below you can see where the wing fairing needs blending in as well as the filling that is required.

Comparison photos are shown below of the Original Revell nacelle, the corrected one and the Matchbox one.

Here we have a shot of the lower wing with the nacelles loosely fitted in place. This shows off the difference in width perfectly. The corrected outer nacelle will actually fit inside the unaltered inner nacelle.

The next step will be to try correcting the inner nacelle. This will be a bit more work as I will also need to adapt the landing gear bay to fit.

[Greenshirt]

It's a more than fair point to contact Revell and point out the (discussed) errors, if only that it gives them a record of what people have found wrong with the kit, but beyond that I think any notions that somehow "word" from a few forums with make or break the kits wider reputation is somewhat optimistic.

Over on FSM, which I consider less a forum for sharing serious research knowledge and more for just jabbering by modelers, this thread began but there is no discussion about accuracy. Just when will the kit get here, and gee it has so many options. Yes, I subscribe; but many months I wonder why.

I suspect that even in today's internet world, the "word" won't get out about how inaccurate the kit is until it's printed in the major mags with all the work needed to correct it. Since it was mentioned, their B-17 kit was built in a mag recently not once, but twice, and absolutely NO ERRORS were noted in the kit's accuracy by either modeler. It was just a great build, it was, with all the detail, blah blah blah.

I too, was looking forward to the release of this kit. Unfortunately IF I buy one I'll wait until the market is saturated and the price is low enough to justify the AM (if any) or at the least the corrections needed to add the Matchbox wings. I have the Granger drawings and a cursory look makes it obvious what's wrong.

With the current technology/ability to rapidly prototype and even "print" the prototype for confirmation, seems Revell could have made one, or even two, and provided it to one of the very knowledgeable folks here for a confirmation of accuracy. Now that they've produced a few tens of thousands I doubt they'll fix the drawings (CAD) much less the tooling.

Tim

P.S. I feel better now.

[Greenshirt]

Well I've taken a saw to one of my Revell Nacelles and had a g at correcting it. It looks a bit rough at the moment but I'm pleased with the results. I could start another thread with this if it would make it easier to find but thought I would post it here.

I for one would like to see this in a thread titled "Revell 1/72 Halifax Corrections". I would not consider wading through 100+ posts to find the details needed when most of the thread is about how inaccurate it is.

Tim

[woody37]

That certainly looks better Mark, you've been pretty busy there, great pics.

The radiator looks too deep in proportion at the moment after cutting everything down, but it's moving in the right direction. With a section out of the wing, a resin insert could be made to correct the entire nacelle including the top fairing, although these aren't going to be cheap. That said there's going to be very few alternatives if we want an accurate (ish) Halibag.

I'm impressed with your progress Mark, but at the same time I'm daunted by what would lie ahead if I went down this route

Mark I'm with Tim, you're doing some great work here, so perhaps a new thread would be really useful.

I'm going to go down the complete wing graft and will join that thread so there are a number of options we can experiment with.

Edited January 3, 2012 by woody37

[occa]

I am in the process too of doing a similar approach to make them smaller through cuts at the right places, unfortunately I have no camera, maybe I will try to scan my results but that will take a few days ...

I have started with the radiator housing, so far I am only at 1.2 mm narrower ... two more cuts will bring it to the 14.5 mm of the Matchbox kit, then comes the height ...

FZ6 that's a very good idea to start a thread about corrections to this kit.

Edited January 3, 2012 by occa

[miduppergunner]

Best way to find out "why" is to ask Revell at SMW!*

It's a more than fair point to contact Revell and point out the (discussed) errors, if only that it gives them a record of what people have found wrong with the kit, but beyond that I think any notions that somehow "word" from a few forums with make or break the kits wider reputation is somewhat optimistic.**

Far from "blasphemy" (sic) this thread has ably demonstrated how to constructively critique a kit without the emotional hyperbole and grandstanding that would have happened had it come out of China.

*I understand from someone I know he did and just got a shrug of the shoulders in reply!

**Well as I said two of us on here have contacted Revell and highlighted this Topic. Certainly it would be wildly optimistic to expect Revell to be even mildly affected by these observations and any "make or break" rather pointless - this exercise on my part is not for 'revenge' but "why".

[FZ6]

That certainly looks better Mark, you've been pretty busy there, great pics.

The radiator looks too deep in proportion at the moment after cutting everything down, but it's moving in the right direction. With a section out of the wing, a resin insert could be made to correct the entire nacelle including the top fairing, although these aren't going to be cheap. That said there's going to be very few alternatives if we want an accurate (ish) Halibag.

I'm impressed with your progress Mark, but at the same time I'm daunted by what would lie ahead if I went down this route

Mark I'm with Tim, you're doing some great work here, so perhaps a new thread would be really useful.

I'm going to go down the complete wing graft and will join that thread so there are a number of options we can experiment with.

I'll start a new thread with the corrections.

I agree about the radiator looking too deep. I still need to do a bit of work on the engine but i'm waiting for the Plastic weld to cure. I need to curve the top of the engine cowl at the front and build it up on the bottom effectively lowering the spinner slightly. I also think I'll make the radiator intake lip a tiny bit thicker as I think this will help with things. Once I've got the first one right I need to do another three to match. I'll look at doing the inboard one tomorrow.

[Seahawk]

Agree that despite the inaccuracies it's still great that Revell chose to do a new Halifax though.

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.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Seahawk