1/72 - Short Sunderland Mk.V & Mk.I/III by Special Hobby - Mk.I/III & V released

[tony.t]

Apparently, it's all in the roast and the micro-b-bubbles, or that's what it says in the TV commercials. I prefer quality tea — earl grey, lapsang etc. — or diet coke; caffeine without the jitters. 

And American sour mash or Islay single malt. Could never develop a taste for rye whiskey. 

 

Unfortunately the Sunderland kit windows may be a tad too small to replace with hole punched acetate sheet chads, which may be just as well. I was looking forward to this, so will see how people cope with it here, and their valued judgement as to buildability joy. Was tempted by the Italeri, but the panel lines are rather agricultural looking, so have some emotional investment in this kit all working out nicely. 

 

Tony 

[Scooby]

On 3/18/2017 at 4:39 PM, snapper_city said:

 

Not at all. I have been waiting for a Mk.5 for years. My granddad worked on them in North Africa with 95 sqn during the war. I will buy one in a heartbeat when it's released. Keep up the great work.

My grandma built them, when I was a small boy she told me about all the “wee” parts that went into them.

[Vulcanicity]

Fit issues notwithstanding, I'm pretty excited about this. However I'd like to build a late war Mk. III or early Mk. V. Has anyone got theirs yet, and if so can they confirm whether the box contains optional parts for the mid-upper turret, Pegasus engine installation and earlier ASV fit (the mast antennae)?

[Ed Russell]

On 4/10/2019 at 10:47 AM, Basilisk said:

Looks there are some build issues with this kit as can be seen here.

Nothing there that a decent modeller could not overcome fairly easily. Most of the interior could be left out as it's invisible!

[RichG]

8 hours ago, Vulcanicity said:

However I'd like to build a late war Mk. III or early Mk. V. Has anyone got theirs yet, and if so can they confirm whether the box contains optional parts for the mid-upper turret, Pegasus engine installation and earlier ASV fit (the mast antennae)?

I have the kit but not yet tested the fit. Only fondled its beautiful plastic...😋

 

I have to confess I am no Sunderland expert but it looks to be an exquisitely detailed model, hopefully with accurate dimensions and overall shape. The kit has finely engraved panel lines (nothing like the Italeri Sunderland - think current Airfix standard).  The decal sheet is flawlessly printed by Cartograf and includes stencilling. Marking schemes for 2 RAF machines which flew in the Far East in the support of anti-communist insurgent missions in Malaya and Korea, another RAF machine which took part in the airlift during the Berlin blockade and a French machine based at Lanvéoc-Poulmic Naval Base in 1951. I like the fact that there are RAF "Type D" roundels in differing shades of dark blue - subtle but different.

 

The mid-upper turret and its transparency and finely moulded ASV masts are included (not directly referenced in the assembly instructions  and crossed-out on the parts plan). In fact I think parts for different Sunderland variants are there in the box.  However there is only one set of engines, mounts and props included. And I know these were different on the Mk. V. Whether they represent Pegasus or the correct PW engines and fit for the Mk.V I am not sure - I would say they are PW R1830's going by the cowling flaps. It is not something I personally would be able to tell without references. Maybe SH plan a different engine sprue for different boxings? Incidentally I note the small PE fret is marked "Sunderland Mk II, III, V" - so a bit of a clue there...

 

I am sure someone will be along to give a more learned critique of the kit   -  but for me it looks the part and will doubtless form the basis of many fine models of this charismatic aircraft. It has certainly kindled a personal interest in the subject - I lived at RAF Seletar where the last Sunderlands flew with the RAF (albeit 5 years after their retirement). And coincidently a few years later at RAF Gatow in Berlin a few minutes walk from the Havel Lake where these Sunderlands operated during the Airlift. Perhaps I need to order another...

 

Provided any fit issues that emerge are within my ability to correct, then I think in my terms anyway, this is a fabulous kit. 

 

Here is a link to the instructions so you can see what's what  Sunderland Instructions

and the Special Hobby page with the markings Short Sunderland Mk. V

 

Hope this helps - I don't think you will be disappointed.

 

Rich

Edited April 22, 2019 by RichG

[Admiral Puff]

I can confirm that there are no Peggies in this release, just R-1830s (as befits a Mk V). However, it looks as though some earlier Marks are in contemplation, given the large number of "not for use" bits in the box - early and late turrets, both kinds of step, four different upper fuselage inserts, early ASV aerials, etc. Just don't hold your breath, given the time we've had to wait for this one!

[LDSModeller]

6 hours ago, RichG said:

Provided any fit issues that emerge are within my ability to correct, then I think in my terms anyway, this is a fabulous kit.

Hi Rich,

 

Just bear in mind that if doing a Seletar Sunderland Mk V, SH didn't include

the fore and aft main hatch cuts outs for the Crash Axe and Fire Extinguisher.

You can see the Pexiglass cut outs in this Link

Seletar Sunderlands

 

Also bear in mind that SH instructions would have you build the kit with

three portholes at rear of aircraft, when there are only two (aft of wing lower)

Also note the Beam hatch Port is slightly larger - SH have made it the same as the rest

 

SH kit instructions show you to build with three Portholes Starboard side

between main canopy and wing leading edge. There is only one porthole

 

Bare in mind the paint instructions are dubious as well for the interior in places

Having said that enjoy your model

 

Regards

 

Alan

[RichG]

Hi Alan

 

Many thanks. Very helpful advice which I will certainly follow. The portholes also look a little large in comparison with these photos. The porthole frames look quite visible in the last photo so I was thinking of adding frames - either using photo etch or scratch built - to reduce their apparent size.

 

Cheers

 

Rich

Edited April 23, 2019 by RichG

[LDSModeller]

8 hours ago, RichG said:

The portholes also look a little large in comparison with these photos. The porthole frames look quite visible in the last photo so I was thinking of adding frames - either using photo etch or scratch built - to reduce their apparent size. 

Hi Rich,

 

Hopefully the following will help you?

 

The outer "Opening Porthole Ring" is 37 cm in Diameter as per this photo. That equates to 5.1mm in 1/72 scale

 

The Pexiglass Transparency is 30cm in Diameter. That equates to 4.1mm in 1/72

Note all Pexiglass transparencies (including "Non Opening") are 30cm, exception being the Beam Gun hatch

port which is larger

 

Regards

 

Alan

[RichG]

Incredible!

 

👍

 

Thanks again Alan

Rich

[Inverted]

Just picked up the kit from the Scottish nationals in Perth today. Wish I’d checked the box before leaving... decal sheet has been misprinted, so keep an eye out. Hopefully SH will get back to me and be able to offer a replacement ....

 

[keithjs]

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

Just picked up the kit from the Scottish nationals in Perth today. Wish I’d checked the box before leaving... decal sheet has been misprinted, so keep an eye out. Hopefully SH will get back to me and be able to offer a replacement ....

 

Oops, tha'ts not good. If they're any use to you you're welcome to mine as other than stencils and instrument panel etc. I wont be using them on the one I want to do.

[Dave Swindell]

Missing dull red from the roundels & fin flashes? Should be relatively easy to correct with an addendum sheet, but  a disappointment nontheless.

[mick b]

Didn’t think D type rounders were dull red?

 

mick

[Admiral Puff]

Mine are good, and my kit is destined to become a Sandringham, so I'll only be using the instrument panel. You're welcome to the rest.

[Dave Swindell]

11 hours ago, mick b said:

Didn’t think D type rounders were dull red?

They're not, and they're on the sheet photographed above.

The blue and white roundels next to them are supposed to be C type with dull red centres, with the appropriate fin stripes above.

If Admiral Puff's sheet is good, is the dud one a one off that's slipped through QC, or are there more like this?

[mick b]

11 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

They're not, and they're on the sheet photographed above.

The blue and white roundels next to them are supposed to be C type with dull red centres, with the appropriate fin stripes above.

If Admiral Puff's sheet is good, is the dud one a one off that's slipped through QC, or are there more like this?

Apologies I was misinterpreting the post

 

mick

[Dave Swindell]

30 minutes ago, mick b said:

Apologies I was misinterpreting the post

No worries Mick, I had to look up an image of the original sheet to see what was missing, obvious when you see it, could possibly have been explained better but thanks to Inverted for giving us all a heads up.

[RichG]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:13 PM, LDSModeller said:

The Pexiglass Transparency is 30cm in Diameter. That equates to 4.1mm in 1/72

Well I've had me micrometer out to check things out. In fact examination actually spots some variation in porthole sizes visually - to my eye at least. Taking, for example, the main row of 10 on the starboard side starting from the bow  - the first is marginally smaller (4.3mm) than the next three (4.75mm) followed by the next 2 smaller the next 2 bigger followed by a smaller and finally a bigger one - if you get my drift.  I know to some this will represent nit-picking (is nit-picking hyphenated by the way? 🤔)  and whether with such small sizes it matters a jot; but there is something about the eye being able to spot patterns like this... 

Perhaps framing would reduce the size and restore consistency. 

 

On 4/27/2019 at 8:14 PM, mick b said:

Didn’t think D type rounders were dull red?

 

The decal sheet contains two variations of D type roundel, one is in the brighter colours and the other with the same dull red (and blue) as the C type. On the wing of the 230 Squadron Berlin Airlift example the C type is combined with the type D fuselage roundels in the bright colours.  On my sheet and to my eye, the Type D roundels in the duller red actually look the more realistic! Should'a gone to Specsavers 🙂

 

Rich

Edited April 28, 2019 by RichG

[LDSModeller]

On 4/29/2019 at 8:05 AM, RichG said:

Well I've had me micrometer out to check things out. In fact examination actually spots some variation in porthole sizes visually - to my eye at least. Taking, for example, the main row of 10 on the starboard side starting from the bow  - the first is marginally smaller (4.3mm) than the next three (4.75mm) followed by the next 2 smaller the next 2 bigger followed by a smaller and finally a bigger one - if you get my drift.  I know to some this will represent nit-picking (is nit-picking hyphenated by the way? 🤔)  and whether with such small sizes it matters a jot; but there is something about the eye being able to spot patterns like this... 

Perhaps framing would reduce the size and restore consistency. 

Hi Rich,

From what you describe (Starboard side), it would seem SH (apart form the actual size) were

headed in the right direction - Check out my photo below, and explanation beneath

 

If you look at the portholes going from Right to Left, you will see that the first one (with broken red line)

is a non opening Port (you see it as you enter main hatch), then the next three are opening (first two for Lav)

third is the Officers/Main wardroom, the next two non opening still in ward room, fourth opening.

The next three are the galley, first Opening second is

part of galley hatch (hatch opens) third and last opening.

 

In this photo of the ward room, you can see the Third opening Port from the inside, followed by

the two non opening ports - fourth one is out of photo

 

The photo below shows what a Sunderland looks like when the opening ports are removed compared to

the non opening

 

The diameter of the larger ports in above photo is 35cm, which is 4.86mm in 1/72, so there is 2cm

additional area of the port that sits flush with the fuselage.

 

To be honest 0.2mm is not really going to be too noticeable. The 4.75 difference from 5mm might

be, but as you said some framing may help there?

 

Hope that helps?

 

Regards

 

Alan

[Homebee]

In box review and video:

https://www.detailscaleview.com/2019/05/special-hobby-sunderland-mkv-sh72162-review.html

 

 

V.P.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Homebee

[caughtinthemiddle]

And one more in-box: http://www.kfs-miniatures.com/1-72-short-sunderland-mk-v-special-hobby/

[Peter O]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:27 PM, Admiral Puff said:

Mine are good, and my kit is destined to become a Sandringham, so I'll only be using the instrument panel. You're welcome to the rest.

Is the Sandringham a conversion set, or are you scratch-building it?

 

Peter

[Admiral Puff]

It's a resin conversion set, consisting of front and rear fairings, I bought from Peter Mahoney at Hawkeye Models about twelve months ago. I started a scratchbuild many years ago (1981, would you believe ...), but messed up the windows. It's still languishing in the Warehouse of Doom. My scratchbuild was based on an article by Dennis Brignell in APMA Magazine back in 1976, and I suspect the Hawkeye conversion was derived from the same source. If you'd like a copy of the article, pm me your email.

[Ed Russell]

If you are patient, a Sandringham conversion may well happen.

But not that sort of Sandringham  - the Dennis Brignell article (technically) describes a modified Sunderland looking very much like a Sandringham............. but sooooo ugly!