1/32 Lancaster - Do We Really Want It - Or Would Something Else Have Been Better?

[Iain Ogilvie]

I like your thinking Tom

Halifax before Stirling though...

Iain

[Troy Smith]

My only concern with HK releasing the Lanc is the accuracy of the kit - there are a whole wealth of glaring errors with the HK B-17. Providing that HK does the proper research, the Lanc could be a big hit.

Hi Rich

I don't 'do' 1/32nd, so I have no opinion, but I was under the impressiong the B-17 WAS properly researched.

from http://www.modelingmadness.com/spl/hk17.htm

Allow me to reassure you. Having created a working relationship last year with Neil over the controversy that attached to the release of the 1/32 B-25J, I suggested to him that a kit like this, which would be gone over by the Very Serious Modelers Indeed Brigade with a fine-tooth comb, would benefit from the assistance of Subject Matter Experts among the modeling community during the design phase, who could review the design while it was still in the computer and easy to revise before cutting any metal. Neil quickly agreed with this idea and asked me to put together such a group, which I did. (No, Wumm, I’m not getting a percentage of the profits for doing this; I’m getting an accurate B-17 model, just like you.) The team of SMEs included Jennings Heilig; the detail-obsessive ChukW; Lynn Ritger; Modeling Madness’ own Steve Towle; Ray Ferriss and Mike Kellner, who are involved in the restoration of an actual B-17; Geoffrey Hays, who has been involved with “Shoo Shoo Baby” at the Air Force Museum; Matt Swann; Chris Bucholtz; and Terry Dean. Additional assistance was provided by Guillermo Rojas Bazan, whose incredible all-metal 1/15 scale B-17G has amazed everyone who has ever seen it. We were able to provide detail photos from several existing B-17s, as well as accurate drawings.

Perhaps the most important thing the group accomplished was to discover that H-K had used the Aero Detail drawings for their initial design. These drawings may look wonderful, but they are far from accurate; the only set of drawings that show the wildly-inaccurate Hasegawa 1/48 Spitfire IX to be “correct” are those found in the Aero Detail book on the Spitfire. With accurate drawings, the CAD design was rescued without further problem.

So, what's wrong with HK B-17?

a quick search turend up this thread, http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=44013&page=3 , in which you post.

I'm sure others will be interested to know more.

cheers

T

[PhoenixII]

Aaaaahhhh yes but one can dream

:rofl:

BUT,

You can ALSO get tablets!!!!!!!

[MilneBay]

:rofl:

BUT,

You can ALSO get tablets!!!!!!!

But .... but ...... but ......... I don't want the voices to go away ......... they tell me nice things ........

[PhoenixII]

But .... but ...... but ......... I don't want the voices to go away ......... they tell me nice things ........

DAMN!!!

and here was me thinking they were ALL mine !!!!!!!!!

[wunwinglow]

Troy, the most easily spotted issue with that B-17 kit is the fuselage contours ahead of the windscreen. This has been made as if all the cross sections are circular, when in fact they are slightly flattened down on the top. Not much, but the error makes the wind screen panels a bit shallow. On a smaller scale it would hardly notice, and be an easy fix, but on such a large model it will need a bit more work to fix; if you think it is worth the effort. But even unfixed, the kit is still undoubtably a Flying Fortress......

Tim

[Brad-M]

As much as I like the Lancaster, I can't see it being a big seller, and I really don't think HK Model's B-17 will be a record in sales either. It costs a lot of money to buy, so I can only imagine how much it costs to tool the thing. My LHS wants $379 for the B-17. Yes I can get it online, but the shipping to Canada is expensive, at least where I have checked. I would gladly see the HK Lanc project cancelled, if it meant that the Mossie would be next

Cheers

Brad

[colin]

I think they have too much invested already to just cancel it

[Mike]

On 27/10/2013 at 14:29, Troy Smith said:

Very Serious Modelers Indeed Brigade

That's just plain funny. plane funny?  There's got to be a better acronym surely?  It might be best to PM me with any rude ones

 

TBH it's a bit of a specious argument, as those that want it will say "yes" and those that have got their noses bent royally out of shape by it to the stage that they're actually offended by its very existence will say "no", as will those with no horse in the race if they can be bothered to tap on the correct keys and press Submit.  No minds will be changed, so we might as well all go

[gingerbob]

Just a public service announcement that the two posts prior to mine are the first on this thread for FIVE YEARS.  Please bear that in mind before responding to somebody's comment you've just read!

 

bob

 

p.s. I still think 1/32 four-engined bombers is silly.  But offer me a 1/48 Spruce Goose and I might have to consider a second mortgage on my soul!