New Airfix Lancaster vs rivals - photo comparison

[Work In Progress]

For anyone who hasn't seen it, over on Hyperscale there's a very useful three-way comparative kit review, with copious photography, of the new Airfix Lanc vs the Hase and Revell. Well worth a look.

http://www.hyperscale.com/2013/reviews/kits/airfixa09007reviewmd_1.htm

The one sentence take-away: Airfix is best for accuracy, and while the panel lines are still a little heavy at least they're not excessive in number as on the other two.

[modelldoc]

Very helpfull, thanks a lot.

modelldoc

[Jennings Heilig]

I don't understand the last part of the last sentence. How are the panel lines "excessive" on the other two, when they're both pretty similar and pretty spectacular IMHO. They're **far** superior to the extra wide, extra deep Airfix panel lines, that (again, IMHO) completely ruin what would have been an otherwise nice kit. I've got several of the current generation Airfix kits, and the panel lines on every one of them are deep enough to make them look like toys to me. The shapes are nice, and the price is certainly nice, but the finesse is totally lacking.

[Work In Progress]

I haven't examined all three kits side to side so this is not my judgement, I am only going on what I understand the author of the HS piece to be saying, which is this:

Because both the others have many panel lines where there should not be panel lines. They've used them to denote where there are lines of rivets connecting the middle of a panel to the underlying structure - which is as wrong on a Lancaster as it is on a B-17 - instead of using them to denote actual demarcations between panels.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Work In Progress

[tomprobert]

Jennings - I think the reviewer is referring to the fact that Hasegawa and Revell have placed a panel line whenever there is a row of rivets, rather than where panels actually meet, and thus the amount of panel lines on the two kits is 'excessive'. Airfix, on the other hand, have only added panel lines where they are found on the real aircraft.

I'm building the new Airfix kit as we speak, and to be honest I think they'll be fine under a layer of paint. Time will tell

[Mike]

completely ruin what would have been an otherwise nice kit.

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times - don't exaggerate

[Jennings Heilig]

If that's your idea of exaggeration... but it *does* ruin an otherwise nice kit for me. I just can't get past panel lines that look like they belong on the side of a road.

Re the other kits - that is the very first peep I've *ever* heard about their being panel lines where there should be rows of rivets on either of those kits. You'd think that in the 8 years the Hasegawa kit has been out and the (??) 4-5 years the Revell kit has been out, *someone* would have mentioned that before now?? Both the ESCI and Italeri C-47 kits have suffered from that malady for 30 years, and nobody but me ever seems to take notice or care (that it ruins the look of both of them...).

Edited June 25, 2013 by Jennings Heilig

[scorpiomikey]

Its good to see Airfix finally stepping up to the plate.

I hope they rehash some of their older rarer kits in a better quality (DH Comet Racer to start with.)

[Aero Imageworks]

no panel lines, only 'trenches'. The mad riveter at Airfix from the early days has been replaced by the crazy trench cutter.

[Work In Progress]

However, he is as nothing beside the mad Italeri trench cutter, so let us be grateful for that.

[scorpiomikey]

Dont forget the dragon trencher.

[Work In Progress]

Mmm. So, apart from the Matchbox, Italeri and Dragon trench-men, there's none as mad as the Airfix one.

Except, of course, for whoever did the Hasegawa He-111, which is not far off the Italeri Sunderland.

Having said that, I hope Airfix continue to make progress towards toning it down. The Spitfire I was overdone: I built one as it stood, and filled in most of the panel lines on the second. The P-40B/C was a bit excessive too, and that's one I shall also fill in.

Encouragingly, the new Typhoon is a lot better than either of those earlier kits, and I shall build that straight out of the box. And the newer-still Gladiator is very good indeed for panel lines (yes, lots of fabric I know, but there's enough metal around the nose for a judgement to be made).

Edited June 25, 2013 by Work In Progress

[Paul J]

All this talk of panel lines reminds of an article in a well known modelling mag where a modeller made a Lancaster kit and scribed in "panel lines" where rivets should be much as has been described above. It was Ok but I don't think many here will go along with it. I didn't.

[Ed Russell]

As someone who has actually filled panel lines and done their best to re-educate Italeri, I'm a bit bemused by this trash talk above about trenches. Leaving aside kits of an earlier generation, the worst example I have seen is the Hasegawa Heinkel 111. The worst I have actually tackled is the Italeri Sunderland. I have hopes their Stirling will be much better. I have to agree with Jennings above that the disconnect between reality and model is best shown by the DC-3 kits. Lines of mushrooms have turned into recessed lines.

It can be deceptive looking at photographs - depending on the angle they are taken at and the light available they can look worse (or better) than they actually are due to shadowing or flaring. I would be reluctant to comment on the panel lines in a kit without actually seeing it. I have an Airfix Lancaster and I don't think it's that bad at all in terms of panel lines. I looked at a test shot of the Minicraft Mariner recently and the lines are so fine they will pretty much disappear under a coat of paint but they looked quite pronounced in pictures.

[andy s]

I have just started building this kit and think it is very good,the surface detail will look fine under a coat of primer.The plastic is nice and soft which makes it easy to sand and the detail is excellent with far and away the best wheel wells of any Lancaster kit and even perforations on the gun barrels! At £24.99 I think it is very good value but the main plus for me is the accuracy of the general aircraft shapes especially the nacelles,well done to Airfix and roll on the BII and bomb loading set

[CarLos]

Anyone compared the shapes of the old (well, 2nd) Airfix Lancaster with the new one?

I simply prefer raised or no panel lines at all to exaggerated trenches.

[Anders_Isaksson]

On 6/26/2013 at 1:16 PM, CarLos said:

Anyone compared the shapes of the old (well, 2nd) Airfix Lancaster with the new one?

I simply prefer raised or no panel lines at all to exaggerated trenches.

 

Bringing up this old topic as I was curious about the 1980s Airfix Lancaster compared to their new tool offering.

 

I also tend to favour the more restrained (albeit raised) panel lines of the older kit, but what about the rivets?
Would it be better to remove and replace them with a riveter, or perhaps keep the rivets as is and replace them with HGW positive rivets where they might disappear during construction?

[noelh]

On 5/9/2019 at 11:20 PM, Anders_Isaksson said:

 

Bringing up this old topic as I was curious about the 1980s Airfix Lancaster compared to their new tool offering.

 

I also tend to favour the more restrained (albeit raised) panel lines of the older kit, but what about the rivets?
Would it be better to remove and replace them with a riveter, or perhaps keep the rivets as is and replace them with HGW positive rivets where they might disappear during construction?

I just happened to have dumped the old Airfix Lanc in the bin the other day but retrieved it and compared it to the current Airfix Lanc. The old kit has rows and rows of rivets and a few finely raised lines. Relatively restrained for the time and easily reduced. The new kit has no rivets at all just those slightly overdone panel lines. 

 

I too have no problem with finely raised panel lines. They often work well visually at the distance we view them. 

 

[Anders_Isaksson]

23 minutes ago, noelh said:

I just happened to have dumped the old Airfix Lanc in the bin the other day but retrieved it and compared it to the current Airfix Lanc. The old kit has rows and rows of rivets and a few finely raised lines. Relatively restrained for the time and easily reduced. The new kit has no rivets at all just those slightly overdone panel lines. 

 

I too have no problem with finely raised panel lines. They often work well visually at the distance we view them. 

Thanks Noel, agreed an all counts.

Forgot to say I once had the new tool Lancaster but after getting aftermarket etch and decals I realised I couldn't live with those panel lines. True, not quite Matchbox style but still.

 

Now I'm about ready to have another go at the Lancaster but with the 1980s release. Will ponder the rivet problem a bit more...

 

[noelh]

Yes the old one still builds well unless you are as ham-fisted as me. Hence the disposal.

The panel lines on the new one are wide, I think scaled up they'd be 2cm wide on the real thing. 

Still I like the new kit. 

[304th BRAT]

Have to say I like both and am waiting for the mk2 to be reissued.

[elger]

12 hours ago, Anders_Isaksson said:

 

Forgot to say I once had the new tool Lancaster but after getting aftermarket etch and decals I realised I couldn't live with those panel lines. True, not quite Matchbox style but still.

 

 

 

 

I feel exactly the same - the main reason I haven't built it is that those panel lines are very off-putting.

 

Even though I know objectively that Revell's surface detail is inaccurate, it just looks so much better. But that kit has a lot of other inaccuracies which are found in the wings / engine nacelles, but this has made me consider buying a Revell lancaster and just using the fuselage parts mating it with the Airfix wings (and reducing the panel lines on the Airfix wings somehow).

[Anders_Isaksson]

41 minutes ago, elger said:

...this has made me consider buying a Revell lancaster and just using the fuselage parts mating it with the Airfix wings (and reducing the panel lines on the Airfix wings somehow).

That sounds like a plan. Too much work for me to even consider,  though.

On the other hand, the old Airfix Lancaster is most certainly no shake and bake - rivets or no rivets.