Revell Shackleton, mould damage?

[Bonehammer]

Hi all,

I won a Shackleton in its Revell incarnation, but upon receiving the kit I found out that the surface detail is spoiled by what appears to be damage to the mould surface, possibly rust. Also the plastic 'feels' different than the usual Revell standard.

I can post pictures if you wonder what I'm talking about.

Those of you in possession of the Revell kit can tell me whether they have the same problem?

I wonder whether I have been suckered into bidding for Gomix plastic with the Revell box and decals...

[thepureness]

I remember building the revell kit about 10 years ago, and one thing I remember is some odd colour liquid that had dried on the plastic which I washed off.

it could be possible that their was some rust in the mold as you talking a 40 year old mold being used to make the kit which does need to be considered when feeling the plastic, I think revell re boxed this kit back in the late 90s as well.

[Windy]

I have various Shackleton kits form different manufacturers and they all use the old Frog mould, but the original mould is now in very poor condition and worn out. Revell do/did include a little note explaining that the mould they used is old and not very good quality which inside the kit or on the instructions.

The only decent Shackleton kit I have is a old/original Frog kit, the Revell kit shows signs of some mould damage but the newer Shackleton kits/frog re-issues I have are terrible in comparison the the original.

[falcon]

I had heard a rumour, the mould is now damaged beyond repair as the fuselage parts of the mould have snapped.

Shame really as it is the only 1/72 Shack kit out there but it has seen a lot of action in the 40+ years it has been around.

Glad I have one in the stash.

Edited June 14, 2014 by falcon

[modelldoc]

The kit exist in the hands of ark models.

http://www.ark-models.org/catalog.php?cid=70

It is available.

modelldoc

[Jennings Heilig]

40?? Probably closer to 55 isn't it? About the same vintage as the Airfix B-29 (1963)??

[JohnT]

in the 40+ years it has been around.

.

Make that 50 odd years

I bought one when it came out after walking across Edinburgh twice to get back from the model shop to home and return after conning Mum for an advance on the next weeks pocket money and walking as no extra to afford the bus fare- but I got my Shak.

[Jennings Heilig]

Or even more

Edited June 14, 2014 by Jennings Heilig

[Bonehammer]

Thanks to everyone for the info. Onna related note, could you point me to some pics of the sprue with the flaps in this kit? I can't find anything remotely alike them.

[tony.t]

I bought a Frog Shackleton when it was new out - think it was the summer of 1968 as the *big buy* of 1967 was the Corgi die cast La France fire engine.

IIRC it cost 17s 6d (87.5 new pence) and it was *very* special. Sadly it did not survive the move from Woostock (Oxon) to Bristol (Avon)

I was ten at the time, when the 66Th TRW at RAF Upper Heyford, four miles up the road, was flying RF-101Cs!

Happy Days!

Tony

[Sebastien]

Shame really as it is the only 1/72 Shack kit out there but it has seen a lot of action in the 40+ years it has been around.

Nope.

It's the only 1/72 injected Shack.

Sanger has all variants in 1/72 vac.

But you won't find Hairy Coo Approximatively Accurate Resin Bits for these

[Panoz]

Hi all,

I won a Shackleton in its Revell incarnation, but upon receiving the kit I found out that the surface detail is spoiled by what appears to be damage to the mould surface, possibly rust. Also the plastic 'feels' different than the usual Revell standard.

I can post pictures if you wonder what I'm talking about.

Those of you in possession of the Revell kit can tell me whether they have the same problem?

I wonder whether I have been suckered into bidding for Gomix plastic with the Revell box and decals...

Revell just reboxed kits made in the Ukraine, so it doesn't really matter whether the box says Revell, Eastern Express, Modelcraft, Chematic or

(Noah's?) Ark; they're all the same merde.

And BTW it was originally released in 1967:

http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=157382

Edited July 1, 2014 by Panoz

[tempestfan]

Revell just reboxed kits made in the Ukraine, so it doesn't really matter whether the box says Revell, Eastern Express, Modelcraft, Chematic or

(Noah's?) Ark; they're all the same merde.

At least Revell released its boxing in 1996, so the mould is a full 18 years fresher than it is today, if it's still in production...

Better check Lines/Hellström for Frog release year, Scalemates have dates wrong in some cases.

[Panoz]

At least Revell released its boxing in 1996, so the mould is a full 18 years fresher than it is today, if it's still in production...

Better check Lines/Hellström for Frog release year, Scalemates have dates wrong in some cases.

True but my point was that the kit inside is the same Ukrainian molded excrement regardless of the box saying Revell, EE, Modelcraft or Chematic (all of which BTW appeared on the market a couple of years after the Revell release.)

The kit is still being produced by Ark (of Noah?).

I have criticized Scalemates many times in the past (check my previous posts) but I don't have L/H (not interested in model kit literature) and they are the only online resource on kit releases dates (no matter how flawed they may be).

[Nick Millman]

First Frog issue F2-type box 1967-1974 - 80,000 kits

Second Frog issue H-type box 1974-1976 - 20,000 kits

Lines and Hellström refer to a possible third variant box as unverified.

Nick

[kev67]

Even more reason for Airfix to release a new kit of the Shackleton in 1/72

[Jennings Heilig]

The chronological age of a tool is far less important than how it's been treated over the years. The box scale Revell USS Missouri has been in continuous production (never once out of the catalog) since 1953 - 61 years. Yes, it's got more flash than it used to, but it's still a perfectly good mold. If a tool is abused while in production, or (probably more important) is not stored properly when not in production, it will not age well.

[Nick Millman]

Following the transfer of Frog assets to the Soviet Union some of the moulds were stored outside during the winter and suffered severe corrosion. But the quality of moulding by Frog was always a bit inconsistent with some notably poorer examples - Beaufort and SB-2 spring to mind.

Nick

[tempestfan]

The chronological age of a tool is far less important than how it's been treated over the years. The box scale Revell USS Missouri has been in continuous production (never once out of the catalog) since 1953 - 61 years. Yes, it's got more flash than it used to, but it's still a perfectly good mold. If a tool is abused while in production, or (probably more important) is not stored properly when not in production, it will not age well.

The fact a kit is in the catalogue doesn't necessarily mean it's in actual production, but merely that there are still enough stocks left - Airfix sold the Rotodyne throughout the 70s using up old stocks of instructions and presumably parts, as the mould never had parts numbers added. In addition, it's always possible that a manufacturer cut more than one mould to begin with or replaced a mould with an identical one over the years (which has probably happened with some Airfix kits). Otherwise, you're of course completetly correct, Airfix had the Typhoon in production for 53 or whatever years, and the Gnat, F-5A, P-40E and Scout can't be far behind.