Jump to content

revell 1/72 shackelton aew 2


Recommended Posts

Two Shackletons in one year?? Pinch me! I'm dreaming!!! :lol:

I'm not concerned about two manufacturers producing two different versions of the same subject. The more the merrier say I! Yes, a new Herc would have been just dandy but, Hey Ho! we are where we are. Maybe next year. I don't think Revell will affect sales of the Airfix kit unless Revell comes in significantly cheaper than Airfix. I think personally that nearly £40 is on the high side but how many kits actually get purchased at full r r p anyway? There are distinct differences between both models so, I will definitely have one of each!!.

2016 - year of the Lincoln ?? (or VC-10!!)

Allan

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt very much that the Shackleton Trust would have allowed Airfix full access to their drawings if they knew Reveal were going to be involved. As I understand it Reveal were non too polite when asking for access to the SPT Shackleton, so got no help. The reason Airfix is releasing an MR-2 as that's what they had access to, although admittedly a back dated AEW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense to do the MR2 first as the MR2 Phase III was the baseline airframe for the AEW2 conversion. As for airframe differences between MR/AEW, there was very little. Heavier gauge skinning, fishplates on the bombdoors; and of curse the doors themsleves being cropped between rib 12 and 13. AEW doors are literally cut down MR2 full length doors (you can still see the saw marks!). There's no difference in fuselage profile, nose or elsewhere. Nobody took a laser to WR963 either, as far as I know Airfix worked from the drawings to create their Shack.

Good luck to Revell, as when they showed up at a museum down south with a Shackleton they were most displeased to be told of the huge differences between MR3 and MR2.. they didn't realise how different, in terms of build, panels, and shape it is. MR3 shares tailplane, interior, powerplants and not much else despite the similar shape - which is why it was given a new Avro type number of 716, against the original Type 696.

We're not very happy they've chosen to continue, so they'd better tread carefully. Like it or not, the Shackleton in all its variants is legally our design.

Regards,

Rich W
SPT





  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed there is a lot of negative comments about the price of the forthcoming Shackletons, I think we should be thankfull that after all this time we are getting models that are much needed.

As an aside regarding pricing just take a look at the Hornby site for model railway items, it will send a shiver down your spine,at the cost of some of their items.

Derek

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to them.

As the owners of the Shackleton aircraft design, there's only one we're supporting and its not the Revell item. I'd doubt they can achieve the same level of accuracy without the data we hold.

Regards,

Rich W

Shackleton Preservation Trust

"Me as High Priest from the unique Shackleton Temple of the Avro Church, I declare solemnly in front of the Faithful here united that Revell's designers can't produce a new and accurate Shackleton kit without my God's light."

Have you paid rights to the descendants of Sir Ernest Shackleton?

Come on boy!

V.P.

Edited by Homebee
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of price and manufacturer, its 2 Shackletons !!!!!!!!!!!!!

shut-up-and-take-my-money_zps3bb70fd5.jp

I for one will build both, and if you all would like, I have a ton of shackleton reference to go by, when they arrive i'll do a side by side build

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Me as High Priest from the unique Shackleton Temple of the Avro Church, I declare solemnly in front of the Faithful here united that Revell's designers can't produce a new and accurate Shackleton kit without my God's light."

Come on boy!

V.P.

Not sure what you mean there. Though if the SPT have all the rights to the aircraft, design etc then can Revell go ahead? in these days nearly every kit has some sort of licensing agreement on the box.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean there. Though if the SPT have all the rights to the aircraft, design etc then can Revell go ahead? in these days nearly every kit has some sort of licensing agreement on the box.

Apparently. Remember a few years ago when Welsh Models did 737's but without using the 'B' word? The manufacturer's name was copyright so was not used and Denzil utilised plans in the public domain.

Trevor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey things are getting a bit heavy on here about who owns what rights to what regarding the original aircraft. It is Christmas by the way. For Pete's sake the original aircraft is almost old enough to be copyright laws expired (that was a joke by the way).

Surely Revell are smart enough to realise the difference between a Mk 2 and a Mk 3 , come on really!

Also what is to stop Revell going along to the end of the runway in Paphos Cyprus or Pasedina in America or wherever there are old airframes and just measuring one up? (or lazering it to take a leaf out of Airfix's book).

I'm just highly delighted that we are actually going to get a (possibly two) modern 1/72 version of the aircraft that I will not have to hack about to build a decent representation of.

Regarding the price would anyone like to know how much the Aeroclub conversion set and decals were going for until a few days ago? Looooaaaads of money, alot more that £40 anyway.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, the Shackleton in all its variants is legally our design.

Interesting. Were the intellectual property rights donated by British Aerospace/BAE to SPT or were they purchased?

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I should hope so too! I know it's a hackneyed old argument. but who actually paid for the blessed real things at the end of the day? I'm heartily sick of all this 'we own the rights so you can't have a plastic model of it to play with' from aircraft manufacturers, the MOD & now preservation groups?!! Surely it would be in everyone's best interest's (especially the vast majority of us who frequent BM!) that model manufacturers get as much assistance as possible to get their product as 'right' as possible?

Bah humbug

K

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

RE OP

I see a part of a pics looks like Revell catalogue with a Shackleton in the upper pic and lower a part of another catalogue but no Shackleton pic???

Says post was edited.

They are different pages. The lower one is 1/48.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it would be in everyone's best interest's (especially the vast majority of us who frequent BM!) that model manufacturers get as much assistance as possible to get their product as 'right' as possible?

I agree with that sentiment, however Airfix is getting as much assistance as possible. If the SPT has already promised exclusive assistance to Airfix, it seems only reasonable to honour such an agreement when a competitor comes later to the party.

Cheers,

Bill.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing is precisely why its getting more difficult to persuade those with the rights or archive data to release them.

Someone asked about the rights and how they were obtained - they weren't donated, they were purchased at great cost from British Aerospace in 1993. To our knowledge its the only time BAE have sold an aircraft design in any form, and there were a lot of clauses in the contract about how they have to be managed. Our 'preservation group' has successfully carried out its duties as the Design Authority for the Shackleton for 21 years now, a third of the types existence. This has included supplying information to the MOD and SAAF.


Unfortunately you can be sick of the argument over rights all you want - intellectual property is still property, and funds generated through the usage of it is what will get our aircraft in the air. THAT is our primary objective, not making it possible for a company to make a plastic model, accurate or otherwise.

Basically people are suggesting we should just let anyone crack on regardless, without heed to accuracy or the fact they're using a design (not a logo) that is someone elses property? How far do you think we'd get if we put our own model out but in a blue Revell style box? Not far. Just roll over because we're a 'preservation group'? Never going to happen.

Yeah, bah humbug.

Revell were rude to us, Airfix were the exact polar opposite. Revell then tried to gain use of our drawings through deception via two other third parties; after we'd told them no. Who would you support had it been you to choose? Why should we co-operate given that they wouldn't take no for an answer, and expected us to bow down and lay our 16 tons of archive material and the aircraft keys out before them, at a time as and when they demanded, just for the hell of it?

Despite their attitude problem we were willing to let them look around our aircraft at a time to suit our volunteers, as we don't bar anyone access. They chose not to.

Overall, Revell might be able to make a fairly accurate representation of a Shackleton if they use LIDAR or similar, but only externally and only of that particular aircraft. Over 40 years and several rebuilds they became that dissimilar that they had individual drawing sets for the last 12 AEW2 aircraft. There's only one out there that is any use for this kind of imaging, and that's WR960 in the Museum of Science and Industry at Manchester. All the others have been modified, hacked about, or robbed. As for getting internal detail right and how things fit, I'll remain sceptical.

This is, of course, if Revell manage to grasp the differences between marks. The mention I made earlier that they didn't get the difference between MR2 and MR3 is not anecdotal, it was what happened when they turned up at Gatwick Aviation Museum to look at MR3/3 WR982. Funnily enough they also accused us of of being incorrect regarding Shackleton exhausts, after we answered a question regarding fishtail stubs/exhaust pipes - as our answers didn't match with the extensive collection of 500 Shackleton photos they had to refer to at the time. I wish I was kidding...

This is what prompted my comments about using the drawings for accuracy. I'm not preaching 'Avro' as the only way forward, just that by using drawings, you get a factory fresh unmolested Shackleton, built as initially designed. If they could do it any other way, they would have done it before now.


Regards,

Rich W

High Priest from the unique Shackleton Temple of the Avro Church

Edited by richw_82
  • Like 20
Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing is precisely why its getting more difficult to persuade those with the rights or archive data to release them.

Someone asked about the rights and how they were obtained - they weren't donated, they were purchased at great cost from British Aerospace in 1993. To our knowledge its the only time BAE have sold an aircraft design in any form, and there were a lot of clauses in the contract about how they have to be managed. Our 'preservation group' has successfully carried out its duties as the Design Authority for the Shackleton for 21 years now, a third of the types existence. This has included supplying information to the MOD and SAAF.

Rich W

High Priest from the unique Shackleton Temple of the Avro Church

Interested to know how far the design rights extend. Do you hold material that allows you to copy pilot's notes, release to service information and limitations where the intellectual property rights belong not to BAE but to MoD or RAE and its successor organisations? I would be very careful about design rights and all the other information you might need to get one airborne in case some other organisations take as hard a line as the SPT in protecting their interests.

Peter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you can be sick of the argument over rights all you want - intellectual property is still property, and funds generated through the usage of it is what will get our aircraft in the air. THAT is our primary objective, not making it possible for a company to make a plastic model, accurate or otherwise.

I fully accept your argument about intellectual property rights Rich - in regard to someone coming along and wanting to build another, full size airworthy Shackleton. I wish you & your group every best wish in your primary objective. But as my main interest is sticking bits of plastic together to make a reasonable replica of 'your' full size aeroplane (when it was actually being funded by the tax paying public!), I'd really like to see both Airfix & Revell get assistance to get them both as good as they can - if not from you, then from someone else with a full size machine. And I have to admit, externally is all I personally want - interior detail in something like a Shackleton model is, again to me personally, a waste of time & plastic.

However, now that you've explained about Revell's attitude, I can better understand yours.

Merry Christmas!

Keith

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested to know how far the design rights extend. Do you hold material that allows you to copy pilot's notes, release to service information and limitations where the intellectual property rights belong not to BAE but to MoD or RAE and its successor organisations? I would be very careful about design rights and all the other information you might need to get one airborne in case some other organisations take as hard a line as the SPT in protecting their interests.

Peter

No, although we hold an extensive amount of AP manuals and associated material, they are all Crown Copyright. We had to recently get permission to make a limited run of AEW2 pilots notes for resale. This kind of info is freely available from certain government departments, but as a result quite expensive. A servicing AP will typically cost you around £200 and they will not supply an electronic copy for obvious reasons!

Some organisations do take a hard line, thats why a lot of complex category aircraft cannot get a Permit to Fly in the UK (Lightning, Buccaneer, Jaguar, Harrier) as the manufacturers or descendant companies refuse support. Its very often incorrectly assumed to be the CAA that is the problem.

Regards,

Rich

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully accept your argument about intellectual property rights Rich - in regard to someone coming along and wanting to build another, full size airworthy Shackleton. I wish you & your group every best wish in your primary objective. But as my main interest is sticking bits of plastic together to make a reasonable replica of 'your' full size aeroplane (when it was actually being funded by the tax paying public!), I'd really like to see both Airfix & Revell get assistance to get them both as good as they can - if not from you, then from someone else with a full size machine. And I have to admit, externally is all I personally want - interior detail in something like a Shackleton model is, again to me personally, a waste of time & plastic.

However, now that you've explained about Revell's attitude, I can better understand yours.

Merry Christmas!

Keith

Thanks Keith.

We do our best to help anyone, but the approach from Revell was not a good one by any means, and they failed to understand (or maybe ignored?) that we had another company involved already with a committment in place to them. I know what you mean regarding the full size and the model, but the issue is in the design itself - not the scale. We walk a fine line in what we can do and what we can't do, or risk handing everything back to BAE due to the terms of the 1993 contract of sale of the rights. To do so would doom WR963 never to fly again, what with how close we're getting would be tragic.

Once you get a model in your mitts (Airfix or Revell), come over to Coventry one Saturday and we'll let you crawl around WR963 to get your model as good as it can be, and have a good chat about all things Shackleton over a coffee.

The above offer is open to anyone else too. We don't do barriers around our Shackleton!

Merry Christmas,

Rich

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...