Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

iain.. ipms north somerset

revell 1/72 shackelton aew 2

Recommended Posts

Rich,

Could you just clarify for us as the expert, is the lower nose profile on an MR Mk. 2 deeper than an AEW MK.2, even looking at the wikipedia side views above that seems to be the case. I too would love to come and have a look at WR963 "inside and out" and bring my Dad who worked on Lancs with me. That was also an interesting point that each of the remaining AEW aircraft had it's own set of drawings, what a nightmare for the techies.

When do you plan to get WR963 back in the air and how much money do you need? (is that Greek bloke still hanging onto the few he bought?Last I heard they were getting dustier by the year at Paphos in Cyprus what a shame).

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

i often wonder when an aircraft is developed using public money, for government use who actually owns the copyright.

but maybe i look at it to basically as my tax money was used, like everyone elses.

cheers

jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was lucky enough to get a look inside WR963 during the summer, I was in the area on business and took the opportunity to visit. Sadly the timing of my appointment meant I had to leave before the engines were run later in the day, but I will be sure to pay another visit next year.

Cheers,

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

not the air museum then where Rich ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its great that we are going to get at least two different models of this aircraft to chose from next year. Only time will tell which will be the best model. Judging either of them now would be pure speculation at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This prooves that my previous post suggesting that this was all a bad coincidence was incorrect.

Judging by the comments above, both Airfix and Revell would have known what each company was up to!!

If Revell had difficulties accepting the differences between the tail dragging MR. 2 to nose geared MR. 3 than I'm buggered to know why they charged ahead with this, considering how much easier it would have been to tool up other large aircraft such as a Herc.

Oh well - the proof will be in the pudding.. (quite an apt pun for this time of year).

Merry Christmas and happy Shack modelling.. Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Not bashing airfix.....

but surely revell are technically only updating their range, they do have the old frog molds/moulds.

No different than airfix bringing out the new blenheim in my eyes.

Cheers

Jerry

Share this post


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

Using factory drawings may get you a factory fresh aircraft but few remain as such and Service Modifications can soon change that. Also you need a modern CAD monkey who can READ the drawings, not just scan them and believe they are correct. I have met many CAD types who don't understand why the words "DO NOT SCALE" appear on old fashioned hand drawn blueprints and the initials NTS alongside a dimension are also beyond their comprehension. This is one reason the laser scan is becoming popular - checking the accuracy of their understanding of old drawings.

<Aeronut, an old school draughtsman>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

To answer a few more questions...


Radar (Ian) -

the nose profile on the wikipedia three view is incorrect. Its an image that has been modified from the MR3 side profile, making it deeper than it should be. On the full size aircraft, the fuselage frames were unmodified, with just a small fairing ahead of the bomb bay to put the scanner dome on for the AEW conversion. The radar itself was hung on a scaffold frame from the front weapons mounting points, with a hole cut in the bomb doors for the scanner to poke through. The full length MR2 doors were cut down by a third, and a false bulkhead added to mount hydraulic rams on in order to ensure the rear two thirds of the bomb bay doors remain operational.

We planned on a five year timescale to get WR963 back in the air. Cost will come down to some NDT tests we have scheduled for the wing. If it passes, around £750k will see it done from start to finish. If the NDT is a resounding failure, we have to start looking at a rebuild of the wing and the cost heads well into seven figures.

The Cypriot owner of WL747 and WL757 is still hanging on to them, the remains of WR967, and all the spares he had. We keep asking about them every now and again, with no result so far.

You would be more than welcome to visit and bring your Dad. If he worked on Lancs, he will be right at home - there's a lot of Lanc DNA in the Shackleton.

Brewerjerry (Jerry) -

The design - and copyright for it - belonged to the manufacturer, and they develop the designs and submit them to meet a specification published by the government. If the government accept it, examples of the aircraft are then built that are purchased on behalf of the taxpayer, so if you were paying taxes in March 1954 your tax money did help buy our Shackleton for the RAF back then. It won't have paid for it to be drawn up.

We paid for the individual aircraft in 1991 (so the taxpayers money was repaid on a tired, 40 year old, obsolete aircraft) and for the design rights from the descendant company of the manufacturer in 1993. There's another Shack currently for sale, and we're bidding on that too.

Arachnid -

We're in the Air Atlantique/Classic Flight compound, at the west end of Coventry Airport. Follow the signs for "Airbase Classic Flights" or the DC6 Diner to find us. Postcode is CV8 3AZ.

Aeronut -

Airfix's man is a very talented bloke. As well as the individual frame and rib draings, we supplied lofting tables for each part. We also have the modification lists, and drawings for each modification, up to around Mod 1400 or so, but going that far into detail is a bit over the top unless you're going flying! We also have the last 12 sets of AEW Mk2 drawings, so in theory you could create a specific example of a 1971 fresh from conversion AEW2...

Kind regards,

Rich

Edited by richw_82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. We don't do barriers around our Shackleton!

Merry Christmas,

Rich

I can attest to this, I was privileged to be at Coventry Airbase on (I think) Sept 27th when 963 did an engine run & short taxi, fripping awesome. !!!! I was amazed at how close up & personal it was to get to the planes there & although access to 963 was limited I guess due to the forthcoming engine run, I could still peer into bomb bays, wheel wells etc, magic stuff. Thanks for being part of a show like this Rich, it was pure bliss.

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't do barriers around our Shackleton!

Back in my RAN Historic Flight days we had a similar policy until we had to pull the engine on our second Sea Venom

to fish a tennis ball out of the intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

27th September was a bit different as we heven't taxied WR963 in a while. Normally we get everybody off the aircraft 45mins before an engine run up in order to get things ready - pre-oiling, fuel priming, etc. (And check for the above mentioned things like stray tennis balls. Owch.)

Regards,

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to hear the comments from Rich regarding how rude (and clueless) Revell were.

If their Halifax and Lanc are anything to go by, there will be no dihedral to speak of, oversize / incorrect engines and undersized landing gear. The Airfix Lanc in comparison is spot on to my eye, and a lot less delicate. If I do buy the Revell kit, it will only be for the Decals and AEW bits to bolt on to the Airfix frame.

WV908 - with the Revell Halibag still sat solemly in bits, a Revell Lanc scrapped and three Airfix Lancs on the go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to hear the comments from Rich regarding how rude (and clueless) Revell were.

It's certainly an interesting 50% of the story. I don't suppose it'll happen but I'd love to hear what Revell have to say in response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

27th September was a bit different as we heven't taxied WR963 in a while. Normally we get everybody off the aircraft 45mins before an engine run up in order to get things ready - pre-oiling, fuel priming, etc. (And check for the above mentioned things like stray tennis balls. Owch.)

Regards,

Rich

I'd sort of worked that out from comments from folk there, heck, who knows, we might have even chatted. :) It certainly wasn't a problem as far as I was concerned, there was more than enough to keep us (my son & I plus a cousin we were staying with near Brum) happy. Seeing the Venom come in & taxi close by was a huge thrill too.

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats where Revell missed a trick. They could or should have gone for a new tool Halifax with Radials at least and ditch their Merlin variant.

Any mention at all in there of a Hercules engined Halifax please?

As I understand it, they are/were planning a B.Mk.III utilising the old Mk.I kit with additional and new sprues. Last September, I was asked if I could provide any decent air-to air shots of Halifax B.III's for the new catalogue. I could only find one which I sent off. I have heard nothing since but got the impression that Airfix were aware of Revells plans which is why they, Airfix, opted to re-issue their old B.Mk.III kit with new decals - the first in fifty years - thus snookering Revell for choice, who were planning on releasing their Mk.III with similar decals plus decals for "Friday the Thirteenth".

It would appear from the above discussion that they may have dropped it.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old Revell. It seems Airfix is well and truly within their decision-making loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all!

I don't understand this very long Conversation of models that are not produced and not in your hands. And I also don't understand this posting, on which planet I live? Let us be happy that our Hobby is not dead and customers like Revell, Airfix and other bring new and old models every year. Udo.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Not bashing airfix.....

but surely revell are technically only updating their range, they do have the old frog molds/moulds.

No different than airfix bringing out the new blenheim in my eyes.

Cheers

Jerry

Both Airfix Blenheims are completely new kits, owing nothing to the previous effort.

And Revell has never tooled a Shackleton before as the old MR.3 they marketed for a while was, as you say, a Frog kit, and furthermore a Frog kit of an aeroplane with very few parts in common with the AEW.2.

So I guess I don't understand your point. Care to elaborate?

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Airfix Blenheims are completely new kits, owing nothing to the previous effort.

And Revell has never tooled a Shackleton before as the old MR.3 they marketed for a while was, as you say, a Frog kit, and furthermore a Frog kit of an aeroplane with very few parts in common with the AEW.2.

So I guess I don't understand your point. Care to elaborate?

I think he means that Revell is just making new tool kits of previous released kits with ancient tools, just like Airfix is doing. Even if they are released as new different marks of a given subject

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am not interested in the politics though do appreciate others have a vested interest in what has been said / done as there is a financial implication. On a personal note, I have more confidence that Airfix will produce a more accurate kit based on recent experience, but no point in speculating until we see the plastic. As modellers, we should be celebrating, especially given the festive period.

So lets have less of :argue:

And more of :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Cheers,

Bill

I know this is waaay off topic, so I'll get my equalizing apology in first. Navy Bird, I congratulate you on an amazing signature. 'Better Things' is an amazing and underrated song. The Fountains of Wayne cover is amazing. I bought the Kinks original in its double 45 format in a gatefold sleeve and still have it.

Getting back on topic. Having worked as researcher in the music business, I know a little bit about copyright, it is normally the branding, logo and name rights that are protected - the is the case with models from the film 2001 you can make kits of the model but you can't reference the name used in the film, that is why Moebius called 'their' recently produced Pan Am Orion III Clipper a "Space Clipper" and included no decals or reference to the film, much as Airfix did 46 years ago, but they did include Pan Am decals. Hence why one has to the permission of Boeing and the like to call it a Boeing 747 for example. I'm happy to be proved wrong but I would be extremely surprised if a 60 plus year old aircraft copyright was lodged as an entire entity in the first place, never mind renewed. the individual designers (there would be a number) IP would have expired by now.

For example I have a massive record, tape and memorabilia archive for a well known band including unheard music and unseen graphics, I'm entitled to own them, but it does not mean I own the copyright and put them in the public domain - I can't!

It a massively complicated area - I however, suspect no matter how unsavory it may sound Revell probably know what they are doing if the foregoing is correct.

Marty...

Edited by marty_hopkirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this has got quite heated over an aircraft that is not mainstream, in my original post I asked why have Airfix gone for the MR2 version, unless like their Valiant they are going to do an update set with the parts and decals to build an AEW2.

Why they don't just do one boxing with both versions as an option and add a few quid onto the price I don't know, I can't see them selling thousands of these things. I think us modellers as a whole have been spoiled of late and even if the Revell

people were rude to the preservation group, which there is no excuse for, I will still buy Revell kits as among there error infested offerings they have produced some gems (Tornado for one) and if either manufacturer does a kit I would like to build

I will buy it. My point is if any kit manufacturer does a kit of something that has only been available as a vac form (for example the AIMs Hastings in my case, 6 months of sanding,filling and fettling to get a reasonable result) good luck to them, but please listen to the people who are going to buy these kits and do the version that they want.

Cheers Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we are seeing what comes of years of Lincon rumours from Airfix? giving Revell benefit of doubt, maybe they decided to go with the Shack (in its most well known form) thinking Airfix would follow through with a Lincon? :-B

festive cheers, Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...