Jump to content

1/72 - Avro Shackleton AEW.2 & MR.3 by Revell - AEW.2 released - AiM MR.3 conversion set


Homebee

Recommended Posts

My only niggle is that the test shot is ruined by the massively over done panel lines/post shading, otherwise it looks nice... I'm not into accuracy, so long as it hasn't got a glaring issue I'm happy. I can understand where Rich is coming from though after having the real deal to play with :)

Edited by Radleigh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that somewhere along the line, someone decided an MR3 is "the same" despite all published sources and the evidence by way of the aircraft itself showing it blatantly isn't? You say that if you were asked to measure an aircraft you may get it wrong. Thats acceptable. Measuring the wrong mark of aircraft - then trying to pass it off as correct - isn't. You measure one of the type you intend to make.

It's a failure to fully understand the subject. It's fair enough, it happens. Kit manufacturers can't be experts in every aircraft ever made and will often reproduce what is in front of them without being certain about what it is. After all wasn't it Airfix that produced a Blenheim with Bollingbrooke features, a mongrel if you like, because they didn't understand the differences?

Yes Airfix have made a fully accurate kit and so they should, they've had everything laid out for them by yourselves and have effectively been spoon fed all the information they needed. Given the utter lack of assistance Revell have had they've done a pretty damn good job imho. Could it be better? Of course, but luckily the errors have been resticted to relative trivialities such as panel lines and aeriels.

And yes, my Airfix Shack is here first too, and is still unstarted. Mainly because I can't get get too excited about a kit where step 1 is to get in touch with Airfix customer services all to get the clear parts replaced, because of the 1/72 scale bird-poo-style inclusion in the main canopy, with step 2 being the filling of all the sink marks down the fuselage and step 3 the repairing of the short shot wing. Airfix may have won the accuacy battle but they're becoming a bit of a one trick pony. It takes much more than that to make a decent kit and all their other failings will probably lose them the war.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Airfix have made a fully accurate kit and so they should, they've had everything laid out for them by yourselves and have effectively been spoon fed all the information they needed. Given the utter lack of assistance Revell have had they've done a pretty damn good job imho. Could it be better? Of course, but luckily the errors have been resticted to relative trivialities such as panel lines and aeriels.

Revell have only themselves to blame for the lack of assistance on their Shackleton kit. I'll reserve further judgement until I see what the MR.3 looks like because I have a sinking feeling that they are planning to re-use the wing from this AEW kit (with its MR.2 planform and MR.3 panel lines). They need a totally new set of wing panels to give an accurate MR.3 wing with the reduced trailing edge taper outboard of the dihedral break. If they actually do this, they won't have saved anything by putting the wrong surface detail on the AEW/MR.2 wings. If they re-use the AEW wings, I suspect that there will be a run on FROG wing parts as these are at least dimensionally accurate,

Also you talk about Airfix being spoon-fed information as if that's a bad thing. The Airfix team knows how to design model kits, it's unrealistic to expect them to be experts on every or even any kit subject they produce. You should give them a lot more credit for finding and reaching out to the experts on the Shackleton kit and many of the other subjects they have released and are working on for next year and the years after.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know squat about the Shackleton and I wasn't surprised as such that the Airfix kit didn't make me a convert. This Revell kit though seems to be a potential game-changing kit; surface detail is absolutely amazing and while I won't be buying it at full price, I will eventually get this kit because of the detail it offers. It looks like an amazing build.

Yes, I'm a bit of an accuracy philistine. I suppose there's accuracy issues with the kit, but then again, which kit doesn't? It looks like a stunning kit and after their courageous decision to do a C-54, I'm very happy Revell has the guts to do another unexpected big 72nd scale release.

In 2017, can we get a new Constellation with this level of detail please?

This reminds me of the difference between precision and accuracy in engineering. The Revell Shack surface detail on the wings is precisely inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Airfix Shackleton kit!

Ah, but the Airfix kit omits loads of surface detail that the Revell kit does have, so in that sense it is less accurate ;) Apart from that buying an Airfix kit is a bit like russian roulette at the moment, particularly when this kit is concerned.

To be fair to Airfix they made a great kit as well, the detail on their Shackleton represents a major step forward for them especially in terms of panel lines quality, which you can also see on some of their other recent kits. But Revell's stuff blows it away and when properly painted and subtly weathered could give an awesome effect. I personally think the test build is done rather well in that regard but nothing is more subjective than weathering.

Of course it's all a bit premature as Revell's kit still isn't out. It may have some horrible issues we're not aware of yet!

This reminds me of the difference between precision and accuracy in engineering. The Revell Shack surface detail on the wings is precisely inaccurate.

But very pwetty too :D

Edited by sroubos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the internet wasn't around during the Middle Ages. Just think of the theological arguments they would have had, pages and pages of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin*, which pinhead are you using, male or female angels, do they have rivets, err, I mean wings, etc. Still, if this keeps us out of trouble, then it can't be all bad. I take a wait and see attitude. I suppose I take a middle ground (which is unusual for me) when it comes to accuracy - gross inaccuracies such as patently bad shapes, I don't tolerate, but a panel line where it shouldn't be (or one missing where it should), I can live with.

Regards,

Jason

*87

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but the Airfix kit omits loads of surface detail that the Revell kit does have, so in that sense it is less accurate ;) Apart from that buying an Airfix kit is a bit like russian roulette at the moment, particularly when this kit is concerned.

To be fair to Airfix they made a great kit as well, the detail on their Shackleton represents a major step forward for them especially in terms of panel lines quality, which you can also see on some of their other recent kits. But Revell's stuff blows it away and when properly painted and subtly weathered could give an awesome effect. I personally think the test build is done rather well in that regard but nothing is more subjective than weathering.

Of course it's all a bit premature as Revell's kit still isn't out. It may have some horrible issues we're not aware of yet!

But very pwetty too :D

In 1/72nd scale, there really should be no surface detail at all. The most accurate way to depict panel lines and rivets would be to draw them on.

You'll get no argument from me that Airfix need to improve their QC, but the three Shack kits I bought have no QC issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I would really like an MR 3 to be done and done well.

Maybe if Revell and those with plans and manuals had a positive rather than negative approach to one another, many of us be very happy.

Remember its nearly Christmas, so lets have some appropriate Spirit!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm a bit of an accuracy philistine. I suppose there's accuracy issues with the kit, but then again, which kit doesn't?

The Airfix Shackleton kit!

Well, you could argue all those panel lines on the Airfix kit make it innacurate...

But then we're getting into degrees of accuracy, a dangerous area.

No kit out there is 100% accurate, so accuracy has to be in the eye of the beholder ... modeller :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revell have only themselves to blame for the lack of assistance on their Shackleton kit. I'll reserve further judgement until I see what the MR.3 looks like because I have a sinking feeling that they are planning to re-use the wing from this AEW kit (with its MR.2 planform and MR.3 panel lines). They need a totally new set of wing panels to give an accurate MR.3 wing with the reduced trailing edge taper outboard of the dihedral break. If they actually do this, they won't have saved anything by putting the wrong surface detail on the AEW/MR.2 wings. If they re-use the AEW wings, I suspect that there will be a run on FROG wing parts as these are at least dimensionally accurate.

So what you're saying is you're not sure about a new kit because Revell might issue another yet to be announced version in the future and it may or may not be accurate. And this insight is courtesy of a funny feeling? Okay...

As far as Airfix and the SPT is concerned, I didn't say it was a bad thing. The point was they had it all rather easy. Yes, I'll give them credit for googling Avro Shackleton and getting in touch with the trust. But from where Revell started, which is nowhere and with no outside help, they have done a superb job on what is a very complicated subject and I'm not going to sneer at them because they appear to have only achieved 98% accuracy rather than 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a casual modeller and a bit of a Shackphile I'm over the moon with the news of both Airfix & Revell offering the type as new kits, and as a result have been watching any related thread with keen interest.

I don’t usually post, but I feel that there has been some misleading info across various sites and threads which has prompted me to do so.

Revell have had access to a real Mk2 Shackleton for measuring and surveying etc. It was with WL795 at St Mawgan where they had full co-operation by the station. For this help they in turn donated a number of kits to the station for local charities etc. I'm pleased that both WL795 and WL756 which both ended up at St Mawgan are represented on the decal sheet.

I understand that they also accessed a Mk3 at Charlwood, though I don’t know the degree of access.

When it comes to tech drawings, it’s all out there in the public domain, in private collections, National Archives, RAF Museum etc.

I have owned and passed on related manuals in the past. I have also spent a lot of time working on WL795, and most of my life reading and viewing drawings etc of the type.

As much as I really admire the SPT and their dedication with WR963, I feel slightly uncomfortable with the ‘we own the Shackleton brand’ and because Airfix worked with us their’s can be the only accurate portrayal of the aircraft stance.

My views of the kits.

I ordered both new kits as soon as I could, but can obviously only comment on the Airfix offering.

After eager anticipation of opening the box I have to say it, I was slightly disappointed. Sure it looks precise and clean but the Shack was never a precise and clean aircraft to actually look at. The surface detail of the kit is far too sanitised in this regard.

Worse (almost unforgivable for me) is the rear fuselage appears to be of the wrong cross section to the original. It fails to capture in plan view the area aft of the bomb bay where it transitions from the wider Shack fuselage to the original narrower Lincoln tail section aft of the beam look out position windows. This is a quite distinctive feature when you look at the actual airframe.

I compared the Airfix Shack to the original Frog offering, which I hadn’t looked at for some time and which immediately impressed with how good it still looks after all these years It’s hard to convey why in words, but I must admit that the Frog kit invites me to build it, whereas the new offering doesn’t as much. The old offering gets the lines and curves just right (including the mentioned rear fuselage transition) and the surface detail, though well overboard (but workable), captures the atmosphere of being with the original. Forget the whole ‘it wouldn’t appear like that in 1:72nd’ argument, the actual aircraft is bristling in fixings, and overlapping skin joints.

The Airfix builds into a fine looking kit for sure, but perhaps satisfies more from a by stander display point of view that a build it and 'covet it' one.

Purely going from the photos of the new Revell kit, it looks bang on and for me does convey the look and feel of the real aircraft. Going from the Dutch IPMS review, the parts look accurate enough, it’s clear there are areas on the sprues for the alternative version parts, but the surface detail is just what I’m after to recreate the ‘Old Grey Lady’ in plastic, lets hope it doesn’t disappoint on box opening.

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a casual modeller and a bit of a Shackphile I'm over the moon with the news of both Airfix & Revell offering the type as new kits, and as a result have been watching any related thread with keen interest.

I don’t usually post, but I feel that there has been some misleading info across various sites and threads which has prompted me to do so.

Revell have had access to a real Mk2 Shackleton for measuring and surveying etc. It was with WL795 at St Mawgan where they had full co-operation by the station. For this help they in turn donated a number of kits to the station for local charities etc. I'm pleased that both WL795 and WL756 which both ended up at St Mawgan are represented on the decal sheet.

I understand that they also accessed a Mk3 at Charlwood, though I don’t know the degree of access.

When it comes to tech drawings, it’s all out there in the public domain, in private collections, National Archives, RAF Museum etc.

I have owned and passed on related manuals in the past. I have also spent a lot of time working on WL795, and most of my life reading and viewing drawings etc of the type.

As much as I really admire the SPT and their dedication with WR963, I feel slightly uncomfortable with the ‘we own the Shackleton brand’ and because Airfix worked with us their’s can be the only accurate portrayal of the aircraft stance.

My views of the kits.

I ordered both new kits as soon as I could, but can obviously only comment on the Airfix offering.

After eager anticipation of opening the box I have to say it, I was slightly disappointed. Sure it looks precise and clean but the Shack was never a precise and clean aircraft to actually look at. The surface detail of the kit is far too sanitised in this regard.

Worse (almost unforgivable for me) is the rear fuselage appears to be of the wrong cross section to the original. It fails to capture in plan view the area aft of the bomb bay where it transitions from the wider Shack fuselage to the original narrower Lincoln tail section aft of the beam look out position windows. This is a quite distinctive feature when you look at the actual airframe.

I compared the Airfix Shack to the original Frog offering, which I hadn’t looked at for some time and which immediately impressed with how good it still looks after all these years It’s hard to convey why in words, but I must admit that the Frog kit invites me to build it, whereas the new offering doesn’t as much. The old offering gets the lines and curves just right (including the mentioned rear fuselage transition) and the surface detail, though well overboard (but workable), captures the atmosphere of being with the original. Forget the whole ‘it wouldn’t appear like that in 1:72nd’ argument, the actual aircraft is bristling in fixings, and overlapping skin joints.

The Airfix builds into a fine looking kit for sure, but perhaps satisfies more from a by stander display point of view that a build it and 'covet it' one.

Purely going from the photos of the new Revell kit, it looks bang on and for me does convey the look and feel of the real aircraft. Going from the Dutch IPMS review, the parts look accurate enough, it’s clear there are areas on the sprues for the alternative version parts, but the surface detail is just what I’m after to recreate the ‘Old Grey Lady’ in plastic, lets hope it doesn’t disappoint on box opening.

It Is nice to see a sensible and level headed response to the Revell kit which we have not yet been able to fondle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but the Airfix kit omits loads of surface detail that the Revell kit does have, so in that sense it is less accurate ;) Apart from that buying an Airfix kit is a bit like russian roulette at the moment, particularly when this kit is concerned.

To be fair to Airfix they made a great kit as well, the detail on their Shackleton represents a major step forward for them especially in terms of panel lines quality, which you can also see on some of their other recent kits. But Revell's stuff blows it away and when properly painted and subtly weathered could give an awesome effect. I personally think the test build is done rather well in that regard but nothing is more subjective than weathering.

Of course it's all a bit premature as Revell's kit still isn't out. It may have some horrible issues we're not aware of yet!

But then the Revell kit appears to have indented rivet holes, which are fine if you want to build your Shackleton looking like someone has removed every rivet on the airframe (and hoping the paint is enough to hold it together) but as inaccurate as having none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only niggle is that the test shot is ruined by the massively over done panel lines/post shading, otherwise it looks nice... I'm not into accuracy, so long as it hasn't got a glaring issue I'm happy. I can understand where Rich is coming from though after having the real deal to play with :)

Agree with that - the recent Tornado kit was equally as bad. Looks like someone has wafted an airbrush randomly over the top

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is you're not sure about a new kit because Revell might issue another yet to be announced version in the future and it may or may not be accurate. And this insight is courtesy of a funny feeling? Okay...

As far as Airfix and the SPT is concerned, I didn't say it was a bad thing. The point was they had it all rather easy. Yes, I'll give them credit for googling Avro Shackleton and getting in touch with the trust. But from where Revell started, which is nowhere and with no outside help, they have done a superb job on what is a very complicated subject and I'm not going to sneer at them because they appear to have only achieved 98% accuracy rather than 100.

That's exactly what you did when the Airfix 1:48 Me 109 came out and you were desperate to try and find something wrong with it and tell people who liked they the kit they were wrong.

Now it turns out that the wrong wings, surface detail and fuselage cross section is OK, and 98% (random made up number that means nothing) is OK.

You're 98% right.

Edited by Albert RN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what you did when the Airfix 1:48 Me 109 came out and you were desperate to try and find something wrong with it and tell people who liked they the kit they were wrong.

Now it turns out that the wrong wings, surface detail and fuselage cross section is OK, and 98% (random made up number that means nothing) is OK.

You're 98% right.

Ah, hello Rory. Thought you'd be along sooner or later. Will Drewe and Jonathan be joining us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then the Revell kit appears to have indented rivet holes, which are fine if you want to build your Shackleton looking like someone has removed every rivet on the airframe (and hoping the paint is enough to hold it together) but as inaccurate as having none at all.

That's an argument you can make for every kit made in the last twenty years of planes that have rivets which aren't flush. By that logic Airfix's B-25 is more accurate than Hasegawa's when it comes to its portrayal of surface detail. Personally I still think the latter builds into a better model, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a casual modeller and a bit of a Shackphile I'm over the moon with the news of both Airfix & Revell offering the type as new kits, and as a result have been watching any related thread with keen interest.

I don’t usually post, but I feel that there has been some misleading info across various sites and threads which has prompted me to do so.

Revell have had access to a real Mk2 Shackleton for measuring and surveying etc. It was with WL795 at St Mawgan where they had full co-operation by the station. For this help they in turn donated a number of kits to the station for local charities etc. I'm pleased that both WL795 and WL756 which both ended up at St Mawgan are represented on the decal sheet.

I understand that they also accessed a Mk3 at Charlwood, though I don’t know the degree of access.

When it comes to tech drawings, it’s all out there in the public domain, in private collections, National Archives, RAF Museum etc.

I have owned and passed on related manuals in the past. I have also spent a lot of time working on WL795, and most of my life reading and viewing drawings etc of the type.

As much as I really admire the SPT and their dedication with WR963, I feel slightly uncomfortable with the ‘we own the Shackleton brand’ and because Airfix worked with us their’s can be the only accurate portrayal of the aircraft stance.

My views of the kits.

I ordered both new kits as soon as I could, but can obviously only comment on the Airfix offering.

After eager anticipation of opening the box I have to say it, I was slightly disappointed. Sure it looks precise and clean but the Shack was never a precise and clean aircraft to actually look at. The surface detail of the kit is far too sanitised in this regard.

Worse (almost unforgivable for me) is the rear fuselage appears to be of the wrong cross section to the original. It fails to capture in plan view the area aft of the bomb bay where it transitions from the wider Shack fuselage to the original narrower Lincoln tail section aft of the beam look out position windows. This is a quite distinctive feature when you look at the actual airframe.

I compared the Airfix Shack to the original Frog offering, which I hadn’t looked at for some time and which immediately impressed with how good it still looks after all these years It’s hard to convey why in words, but I must admit that the Frog kit invites me to build it, whereas the new offering doesn’t as much. The old offering gets the lines and curves just right (including the mentioned rear fuselage transition) and the surface detail, though well overboard (but workable), captures the atmosphere of being with the original. Forget the whole ‘it wouldn’t appear like that in 1:72nd’ argument, the actual aircraft is bristling in fixings, and overlapping skin joints.

The Airfix builds into a fine looking kit for sure, but perhaps satisfies more from a by stander display point of view that a build it and 'covet it' one.

Purely going from the photos of the new Revell kit, it looks bang on and for me does convey the look and feel of the real aircraft. Going from the Dutch IPMS review, the parts look accurate enough, it’s clear there are areas on the sprues for the alternative version parts, but the surface detail is just what I’m after to recreate the ‘Old Grey Lady’ in plastic, lets hope it doesn’t disappoint on box opening.

Interesting.

Full co-operation of the station... the same co-operation that banned the CAS from maintaining the aircraft, put up a barrier around it, and stopped any kind of access due to health and safety - based on a structural survey by BBMF? That will have been a real amount of access. If they had access to a sufficient extent (which I doubt) it makes it worse in that they ignored what was laid out for them in the correct mark in favour of a different one. We didn't work with Airfix - we just gave them access to what they asked for. I guess if someone at Revell (or elsewhere) had LIDAR scanned an aircraft at least it would have solved any issues, but in absence of that working from the drawings that are used to build and repair the full size is going to give you the most accurate result - whether you agree or not.

The tech drawings aren't in the public domain, though manuals are. You won't find any Shack drawings with the RAFM, or Avro Heritage, or even BAE. They're in an off site storage in the Coventry area, and I've been advocating that they be passed to the RAFM as they can preserve them better than SPT with their resources available. SPT don't own Shackleton as a brand - that isn't the case, and its not the point. SPT owns the aircraft design. Its not just a spurious claim - there's a contract with the descendant company of the original designer, and its all written up. BAE saw the need to involve quite a heavy legal team, so somebody somewhere takes it seriously even if the model world doesn't.

I'm with you on how the detail is represented, I think Revell have done a cracking job. I can't agree with you regarding the shape of the tail, as there's nothing Lincoln back there, and the frames are all different in width. I can post Lanc/Lincoln frame drawings and the Shack ones as reference if you want to see for sure. The old Frog kit is a nice thing once the rivets are toned down, but the slight wasp waisting near the horizontal tail isn't there on the full size.

At the end of the day, as I've said before - its personal choice. I'm going to build both. But based on what I've seen so far, I'm still of the opinion that the Revell Shack is nice, but not near enough to do the deal for me.

Regards,

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...