Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I normally don't like 1/72 scale rivets that much, but they surely befit the Shack. I'll build just one, so I would go one way or the other - and a few inaccurate but fixable details don't detract from the superb overall look of this model. Well done Revell.

(Sorry Airfix, but you're already getting so much of my cash! :coolio: )

Jay

Why just the Shackleton? By the same logic the same goes for mzny aircraft of a certain vintage..
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why just the Shackleton? By the same logic the same goes for mzny aircraft of a certain vintage..

Very true. Forgot to add I build mostly jets. But a Shackleton would look nice next to a Lightning or a Phantom.

Jay

Edited by Mountain goat
Link to post
Share on other sites

... But did anyone else spot that the decal of the numbers on the tail said 56 while the picture of the real aircraft was 65. I asked one of the guys on the stand about it and he said that these were the final decals. So a bit of cutting required to get it as per the picture. Not a problem but a bit careless in the proof reading. Other wise looks lovely.

Ah-ha!! That would be one of the inaccuracies certain people have mentioned...well that's it, definitely NOT buying one now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree mr Shackleton himself really doesn't like Revell, I have an idea why, but he seems to forget one thing, the MR2 which Airfix used their box of tricks on is in fact a cut and shut AEW 2 is it not. Also the interrior which Airfix copied is an AEW2 interrior is it not, if we are going to keep on about accuracy maybe the Airfix effort isn,t as accurate as certain people like to make out. At the end of the day it is up to the modeller and for me the Revell Shack just looks better, kit sales will determine which kit people like best as most of us are not part of presavation groups.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to see the Revell Shackleton yesterday, and in the words of George Takei;

I was very impressed by the fine surface detail and as long as the moulds stay in good condition then this kit is going to be superb, the breakdown obviously suggests more versions which the nice man from Revell confirmed to me was a definite but wouldn't say which ones obviously. The Revell manager also stated that they only bothered doing visible interior detail and was very happy to have a stab at Airfix for unnecessary interior detail which I found quite amusing given one of the recent threads on here!

Built up this kit looks outstanding and is something I will definitely buy when it comes out, I'm hoping they bring out a Mk.3 with the nose wheel at some point.

Rich

Edited by Rich G
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever does the Mk.1 first will probably get my purchase.

Big dirty exhaust stains on the wings is all I'm really interested in :Tasty:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree mr Shackleton himself really doesn't like Revell, I have an idea why, but he seems to forget one thing, the MR2 which Airfix used their box of tricks on is in fact a cut and shut AEW 2 is it not. Also the interrior which Airfix copied is an AEW2 interrior is it not, if we are going to keep on about accuracy maybe the Airfix effort isn,t as accurate as certain people like to make out. At the end of the day it is up to the modeller and for me the Revell Shack just looks better, kit sales will determine which kit people like best as most of us are not part of presavation groups.

You'd be wrong, as I quite like a few Revell kits, one of the more recent buys I have waiting its turn under my desk is the 1:72 B-17F. I intend to have one of their Shackleton's to compare against the Airfix one. If Revell did their homework well there shouldn't be much variance should there?

Please do me a slight favour though and read back through some of my posts. Airfix didn't use a box of tricks, they waded through a room full of Avro drawings, a couple of boxes full of manuals, and did it the traditional way. No LIDAR involved or any of that. Cut and shut AEW2? Not quite. Cut and shut MR2 Phase 3, being returned back to that state. I've stated before just how close the AEW2 and MR2 Phase 3 are in terms of shape and configuration. The interior of an AEW2 meant taking MR2 parts out - parts that are in the Airfix kit. Parts that I'm actively trying to put back into the real thing.

You're right it is up to the modeller, and if you like the Revell Shack, buy it. If you think its better looking, buy it. But it may be better looking because the shape has been tweaked to be more pleasing on the eye, rather than looking quite as ungainly as the real thing. I've said it once, I'll say it again - the Shack isn't a pretty aircraft - the AEW2 even less so.

I mentioned the markings are inaccurate. Its not so much that '965 has accidentally become '956 (which has been received well within the Shackleton community, as the loss of WR965 in 1990 is still a sore point for many) but the positioning of more than a few of them are wrong.

I want them both to do well, and the aftermarket guys I'm helping too. But above all as the part of the Trust that is trying to keep the Shackleon alive as a type - I want any model kit of it to be accurate as can be.

Edited by richw_82
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be wrong, as I quite like a few Revell kits, one of the more recent buys I have waiting its turn under my desk is the 1:72 B-17F. I intend to have one of their Shackleton's to compare against the Airfix one. If Revell did their homework well there shouldn't be much variance should there?

Please do me a slight favour though and read back through some of my posts. Airfix didn't use a box of tricks, they waded through a room full of Avro drawings, a couple of boxes full of manuals, and did it the traditional way. No LIDAR involved or any of that. Cut and shut AEW2? Not quite. Cut and shut MR2 Phase 3, being returned back to that state. I've stated before just how close the AEW2 and MR2 Phase 3 are in terms of shape and configuration. The interior of an AEW2 meant taking MR2 parts out - parts that are in the Airfix kit. Parts that I'm actively trying to put back into the real thing.

You're right it is up to the modeller, and if you like the Revell Shack, buy it. If you think its better looking, buy it. But it may be better looking because the shape has been tweaked to be more pleasing on the eye, rather than looking quite as ungainly as the real thing. I've said it once, I'll say it again - the Shack isn't a pretty aircraft - the AEW2 even less so.

I mentioned the markings are inaccurate. Its not so much that '965 has accidentally become '956 (which has been received well within the Shackleton community, as the loss of WR965 in 1990 is still a sore point for many) but the positioning of more than a few of them are wrong.

I want them both to do well, and the aftermarkey guys I'm helping too. But above all as the part of the Trust that is trying to keep the Shackleon alive as a type - I want any model kit of it to be accurate as can be.

And do you know how many (of either brand) will be built in SAAF markings? One local hobby shop is actively promoting the forthcoming Shackletons and arranging SAAF markings for that explicit purpose. Hell he even sold Canberra PR9's as B (I) 8's

Link to post
Share on other sites

And do you know how many (of either brand) will be built in SAAF markings? One local hobby shop is actively promoting the forthcoming Shackletons and arranging SAAF markings for that explicit purpose. Hell he even sold Canberra PR9's as B (I) 8's

You'd need to convert both brands to an MR3. Not impossible, particulalry if you cross kit with Frogspawn, but cant be done out of the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd need to convert both brands to an MR3. Not impossible, particulalry if you cross kit with Frogspawn, but cant be done out of the box.

Nope as is, out the box here is a Shackleton that you can build as flown by the SAAF. Here buy the SAAF decal sheet to go with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right it is up to the modeller, and if you like the Revell Shack, buy it. If you think its better looking, buy it. But it may be better looking because the shape has been tweaked to be more pleasing on the eye, rather than looking quite as ungainly as the real thing.

Wow, has a producer of kits ever done that - conscious inaccuracy? I'm breaking my head trying to come up with an example. I mean: mistakes, sure (Halifax..!), but consciously trying to tweak the shapes of a model to appeal more? Revell would have had to apply those tweaks in the designing stage already. And the team working on it had to reach consensus over which tweaks were nice and how far the tweaking should go. And because producing kits isn't 2D graphic design, but involves complex processes like making molds, I would guess it would be far from certain those tweaks would indeed end up pleasing on the eye in the finished product.

So basically this would mean they do the opposite of what Trumpeter is lately alleged of: instead of making the shape of a model a little more ungainly through poor accuracy by sloppiness, Revell have made it more attractive through poor accuracy by design.

Jay

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm nots suggesting thats what they've done, or that its deliberate, but its relatively easy to look at certain lines and think "That can't be right."

Case in point being the side profile of the MR2 under the nose. Most drawings online show it to have a similar curve to the MR3, as it comes up from the bomb bay. In reality, there's no curve upward, and as it approaches the bomb aimers window it actually curves away.

Simlarly, fuslage profiles. A lot of references suggest a fuselage frame rounded top similar to a Lancaster profile with a portion inserted to widen it - in reality its a different profile with a very flat roof as a result.

The other thing is trying to smooth out all the lumps and bumps, and Airfix have done this in some areas. cowlings, nacelles, skin panels, doors. Parts that fit one aircraft often don't fit another, there's panel gaps you can get your finger in, and 60 year old panels often need percussive persuasion to go back where they came off less than five minutes earlier.

Its very easy to make a nice looking aircraft in miniature. In reality they weren't half as perfect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

....

You're right it is up to the modeller, and if you like the Revell Shack, buy it. If you think its better looking, buy it. But it may be better looking because the shape has been tweaked to be more pleasing on the eye, rather than looking quite as ungainly as the real thing. I've said it once, I'll say it again - the Shack isn't a pretty aircraft - the AEW2 even less so.

I mentioned the markings are inaccurate. Its not so much that '965 has accidentally become '956 (which has been received well within the Shackleton community, as the loss of WR965 in 1990 is still a sore point for many) but the positioning of more than a few of them are wrong.

I want them both to do well, and the aftermarket guys I'm helping too. But above all as the part of the Trust that is trying to keep the Shackleon alive as a type - I want any model kit of it to be accurate as can be.

Are you serious? Tweaking a model to be more pleasing to the eye?

In an office in Germany -

"So this Shackleton model we're producing, quite an ugly brute, let's see if we can make more pleasing to the eye, no? Around the table, ideas"

"Well you see that big broad round ugly nose, how about we make it a bit more like Concorde, that's more pleasing to the eye, yes?"

"And do,you see how the big wing just joins the fuselage, could we tweak it a bit to have some leading edge root extensions, they're more pleasing to the eye"

"Oh and I don't like those three propellers rotating against each other, I do like those big A400M props they are so pleasing to the eye too, can we have some of those, no?"

Really, tweaking a model to be more pleasing to the eye.....wow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, I honestly can't see how you can judge the Revell kit's accuracy based on what's available now, namely a low-res movie and some sprue shots. I recognize you are an expert when the type is concerned, but perhaps this judgement is a little premature.

All I can say about it is that it looks to have great surface detail which seems to replicate the original in appearance if not necessarily in precise location. Perhaps the fit is terrible, and perhaps it is hopelessly inaccurate, but we should wait until we get our hands on an actual kit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope as is, out the box here is a Shackleton that you can build as flown by the SAAF. Here buy the SAAF decal sheet to go with it.

The only box you can get an SAAF Shack out of is the old Frogspawn/Revell MR3 as the SAAF didnt operate the MR2 or the AEW Shacks. The MR2 and AEW are tail draggers while the MR3 has a nosewheel (amongst other differences). You really cant build an SAAF Shack out of the new Airfix and Revell boxings without DIY alterations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one intend to build all three kits out of the box, all three? I hear you say. Yes, even the old frog kit (which I started 15 years ago but was never finished), just so we can see how far things have come.

One of my best modeling friends who passed away about six years ago now must have built about a dozen Frog shackletons over the years. If he could have traveled forward in time he would not be able to believe the kits that are available now, or those promised for the not too distant future.

I am not going to complain about either the Airfix or Revell kits, there will be things which could have been different on both kits had someone else designed them, but they are what they are and if more is wanted it will be up to the individual to add it.

Matt.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, I honestly can't see how you can judge the Revell kit's accuracy based on what's available now, namely a low-res movie and some sprue shots. I recognize you are an expert when the type is concerned, but perhaps this judgement is a little premature.

All I can say about it is that it looks to have great surface detail which seems to replicate the original in appearance if not necessarily in precise location. Perhaps the fit is terrible, and perhaps it is hopelessly inaccurate, but we should wait until we get our hands on an actual kit.

As I say, I intend to build both and will happily stand corrected if the Revell example turns out better than expected. But looking at the photos and video of the Telford example, the surface detail is stunning, but there's some real issues. One that stands out in the rear shots is the tailplane has dihedral.

The rivet detail isn't a show stopper, but its just wrong for that particular wing.

This is an MR3 wing. Look at the inboard tank bay, on top of the wing, centre bottom of the photo. This is how Revell have laid out their kit.

11703191_826933224080678_193965217684367

This is the MR2/AEW2 wing.

67100_10150112390302049_6453316_n.jpg?oh

197206_10150184160707049_2654193_n.jpg?o

The centre section is Lincoln derived, and the tank acess is underneath.

Its no show stopper, but as I pointed out in this thread a way back - given the excellent reference airframe available at Manchester there was no excuse for it. The only reason I can think of is that its part of making one set of moulds fit all three Marks. Great idea in principle, not so good in practice given the differences.

On the plus side - you'll have a nice wing donor for an Argosy conversion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So did Revell indicate anything about an upcoming MR.3 (as the separate nose would seem to suggest is likely? If so, they will need a new set of wings as well as a new nose because the planform of the MR.3 wings is visibly different, particularly outboard of the flaps. Not to mention that the landing gear location is further back as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually scrub that Rich you are right it does have dehidral on the tailplanes. What is that all about?!

Hope that's just a mistake by the person who built the kit and not the way Revell intended it to be built. Although, I'm working on the Airfix kit now and it would be pretty much impossible to build dihedral into the horizontal stab without cutting things that aren't meant to be cut.

Edited by VMA131Marine
Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly looks good, but I guess it comes down to what each individual modeller looks for in a kit. Some will prefer the Airfix offering, whilst others will like the Revell kit better. The price points for the two kits aren't all that far apart, at least at the moment, which will be a deciding factor for some.

Now, since Revell have taken the decision to do the most popular version first, I think this will probably take a bit of the wind out of Airfix's sales if/when they do they're own AEW kit. I would guess that Airfix perhaps wish they'd done that version first. Mind you, given their recent QC issues, I think Airfix have also perhaps stretched themselves a bit too much by pulling the release of their own kit forward to beat Revell.

All in all, the current situation sums up what can happen when two manufacturers decide to do what is, in many respects, a rather specialised subject. :hmmm:

Mike.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The rivet detail isn't a show stopper, but its just wrong for that particular wing.

This is an MR3 wing. Look at the inboard tank bay, on top of the wing, centre bottom of the photo. This is how Revell have laid out their kit.

This is the MR2/AEW2 wing.

I was very impressed with the finesse of Revell's surface detail, but that being the significant draw of their kit over the Airfix, then I really need it to be correct.

I left SMW having decided I'd be buying one of these. Now I'm a little disappointed I didn't buy one of the Aeroclub AEW2 conversion sets having seen several for sale at the show,

Cheers,

Bill.

Link to post
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...