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

[thepureness]

Hi can't help but thing, that some people are way too fussy when it comes to kits, it's a Shackleton, and a dam fine looking kit, so what if a panel is wrong, fix it and move on

[Heraldcoupe]

Hi can't help but thing, that some people are way too fussy when it comes to kits, it's a Shackleton, and a dam fine looking kit, so what if a panel is wrong, fix it and move on

Maybe so if it was the only game in town, but it's not.

Cheers,

Bill.

[Meatbox8]

I'll have one of them, thank you very much.

[Truro Model Builder]

I really want to like it

But there are too many easy screw ups that have crept in.

Its an example of researching something without knowing what you're actually looking at, or for, which is a damned shame.

This really could have been a contender had there been a little more attention paid. But in my opinion (and it is only an opinion - you're welcome to differ) they thought an MR3 was close enough, and as a result botched it.

Gosh, I guess I'll cancel my order with Revell now. It's obviously a pile of and isn't worth anything at all. Take the Revell design team out and shoot them for incompetence. All of them.

Using terms such as 'botched it' and 'screw ups' is actually not very nice, and quite spiteful. I think you need to remember that these researchers do actually set out to do a good job, and many things will hinder that. Time, available budget, lack of expertise, etc. I know a lot about aircraft, but if you asked me to go and measure a particular aircraft and produce a model I suspect there would be a number of errors there. Particularly if it was an aircraft about which I did not know so much.

Bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Wait for the Airfix AEW.2 to appear, or go with their MR.2 instead. Otherwise accept that Revell have presented us with a nicely detailed model of a subject that many people have wanted for a long time. No, it's not perfect, but you can always wait for the Trumpyboss version instead. And while you're at it, please give us a proper, balanced review of the kit based on a first hand inspection of the box contents rather than a hatchet job based on four disparate photographs.

[Sebastien]

Otherwise accept that Revell have presented us with a nicely detailed model of a subject that many people have wanted for a long time.

The model is nicely detailed, but Rich has forgotten more about the Shackleton than any of us combined will ever learn.

So yes, it is detailed, but when Rich says it's wrong in places, I tend to believe him.

Same thing when he says the mistakes could have been avoided.

Revell have presented us with a nicely detailed kit, but with a model that could have been better.

S.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Sebastien

[JamesP]

If the dihedral in the tail is still there, thats inexcusable. The tailplane horizontal is 33ft span and hasn't really changed since it was designed as a replacement on the Manchester.

From what I've read elsewhere that was a mistake by the modeller as they were building a test shot possibly without complete instructions.

@T7 Models you need to go back and read the posts about the history of the Airfix and Revell kits and you will understand Rich speaks with about authority as is possible on this subject

[Shar2]

@T7, ease off with the ad hominems mate. Rich is to Shackletons as Edgar was to Spitfires, so when he says something is wrong then it most probably is. Yes it's up to the modeller which kit to buy, but to many on here, having read through many, many threads, accuracy is paramount, and the Revell Shack, as lovely as the test shot build looks, isn't accurate, it's a hodge podge of AEW-2 and MR-3, probably with an eye on releasing a -3 in the future, which will also be inaccurate. As for me, I love the AEW Shack and will probably still buy the Revell kit as it's the only one available, until Airfix release theirs, if they do now.

[occa]

The surface detail of the Revell kit is quite stunning, hope they'll fix the major inacuracies.

[hacker]

Hi can't help but thing, that some people are way too fussy when it comes to kits, it's a Shackleton, and a dam fine looking kit, so what if a panel is wrong, fix it and move on

and that my freinds is called modelling! In the life of a model it's time to stop nit picking and build the dam thing!

[Gary C]

@T7, ease off with the ad hominems mate. Rich is to Shackletons as Edgar was to Spitfires, so when he says something is wrong then it most probably is. Yes it's up to the modeller which kit to buy, but to many on here, having read through many, many threads, accuracy is paramount, and the Revell Shack, as lovely as the test shot build looks, isn't accurate, it's a hodge podge of AEW-2 and MR-3, probably with an eye on releasing a -3 in the future, which will also be inaccurate. As for me, I love the AEW Shack and will probably still buy the Revell kit as it's the only one available, until Airfix release theirs, if they do now.

No one is doubting his knowledge. It's the hyperbole that grates. Yes, it's inaccurate in a few spots, we get that, but theres no need for language like blown it and screw ups. What next? They scr ewed the pooch? It's almost as if he's hopelessly biased...oh wait a minute..

Edited December 16, 2015 by Gary C

[Shar2]

@Gary, I guess that if you are passioante about a subject and there are several examples available for measuring etc then you can't see why they made any mistakes, yet alone produce a kit that is effectively a mongrel of two marks. Ask anyone in any of the latest Trumpeter aircraft kit threads.

[Truro Model Builder]

A mongrel of two marks?

Oh, give me strength.

[Heraldcoupe]

A mongrel of two marks?

Oh, give me strength.

MR3 wings on an MR2/AEW2 fuselage.

Perhaps "fictitious hybrid" is a more acceptable description?

I'm sorry, but we're not talking about subjective matters which are open to interpretation, is a certain curve right or isn't it? Revell's main selling point seems to be the rather impressive surface detail: impressive but inappropriate for the subject being portrayed.

Now this may show my own limitations as a modeller, but the thought of reworking the detail on those wings doesn't fill me with joy.

Cheers,

Bill.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Heraldcoupe

[Sebastien]

Mike, you should ban model talking even more fiercely than politics from your forum.

Politics is far less nasty...

[Paul A H]

You never know your luck. In the fullness of time, maybe someone who knows what they are doing and has appropriate reference material to hand will get hold of an actual example of the kit and produce a detailed, impassionate review without resorting to hyperbole. If we get an example to review, you can be sure we will do our best, although not every reviewer can be an expert in every subject

[Albeback52]

Gosh, I guess I'll cancel my order with Revell now. It's obviously a pile of :poo-poo: and isn't worth anything at all. Take the Revell design team out and shoot them for incompetence. All of them.

Using terms such as 'botched it' and 'screw ups' is actually not very nice, and quite spiteful. I think you need to remember that these researchers do actually set out to do a good job, and many things will hinder that. Time, available budget, lack of expertise, etc. I know a lot about aircraft, but if you asked me to go and measure a particular aircraft and produce a model I suspect there would be a number of errors there. Particularly if it was an aircraft about which I did not know so much.

Bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Wait for the Airfix AEW.2 to appear, or go with their MR.2 instead. Otherwise accept that Revell have presented us with a nicely detailed model of a subject that many people have wanted for a long time. No, it's not perfect, but you can always wait for the Trumpyboss version instead. And while you're at it, please give us a proper, balanced review of the kit based on a first hand inspection of the box contents rather than a hatchet job based on four disparate photographs

Thank you for a refreshing bit of common sense. I am sure that the majority of modellers will take the same relaxed attitude. I'll buy it, build it, paint it, enjoy it, display it! I will then sit back and wait for some rivet counting JMN to come along and castigate me for not "correcting"all the errors in this (in his/her view) unbuildable and fatally flawed kit.

Allan

Edited December 16, 2015 by Albeback52

[markyp1489]

Well I'll be buying one and building it. I currently am 3/4 through making the air fix version and have another air fix one still fully boxed. I make models for my enjoyment and like them to at least look like the full size subject.

However some on here far too particular or obsessive for me. Fine to constructively criticise so as to assist someone else improve. However some recent posts fail to do that and really do grate in what is just a hobby.

Some organisations are doing themselves no favours in how they are conducting themselves on here. Revell not being one of those organisations. They just continue to produce build able kits of interesting subjects at very affordable prices. That's what I like most as modeller.

[thepureness]

I'll be buying one, I'll be building one, I will enjoy building it, I'll put it in my display cabinet once it's complete.

If anyone asks what it is, I'll will say it is an Avro Shackleton AEW, I'll take it to the model club once complete and I'll put it on display on the clubs stand at model shows.

I'm sure in that period of time no one is going to come up to me and say, "that is not a Shackleton AEW"

And that is it.

Btw is anyone planning to count the 100000 rivets when they get the kit? I'll be terrified to read that there might only be 99999 rivets

[Julien]

Gosh, I guess I'll cancel my order with Revell now. It's obviously a pile of and isn't worth anything at all. Take the Revell design team out and shoot them for incompetence. All of them.

Using terms such as 'botched it' and 'screw ups' is actually not very nice, and quite spiteful. I think you need to remember that these researchers do actually set out to do a good job, and many things will hinder that. Time, available budget, lack of expertise, etc. I know a lot about aircraft, but if you asked me to go and measure a particular aircraft and produce a model I suspect there would be a number of errors there. Particularly if it was an aircraft about which I did not know so much.

Bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Wait for the Airfix AEW.2 to appear, or go with their MR.2 instead. Otherwise accept that Revell have presented us with a nicely detailed model of a subject that many people have wanted for a long time. No, it's not perfect, but you can always wait for the Trumpyboss version instead. And while you're at it, please give us a proper, balanced review of the kit based on a first hand inspection of the box contents rather than a hatchet job based on four disparate photographs.

I have to agree. It may have a few issues, and TBH most kits do in one way or another. I will get one an build it and like it.

[John Aero]

Just an little point, re the art work. A MR.2 low down over a submarine would have been usual, but not an AEW, as that would be unarmed and and up high, trying to peak over the horizon as far as it could. If anyone hasn't said it in the proceeding 9 pages the MR.3 has a cranked aileron spar giving a much wider tip chord.

John

[rayprit]

To be honest, I do not rate the artwork of the Shackleton, I find it very "Frog" retro and a bit drab..............not very inspiring at all. But to be honest I do have 2 on order as I find that it appears to be far superior and more attractive than the Airfix offering

[richw_82]

Gosh, I guess I'll cancel my order with Revell now. It's obviously a pile of :poo-poo: and isn't worth anything at all. Take the Revell design team out and shoot them for incompetence. All of them.

Using terms such as 'botched it' and 'screw ups' is actually not very nice, and quite spiteful. I think you need to remember that these researchers do actually set out to do a good job, and many things will hinder that. Time, available budget, lack of expertise, etc. I know a lot about aircraft, but if you asked me to go and measure a particular aircraft and produce a model I suspect there would be a number of errors there. Particularly if it was an aircraft about which I did not know so much.

Bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Wait for the Airfix AEW.2 to appear, or go with their MR.2 instead. Otherwise accept that Revell have presented us with a nicely detailed model of a subject that many people have wanted for a long time. No, it's not perfect, but you can always wait for the Trumpyboss version instead. And while you're at it, please give us a proper, balanced review of the kit based on a first hand inspection of the box contents rather than a hatchet job based on four disparate photographs.

Call it what you will, I only slate it for its inaccuracy - nothing else. I'm not telling anyone not to buy it, or buy another manufacturers.

The point is - anybody - could have got on the internet and ordered a few decent books on the Shackleton. Most - if not all - will state in no uncertain terms that the MR3 had such a redesigned wing it had a new type design number assigned. Straight off - if you're researching a model of an MR2/AEW2 it tells you which of the 18 survivors you shouldn't be looking at - and gives you three aircraft in the UK and one in the USA to look at; unless you fancy playing foreign policy games in Cyprus. There are 6 aircraft in total that should be the subject matter "benchmarks." Of that six, two are off limits in Cyprus, one is the SPT's and was at Airfix's disposal so was off limits due to a conflict of interest even if the request had been made politely. One was structurally unsafe at the time (now isn't, thanks to a full set of wheels and tools we sent to Cornwall), one is baking in the sun in Arizona, and the last and most accessible is all on its own in a galleried hall in Manchester.

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. This is like measuring up a Jurca MJ100 and stating its the definitive Spitfire. Or a CASA 2.111 as a genuine Heinkel.

Okay, you think the language was over the top. But look at it this way - what would you rather I say to describe a mark of aircraft that has been effectively created in someone's head and not in real life? Revell have mass produced a what if?

As I've stated before, I'm going to build both. I have one sat here, I'm still waiting for Revell's. The thread will be on here, and both will be matched against the drawings, manuals, and the aircraft itself. Then you'll find out for sure if my opinions are borne out by fact.

Regards,

Rich

[richw_82]

You never know your luck. In the fullness of time, maybe someone who knows what they are doing and has appropriate reference material to hand will get hold of an actual example of the kit and produce a detailed, impassionate review without resorting to hyperbole.

You need AP101B-1705-1B1 Volume 1, for the Shackleton AEW2. Try the RAF Museum, they have an up to date copy, unfortunately mine is not scanned. Funnily enough, I do have a scanned MR3 manual.

[richw_82]

Well I'll be buying one and building it. I currently am 3/4 through making the air fix version and have another air fix one still fully boxed. I make models for my enjoyment and like them to at least look like the full size subject.

However some on here far too particular or obsessive for me. Fine to constructively criticise so as to assist someone else improve. However some recent posts fail to do that and really do grate in what is just a hobby.

Some organisations are doing themselves no favours in how they are conducting themselves on here. Revell not being one of those organisations. They just continue to produce build able kits of interesting subjects at very affordable prices. That's what I like most as modeller.

I'll admit to being obesessed. I've been trying to get one into the air for six years, and you have to be to do that. I've said from the start - I want ANY Shackleton kit to be as accurate as it can be. There's enough info out there to do it too.

Revell are doing nicely, but how are they doing anyone any favours by selling scale models that aren't quite? Sure its an interesting subject, or we wouldn't be here.

Edited December 16, 2015 by richw_82

[sroubos]

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?