Jump to content

HK Lancaster ?.


Don149

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

This doesnt sound encouraging BUT we do want it finished to the right detail . . .

Taken from their own Facebook page

Hong Kong Models Co Ltd.

Dear Modeller

Recently we are working on the very complex and beautiful surface detail of the Lancaster.

We have something of new technique apply on surface detail.

Before move ahead with my plan, I am interested to know what you expect with those beautiful surfaces ?

1. Bumpy panels

2. Over lapping panels

3. Raised rivets

4. Recessed

I wish you guys could advise or suggest your brilliant ideas !

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

I think at this scale you could be faithful to the original couldn't you?

I don't think they should copy the Airfix 1/72 new mould with the recessed panel lines on the fuselage etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mancunian Airman

For my money, I'd like to see a model represent the plane as it actually was, and this scale allows a better representation of that. So...

If panels overlapped, over lap.

If they but join, but join

If rivets are raised, raise the rivets.

If they are recessed, recess the rivets.

It would be great to see a model as close as possible to the real thing, and not an artistic recreation.

My 5c worth

PR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that the size, shape, and position of the panels is well documented. Differing rivets and raised or recessed panels is another matter. Not quite a million miles Graham six or seven thousand maybe, but an inconvenient distance nevertheless.

It does rather look as if it might be a fair wait though.

Cheers

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand HK asking what we want, so hopefully they can give us what we would like to see on the Lanc. After all, it doesn't seem that long ago that any sort of raised surface detail was howled at, and everything had to be recessed...including rivets. This seems to have fallen out of favour now. I'm all for as close as possible to what is found on any real aircraft..so if it has rows of mushroom rivets, let's have them! As Work in Progress says, the old Revell P-40 shows what could be done over 40 years ago.

Best regards;

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

well I wish they'd hurry up winter is coming and I need more loft insulation

Come on Sinnerboy, do keep up, the White Ravens have been received, Winter is here but at least the King in the North knows what he is doing.

Cheers

DC

PS apologies if anyone hasn't seen the last two episodes of Game of Thrones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The early version is an absolute beaut, was stationed just near to me at former RAF Station Binbrook.

Now that would be a good set of decals for the kit . . . :yahoo: (despite it being available in 72nd)

I have many thoughts on what I would like but thats for the day they release the kit and THEN, i can get my squadron choice done.

Ian

Edited by Mancunian airman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have expected to have seen a few test shots before now!,just to keep us warm.

Having had a half-hour trip in one as an ATC cadet back in 48 I go all gooey at the

prospect of building one in 1/32nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Can anybody tell me the scale measurements of 1/32nd ??

76th is 3.9mm to the foot

72nd is 4.0 mm to the foot

Doubling 72nd to 36th gives 8.0 mm to the foot. ?

 

the larger the scale the larger the mm to the foot

 

48th is 6. 35mm to the foot IIRC

 

I am really thinking of building some ground equipment/vehicle so really need this mm to a foot for 32nd scale.

 

many thanks

Ian

Edited by Mancunian airman
Correction of scale measurements
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Figures are based on 1 foot being 300mm.

I dont think I have seen a foot long mm rule measuring 304.8 (nearly 305mm )

 

I admit 76th is 4mm based on the 300mm rule

I seem to have got the wrong figure for 72nd  . . . 4.1mm

 

My calculation for 32nd would have been 9.37mm

Ian

Edited by Mancunian airman
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...