HK Lancaster ?.

[Simon Cornes]

I suspect they'll sit tight and wait for a large proportion of their investment to be re-paid and then we might know what happens next - in another 12 months!! You never know, if the props are supplied as blades and hubs then the likes of AMS might produce resin paddle blades? Its only one master blade to make after all!

[Whitewolf]

I've seen somewhere on the net that both type of props are included.

[Whitewolf]

I also understand that a second kit will be issued in early to mid 2019. The initial B.1 boxing is only the beginning 

[Mancunian airman]

I know there are many questions concerning which Mk Lancaster we will be able to build but  . . . .

the current Airfix and even tamiya Lancaster models dont need much to have either the MK.I or the MK III.

The obvious difference are the windows but plenty of MK I's saw it through to the ned of the war.

As previously stated somewhere previous in this topic, fuselage windows WERE painted over before they were physically replaced on the production line with a replacement panel.

The main changes for  later MKIII's that become obvious are the enlarged bomb-aimer blister, H2S, and Rebecca aerials. Item such as bulge bomb-doors were not the norm for a standard Lancaster so this is where your after-market people come in . . . . there is already the Dam-buster arms and bomb available for this scale Lancaster.

 

I think overall MOST of us will be able to build the aircraft we want straight from the box, too many people are already looking for the bits that probably wont be in the box so I'm sure it the case of 'trying to please most of the people, Most of the time'

 

We will just have to wait and see . . . . . 

Ian

[stever219]

Ian please forgive me if I am trying to teach you to suck eggs but it’s probably further back up the thread but the differentiator between Mk. I and III is the engines: Rolls Royce for the former and Packard for the latter.  Presence, or the lack of it, of the fuselage windows was dependent on when a particular airframe was built and whether or not it was rebuilt.

[593jones]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 5:10 PM, Stealthman said:

I also understand that a second kit will be issued in early to mid 2019. The initial B.1 boxing is only the beginning 

Wake me up when the B.II is due   

Edited September 12, 2018 by 593jones

[Troy Smith]

On 26/08/2018 at 17:56, bzn20 said:

If you turn the Rule over you'll notice the 30cm is further along from the 12 " mark. Otherwise there wouldn't be 39" to a metre

Erm, no.

 

1 inch =25.4mm

25.4 X 12 = 304.8 mm

 

25.4 X 39 = 990.6 mm, there are not quite 39 inches in a metre

 

Regarding the Lanc,  as stated the difference between a  B.I and B.III is the engine fitted, as is the difference between a Spitfire IX , Rolls Royce, and Spitfire XVI, Packard

 

This was as the engines and fittings, even the tool kits were not interchangeable, IIRC the Packard tool kits were noted for being very good quality, hence the different Mk numbers.

 

Minor airframe changes were introduced progressively, and were retro fitted, so defining what specifics requires a good photo.

 

Offhand I can't remember if there are anything other than minor details to make a Canadian built B.X ?

 

Pedant point, British WW II Mark numbers are always Roman, the switch to Arabic numerals was in late 1946 or 1947......

 

I know, I should get out more......

 

[VMA131Marine]

On 9/9/2018 at 5:56 PM, Stealthman said:

A Dambuster would be interesting but wouldn't sell enough on its own.

Really? It wouldn't surprise me if more than half of all the Lancaster models ever built were of Dambuster aircraft. There is a reason that Hasegawa, Revell (twice), Airfix (also twice), and Tamiya (1/48) all released Dambuster boxings of their Lancaster kits. The Grand Slam version is not nearly as well-known.

[Whitewolf]

46 minutes ago, 593jones said:

Wake me up when the B.II is due   

I'll set the alarm for both of us. Happy to wait for BIII

[bzn20]

46 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

25.4 X 39 = 990.6 mm, there are not quite 39 inches in a metre

Of Course.. I left the word "nearly" out . 10/10 on your proof reading .

[Simon Cornes]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

Erm, no.

 

1 inch =25.4mm

25.4 X 12 = 304.8 mm

 

25.4 X 39 = 990.6 mm, there are not quite 39 inches in a metre

 

Regarding the Lanc,  as stated the difference between a  B.I and B.III is the engine fitted, as is the difference between a Spitfire IX , Rolls Royce, and Spitfire XVI, Packard

 

This was as the engines and fittings, even the tool kits were not interchangeable, IIRC the Packard tool kits were noted for being very good quality, hence the different Mk numbers.

 

Minor airframe changes were introduced progressively, and were retro fitted, so defining what specifics requires a good photo.

 

Offhand I can't remember if there are anything other than minor details to make a Canadian built B.X ?

 

Pedant point, British WW II Mark numbers are always Roman, the switch to Arabic numerals was in late 1946 or 1947......

 

I know, I should get out more......

 

If I remember correctly one tool kit was metric and the other imperial so not interchangeable!

[Max Headroom]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

Offhand I can't remember if there are anything other than minor details to make a Canadian built B.X ?

A Martin mid upper turret was on later versions in the position taken by the forward escape hatch on the I/III. Check out the CWH’s ‘Vera’ for details. There also seems to be some chordwise strengthening straps on the fuselage by the turrets. Radiator apertures are standard and not the deeper versions seen on MK.I(FE) and Yorks.

 

Internally US/Canadian electrics, fuses and dials.

 

Trevor

[Whitewolf]

3 hours ago, Mancunian airman said:

I know there are many questions concerning which Mk Lancaster we will be able to build but  . . . .

the current Airfix and even tamiya Lancaster models dont need much to have either the MK.I or the MK III.

The obvious difference are the windows but plenty of MK I's saw it through to the ned of the war.

As previously stated somewhere previous in this topic, fuselage windows WERE painted over before they were physically replaced on the production line with a replacement panel.

The main changes for  later MKIII's that become obvious are the enlarged bomb-aimer blister, H2S, and Rebecca aerials. Item such as bulge bomb-doors were not the norm for a standard Lancaster so this is where your after-market people come in . . . . there is already the Dam-buster arms and bomb available for this scale Lancaster.

 

I think overall MOST of us will be able to build the aircraft we want straight from the box, too many people are already looking for the bits that probably wont be in the box so I'm sure it the case of 'trying to please most of the people, Most of the time'

 

We will just have to wait and see . . . . . 

Ian

The problem with HKM is that at the moment, you don't actually know which version can be built from initial release. It could just literally be the B1 only, why else would they have released Box Art for a BIII?

[Mancunian airman]

Lancaster R5868 was the 26th Lancaster built from an airframe that originally was designated a Manchester. Truely a MK I aircraft.

This is, as we all now know, is the subject of the HK kit but they are including parts to the kit so you can model the aircraft after it had been refurbished and brought up to the later standard. That is just about all we know of the kit so I still maintain that the majority of us will be able to build an aircraft of choice.

Should your aircraft be the later production with no windows then you simply do what you would do on the Airfix, Revell & Tamiya  kit. . . fill the windows in.

 

As to the box art well . . . . no everybody is au fait with type and its simply a box art to show its a Lancaster 

[bzn20]

1 hour ago, Simon Cornes said:

metric

  I don't think they were . It was the British BSW , BSF , BA etc. and the USA were A/F Spanners , wrenches and sockets etc. The British Spanners , Sockets were thread sizes and the US  were A/F   they are measured across the flats in Imperial and still are including Airbus  ,doesn't matter what the thread size is . Never saw or needed a Metric tool kit until the Westland Lynx . I would kill for a Rolls tool kit .

Edited September 12, 2018 by bzn20

[Whitewolf]

9 hours ago, Mancunian airman said:

Lancaster R5868 was the 26th Lancaster built from an airframe that originally was designated a Manchester. Truely a MK I aircraft.

This is, as we all now know, is the subject of the HK kit but they are including parts to the kit so you can model the aircraft after it had been refurbished and brought up to the later standard. That is just about all we know of the kit so I still maintain that the majority of us will be able to build an aircraft of choice.

Should your aircraft be the later production with no windows then you simply do what you would do on the Airfix, Revell & Tamiya  kit. . . fill the windows in.

 

As to the box art well . . . . no everybody is au fait with type and its simply a box art to show its a Lancaster 

To model R5868 as she appears today in Hendon HKM woukd need to include all the parts for a 'late' lanc, to my knowledge they have not stated they are doing that? Where did you get that impression? That includes fairing for tail turret etc. The kit enable a you to Build R5868 as Q Queenie and later as S Sugar in the aircraft's early period in that guise. I have not read anywhere that it'll be an all in one kit, fantastic if it is! 

I have however been advised by a stockist that HKM are being very secretive about what's going to happen regarding additional releases, but that a second kit is being released in early to mid 2019.

[iang]

12 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

25.4 X 39 = 990.6 mm, there are not quite 39 inches in a metre

 

I think you mean there are just over 39 inches in a metre (39.37). 😉

[Mancunian airman]

I have seen the sprue photos that show the H2s blister for the upgrade of the aircraft

The latest 'gossip' I heard was that there were going to be options for the cockpit blisters

 

As for the Rear turret fairing 

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6254583

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Mancunian airman

[Whitewolf]

That looks good! But will it all be in the one box? If so, that'll do me. Windows in fuselage are a pain, but fill and paint will resolve that.

[Mancunian airman]

20 hours ago, stever219 said:

Ian please forgive me if I am trying to teach you to suck eggs but it’s probably further back up the thread but the differentiator between Mk. I and III is the engines: Rolls Royce for the former and Packard for the latter.  Presence, or the lack of it, of the fuselage windows was dependent on when a particular airframe was built and whether or not it was rebuilt.

Steve

you are quite right  about the engines but you cannot tell externally which engine(s) was/were fitted be it a RR Merlin or a Packard Merlin.

Again you are right with the windows and I would recommend anybody to obtain photographic evidence to support any particular aircraft one would choose to build.

Fortunately I have several aircraft in mind . . . .

[Mancunian airman]

1 hour ago, Stealthman said:

That looks good! But will it all be in the one box? If so, that'll do me. Windows in fuselage are a pain, but fill and paint will resolve that.

Have you seen the sprues ??

 

Those that are available of course as previewed on a number of sites

Nobody has seen the main wings yet but as mentioned above, one cannot distinguish a RR Merlin from a Packard Merlin externally  so the Mk .I -- Mk. III issue wont arise.

Ian

Edited September 13, 2018 by Mancunian airman

[Whitewolf]

3 hours ago, Mancunian airman said:

Have you seen the sprues ??

 

Those that are available of course as previewed on a number of sites

Nobody has seen the main wings yet but as mentioned above, one cannot distinguish a RR Merlin from a Packard Merlin externally  so the Mk .I -- Mk. III issue wont arise.

Ian

I've seen some sprues although it was emphasised they could be subject to change......to be honest we aren't actually going to know for sure what's in the box until we can open one and see.

[Max Headroom]

I’m prepared to be flame grilled for this, but I’m sure that R5868 ‘S’ Sugar in the RAFM was rebuilt during her career, so part of the fuselage has windows and the rest doesn’t. I’ve read it somewhere, but can I find a photo......?!

 

One thing I know for sure is that operationally she had needle pointed props, but by the time she appeared at Hendon these has morphed into paddle blade types.

 

Trevor

[Max Headroom]

As a public service, I offer this nugget of information for your delectation.

 

 

No need to thank me.

 

Trevor

 

[Don149]

Correct me if I`m wrong , but doesn't the test shot above from Mancunian airman show the tail turret fairing someone said was not included ? .