Italeri 1/72 Sunderlands: which is more accurate?

[Seahawk]

Which of the 2 Italeri Sunderlands (Mk. I and Mk. III) can more easily be built into an accurate model?

 

Yes, I know all about the horrible panel lines!)

 

Thanks in advance.

[Troy Smith]

I suspect the chap who will know is @LDSModeller  this should send a notification, but search up his threads.

 

 

 

[malpaso]

Having built the Mark.I I would think the challenges are all in the assembly, there were “witness” marks for the mould inserts for the 3 visible and I presume vice versa! From memory of the build in AMW the 3 has the same wings thicker than the stubs on the fuselage.

i am not kidding when I tell you I used a big metal working file on the model.  I don’t know how many Italeri moulded but the paucity of builds on the internet may tell you something...

Good Luck.

Will

[Admiral Puff]

I have both; they're essentially the same kit with only detail differences. They have their flaws, not least of which is the collection of canals and laterals passing themselves off as panel lines, but they are a step up from the Airfix offering. I just wish that Special Hobby would get on with the task of issuing their Mk. V, which looks to be a bit better, albeit with some glitches of its own, and comes with R-1830s, making a Sandringham that much easier to produce.

[occa]

Almost no one seems to have noticed that the section in front of the windshield is wrong on the Italeri kits.

It should be almost flat not rounded ...this creates a groove where the fuselage meets with that section.

 

The SH looks promising there.

[LDSModeller]

3 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Which of the 2 Italeri Sunderlands (Mk. I and Mk. III) can more easily be built into an accurate model?

 

Yes, I know all about the horrible panel lines!)

 

Thanks in advance.

Actually OOb, none of the current Sunderland Models, Airfix, Italeri and yes I'll say it, the long awaited SH Mk V can be

built as an "Accurate" model

 

It really depends on your definition of what is "Accurate" is also? Yours, Mine and Someone Else's may/can/will differ.

 

All marks of the Sunderland differed, all different beasties, and I've said it once and I'll say it again "You Cannot build

a one size fits all Sunderland kit. I have both Italeri kits

 

However Short list of Issues for both and I have not mentioned everything:

Externally

Bow cross section too narrow, As Occa comments on in his post above Italeri have molded the area around the main canopy

with a bulge, which then causes a narrow profile to the fuselage. If you look at this Mk I, it has a similar profile around the main

canopy base, but not a narrow bow cross section - Not not all Mk I's (I have seen, have this)

 

Both missing the "Tenth Porthole on Starboard side see photo

On a real Sunderland - count the Starboard forward lower Ports - 10

 

Italeri Mk I /III has a extra Porthole on Starboard side upper fuselage section (near wing leading edge)

that should not be there

Mk III still has the "Panel/Hatch" on Port/Starboard sides from Mk I which is wrong as in above photo,

and photo below

 

Mk V/MR5  Sunderland see No hatch panel on real aircraft (Note Mk III and Mk V fuselages are same bar a few

differences such as additional hatches etc)

 

 

The Forward and Rear main hatches are wrong dimensions Italeri Mk I/III hatches are too big, the above

annotated photo gives you the forward measurements. Rear hatch should be about 20mm in height.

If you check my first photo, you can see under the fuselage, a page with "General Arrangement", this is

from the Mk III M&E  Sunderland manual and has hatch etc measurements in Feet and Inches...

 

Portholes, both the Italeri kits have porthole issues with the appearance of Porthole rings on all portholes

Not all Port holes open on a Sunderland (all marks), only some do as in this photo only opening have "Rings"

 

The Sunderland Porthole Transparency in 1:1 scale is 30.5cm or 4.2mm in 1/72, so the actual hole

is correct, but you will have to fill in  the rings that are "Non Opening" The "Opening Rings" are about right size

 

Italeri would have you put a porthole in for the camera hatch on the lower section of stern fuselage as in photo below

 

In reality the Camera hatch was covered as in this photo.

 

Also not all photos were taken through here, on Mk I/II and early production Mk III's the cameras were mounted above the rear crew bunks

as in this photo from the IWM collection (used for illustration purposes only)

 

Wings/Bomb Bay doors

Bomb bay doors are a little short heightwise see photo below

The lower wings are missing a number of items or are incorrect as in this photo

 

And before anyone challenges the step in the flap see this photo, you can see the step readily, along with

the fact the wing tip lights are clear not coloured as Italeri have supplied

Step in Flap well - note the hardwood spacer to which the flap tucks up to

Additionally the main Flaps are wrong upper and lower, No extra Fuel tanks on Mk III on wings

 

Internally the only part of the Flight deck Italeri actually got right is the radio Bulkhead and balsa sub bulkhead

Just noticed didn't annotate the molding on the Radio Station forward bulkhead (it's wrong), there is actually

a lot more that goes on there in the Real Sunderland.

Some Model magazine Editor did an Article a few years back on building the Mk i and stated Erroneously that the

Balsa Sub bulkhead was not used - WRONG! All marks had them, and they were for the Blackout curtains that were

hung during night operations (press studded to frame) to cut down light from Navigator and radio stations.

 

Just so you know I have some Provenance in my comments, I grew up on an RNZAF Sunderland Base, my Father

maintained them and I got to go on board and see and do things most can only dream about, not to mention learn

all about Sunderland's from him, and actual WWII flight crew.

Secondly I have manuals for the Mk I/II III and V Sunderland's - just a tidbit

If you have any other queries please ask, especially about the interior or other external items

 

Regards

 

Alan

[Seahawk]

Hmm.  So both kits have basic outline errors, loads of detail errors, ghastly panel lines and are less than a delight to build.  Maybe I'll pass, even at a reduced price.  It's not as if I don't have enough other stuff to build.  

 

Many thanks to all who contributed, especially @LDSModeller for his magnificently comprehensive reply.

[72modeler]

LDS Modeler,

First off, thank you so much for the comprehensive text, photos, and diagrams of the Italeri kit and the real article- answers a lot of questions! You mentioned issues with the yet-to-be-released SH kit- have you seen sprue shots or have first-hand knowledge of the problems associated with it? The version they are planning is my favorite anyway, as it will have the P&W R-1830 engines, but I also agree with Seahawk- unless you are a bona fide Sunderland fanatic, life is too short to expend the big bucks for either of the three  kits if they will  need extensive reworking- it's not that I couldn't do it, it's more a matter of "so many models and so little time." The mistakes Italeri made are all the more disappointing as they certainly could have examined the real article in detail. Once again, I think we all appreciate your comments and visual aids- they will be invaluable no matter what kit is purchased.

Mike

[Ed Russell]

Alan ( @LDSModeller) was very helpful during my build and  i feel with the help of him and others I got a reasonable result ..........

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234940047-italeri-sunderland-mk-ii-raaf-10-squadron/

I would not be put off by the effort required if you really want a Sunderland. Many of the inaccuracies of both kits are internal and, to be honest, will not be seen in the finished build. The porthole variations are worth study but minor issues of shape are probably not. Having built several of each to a reasonable standard there isn't much to choose between the Airfix and Italeri kits - you are up for a bit of work either way.

This book is worth a look for inspiration. it adds detail but doesn't correct all the faults

https://www.ebay.com/p/Auriga-Publishing-Advanced-Techniques-Vol-4-Short-Sunderland-MK-IIIA/2106877245

A careful trawl through Alan's various posts on BM will yield a lot of good detail information.

[LDSModeller]

12 hours ago, 72modeler said:

LDS Modeler,

First off, thank you so much for the comprehensive text, photos, and diagrams of the Italeri kit and the real article- answers a lot of questions! You mentioned issues with the yet-to-be-released SH kit- have you seen sprue shots or have first-hand knowledge of the problems associated with it? The version they are planning is my favorite anyway, as it will have the P&W R-1830 engines, but I also agree with Seahawk- unless you are a bona fide Sunderland fanatic, life is too short to expend the big bucks for either of the three  kits if they will  need extensive reworking- it's not that I couldn't do it, it's more a matter of "so many models and so little time." The mistakes Italeri made are all the more disappointing as they certainly could have examined the real article in detail. Once again, I think we all appreciate your comments and visual aids- they will be invaluable no matter what kit is purchased.

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

Thank you for your comments - yes I must profess I am a Sunderland fanatic (in a good way) I quite enjoy

seeing a Sunderland model, and there have been a quite a number here on Britmodeller.

 

Re The Special Hobby Sunderland, I must be up front and state I did supply them some technical information

for the Interior. They had already molded the fuselage before they approached me, so all mistakes in that regard

are theirs alone. The info supplied by me was used in some instances and ignored in others - their call

 

Yes I have seen the Sprue shots: here we go

Lower Wing

SH Sunderland Lower Wing

 

Issues No ID lights, Wing Vents (at bottom of 5 and 4) or Flap well step - photo below

 

Upper Wing

SH Upper Wing

 

They have the Oil Cooler vents covered that's a tick

No Rear Fuel Tanks (for either Mk V or Mk III) See Link ( I have done it this way see it better)

Fuel Tank Diagram

Hard to tell if they have the Leading Edge doors for APU

 

SH Sunderland External rear fuslage

 

Not all Mk V's had the Forward and rear hatch with the clear panels for Crash axe and Fire Extinguisher,

but SH have done the forward hatch like that - but not the rear hatch (in link) Rear hatch is the same

(Ignore Dorsal hump for now)

The Mk V (and later Production Mk III) should have an external flare chute

Up Close

(Yes I have photos of the Internal fixture also)

 

SH Sunderland Flight Deck and Upper hatch - my previous comments  are really minor issues

compared to this, the modeller will have to conduct major surgery for this - The Upper hatch

is on the wrong place, and the upper bow  deck is wrong also.

SH Sunderland Flight deck

 

if you look at the line I have drawn vertically in the link photo, this is where the main spar and Spar upper subsection

sits.

The Upper hatch is actually forward of this...... see the photo below

 

The photo Link below shows a Sunderland Pilot (possibly "Third Dickey") fighting the aircraft from the

Astrodome standing on the Access platform

Astrodome Upper hatch

The access Platform stowed and up note in front of main spar - I have been up through this hatch when the RNZAF

Sunderland's were in service, so have first hand knowledge of this

 

 

My Model build showing how it all should look

 

The Upper Bow decking should not run straight from the flight deck, but rather drops down as in this photo

of my Sunderland build - the photo is a little deceiving in that the upper deck is raised at an angle, there should be

a lip between deck and curve of fuselage

 

There are other issues, but I'll leave it as is for now, I've probably annoyed a few people

with my comments.

At the end of the day people can build Airfix, Italeri or even the SH Sunderland when it finally arrives.

As mentioned earlier by myself and also Ed's comments OOB or with a lot of work you'll have a Sunderland

that you can be proud of

Regards

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

 

[72modeler]

Alan,

 

Thank you so much for your photos, text, and labels to highlight (lowlight?) the issues with the Italeri and Special Hobby kits. I think the corrections you have illustrated are doable- it's a shame they have to be done with a state of the art model, considering all of the available technology for scanning, measuring, and making the tooling from a real example. I do have one question- I understand what you stated regarding the lack of a step where the leading edge of the flaps meet the trailing edge of the flap cove, but it's hard for me to tell in the photos how to make that area more accurate, especially if modeling the airplane with the flaps up. Does the leading edge of the flap curve up and under the external skin all along the edge of the flap cove? If you have a better photo of that area, it would sure help! I was thinking, off the top of my pointed little head, that I could scribe along the leading edge panel of the flap, remove that section, and then install a curved piece of plasticard or a section of leading edge from a scrap wing half, gluing it to the leading edge of the flap so that it curves under the edge of the flap cove that is left. Does that make sense, if I have interpreted what you mean by the lack of a step correctly on the Italeri/SH kits?

 

It makes no sense to me when a kit maker  seeks or receives input and reference material regarding a projected  kit, with the intent of making a more accurate product, and then ignores said input? I recall a well-known and highly respected P-51 Mustang authority, who offered the same kind of assistance to two different kit makers, and his suggestions were, for the most part, not followed. On behalf of all of us, thanks for trying! We do appreciate what you have shared with us, and I know each of us will be able to apply some or all of the corrections you have noted- each of us according to our ability and skill. Good on ya, mate!

Mike

Edited May 20, 2018 by 72modeler
corrected spelling

[LDSModeller]

9 hours ago, 72modeler said:

Allan,

 

 I understand what you stated regarding the lack of a step where the leading edge of the flaps meet the trailing edge of the flap cove, but it's hard for me to tell in the photos how to make that area more accurate, especially if modeling the airplane with the flaps up. Does the leading edge of the flap curve up and under the external skin all along the edge of the flap cove? If you have a better photo of that area, it would sure help! I was thinking, off the top of my pointed little head, that I could scribe along the leading edge panel of the flap, remove that section, and then install a curved piece of plasticard or a section of leading edge from a scrap wing half, gluing it to the leading edge of the flap so that it curves under the edge of the flap cove that is left. Does that make sense, if I have interpreted what you mean by the lack of a step correctly  the Italeri/SH kits?

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

I had a hunt through all my photos, and this one below is the best I can find showing the "Flap Well Step"

 

 

Edit - I re-read my comments and your question, and realized I forgot to add in something about the "Aerofoil"

Shape. I have done this in a link, so the photo is larger for you to see the detail

 

Flap Aerofoil

 

Couple of other things of interest, Note the Bomb Truck Rails and the sliding covers which are partially open.

 

Also the access panel next to the tracks  (allowing access to things like the flap motor - fun things to play with,

truck load of torque with a small spindle to boot), and the wing jack point under my name

 

Hope that helps?

 

Regards

 

Alan

Edited May 20, 2018 by LDSModeller
Additional detail info

[fernandocouto]

On ‎18‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 04:03, malpaso said:

Having built the Mark.I I would think the challenges are all in the assembly, there were “witness” marks for the mould inserts for the 3 visible and I presume vice versa! From memory of the build in AMW the 3 has the same wings thicker than the stubs on the fuselage.

i am not kidding when I tell you I used a big metal working file on the model.  I don’t know how many Italeri moulded but the paucity of builds on the internet may tell you something...

Good Luck.

Will

Whaaaaaaat........a big file......

I built about 20 ITA kits but never come with such a horrible fitting...However ITA's kits quality are descending in recent years, IMO.

Several old kits, even with raised panel lines, are a pleasure to build.

But when I opened my Reggiane Re.2002........and Ju87...........

Macchi 200 is much better comparing the former two, so I bought a 48th scale UH-34. I should chose the MRC though it's moulded by trumpeter....

So what happened to Italeri?

After all I'll take another ITA kit...Re.2000 announced on catalog...hope it won't be same quality as 2002...

[Julien]

Allan any chance of you submitting your pictures for use in the walkaround section?

 

Julien

[LDSModeller]

On 5/29/2018 at 10:16 AM, Julien said:

Allan any chance of you submitting your pictures for use in the walkaround section?

 

Julien

Hi Julien,

 

I would have sort first, did you want any type of annotation to go with them ie bow section etc?

 

Regards

 

Alan

[Seahawk]

Personally, I think your annotations would add immensely to the value of the pictures.  Not knowing the subject, I just wouldn't spot things that seem obvious to you.  That's if you're willing to invest the time.

[LDSModeller]

3 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Personally, I think your annotations would add immensely to the value of the pictures.  Not knowing the subject, I just wouldn't spot things that seem obvious to you.  That's if you're willing to invest the time.

I would be very happy to do that  

 

Regards

 

Alan

[Julien]

Sounds like a plan as they say.

 

Thanks Alan

 

Julien