Jump to content

1/72 Lancaster which one is better Airfix or Revell ?


Corsairfoxfouruncle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

    Ive decided to break my big plane moratorium and Im trying to decide which Lancaster kit to go with. Any tips as to ease of construction and such would be helpful. Hopefully I can find the decals I want as well. 
 

Dennis

 

PS- Johnny walker decals are what Im hoping for, my fallback would be “S” for Sugar. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, well the latest boxing of the Airfix Lancaster features decals for S - Sugar so that would save you on AM decals. I have the essentially similar Mk.II Radial engined kit and from various build reports it goes together rather well, although the u/c assemblies can be a bit tricky. I've not built mine as yet, so you're better off listening to someone who has. There are a number of nice examples online, so it can't be that hard. 

 

The Revell kit suffers from no dihedral to its outer wings, so you can either leave them flat or cut and shim a piece of plastic card so that it looks right. Once again, many good quality builds online for that kit too. 

 

Cheers and HTH.. Dave 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have read, regarding the Airfix landing gear, is to follow the instruction until you complete Step 22. Then you saw off the gear bays from the spars and glue the bays into the wings. After the wings have been assembled, you just slide them over the spars and cement them to the fuselage. This could be done after painting the sub-assemblies.

 

50828804007_1301f0455b_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rabbit Leader said:

The Revell kit suffers from no dihedral to its outer wings

Just vaguely remembering, but I think it was here on BritModeller that somebody noted the Revell dihedral would be acceptable for a Lanc on the ground, though less so for an aircraft in flight.

What's the general feeling?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put "airfix vs revell lancaster britmodeller" into the search box (Google) you'll get at least five different threads discussing the question.

 

Not meaning to sound curmudgeonly, I just knew that I remembered one [sic].

 

bob

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

If you put "airfix vs revell lancaster britmodeller" into the search box (Google) you'll get at least five different threads discussing the question.

 

Not meaning to sound curmudgeonly, I just knew that I remembered one [sic].

 

bob

You are of course correct, I never thought to do this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ClaudioN said:

Just vaguely remembering, but I think it was here on BritModeller that somebody noted the Revell dihedral would be acceptable for a Lanc on the ground, though less so for an aircraft in flight.

What's the general feeling?

If fully fuelled, that was the theory. I seem to recall there was a photo to back it up but don't have the link, I'm afraid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Airfix cockpit is more accurate than the Revell kit; in the latter the pilot’s floor incorrectly extends as far back as the navigator’s table and the pilot’s seat is too high and too far aft.  From memory I think that at least one of the upper fuselage escape hatches is wrongly located in the Revell kit but at least it’s not the cockpit roof hatch (as in the Hasegawa kit).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with 'dogsbody', broadly. The undercarriage bay assemblies in the new kit are a pain - though I've only built the new MkII variant. Wrestling those bay areas  into submission was a challenge.  The nacelle to engine cowling fit was also not great on the MkII, possibly due to incompetence on my part.

 

If you can find a kit of the earlier issue Airfix Lancaster, I thought it fairly good, and easy to build, by (admittedly dubious) memory.

 

John B

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Hello everyone,

    Ive decided to break my big plane moratorium and Im trying to decide which Lancaster kit to go with. Any tips as to ease of construction and such would be helpful. Hopefully I can find the decals I want as well. 
 

Dennis

 

PS- Johnny walker decals are what Im hoping for, my fallback would be “S” for Sugar. 

Dennis, I'm surprised you didn't remember to look for the best kit comparison method available anywhere: The Britmodeller Group Builds :winkgrin:. Go and take a look at how Revell and Airfix kits really look like here:

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/682-avro-lancaster-stgb/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Just vaguely remembering, but I think it was here on BritModeller that somebody noted the Revell dihedral would be acceptable for a Lanc on the ground, though less so for an aircraft in flight.

What's the general feeling?

The dihedral problem is in mine feeling more serious and requires surgery of wings. What is not complete if yo do not change the angle of engines (to keep them parallel do inboard one) , and this is much serious surgery.  Of other flaws the wheels are far too large and also the fronts of cooolers are too squared. I vote for Airfix, then old ('1980) Airfix and then Hasegawa, contemporary Revell and older kits (first Airfix, old Revell) in the end...

I am sorry to say but the Revell kit looks great only in box. Please do not ask why I know it... :)

Regards

J-W

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned this subject has come up before. How I see it: Revell is the better kit, Airfix is the better model. Airfix is more accurate in many respects, but it's considerably more difficult to put together and has heavy panel lines. Hasegawa is a great option: almost as accurate as Airfix but not quite (main canopy escape hatch in the wrong place, somewhat freakishly large tail wheel come to mind) but not as detailed on the inside. Not that much can be seen. And its much more expensive than the other two.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the photos I have of a Lanc 'at rest' show a level wing plan, there is always a dihedral. As for the possibility of the outer fuel tanks adding extra weight to the outer wings these tanks contained 114 gallons where as the inboard tanks carried 580 gallons so if anything the dihedral could be more pronounced will full tanks.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a common misunderstanding about dihedral.  The angle does not change (and cannot - there is no hinge  in the wing at that joint).  What happens under load is the the outer wing panel bends upwards, but this much much more visible near the tips  At the join with the centre-section there is no extra kink.  Think about it - this would require either a gap opening below the wing or a crumpling of the upper skin.  Some stretching/compression can and does occur over the length of the outer wing. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, modelldoc said:

My preference is for Airfix:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/16603003083/in/photolist-V6njJG-ri9JnR-scEYwU-r5SAzH-qJXkqp-qJT3EW-qsoPAj-qso5c3-gDBxAi-98cKjF

 

Yes, it is the Mk II, but in general it is a "better" Lancaster.

 

modelldoc

Nice Mk.II

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...