Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Leader Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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. Chris 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted November 20, 2021 Author Share Posted November 20, 2021 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 More sharing options...
johnd Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vppelt68 Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 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 . 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/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elger Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelldoc Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 Dennis, PM sent! Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishplanebeer Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 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. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted November 21, 2021 Author Share Posted November 21, 2021 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 More sharing options...
HAAFPhot Posted August 13, 2022 Share Posted August 13, 2022 On 20/11/2021 at 18:24, 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? It has around 3.5-4 degrees rather than 7 to be fair. The problem seems that depending how you view it, because of the washout, things can look at odds. I have just corrected the dihedral on one. I wasn’t going to bother but I figured if it was worth building, and with all the info out there, why not? Not that difficult to be honest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAAFPhot Posted August 13, 2022 Share Posted August 13, 2022 On 21/11/2021 at 16:25, Graham Boak said: 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. Yep. Massively under load or pulling out of a dive. All aircraft flex, quite alarmingly to the un imitated, but it’s there for a reason. Without it the first decent bit of clear air turbulence or rough landing and things could get a bit bent. Even the mighty Chinook flexes in the middle with the skin rippling under max torque. It has to be absorbed somewhere or things fail. I think a compound visual effect is washout which can often give the impression that dihedral is less than it is. Even on rotor blades it can make them look slight tapered (which ironically is what it replaced). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitanian Posted August 13, 2022 Share Posted August 13, 2022 On 11/20/2021 at 11:24 AM, 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? Speaking from my experience as a former aircraft maintenance technician, if the wings of a Lancaster 'droop' (is that the right word in English?), I would not allow the pilot to take the machine into the air! He will probably die! Most large aircraft with sweep wings (B.707 as example) have very flexible wing structure by its design. Straight wing aircraft (Lancaster or B-17 as example) do not 'bend' in the air. Straight wings are very rigid structure by its design. Best wishes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul H Posted August 13, 2022 Share Posted August 13, 2022 (edited) Even on the ground, Lancasters have very noticeable dihedral. However, due to the tail down angle (inherent from the undercarriage layout), this isn't immediately obvious as a result of the camera angle in most photos. Also not helped by the plan view taper on the wings starting at the same point as the change in dihedral as viewed in true end elevation compared to the geometry of the wing. I don't have the link to hand, however I have seen photos of Lancasters on the production line where, due to the angle of the image, true dihedral is clearly visible, and it is very obvious. Edited August 13, 2022 by Paul H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 13, 2022 Share Posted August 13, 2022 Lusitania, I am afraid that you are quite wrong there. All aircraft wings bend in the air, and, equally, droop somewhat on the ground. It is certainly true that a Lancaster's wing will appear much more stiff than that of a B-47, but this is a matter of length (not span but true length) to depth ratio rather than any function of sweep. There is a science (or perhaps sub-science) called aeroelastics which deals with this matter - when I was studying it in the 1970s the classic case presented was that of the Spitfire, which went through several redesigns to strengthen and stiffen the wing. The prime problems considered were a weak wing root which failed under g, aileron reversal, where moving the aileron at high speeds twisted the wing to extent to reduce, neutralise and reverse the effect on the aircraft, and divergence, where the aircraft dived so fast, and pulled excessive g, so that the wing twisted off. This was also a problem with early Lancasters, which were known to lose the outer wing in dives, something that was rapidly corrected once realised. Normally. a Lancaster wing, in the air, is basically a cantilever fixed at the root. The lift force is spread along the wing, and acts to bend the tip upwards. This would normally only be noticeable at heavy loads or when pulling g, but could be seen when carrying heavy loads. There are striking photos showing the bend in the wings of Lancasters carrying Grand Slam. When on the ground, the wing will adopt aa inverted w shape, with two fixed points at the undercarriage. The weight of the fuselage will pull the inner wing downwards, and the outer wing will droop out to the tip. However these deflections will be tiny inboard and minor outboard.. If a Lancaster wing visibly drooped on the ground it would indeed be a matter of considerable concern! Paul H. I believe that the Lancaster has no dihedral on the centre section, and some 7 degs for the outer panel. This angle is fixed and does not change. The centre section is indeed very rigid and will bend only slightly under load. The outer wing is more flexible and can bend considerably. This will then appear as a curve, with increasing dihedral outboard, but the term is normally only used for the static case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted August 13, 2022 Share Posted August 13, 2022 36 minutes ago, Graham Boak said: This was also a problem with early Lancasters, which were known to lose the outer wing in dives, something that was rapidly corrected once realised. The problem on the early Lancasters was at the joint at the outboard ends of the ailerons, rather than at the joint between centre section and outer panels. One incident involving this is described in Ian Allan’s Lancaster at War; the tips failed at low altitude just after take off, one detached completely whilst the other folded around 90 degrees upwards. The pilot managed to put the aeroplane down on a convenient beach with its load of 1,500 lb sea mines on board. Apparently the pilot was interviewed shortly afterwards by no less a person than Roy Chadwick who simply wanted to know whether some unauthorised low level aerobatics had been involved or if it was a situation where structural failure had occurred under normal flight loads. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted August 14, 2022 Share Posted August 14, 2022 (edited) My father has commented on Liberator wing flex- he flew in them as a Nav cadet. I think it unlikely that a Lanc would flex enough normally to notice. (Edit: sitting on ground vs 1G flight, I mean.) Edited August 14, 2022 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Knight Posted August 14, 2022 Share Posted August 14, 2022 The wing did flex badly in early Lancasters Enough to pop rivets and panels to come off partially or wholly It was exacerbated by the flush riveting. To do that the rivet holes in the skin panels were countersunk, thus thinning the aluminium skinning. A stiffened wing and surface riveting cured most of the problem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now