Any Avro Lancaster/Dambuster fan's out there?

Any Avro Lancaster/Dambuster fan's out there?

Author
Discussion

JTD

Original Poster:

73 posts

202 months

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Friday 16th May 2008
quotequote all
As this is a model forum, a list of available Lancaster models might be appropriate:

In 1/72 Scale -
Corgi die-cast - nice but heavy detail

Original Airfix - rare and by today's standards very crude. Only worth buying as a collector's item.

Frog/Novo/Eastern Express - a mid 1970s release - not very good - avoid

Airfix 1980 version - much, much better and, until very recently, the best 1/72 Lancaster on the market. It was released as a standard MkI, a Dambuster conversion and a BI (Special) with a Grand Slam bomb. It is still the only 1/72 kit available of the latter.

Hasegawa - lovely kit released about two years ago. Fairly pricey (£25.00 approx) but fairly state of the art.

Old Revell - from the mid 1960s. Still available in its Dambuster guise but not very good by modern standards.

New Revell - released last November and the best Lancaster ever kitted in this scale. It outshines the Hasegawa kit and is almost half the price. Hopefully, a Dambuster version will be released some time and the crude mid 1960s version can be pensioned off.
Gorgeous.

1/48

Tamiya - only game in town. Almost a quarter of a century old but still a beautiful kit. Available as a standard or a BI (Special).

1/144

Minicraft - a nice little kit and one I have stashed away for conversion into a Lancastrian (some day) as it is in the scale normally used by airliners.

1/96

Frog/Novo - a mid 1950s release and not worth bothering with because of the crudity and odd scale. Original boxings would be very collectable now.

Up to now, no one has produced a kit of the radial engined B MkII Lancaster which is a pity. A number of small resin and white metal producers have made conversion kits for the Airfix Lancaster. The poor old MkII, which was built in relatively small numbers, is very poorly served by the kit indutry.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 16th May 08:47

JTD

Original Poster:

73 posts

202 months

Friday 16th May 2008
quotequote all
Dont forget the current Tamiya 1/48 Lanc which is now being sold as a motorised version of the old kit, though its in Grand Slam Special format, I'm pretty sure it does have all the parts to keep it in B1/B111 bomber format.

A must have are the superb photo-etched detail sets from Eduard which are now colour etched too & the Flightpath set (who also do a .303 gun set) to go with it.

My view is that the Tamiya kit is still the benchmark in 1/48 scale, even now the two old kit's fetch crazy prices on eBay and they are sure to shoot up in price when the remake of "The Danbusters" film comes out in late 2008/09, just hope they dont ruin what is an all time classic!

Edited by JTD on Friday 16th May 10:27

Shar2

2,228 posts

220 months

Wednesday 28th May 2008
quotequote all
I've got both the old standard kit and the Grand Slam special with the electric motors in the model store. They are great kits, just haven't the time or space to build them yet. Oh! and I've got the Flightpath etched brass set for each of them. One day I'll get round to making them.

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Wednesday 28th May 2008
quotequote all
I'm having a go at the old Frog Whitley at the moment. It will take a lot of work to turn it into a decent model. It wasn't too bad when originally released (around 1970/71) but the kit I have is a fairly new pressing from Maquette and the moulds are obviously very, very tired.

I have a huge soft spot for the aircraft used by Bomber Command before the arrival of the four engined "heavies" - the Blenheim, Battle, Hampden, Whitley and Wellington. I have great admiration for the crews who flew them as these planes were, with the possible exception of the Wellington, inadequate for the task being asked of them.

Negative Creep

25,243 posts

234 months

Saturday 31st May 2008
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
I'm having a go at the old Frog Whitley at the moment. It will take a lot of work to turn it into a decent model. It wasn't too bad when originally released (around 1970/71) but the kit I have is a fairly new pressing from Maquette and the moulds are obviously very, very tired.

I have a huge soft spot for the aircraft used by Bomber Command before the arrival of the four engined "heavies" - the Blenheim, Battle, Hampden, Whitley and Wellington. I have great admiration for the crews who flew them as these planes were, with the possible exception of the Wellington, inadequate for the task being asked of them.
Incredible to think that high command though a crew could navigate to a target and bomb it by eye of dead reckoning alone. Even more incredible that they thought a couple of machine guns would allow them to defend against enemy fighters. Maybe less so the Whitley, but the lighter bombers were death traps that took a lot of good crews with them. Even with the Lancaster, the lack of a ventral turret or even viewpoint is incredible.

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Monday 2nd June 2008
quotequote all
Scarificed for the ability to carry a large bomb load in a bigger bomb bay.

The Whitley had started life with a retractable dustbin turret on the underside. However, when lowered it caused so much aerodynamic drag that it was removed. The removal also saved weight and increased the bombload and/or range.

The hole left by the departed dustbin turret was initially filled in. When Whitleys began to be used a paratroop training aircraft, the hole was reopened and used as the departure point for the trainees. One had to be careful about keeping your head back when jumping as the hole was not that large and many trainees suffered what became known as "Whitley Chin".

JTD

Original Poster:

73 posts

202 months

Monday 2nd June 2008
quotequote all
Shar2 said:
I've got both the old standard kit and the Grand Slam special with the electric motors in the model store. They are great kits, just haven't the time or space to build them yet. Oh! and I've got the Flightpath etched brass set for each of them. One day I'll get round to making them.
The Flightpath set is ok but if you want wow take look at the Eduard PE sets for the 1/48 Lanc as in the case of the cockpit deatil set its now colour etched with all the minute detail printed on, simply superb!

Shar2

2,228 posts

220 months

Tuesday 3rd June 2008
quotequote all
JTD said:
The Flightpath set is ok but if you want wow take look at the Eduard PE sets for the 1/48 Lanc as in the case of the cockpit deatil set its now colour etched with all the minute detail printed on, simply superb!
Yeah! I've seen them on the Hannants site, may just have to get them as well as the models deserve to be built to the highest possible standards.

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Tuesday 3rd June 2008
quotequote all
If anyone is interested, there are some very detailed articles on the post war career of the RAF's Lancaster fleet in the latest edition "Model Aircraft Monthly". Particular emphasis is placed on those Lancasters that had been earmarked for transfer to the RAF's Tiger Force and were painted with white upper surfaces and black undersides.

The Lancaster's career as a Met Flight and Maritime Recce aircraft up until its retirement in 1956 is also covered.

Related modelling features are based on builds of the newish 1/72 Hasegawa and the very new (and excellent) 1/72 Revell model.

Shar2

2,228 posts

220 months

Tuesday 3rd June 2008
quotequote all
Sounds like an interesting read Eric. Paragon used to do a resin saddle tank for a Tiger force Lanc conversion, both in 1/48th and 1/72nd.

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Tuesday 3rd June 2008
quotequote all
There is a side colour drawing of one of the Saddle Tan Lancs in the mag.

They were very unpopular with their crews and at one point were mooted as being used as air to air tankers.

I'm reading the memoirs of a Lnacaster gunner at the moment and learning some interesting new facts about their uses in WW2. For instance, I never realised that they were used (at least once) in a gunship role.

His squadron flew all the way to northern Italy where they were briefed to drop to low altitude (150 feet) and, using their gun turrets, shoot up a large electricity generating station. They succeeded in knocking out the entire power supply to northern Italy for a few weeks.


Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 3rd June 11:46

JTD

Original Poster:

73 posts

202 months

Friday 23rd January 2009
quotequote all
At long last, Tamiya are finally reissuing their 1/48 kit of the Avro Lancaster B Mk.I/III. This time around the kit has been updated to include a number of extras that were only previously available as resin conversion kits, these include:

Larger bomb aimer's blister.
Needle-blade propellors.
Smooth, bulged tyres.
Unshrouded exhausts.
Later type twin 0.5" rear gun turret.

I hear some of the parts such as nacelle, wheels & props are white metal though unsure on this.

Markings for four different aircraft are included although I don't have full details of these as yet. One set of markings is for "Mike Squared" (M²), ED888 of No.103 Squadron.

It should hit UK shores by the end of Feb 09 and has an RRP of £67.99

Cara Van Man

29,977 posts

258 months

Friday 23rd January 2009
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
New Revell - released last November and the best Lancaster ever kitted in this scale. It outshines the Hasegawa kit and is almost half the price.
I actually started this kit last night.....bought from the Battle of Britain flt at Coningsby.

I'll make a thread of 'work in progress' if you'd like?

Shar2

2,228 posts

220 months

Friday 23rd January 2009
quotequote all
JTD said:
At long last, Tamiya are finally reissuing their 1/48 kit of the Avro Lancaster B Mk.I/III. This time around the kit has been updated to include a number of extras that were only previously available as resin conversion kits, these include:

Larger bomb aimer's blister.
Needle-blade propellors.
Smooth, bulged tyres.
Unshrouded exhausts.
Later type twin 0.5" rear gun turret.

I hear some of the parts such as nacelle, wheels & props are white metal though unsure on this.

Markings for four different aircraft are included although I don't have full details of these as yet. One set of markings is for "Mike Squared" (M²), ED888 of No.103 Squadron.

It should hit UK shores by the end of Feb 09 and has an RRP of £67.99
Cool, sounds like I'll add to my loft insulation until I get the time and space needed to build it.

gopher

5,160 posts

266 months

Friday 23rd January 2009
quotequote all
Cara Van Man said:
I actually started this kit last night.....bought from the Battle of Britain flt at Coningsby.

I'll make a thread of 'work in progress' if you'd like?
go for it, I'll let you find all the tricky bits before I start mine biggrin

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Saturday 24th January 2009
quotequote all
Since the Revell kit came out a few months ago, there has been some discussion amongst modelling circles as to whether the wing dihedral is set correctly. No one seems to have come up witha definitive answer because it does appear that the angle of the wings to the fuselage could vary quite a bit depending on whether the aircraft was sitting on the ground empty or fully loaded or flying empty or fully loaded. Most have come to the conclusion that the dihedral is correct for a lightly loaded Lanc sitting on the ground.

This is understandable if the Battle of Britian Memeorial Flight Lanc. Plain Jane or one of the static museum examples were used for taking the measurements because all of those would be empty of fuel and/or bombs - naturally.

Cara Van Man

29,977 posts

258 months

Saturday 24th January 2009
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Since the Revell kit came out a few months ago, there has been some discussion amongst modelling circles as to whether the wing dihedral is set correctly. No one seems to have come up witha definitive answer because it does appear that the angle of the wings to the fuselage could vary quite a bit depending on whether the aircraft was sitting on the ground empty or fully loaded or flying empty or fully loaded. Most have come to the conclusion that the dihedral is correct for a lightly loaded Lanc sitting on the ground.

This is understandable if the Battle of Britian Memeorial Flight Lanc. Plain Jane or one of the static museum examples were used for taking the measurements because all of those would be empty of fuel and/or bombs - naturally.
Hang on, I'll just go and get my protractor out hehe

Eric Mc

122,861 posts

272 months

Saturday 24th January 2009
quotequote all
Cara Van Man said:
Eric Mc said:
Since the Revell kit came out a few months ago, there has been some discussion amongst modelling circles as to whether the wing dihedral is set correctly. No one seems to have come up witha definitive answer because it does appear that the angle of the wings to the fuselage could vary quite a bit depending on whether the aircraft was sitting on the ground empty or fully loaded or flying empty or fully loaded. Most have come to the conclusion that the dihedral is correct for a lightly loaded Lanc sitting on the ground.

This is understandable if the Battle of Britian Memeorial Flight Lanc. Plain Jane or one of the static museum examples were used for taking the measurements because all of those would be empty of fuel and/or bombs - naturally.
Hang on, I'll just go and get my protractor out hehe
Although it might sound pedantic, if this angle is set incorrectly on a model, the finished article just won't look right. I've seen some beautifully finished models just look totally wrong because the wings were attached with the wrong dihedral.

I think Revell got this one right, and in reading up on the various magazine articles where it was discussed, I discovered a few more facts about Lancasters.

Now, if only Revell would apply the same standard of mould making to a new 1/72 Halifax or Stirling.

Cara Van Man

29,977 posts

258 months

Saturday 24th January 2009
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Cara Van Man said:
Eric Mc said:
Since the Revell kit came out a few months ago, there has been some discussion amongst modelling circles as to whether the wing dihedral is set correctly. No one seems to have come up witha definitive answer because it does appear that the angle of the wings to the fuselage could vary quite a bit depending on whether the aircraft was sitting on the ground empty or fully loaded or flying empty or fully loaded. Most have come to the conclusion that the dihedral is correct for a lightly loaded Lanc sitting on the ground.

This is understandable if the Battle of Britian Memeorial Flight Lanc. Plain Jane or one of the static museum examples were used for taking the measurements because all of those would be empty of fuel and/or bombs - naturally.
Hang on, I'll just go and get my protractor out hehe
Although it might sound pedantic, if this angle is set incorrectly on a model, the finished article just won't look right. I've seen some beautifully finished models just look totally wrong because the wings were attached with the wrong dihedral.

I think Revell got this one right, and in reading up on the various magazine articles where it was discussed, I discovered a few more facts about Lancasters.

Now, if only Revell would apply the same standard of mould making to a new 1/72 Halifax or Stirling.
I've just pre-assembled the body and wings with the centre spar.

Looking from the front the spar holds the wings almost horizontal (with a tiny amount of raise in the wings) then towards the outer tip of the wings it raise more.....looks pretty good to me.