HK Models 1/32 Lancaster Hints, Tweaks and Tips,

[FME erk]

The two rings in the front nose blister indicate a later mark of IFF (Mk. III I think) IFF= Identification Friend or Foe

David

 

[FME erk]

18 minutes ago, NigelR32 said:

I think there is variation, part to part. I really dont know how this could be, but I can tell you I have a new port wing on the way because my kits wing is paper thin on the upper outer end?? 

Are you saying that spares are available ??

I know you had a replacement for the clear pieces but that was from the local stockist. I wonder if you could have got them replaced by HK themselves ??

[NigelR32]

I think I've discovered an issue with the radiator intakes on this kit as far as accuracy goes.

I have studied many pictures and it would appear the MkI/III has different intakes to the Mk VII and X.? I wont post pictures of the real aircraft, these can be found all over the web. I will however post pics of the kit parts in an effort that someone can prove me wrong.

As some of you will be aware, i am building mine as a Dambuster, which must have the early style intakes.

In this pic you will see the bulge in the lower front corner of the engine side cover. This appears on later Lancs, but I cannot see this on MkI/II aircraft?

 

In this next pic we can see that the lower cover panels are wider on the no2 and 3 engines than they are on the nos 1 and 4 engines. (No 2/3 is on the right).

The cowling behind the engine is fatter as it tapers out around the landing gear, but according to my references it should be the same shape where it meets the intake cowling. The open vent is also longer on the inboard engines??

Here we can see what I'm talking about with reference to the difference between outboard and inboard intakes. I believe these parts should be identical?? I also think the actual intake opening should be smaller on the MkI/III?? Note also that the air outlet is blanked off.. really?? on a 1/32 kit???

 

Please someone, tell me I'm wrong!! I will correct all this, but would rather not, having said that my OCD will not allow me to leave it as is..

It shouldn't be too difficult to do, just some sanding and rivetting.

 

[NigelR32]

6 minutes ago, FME erk said:

Are you saying that spares are available ??

I know you had a replacement for the clear pieces but that was from the local stockist. I wonder if you could have got them replaced by HK themselves ??

I have emailed HK regarding the issue with the wing and am expecting the replacement wing in the mail soon?? If it doesn't arrive I shall have to add my own stiffeners and add HK to a long list of kit manufacturers with poor customer service, however, I am confident the part will arrive.

[NigelR32]

14 minutes ago, FME erk said:

The two rings in the front nose blister indicate a later mark of IFF (Mk. III I think) IFF= Identification Friend or Foe

David

 

Thanks David. I need to fill those in on my kit as the Dambuster (464 Provisioning) didnt have the holes. Wish me luck!!

[FME erk]

I initially thought I would be able to polish them out but I have been duly informed that there actually 'holes' in the plastic . . . .

[yknu]

17 hours ago, FME erk said:

You will see the early shallow bomb-aimers blister here  . . .

https://www.ozatwar.com/ghistory.htm

there were two later version of that blister to come . . .  I hope this helps 

David

Thank you David, helps a lot :0))! 

[npb748r]

2 hours ago, NigelR32 said:

I think I've discovered an issue with the radiator intakes on this kit as far as accuracy goes.

I have studied many pictures and it would appear the MkI/III has different intakes to the Mk VII and X.? I wont post pictures of the real aircraft, these can be found all over the web. I will however post pics of the kit parts in an effort that someone can prove me wrong.

As some of you will be aware, i am building mine as a Dambuster, which must have the early style intakes.

In this pic you will see the bulge in the lower front corner of the engine side cover. This appears on later Lancs, but I cannot see this on MkI/II aircraft?

 

In this next pic we can see that the lower cover panels are wider on the no2 and 3 engines than they are on the nos 1 and 4 engines. (No 2/3 is on the right).

The cowling behind the engine is fatter as it tapers out around the landing gear, but according to my references it should be the same shape where it meets the intake cowling. The open vent is also longer on the inboard engines??

Here we can see what I'm talking about with reference to the difference between outboard and inboard intakes. I believe these parts should be identical?? I also think the actual intake opening should be smaller on the MkI/III?? Note also that the air outlet is blanked off.. really?? on a 1/32 kit???

 

Please someone, tell me I'm wrong!! I will correct all this, but would rather not, having said that my OCD will not allow me to leave it as is..

It shouldn't be too difficult to do, just some sanding and rivetting.

 

I think i read elsewhere and a few months back that the size of the kit intakes are more like those used on planes in tropical climates or later marks and were likely based on measurements from restored aircraft which, whilst looking like BI or BIII they were actually later models. Not sure how accurate that is. I'm planning on building a MkX so this might be ok for me, not good for your build though. 

[NigelR32]

OK guys.. I've been looking into this issue with the intakes. HELP!!

I'm looking for opinions here.. the first pic is a period picture of a MkX, KB903.. for reference only.

 

Next picture is modern, Just Jane NX611 Picture for reference only. This is a MkVII delivered to Far East spec, so is this why it has deeper radiators? Just Jane has Radiators as depicted in the kit, but doesnt have the "kink" in the engine side cover??

Next pic is S for Sugar, when she was a gate guard. She was a B.MkI Picture for refence only

So, it would appear that I was wrong to assume the Mk X vs Mk I/II differences? It would appear the F.E. Aircraft had deeper intakes with a larger radiator?

So, If I reshape my intakes to the shape of pics 1 and pic 3 I should be OK for a Dambuster?

[FME erk]

I would say,  looking at the alternate photos enough, you can see that Just Jane has a deeper aperture for her radiator(s) rather than the other two aircraft . . . .

Must admit I dont know where you are coming from with this 'bulge in the lower front corner ' ???

As far as I am aware there shouldn't be a bulge in the engine cowling full stop . . . .

 

[yknu]

7 hours ago, NigelR32 said:

I think there is variation, part to part. I really dont know how this could be, but I can tell you I have a new port wing on the way because my kits wing is paper thin on the upper outer end?? I ca only think the core is shifting during moulding, but having been involved in mould tool design myself, I doubt this very much?

I really dont get why the wings were made in this way??

I build the wings and the fit was not perfect. I discussed also with Neil Yan/HK about this. He reminded that it is important to put the parts K47 and L47 to wings first. Those keep the form of the wing. 

[NigelR32]

11 minutes ago, yknu said:

I build the wings and the fit was not perfect. I discussed also with Neil Yan/HK about this. He reminded that it is important to put the parts K47 and L47 to wings first. Those keep the form of the wing. 

You've done well there!! What a nightmare though trying to clean up with all that rivetting in the way? If Yan says to fit L47 first, why do the instructions tell you to put the tip on before fitting that part? Surely it would be much easier to fit that part L47 before ANYTHING else??

Thank you for the tip, this is indeed a valuable tip!!

Why the stretched sprue??

[NigelR32]

2 hours ago, FME erk said:

I would say,  looking at the alternate photos enough, you can see that Just Jane has a deeper aperture for her radiator(s) rather than the other two aircraft . . . .

Must admit I dont know where you are coming from with this 'bulge in the lower front corner ' ???

As far as I am aware there shouldn't be a bulge in the engine cowling full stop . . . .

 

I have added an arrow to the "bulge" I speak of. AFAIK and looking at the pics above, in all cases, this edge of the side cover should be straight?

 

 

 

[FME erk]

Yes . . looks like the molding is slightly mis-shaped.

Perhaps a little warming under the hair-dryer ????

 

And if you look at the photo of JJ . . .looks like them put to much glue around the panel 

does that mean I can get away with the same . . .

[yknu]

45 minutes ago, NigelR32 said:

You've done well there!! What a nightmare though trying to clean up with all that rivetting in the way? If Yan says to fit L47 first, why do the instructions tell you to put the tip on before fitting that part? Surely it would be much easier to fit that part L47 before ANYTHING else??

Thank you for the tip, this is indeed a valuable tip!!

Why the stretched sprue??

I used old fashion plastic welding: stretched sprue and Tamiya extra thin glue to fill the gaps ;0) 

[yknu]

2 minutes ago, yknu said:

I used old fashion plastic welding: stretched sprue and Tamiya extra thin glue to fill the gaps ;0) 

And Neil told that he will put to the instructions information to put those K47 and L47 first to the wings.

[NigelR32]

4 hours ago, FME erk said:

Yes . . looks like the molding is slightly mis-shaped.

Perhaps a little warming under the hair-dryer ????

 

And if you look at the photo of JJ . . .looks like them put to much glue around the panel 

does that mean I can get away with the same . . .

Not sure what you mean there David?

I dont think it's a fault, I think it was designed that way. I'm sure it's correct for a late version with a massive intake or something but I cant find a pic right now.

If you look at the Revell 1/72 in this area you'll see what I mean, only the Revell is much worse., I'm bulding one right now.

So, once it's together the top of the intake will blend into this bump, so both will need to be faired in and reshaped if accuracy is your main goal.. oh and you're mental like me!! Basically, HK have fitted an extra large radiator but luckily the outer shape of the intaks cowling isn't too far off.

[FME erk]

I do wonder how many mm difference there is between the two intake at this scale ? 

Anyhow, can we really have a Lancaster this big sat on display without something holding it back ??

Thought I would create these essential items, the 32nd figure gives some idea how large they need to be  . . .

[Gunpowder17]

I was chatting with HK models this morning as my wing is the same as Nige's. The port wing is thin on top at the stb one is thin on the underside! Hk seem to think it was ok so i will just reinforce it a bit if needed, Now then , Phantom of the Ruhr. Needle props , fuselage windows and deeper bomb aimer blister?

[FME erk]

The Phantom is one of 'my' girls.

Yes needle props, fuselage windows and a standard B/A blister.

No H2s either IIRC.  Is it the 100 Squadron or 550 version ??

I am not at home right now but will later post a profile and details if that is what you are after ??

David

 

[yknu]

On 1/26/2019 at 6:18 PM, NigelR32 said:

Hello guys. 

In amomngst my other projects I have managed to get this far with the cockpit mods. Iseem to be going one step forwards five steps back..

If you look closely, you'll keep seeing more and more little mods.

Yes, that IP support column or cable/chain/wiring conduit is leaning back as per the original.

Obviously this is an ongoing series of mods with much more still to come.

It's a bit different than stock though eh..

Thanks for looking..

Great work! This helps a lot as I will probably do similar modification. I have the Airscale instrument panel upgrade.

[yknu]

Just now, yknu said:

Great work! This helps a lot as I will probably do similar modification. I have the Airscale instrument panel upgrade. Do you have the measures of the structure and the floor under the seat?

 

[NigelR32]

1 hour ago, yknu said:

 

Hi,

It is impossible to give measurements due to the shape. I have worked from pictures, so I could be wrong, but I can tell you that I have reduced the floor height to 14.5mm high and it is 25mm wide. Obviously, I accept no responsibility if I am wrong.

[NigelR32]

A little tip guys if you are using the Airscale IP upgrade.. 

Remove 0.5-0.7mm from the front ends of parts P50 and P46. These are the cockpit sills and if left stock will prevent the IP from fitting between the fuselage halves.

 

[yknu]

3 minutes ago, NigelR32 said:

Hi,

It is impossible to give measurements due to the shape. I have worked from pictures, so I could be wrong, but I can tell you that I have reduced the floor height to 14.5mm high and it is 25mm wide. Obviously, I accept no responsibility if I am wrong.

Of course Nige, no problem :0). This just gives a good idea.