A full review of the new HK Models kit alongside the 46 year old Tamiya kit. If you would like to contribute to the channel.. please look here.. / nigelsmodellingbench
35:10 I noticed right away the main canopy was squat, right from the very first published CADs, and I highly commend you as the first modeller I hear commenting on this obviously major issue, which was evident right from the start... This is so rare an attitude towards accuracy it really is worth pointing out, and is the reason you are one of my favourite modelling channels. The only remaining question is: Will the Tamiya canopy adapt to the HK kit?
Fascinating review thanks Nige- won't be breaking the bank for an HK until I see how you get on with the build. 2 points, first- radome on the HK looks much more realistic than the Tamiya. Second- many years of building Lancs and I don't remember seeing a kit with a partial incendiary bombload- as up to 80% of bomb loads dropped by Lancs consisted of incendiaries it really is a mystery as to why they are never featured. Great review, massively looking forward to the build.
Thanks for a good honest review Nigel even if you did seem to approach it with a slightly negative attitude at the outset. Looking at photos of Lancaster canopies are you certain that the Tamiya kit canopy is not itself too tall? From what you say your conclusion implies that its based on the Tamiya kit being right because "it looks right" and you've "seen loads of them built" (rather than reference to drawings or measurements of the real thing). Sorry if that's not what you meant. I guess there is always a danger that familiarity leads us to assume something is correct and then an alternative comes along to challenge our perception. And of course this "won't look right" because we're so used to seeing the original kit. You may well be correct, I don't know, but your review of the Tamiya Lanc does highlight numerous basic mistakes made by that kit's designers so it can't really be held it up as the final word in accuracy especially againgst more advanced, LIDAR scanned competition. I would also add that just comparing a kit's component part with another, rather than insitu on the model itself (i.e. as it is designed), is also potentially misleading. I have to say it looks OK to me in this build - in 300 (Polish) Squadron markings... ;) www.kfs-miniatures.com/1-48-avro-lancaster-b-mk-i-hk-models-budowa-cz-2/
I have both kits as well and after looking at my references, it appears that the HK kit have it right. The Tamiya canopy looks to tall which makes the front windscreens look tall and skinny and therefore the wrong shape.
I disagree. Somebody commented here that they measured an actual windscreen panel and it proves that Tamiya, Revell 1/72 and Airfix new tool 1/72 have it right. HKM is too short.
Looking at pictures of actual aircraft in various reference books I have, I cannot find one picture in which the windscreen panels look anything like what Tamiya have depicted. When looking at the HK canopy, it looks much closer to what I am seeing in the pictures.
For those building the Tamiya kit in "S for Sugar" markings, this aircraft had gone away for major overhaul and repair in August 1944 just after completing 114 operations. On return in December that year it was essentially a new aircraft, except for the famous nose section which was retained, the remaining rear fuselage was made up of later production sections without those small windows, (in my mind the true look of a Lanc) which will need to be faired over on this kit. (a legacy of the Manchester design to allow for troop carrying capability and deleted from Lancaster production in the second half of 1943) H2S blister fitted, and Squadron codes now outlined in yellow and the individual aircraft letter repeated on the fins. This aircraft went on to complete 125 operations not 139 as often misquoted.
No Lancasters carried troops apart from those carrying home Pow's at the end of the war. The Manchester was twin engined design with two Vultures and the Manchester had a shorter span of 90 ft 1 in.
I had the Tamiya Lanc for my 18th birthday in 1975, I made a real mess of it! Early lancs were indeed matt black but this was soon changed to night black, which is actually dark blue, and noticeably so. Best wishes.
My Dad brought both Lancs home from work (a chap he worked with was able to get them). I was about 7 y/o in 1974 which is when I recall he got them. They seemed immense at the time. I made the standard Lanc and ruined it. The Dambuster was never made. Dad passed away recently so I gave it to a young lad at work that makes models. Looking forward to seeing it finished.
Thanks heaps Nigel. Very constructive review of the two kits. Can't believe the Tamiya kit is so old and yet remains a pretty good kit. Really, there is no excuse for the new manufactures to get things so wrong at times, these days.
Mine arrived yesterday lunchtime. I've added a mask set, resin gun barrels and a 3d internal instrument panels. All of the paints arrived last week. I'm just waiting for Tamiya airbrush cleaner to arrive. I'm looking forward to getting started. It's going to be my first aircraft since a Matchbox Beaufighter circa 1981. I'm just debating purchasing some resin tyres? 😊❤😊
Hi Nigel i m Chris Alexander Thorpe I got revel l Germany 1/72scale avro lancaster model. It's gonna be based on the avro lancaster mk10 in Victoria bc we have a avro lancaster mk x fm 104 in her New home at B.C.Aviation museum 1910 Norseman rd her former home is toronto Ontario were all the mk.x avro lancasters were built to help British avro lancasters
Never know IBG might do a 1.48 matador soon, abit of info you maybe interested in hearing, I work in my friends model shop we got an email from a brand new company letting us know the Avro Lancaster in 1.32 from Wingnuts will be coming out this company has bought all the Wingnuts moulds and no it's not Meng but we will be seeing the Wingnuts kits coming out under brand new manufacturer soon! We get things like this sent to us of future realises that may not yet be public knowledge yet it's not top secret or nothing it's a damb model kit haha but I'll let them have there thunder when announced keep an eye out for this new company coming! So is the 1.48 HK one OK now or what's going on with it? I was away to pick it up bit if not accurate I'm not spending £120 on the thing if its not correct! If it was 72 I'd have canopies for you I'll ask my mate who owns the shop he might have one going spare hes built So many RAF builds being ex RAF he's doing a commission airfix dambusters one the now I'll ask when in tomorrow I has a 2012 Tamiya 1.48 for you! We can't keep that danb chipmunk in stock just now.siin as there in there put aside or out the door! Unbelievable how popular that things been!
I believe Tamya use the battle of Britain lancaster for their kit Battle of Britain and Lancaster' is after the war I believe thats the issue of the kits being different
Some are modeled off the mk X's that were built in Canada by Victory (A.V. Roe) such as the ones at Duxford or CWHM (VeRA). This would explain the window placement and some other small issues.
I've noticed they've got the non standard upper camouflage demarcation line spot on as well as the non standard pattern behind the FN 50 dorsal turret. One thing I've noticed there doesn't appear to be an early Monica aerial fitted in the instructions which was fitted below the rear turret. Wheels hubs were black on Mk.I & Mk.III until early 1944 when they started to appear in silver, which can be seen in pics of "Sugar" in early May 1944.
Very enlightening review Nigel. If you build this I'd be interested if you mix and match or just build the HK kit out of the box, or with enhancements. Can't wait to see how you tackle this.
For what its worth, looking at photographs of the real thing (described as mark 1) the downward angled fuselage after the cockpit per the HK model seems to be correct. By eye the canopy is roughly the same height (may be 1 mm bigger) than the forward gun turret. With the Tamiya canopy you show, the ratio looks quite reasonably (so far as you can tell). Given the HK canopy is quite a bit shorter, I think you're probably right, but I guess you'll need plans to be sure.
Here is a drawing from the Lanc Manual with approx real world measurements: By my reckoning, the canopy height at the windscreen frame should be 16.9mm Link: drive.google.com/file/d/1evvvrjarxRU9SVx54a-iuqO_KTnD4Nl4/view?usp=sharing
Given the easy availability of accurate dawing and three-views of this aeroplane, errors in proportion and detail are inexcusable and just lazy. Ask Tamiya, Hasgowa, Accurate Miniatures (RIP), WIng Nuts (RIP), etc. all about this.
At 10:35 that image on the newer Tamiya box of "Mike Squared" reminds me of the Airfix Lancaster I built as a child in 1981 - of course it didn't come out all that great, but that was the version I built from that kit.
Nice review and i do believe that HK canopy is too low in height judging by pictures and my 1940 aircraft blueprint book. I mostly saw the RAF Historic Flight Lanc from below! Can't believe my Tamiya Upkeep Lanc kit is nearly as old as me. Are manufactures of the new 1/48 kits still going to ignore the Mk II, not the best performer but i was always a fan of its rugged blunt looks?
Very helpful again as you say Lancaster mine field but with some work you can have a great model with or without spending a fortune on after market parts The one thing I do like is the honest upfront approach you have not everyone’s cup of tea but hay tuff get on with it nobody forces you to watch the channel keep it up
Hi Nigel. I wonder if you could help clarify something. The instructions suggest (but don't state) that the horizontal windows on the fuselage aft of the wings are painted over. Do you know if this is the case? It would make a difference in my insignia placement. Thanks!
Hi Ken, you need to check references for the aircraft you're building and in the time period you're building her. AFAIK they vary. The smaller windows are normally painted over, but the Radio guys larger glazing is often left clear.
What I always really care about are top of the line crew figures, canopy covers, wheels up, wheels down versions assorted decals. I guess everybody has different taste. Crew figures sitting down is important. Yep! Even turret gunners.
That's a really good point.. I have never seen a built, in-flight fully manned bomber? I guess a big problem is fitting figures into turrets as the plastic glazing on the turret is so thick? Especially in the smaller scales?
+@@NigelsModellingBench The Monogram 1/48 scale American medium, heavy bombers of the mid late 70,s. Not bad. Sometimes I have to do surgery with Fujimi-Tamiya kit figures of same time period. Yep! I even put old Monogram figures in Accurate Miniatures and beautiful Hasegawa kits. 1/48. Scale. I hope somebody does a 1/48 H8K2 Emily flying boat. We are way overdue for a new 1/48 Aichi Jake also. I love WW-2 Japanese and Soviet aircraft.
I have a picture of a MK.VII rear door and it looks pretty big. Even has a window in it but was covered up. Its looks more the size of the Tamiya door but I can't be 100% certain.
I think that those mysterious "giblets" in step 41 are actually Cable Cutters, an anti-Barrage Balloon measure. (they are on the wing leading edge and a cable would be dragged either inwards or outwards until the hit the cutters, which would in theory cut them before the aircraft was damaged. BTW I have built both the Tamiya Lancaster BI/BII and the Dambuster and have another BI/BII in the stash. (BTW it is The 2012 release, so the spare (Painted) canopy is available if you want it and don't mind it coming from NZ to the UK!)
Yes. Cable cutters. They were often removed (it seems) later in the war, so I guess that's why the kit has them as separate parts. Info here: - www.bbrclub.org/Balloon%20Cable%20Cutting%20Device%20for%20Aircraft.htm
Nigel, Hkm had permission permission to Lidar the RR5868, lidar over head isn't always available, but at London Museuem HKM could get full mapping.Why would you think a Tamiya 46 year old is right compared to modern Lidar? HKM will have it right and those wing bits are cable cutters for barrage baloons cables A1 14 x parts. Nigel you know mt thoughts and research done on this kit, btw those are 6 x 1000lb bombs, not GP and I guess an armour piercing type from shape, so for U boat harbours?
My answer to your question Keith is this.... If they spent about 5 years developing the 1/32 kit and made many errors, why would you think that after only about two years they would make this kit perfect? I'm afraid I always look at HKM kits with a negative eye going on their history. Why would I think a 46 yr old kit is better than a modern day kit??? The same reason the 53 year old monogram B-52 is still the best B-52 kit out there for accuracy of profile and dimensions.
I'm with the LIDAR scan, Tamiya stuff has been proven to be wrong alot. If you have a hashed out Lidar and a cnc profile for 1/32, it should only take a short time to make a 1/48. All they needed to do is the engineering changes, QC and test shot. The most laborious part is the Lidar, the removal of artifacts and the drawing change overs. If that's done, it's easy. I'm inclined to think 2 things: The HK is more accurate It's close enough to say the Tamiya is close enough to say its accurate too. I'm not as invested in Lancaster kits to make it color my opinion but I have been in one before.
I remember fondly the Airfix Avro Lancaster RAF Heavy Bomber (I do not recall the mark; I or III, I believe). Also the Handley Page Halifax and the Short Stirling RAF Heavy Bomber, and the Vickers Wellington RAF Medium Bomber. Of course, I had built them airborne. (Unfortunately, though, the propellers were stationary, to my deep regret!) For these reasons, I am keen to have a go at this one. Yes, in flight, with the bomb bay doors just gaping open. I also might build the Tamiya kit alongside it for comparison. These with the new (unfortunately problematic) 1:32nd-scale Lancaster kit (to my keen regret, I am blanking on the name of the manufacturer) might serve as the heart of an airborne forced perspective diorama. I might require a small hangar to encompass them all!
There is a Lancaster Modelling forum, hosted by Ianlanc. There is an Avro tangency lecture, on how the fuselage is not just an oval tube, but had a whole culture of tangency surrounding it. Also showed what shortcuts Tamiya took in 1975, on their (at the time ) groundbreaking kit. In 2012 I went to Mount hope, and took a load of pics of Vera for Ianlanc, so that he could get his teatray out and make his Vera.
@@NigelsModellingBench the lower left and right quarter windows look to tall to me on the others,mebbe hkm nott domed slightly as much in the roof but the front panes look more proportionally correct to me on hkm from pics at least.perhaps one of those eye of beholder things 👍
I had a Lanc screen measured and the Tamiya is very very close to the actual size. The HK is too low and I think maybe too narrow, making the quarter lights look wrong. I feel the dome top on the Tamia screen is a little too bulbous perhaps? i have used the top of the HK and the sides and screen from the Tamiya kit. Interestingly the new Border Models Kit windscreen is also taller than the HK.. and Airfix 1/72 scales up perfectly to Border model and Tamiya.
Totally agree, a Matador or Bedford refueler would be great to have one in 1/48. You mention about painting the handrail yellow, this is incorrect for a WW2 aircraft, they have yellow handrails now due to HSE requirements, but where originally they were black. Planning to get a tour of Just Jane at East Kirkby in a few weeks, hoping to get a few reference pics for when I start my kit, may have to take my tape measure.
Nigel, I just re-watched your review of the Lancaster again and I am curious why there is so much scrutiny over the engine intakes from one model to other models? I wonder if the designers are taking their ideas from different versions and pictures of the Lancaster. So, maybe they are doing the best they can from the references they have.
The designers are looking at currently flying aircraft and going from there. They know nothing of the original designs, which is why the 1/48 HKM kit has lights and antennae as per the BBMF aircraft!!
@@NigelsModellingBench okay thanks. Is wingnut wings going to come out with a 'Lanc', I know they closed there doors but, I heard about the Australian company has been reproducing some of there original designs?
@@NigelsModellingBench I don't disagree. I've had the AA kit for a number of years - a beautiful kit but I'm too scared to build it in case I make a total hash of it. Whereas with an injection moulded version I'd probably have spent more and done 3 or 4 over that time ;-)
Whilst I agree that for the model maker/builder who wants their finished article to be accurate in every detail the mistakes etc that you raise would definitely be annoying and add hours of modifications and the dreaded sanding, however, in my opinion the vast majority of modellers are more interested in the process of the build rather than the total authenticity that you, and many many others desire, and that is absolutely fine. My personal opinion is that I build for the relaxation and to test myself against a kit to make it the best I can make, I am never going to be a competitive builder or anything like a professional but I derive my pleasure in my work as apposed to scouring hours of Google sites for information and photographs, watching documentaries or tombs of books, and I respect that is what others enjoy, I think that by raising all the drawbacks or inaccuracies of a kit you might be putting some people of buying and enjoying a kit that would bring them enjoyment and satisfaction to complete, perhaps you could include caveats to your commentary, for instance pointing out that a window is in the wrong place but that is something only those who want complete accuracy should think about repositioning, you are a very skilled modeller and produce fantastic finished articles, a skill that I don’t think I could achieve, on a personal note the reason I buy larger scale model kits is because I have arthritis and a wonky back, the larger scale means I can hold components more easily and spend longer at my desk, so the inaccuracies you have found are,for me, a moot point. Thanks for sharing your skills with us all and I hope you are not to upset with my constructive criticism, but each to their own be true. Per Ardua Ad Astra, Lest We Forget. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇦 P.S, Sorry more constructive criticism, why do virtually all modellers channels who do kit reviews insist on telling us about what’s on the outside of the box? Commenting about the box art is one thing but telling us what the kit part number is and what the company address is just isn’t relevant, what we really want is to see what is inside the box, everything else is irrelevant and frustrating to say the least, you could save yourself time and effort by keeping the exterior information to a minimum and also editing time, alternatively you could put a time stamp of where the actual kit review starts in the synopsis. Also it would be great if you, and all channels, could include a price guide, in £ Sterling and $ U.S, plus, if RU-vid rules permit, a recommendation for a place or platform to purchase from. Thanks again.
Great review. Out of curiosity: how would you remove those molding lines on the clear turret that you were pointing out? I have one on front glass of my Academy 1/72 AH-64 I'm working on. I am assuming just polish them out?
