Jump to content
Pfuf

HK Lanc review

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Gloucester Nige said:

Agree 100% with all you say.

 

Did you notice the lack of detail at the wing intersection with the fuselage and the location of the radio operators window?

Yes, we noticed the window, but didn’t notice the wing root. We did see the radar dome, and he specifically wanted to build that version, but we could not find any other Radar parts. Again, thank you for the honest opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1to1scale said:

Nige, I do appreciate your review. I also got to put my hands on the Lanc last week, a friend ordered 3 of them, so we spent an afternoon looking at the kit, we both had some opinions that you confirmed a few. He also had a Tamiya 1/48 there, we both observed there were some layout issues with the fuselage and the wing shape, but we couldn’t place a finger on exactly what it was. He theorized that there were some features on the aircraft that were installed after the war, possibly in modern times. The wing seems to have shape issues also. But we couldn’t decide which kit had the issues. The window blisters are the worst screwup, how do you glue those on and open the hole? 

 

Alas, would I build it? Yes, for less than $200, but not for $350. At that money, I’m waiting for the Wingnut, but if I do happen to come across one fairly inexpensive, I could be convinced. 

 

Hk definatley could have taken a few a few tips from other kits, the box packing is pretty bad. The HB liberator has proper packing, but bad turrets. Each kit has its faults, but we are lucky to have both. 

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but are you serious "issues with the fuselage and the wing shape, but we couldn’t place a finger on exactly what it was" Talk about throwing a hand grenade in the room and running away??
"window blisters, how do you glue those on and open the hole?" May i suggest holding the blister in place and marking the position with a fine felt pen (non-permanent ink) and then carefully drilling the opening and after trimming with a sharp blade 'gluing' the blister in place with clear varnish,  white glue or similar, these will hold it securely unless hit directly with something. The blisters were designed that way as different aircraft had two blisters, some one and others none, if one thinks the price is a little high now, what would it be to include three full canopies for the different configurations?
"the box packing is pretty bad" again, elaboration please, what exactly is wrong with the box packing? I didn't notice anything with my kit, the clear parts had additional protection added inside their plastic pages which is a nice touch. And what exactly does the packaging have to do with the finished kit? (unless it leads directly to damage in transit, which wasn't evident on mine) This sounds like a comment from a kit collector? 
Again I'm not meaning to be rude but such comments really require some explanation or they just seem like grenade tossing.

Edited by 32tragic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're comparing the HK to the 1:48 Tamiya, good luck with that. The latter IS riddled with accuracy issues.

 

[GASP]Did he say a Tamiya kit was inaccurate?[/GASP]

 

Yes it is. There are numerous accuracy issues with the Tamiya 1:48 Lanc.

 

Whilst HK's kit can't claim to be 100% accurate (can any?), it was constantly reworked using a set of drawings which are known amongst enthusiasts to be the most accurate in existence (Granger). The reason for HK's kit being so late was the reworking of it, ironically removing inaccuracies that initially crept in due to using key shape and dimension issues from Tamiya's 1:48 relic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JamesHatch said:

If you're comparing the HK to the 1:48 Tamiya, good luck with that. The latter IS riddled with accuracy issues.

 

[GASP]Did he say a Tamiya kit was inaccurate?[/GASP]

 

Yes it is. There are numerous accuracy issues with the Tamiya 1:48 Lanc.

 

Whilst HK's kit can't claim to be 100% accurate (can any?), it was constantly reworked using a set of drawings which are known amongst enthusiasts to be the most accurate in existence (Granger). The reason for HK's kit being so late was the reworking of it, ironically removing inaccuracies that initially crept in due to using key shape and dimension issues from Tamiya's 1:48 relic.

You're so right there James about the Tamiya Lanc; the w/op window for example is way off position, the underwing heater vents are shown back to front (sadly I saw an immaculate Lanc at Telford a few years ago with these facing forwards as inlets but didn't have the heart to mention it!) AND, depending on which issue you have, the configuration of the rear guns are shown upside down! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally never saw how Tamiya earned its mythical status. I have built some of their armor which had both accuracy errors and instruction errors. Still nice kits, but all they really have going for them IMHO are ease of construction (which isn't always a guarantee).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tamiya 1/48 Lancaster kit was initially released in the mid 70s, and 70s era Tamiya is nothing like today’s Tamiya.  You look at a lot of their kits from that era, like the 1/48 Sea Harrier, F-15, and A-10s, and they weren’t particularaly accurate or well detailed by today’s standards.  At lot of their old armor kits had significant accuracy issues as well, as well as including motorizations holes in the hulls.  To be fair, a lot of the other kits of that era by the various other manufacturers weren’t much better as they were still considered mostly toys and few people cared that much about accuracy, nor had access to anywhere near the information we now have on the real things via the Internet.  It probably wasn’t until the 80s when Monogram started releasing the 1/48 Century series kits that manufactures started getting more serious about accuracy and detail, and even then it took a while for others, including Tamiya, to catch up.

 

Complaining about a 40+ year old Tamiya kit not being accurate isn’t particularly fair, all things considered.  If anyone was using a 1985 Tamiya Lanc as the accuracy standard to compare a 2018 kit to, that’s bad on them, not on Tamiya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JamesHatch said:

If you're comparing the HK to the 1:48 Tamiya, good luck with that. The latter IS riddled with accuracy issues.

 

[GASP]Did he say a Tamiya kit was inaccurate?[/GASP]

 

Yes it is. There are numerous accuracy issues with the Tamiya 1:48 Lanc.

 

Whilst HK's kit can't claim to be 100% accurate (can any?), it was constantly reworked using a set of drawings which are known amongst enthusiasts to be the most accurate in existence (Granger). The reason for HK's kit being so late was the reworking of it, ironically removing inaccuracies that initially crept in due to using key shape and dimension issues from Tamiya's 1:48 relic.

 

I remember having that conversation with you James, that was back in 2013 I believe!!

 

I must say, one thing that did surprise me, especially after such a long time in development was the multitude of ejector pin marks on some of the detail surfaces, especially the bomb bay doors, in my opinion they look like they wouldnt go amiss in a Airfix 1970's kit.

 

As for the flap enclosures and bomb bay roof, I cant decide if they're EPM's or detail??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

The Tamiya 1/48 Lancaster kit was initially released in the mid 70s, and 70s era Tamiya is nothing like today’s Tamiya.  You look at a lot of their kits from that era, like the 1/48 Sea Harrier, F-15, and A-10s, and they weren’t particularaly accurate or well detailed by today’s standards.  At lot of their old armor kits had significant accuracy issues as well, as well as including motorizations holes in the hulls.  To be fair, a lot of the other kits of that era by the various other manufacturers weren’t much better as they were still considered mostly toys and few people cared that much about accuracy, nor had access to anywhere near the information we now have on the real things via the Internet.  It probably wasn’t until the 80s when Monogram started releasing the 1/48 Century series kits that manufactures started getting more serious about accuracy and detail, and even then it took a while for others, including Tamiya, to catch up.

 

Complaining about a 40+ year old Tamiya kit not being accurate isn’t particularly fair, all things considered.  If anyone was using a 1985 Tamiya Lanc as the accuracy standard to compare a 2018 kit to, that’s bad on them, not on Tamiya.

 

My point is that you rarely hear anyone ever criticise Tamiya, for anything, irrespective of age. I wasn't complaining about an old kit, per se, but that it was used as a basis for a modern tooling. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Gloucester Nige said:

 

I remember having that conversation with you James, that was back in 2013 I believe!!

 

I must say, one thing that did surprise me, especially after such a long time in development was the multitude of ejector pin marks on some of the detail surfaces, especially the bomb bay doors, in my opinion they look like they wouldnt go amiss in a Airfix 1970's kit.

 

As for the flap enclosures and bomb bay roof, I cant decide if they're EPM's or detail??

 

They are probably ejector pin marks. Mine had them, but as it was a test shot, I wasn't sure at the time whether this was a thing with an early moulding or not. Looks like it's common to production kits too, which is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JamesHatch said:

 

They are probably ejector pin marks. Mine had them, but as it was a test shot, I wasn't sure at the time whether this was a thing with an early moulding or not. Looks like it's common to production kits too, which is a shame.

 

It is a shame James. The bomb bay roof, flap enclosures EPM's are the neatest I've ever seen, which sounds crazy, but the bomb bay doors are like something from a 1970's Airfix kit,

 

No doubt Eduard will be along with sheets of Brass to cover all this up?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the bomb bay doors after reading the comments here (I admit to not watching the reviews) the ejector pin marks are obvious but look to be well up high on the inside of the door (near the hinge point) and I think will be quite difficult to see unless you turn the model over on it's back and look for them! They'll never be seen on mine with the bomb bay doors glued shut. A beautiful kit (in my opinion.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bomb door pin marks on mine are so shallow to be almost invisible depending on the angle of the light source, a light sanding is all that is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those that are worried about things like ejector pins are missing out and maybe always having everything totally correct and present before the glue comes out are missing out on a wealth of modelling that they might enjoy even more if they perhaps dipped their toe in to 'upskilling' their modelling.

I think I started truly scratch building when I was 14 and that was constructing locomotives [ working ] from Plasticard and making my own drawings becuse what I was interested in there wasn't a kit for.

Don't be scared of the scalpel and having to do things twice you will improve with time, I did and you will be proud of making something that is not just sticking things together but involves some ingenuity as well and then building a kit won't be so daunting. trust me.

 

Graham 

 

Edited by GrahamF
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt to do with modelling or modelling skills but either budget restrictions or laziness to eliminate issues that should not exist in a 500 dollar model kit.

In the same vein as they couldnt be bothered to include 2 or 3 canopie options for $500 it takes the polish of what is otherwise a very good model that im happy to have in my collection.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Iain (32SIG) said:

Very well said Graham - couldn't agree more!

 

Iain

 

As much as I agree with your sentiment regarding "modelling" Iain, I am surprised at your reaction to the subject regarding EPM's on modern day kits. This kit has many EPM's in very difficult to remove locations. As I see it, this is not a matter of, "modelling skill" to remove them, but more of the fact they shouldn't be there on such a well devolped expensive kit. Modern kits shouldn't have these marks on exposed parts full stop..

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...