Airfix 1:72 Avro Lancaster B.III The Dambusters Aircraft Model Kit, Multicolor, 29.21 x 43.18 x 8.89 cm

Product Information

The accompanying images, especially the one featuring all three wings in line, highlight the difference. I am inclined to think that Airfix is probably the most correct here. Option A: Avro Lancaster B.I(F.E), Tiger Force, No.35 Squadron, Royal Air Force Graveley, Cambridgeshire, England, 1945 You do get a pilot if you want to add him – but he looks a bit retro to me and out of keeping with the rest of the kit. Undercarriage Once again the panel line detail is not bad. Airfix are certainly listening to modellers and showing great willingness to raise their standards to that of the best and they are certainly getting closer with this kit. The rudders and flaps are positionable to help you create more interesting options if you wish. The internal detail in the flaps is worthy of note and will look great if weathered.

All glazing is nice and clear with quite fine framing. The main canopy looks good. All that is left in terms of standard Lancaster bits area some pitos, a DF loop and the like. AJ-T piloted by Flight Lieutenant Robert Norman George Barlow DFC (RAAF), No 617 Sqn, “Operation Chastise, RAF Scampton, England 16/17th May 1943. This aircraft and its crew were unfortunately lost in action on the Dams Raid. I think that Airfix has the best lines, and equal best internal detail. Surface detail is a bit heavier than its rivals, but this is balanced by there being less of it.

Box art

Here is one of the best earlier threads re GRAND SLAM Lanc colours. I quote, and muse upon, a lot of Moore's findings as recorded in the Scale Models article in posts 12 and 65. It really does come down to faith: in what/whom do you put your trust: what the colours ought to be as far as we can discern from the available documents from the time combined with the culture of rigid adherence to laid-down standards or the testimony of a skilled and respected artist armed with painted MAP paint samples visiting the aircraft in person with the explicit aim of getting the colours right for a painting he had been commissioned to do. I'm still on the fence, I'm afraid. Elsewhere in the thread people contribute many of the available photos of GRAND SLAM Lancasters. On the market for 80 years now, the Airfix brand has been one of the leaders in modeling in Great Britain. It is none other than the oldest manufacturer of plastic model kits. The British company was founded in 1939 by Nicholas Kove,a Hungarian businessman. In the early days, Airfix only manufactured inflatable rubber toys. There is variation in the shape of engine nacelles, with Airfix and Hasegawa being closer to each other and Revell with their own interpretation. In fact I wonder if Revell was just practicing for the horrible Merlin engines on their Halifax kit when tooling their Lancaster, as their Lancaster too has over-sized and misshapen radiator mouths (but nowhere near as gross as the Halifax’s!). As to its competitors from Revell and Hasegawa – You can save around 25-30% on Airfix and buy the less accurately shaped kit from Revell. The price of replacement resin wheels, which really are a must with the Revell kit, will reduce its price advantage however. For around 60-80% more than Airfix you can buy Hasegawa’s kit which offers only more refined panel lines and better props, but falls short on interior detail, no lowered flaps option, and inferior shape in a few subtle places. For my money then, Airfix is clear winner, and deservedly so. Each year, Airfix impresses modeling fans with new featured products and special products. The British brand produces a wide range of kits to satisfy all modeller profiles. The topics presented are varied such as:

There is the Frog kit, now something of a rarity. The turrets are quite bad, but it does include a Talboy bomb, the only Lancaster kit to do so except for a limited edition of the Hasegawa kit (I think it’s called “Titpitz Raid” or something similar).There have been no mainstream kits of the Lancaster Mk.II with its radial engines, nor of some of the later Lancaster versions. These, and models of Lancastrians, Manchesters, Lincolns and Yorks have remained in the realm of conversions or all-resin kits. Although outside this review’s scope, there is still only one 1/48-scale Lancaster by Tamiya (also with a dambuster boxing), which is also long in the tooth. Finally, there is the 1958(?) Airfix kit. It’s probably more accurate than the Revell, but would take a lot of work to bring it up to the standard of any of the modern kits.

The engine nacelles are well done, and I think capture the seemingly simple but actually quite subtle lines of the real plane well. I would go so far as to say they see the best representation of these that I have seen in 1/72nd scale. The carburettor air intakes are moulded solid, and will benefit from being opened up; and if appropriate, you could add PE mesh intake-guards by Brengun. The propellers for the dambuster option are the pointed type; both these plus the wider paddle blade type are supplied. I am not sure if the pointed type’s chord may appear just a little under-nourished. The spinners however look pretty good to me. Lancaster wings are a pretty basic shape, so I was not expecting too much variation between brands. None agree exactly on the engine datums, and Airfix has its engines a bit wider out from the fuselage than the other two, not by miles, but there is a noticeable difference. Revell were not far behind Hasegawa with a well priced modern kit featuring quite a bit more detail. Unfortunately, as with their later Halifax kit, Revell was asleep at the wheel during some stages of the kit’s development. Most notably they forgot to crank in enough wing dihedral, and churned out some very bland and oversized main wheels. Fortunately both problems are easy enough to fix. Like Hasegawa, Revell got carried away with fine engraved panel lines, again especially on the wings. Revell too have offered a dambuster version of the kit. Fortunately, Revell’s price is such that these wing and wheel issues can be fixed whilst still have some change left over compared to the Hasegawa alternative. There is big price range across the three brands, with Revell at one end, and Hasegawa at the other, whilst Airfix lies on the Revell side of the middle. Airfix is close enough in price to Revell to side with Airfix regardless of extra cost. I think therefore that the choice comes down to Airfix or Hasegawa - You can have a marginally better shape and internal detail, with less surface detail finesse, or more refined surface detail with marginally poorer shape (and either live with poorer internal detail or dress it up at a cost using after-market sets). Nothing serious - No parts map and minor errors and omissions in instructions; fuselage side windows too small and no chamfer on elevator outer edge (both easily fixed); exaggerated fabric effect on ailerons and decaled rather than 3-D instrument panels.The Matchbox kit is little more than a curiosity at this point. It does have the bulged Bombay doors for a Talboy aircraft but the overall level of detail is poor and the wings have trench-like panel lines. As an aside, I often think finished models using the 1981 Airfix kit with its raised surface detail, either retained or sanded off, look more realistic than models using the Hasegawa or Revell kits with their extensive engraved panel lines. However, the more modern kits are clearly easier to build and weather, thanks in a large part to their recessed surface detail. The parts are moulded in a slightly soft plastic that has a nice feel to it. There is some evidence of fine flash in places like the propeller blades, which is not so good. It has reasonably fine recessed panel lines, although not as good as Hasegawa’s or Revell’s.