Italeri #1302 1/72 Sunderland I

[JohnRatzenberger]

Hot from Hannants in 7 days. Big box.







4 sprue bags, a small pe fret, a decal sheet, instruction book, and a historical/technical pamphlet which is not a reason to buy the kit. PE is simple stuff, control horns, seat pieces & belts, optional instrument panel -- not sure you couldn't leave it all off and not miss anything -- so presence of PE is not a reason to not buy it. Decal sheet, by Cartograf, has 6 markings - looks good.











Instruction book seems clear but oddly worded. Somehow "stretched sprue" became "stirred plastic". There are several "open" or "closed" options -- doors, hatches, bomb panels -- just pay attention, they weren't always obvious at first look. Still doesn't look difficult.

If I can see a build problem it is all the portholes -- they are all separate, a cost of all the interior detail. I hope they have provided spares.





















There is interior detail but the majority of it is stringers & formers along the fuselage walls/bulkheads, and decks/ceilings. Otherwise, it's average. It's OK, not much is visible and it seems they've stuck to what mostly is. I like the wall/deck/etc detail -- there if you want to do something.





The Airfix new-tool panel guy must have an Italian relative and a sister that does rivets. It may, like some of the Airfix stuff, paint out fine but I have reservations. OTOH, the fabric control surfaces seem to look OK.









There are errors with the portholes, but I haven't counted them all -- the rear 2 (s/be 3) stick out. Funny thing is that if you look inside the hull, you'll see where there were ports but they were filled in. This also leaves a slight blemish on the outer surface. The portholes expose a small problem in the lthey are not centered. There's a ring around it, but the hole isn't centered -- it's slight but noticeable. I could say same thing about the front of the engines where the prop shaft hole doesn't appear quite centered.











Good news - detail parts look pretty good - guns, instrument panel, radios, etc. Sink/mold marks and flash do not seem to be an issue. It's a Mk.I - finally !!!

I'm glad I got it.

[JohnRatzenberger]

I edited my original post to supply pix and expand some comments.

[Dirkpitt289]

That looks fantastic. Do you have something you can place next to the fuselage to give us a size reference?

[bluesteel]

Great In-box John, and saved me the trouble

Your comments more or less accord with my findings. Out of interest I've laid out the Airfix Mk III fuselage (white) alongside the Italeri Mk I (grey) for comparison:



One thing I had been led to believe was that the Mk I planing hull was very different to the Mk III and the step in a different place. But as seen above the two are pretty similar. I'll have to check my references again.

[MerlinJones]

Does the Italeri have any working features?
...And what happened to Part 23, in your second pic of parts?

Regards,
Bruce

[JamesPerrin]

I like the pulled aside curtain on the bulk head.

Obviously superfine panel lines is not a done deal amongst current manufacturers. Price and the abilities of new (cheaper?) toolmakers are probably factors.

It's good to see that Airfix presumably did a good job on the shape as it does match well it's younger (by 40+ years) cousin.

[bluesteel]

Does the Italeri have any working features?
...And what happened to Part 23, in your second pic of parts?

Regards,
Bruce

It looks like the props should rotate, there could be movement of the nose and tail turrets and working ailerons. But the other flying surfaces seem positional only, but I think a small amount of DIY could get them working, and a little more for the bomb rack extenders perhaps....

[JohnRatzenberger]

Does the Italeri have any working features?
...And what happened to Part 23, in your second pic of parts?

Regards,
Bruce

Props & turrets, that's about it. I think all doors/hatches are separate and thus positionable.
Well spotted on that part -- fear not, it is safe in the baggie.

[JohnRatzenberger]

One thing I had been led to believe was that the Mk I planing hull was very different to the Mk III and the step in a different place. But as seen above the two are pretty similar. I'll have to check my references again.

I took a quick look and the Mk.I step appears about right place.
The shape/curve/etc of the hull is quite different and they both look, to me, about right.

[LDSModeller]

One thing I had been led to believe was that the Mk I planing hull was very different to the Mk III and the step in a different place. But as seen above the two are pretty similar. I'll have to check my references again.

I took a quick look and the Mk.I step appears about right place.
The shape/curve/etc of the hull is quite different and they both look, to me, about right.

Hi All

Just joined the forum, made some mention in the welcome forum of my dealings with the Sunderland

With respect to the above comment on the Mk I and mk III Sunderland steps, the
Mk III had the step faired in, to cut down porpoising as encountered in the Mk I/II.
The Step was also moved aft some to counter the change in CoG (cent of gravity) by the addtion of extra fuel tanks aft of the spar in the Mk III Wing*.
(*From M&E manual of Sunderland Mk III)

Thank you John (jRatz) for posting the photos and your in box review.

I can't wait to get my hands on one (they seem to be bit slow arriving in the Antipdies).

For those who wish to model theirs OOB, it appears to look like a good model

For those if I may, who wish to build a more accurate model please note the following

If you look at the above attached fuselage comparisions between the Airfix and Italeri models, especially the starboard side picture, count the number of portholes in the Airfix kit (there should be 10) of the lower level ports forward of the bomb bay. Now count the portholes in the Italeri kit (there are only 9). Airfix actually got that one right. The Italeri kit should have an extra porthole in the bow end (all Sunderland marks had this)

On with the potholes. judging by the close up photos by John (jRatz) Italeri appears to have molded "All" portholes with an outer rim. on the real Aircraft, this is not the case, as only some portholes open and all those are found forward of the bomb bay (and then only some as per this photo.

The modeller who wants accuracy will need to fill in the remaining rims indents.
Please note that "ALL" transparencies are the same diameter 4.2mm in 1/72 scale

The other issues that the Accuracy buff will need to be mindful of, is if Not displaying the bomb racks out, then the tracks under the wings will need to be filled in, as the real aircraft had sliding strips that covered them in when the racks retracted as per this photo (please note strips have not gone all the way in)

Please also note (for accuracy buffs) if the bomb racks are out bomb bay doors are open, they cannot close on real aircraft if racks out under wings are

The panel lines I will leave to the individual modeller, but I will fill them in as the Sunderland does not have panel lines (plate on plate style)
Inside the model, Italeri have missed things
First there should be a Bulkhead wall either side of the stairs (the toilet is on the starboardside......) note link (tons of video/photos, and the one i missed )
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/image ... SUND02.JPG;

Second the bow decking only goes as far as the bottom of the stairwell and does not extend past as in the model. Note also the lower deck actually drops down below the bow deck as in the photo

I noted in the model instructions that Italeri have shown the anchor can be posed, again up to the individual modeller, but in reality anchors were only used if the aircraft had to anchor away from an equipped base's bouy trot. Normal operations would use the mooring bolloard (stands up at 90 degrees) and the mooring lines.chains are run through it see photo


On the flight deck the curtain (starboard side), is a black out curtain drawn across at night to stop light reflection from the various suites (Naviagtor/Wireless) reflecting off the interior of the windshiel/screen causing the pilots to loose night vision.
If you wish to add an ASV suite to you Sunderland (starboard side - behind 2nd pilot), you will need to remove the folded curtain. If anyone needs further info on that, just ask on the forum or PM me

Hope that helps some one?

Regards

Alan

[JohnRatzenberger]

Great info, Alan - thanks !!!

I'm sure we'll get more into this kit, when all have had an opportunity to get one and clear their benches. I started thinking about adapting bits out of the White Ensign PE set but haven't taken a close look. I have seen your work on ATF and am sure I will copy lots of it

But, with Telford deadline approaching, I gave my kit to SWMBO to hide away from me ....

[Wyllie]

If you look at the above attached fuselage comparisions between the Airfix and Italeri models, especially the starboard side picture, count the number of portholes in the Airfix kit (there should be 10) of the lower level ports forward of the bomb bay. Now count the portholes in the Italeri kit (there are only 9). Airfix actually got that one right. The Italeri kit should have an extra porthole in the bow end (all Sunderland marks had this)
Alan

I thought by looking at the photos of the moulded parts that it looks as though Italeri used the old Aviation News drawings to produce the kit. These drawings were produced by a late friend of mine, Roy Miller. After these were published, I pointed out to Roy the error in the number of windows and he said that it was too late, as the drawings had been printed and it was never corrected.

Unfortunately, no works drawings appear to exist of the Sunderland (or the Stirling, for that matter) and all the obsolete drawings from Shorts had been kept in store at a disused airfield and were eventually burned - it seems that nobody thought to offer them to a museum or depository where they would be preserved. A lot of works information from several companies perished in a similar way,

[techboy]

Perhaps the Italeri kit shows the version built on Lake Windermere in the English Lake distict, nobut a short trip for unneeded shipbuilders and riviters from Vickers at Barrow in Furness! Whole lotta filler needed, methinks and where's the spare prop they carried?

[LDSModeller]

Perhaps the Italeri kit shows the version built on Lake Windermere in the English Lake distict, nobut a short trip for unneeded shipbuilders and riviters from Vickers at Barrow in Furness! Whole lotta filler needed, methinks and where's the spare prop they carried?

Mk I's only built at Rochester or Dumbarton, maybe the out of work shipbuilders
and riveters were near there too?

Windermere only built Mk III's

Yes, some modellers who want "accuracy" certainly will need filler for the panel lines (I'm going to anyway).
Italeri for some reason known only to them , chose to have the rear main hatch either open or closed. If the modeller wishes to leave the rear hatch open there is no rear deck to see through the door (for those who think the Mk V at Hendon etc will help, it won't Mk V has different rear decking to Mk I/II/III due to beam gun positions).

Italeri not only forgot the Spare Prop blades, but other "essential" equipment as well. It will be up to the modeller if they so choose, to add those
Note Spare Prop blades only included in Mk I/II and very early production Mk III's, this requirement was deleted from later production aircraft (per Amendments Mk III E&M manual)

Regards

Alan

[Chuck E]

It looks very good, John. The rivets are a bit overdone, but that can be sorted out. It's a shame that so much detail will be lost when it's built. I must put one on my Christmas List. Thanks for posting.