[STARMAN 352ND]

I got a PM the other day as a member asked me what was so great about "S for Sugar" Lancaster since i just got mine the other
day and she really is a great Lancaster to have...
I feel that "S for Sugar" Lancaster is what Memphis Belle is for the B-17.
I would like other members to give your thoughts on what you think of "S for Sugar" and how important she is in history.
Here is a picture of my Lancaster PO&S..
JP

[Cardinal]

I still think this is one of the best looking Lancasters produced by Corgi .

[lanslide]

I have this one also and think the same way as STARMAN and Cardinal about it.

[parsig9]

Knock it off you guys! I'm trying to get one of these at a reasonable price and all this, "It's so great" stuff is gonna wreck it for me.

How about some comments about how rotten it is and how any other Lanc beats this one hands down.

Geeze.

[hworth18]

Originally Posted by parsig9

Knock it off you guys! I'm trying to get one of these at a reasonable price and all this, "It's so great" stuff is gonna wreck it for me.

How about some comments about how rotten it is and how any other Lanc beats this one hands down.

Geeze.

Sorry Parsig, can't be done.. Can't knock something when it IS the best.....

[JustPlaneNuttz]

Originally Posted by parsig9

Knock it off you guys! I'm trying to get one of these at a reasonable price and all this, "It's so great" stuff is gonna wreck it for me.

How about some comments about how rotten it is and how any other Lanc beats this one hands down.

Geeze.

Well, historically, this aircraft is beyond reproach. But as a model from Corgi, the copy I have sure isn't. When I bought mine back some years ago it was Corgi's first foray into these bombers, so this one is their first 'go'. Mine had weird landing gear that didn't fit right, and when I got these spindly items correctly installed, the angles weren't 'Lancaster'. I've put some Tricatus shots together here below to demonstrate. The red lines indicate the correct angles:


PO•S I own, DF•X I don't. Shots from Tricatus.

The one below (DF•X) is correct, using Corgi's new diecast landing gear, which I find to be accurate and superbly detailed. Other issues I have with this model are glossy prop spinners and prop blades. The balances on my rudders were straight on the right sides, and very drooped on the left. The payload in the bomb bay is just black on black whereas later Lancs have the bombs picked out in a colour. It is probably just me. but I find this model somewhat disappointing for such an icon.

Surprisingly, I didn't notice most of this till I got other Lancasters that have matte black props and spinners, coloured payloads and straight parts. Currently my BEST Lancaster in my collection is my SnS Lancaster on its landing gear (NOT shown here).

Should you get PO•S? Sure -- it's a peach of an icon -- just try and look it over first for saggy bits first. You may want to display it on its stand as well.

Conversely, the Mk II Halifax I just got for a fraction of what I paid for PO•S is light years ahead as a model (AND also on display at RAF Hendon!)

Well, you asked for it, Parsig!

[Shamrock]

You are correct about the build quality of the undercarriage on the S & S Lancaster.JPN. I hate to burst your balloon though as the turret is totally incorrect with the 'twin fifties' from a much later aircraft. For this reason I moved mine on as I couldn't bear such a big error despite the very attractive early war markings and paint scheme. Like you I was fortunate to get my S-Sugar from day one.

Entering Hendon for the for the first time you are taken with the sheer bulk and size of the aircraft S-Sugar. The very dark lighting however makes it nearly impossible to get a decent snap. I would like another 'accurate' Lancaster.

[JustPlaneNuttz]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

You are correct about the build quality of the undercarriage on the S & S Lancaster.JPN. I hate to burst your balloon though as the turret is totally incorrect with the 'twin fifties' from a much later aircraft. For this reason I moved mine on as I couldn't bear such a big error despite the very attractive early war markings and paint scheme. Like you I was fortunate to get my S-Sugar from day one.

Sorry Shamrock. . . I must be missing something here. The photos were just to demonstrate the landing gear angle (PO•S & a later Lanc -- I don't own that second one at all). Are you referring to the Martin 250 turret and the Lancaster it is on?

[ZS-VAN]

The back of the front turrent is also unpainted. Later ones are painted black at the back.

[Shawn 507]

So what is the belly blister on POS , and why the different dorsal turrets? Sorry Lancasters aren't my bag baby!