Revell 2017 first quarter

[Der Lingener]

On 1.1.2017 at 11:22, Geoff_B said:

 

Might be interesting to see if the PT-109 is indeed a brand new replacement for the old kit or just a rebox, as a detailed modern tooling of a PT boat would be appreciated.

Hi Geoff,

 

as I wrote on Kitreviewsonline: NEW TOOL!

[Der Lingener]

On 2.1.2017 at 17:01, GreenDragon said:

IPMS Germany says the Aston Martin is a James Bond lizenz.

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

not yet decided (or, to be honest: It wasn´t decided back in November) because of ongoing discussion about using "007" and the Name "james Bond"...

 

Michael

[Der Lingener]

On 1.1.2017 at 23:38, modelldoc said:

Some military scales are different from the first annoucement, who is wrong?

 

Easy to answer: It was me! I changed the 35th scale Leopard into a 72nd scale leo! We were not allowed to take any pictures so some mistakes slipped through .... sorry for that!

 

 

[SeaVenom]

Nice to see the Colombo Express back though.    One thing I'd like to see Revell do is a supertanker ship.   No other company's done one of those.

[Truro Model Builder]

I'm asking where is the evidence that the Mk.IX will be poor just because the Mk.II has some errors. I know full well that the Mk.IX will be based on the Mk.II, but the evidence that the model is a write off will not be known until the kit is available for inspection. Instead of making sweeping, glass-half-empty statements when the kit is only just announced why not wait to see the finished item? Or is that too sensible?

 

Ever since the Revell 2017 programme was known it seems that people have been queuing up to bash both it and the company's general kit manufacturing capabilities. Yes, I'm disappointed that there are very few new moulds, but what we do have is very promising -given the primary business of Revell's owners- and I think there are a lot of people out there who need to start counting their blessings rather than acting like a bunch of spoiled brats who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.

 

Rant over.

[Albeback52]

6 hours ago, T7 Models said:

I'm asking where is the evidence that the Mk.IX will be poor just because the Mk.II has some errors. I know full well that the Mk.IX will be based on the Mk.II, but the evidence that the model is a write off will not be known until the kit is available for inspection. Instead of making sweeping, glass-half-empty statements when the kit is only just announced why not wait to see the finished item? Or is that too sensible?

 

Ever since the Revell 2017 programme was known it seems that people have been queuing up to bash both it and the company's general kit manufacturing capabilities. Yes, I'm disappointed that there are very few new moulds, but what we do have is very promising -given the primary business of Revell's owners- and I think there are a lot of people out there who need to start counting their blessings rather than acting like a bunch of spoiled brats who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.

 

Rant over.

Difficult to argue with that ! I think the "argument" for the as yet unseen, far less actually produced Spitfire is based on the same logic that people used to condemn the (at the time) similarly as yet unseen, far less actually produced Shackleton kit. All based on the rather shaky premise that because Revell had produced an inaccurate X in the past that the forthcoming kit of Y was therefore also going to be inaccurate & could just therefore be written off in advance. With regard to Revell's 2017 programme, I have to confess my own initial judgement was a bit harsh. In fact, Revell will actually be getting more out of me this year than Airfix. I have no issue with reissued kits - I just wish they would reissue the Junkers Ju-290, their Heinkel He-177s, Fw-200s and, Breguet Atlantic. The forthcoming 1/32 release of yet another Mustang gets a very loud MEH! from me!. However, heading to a stash near me will be the 1/48 Tornado F3, MiG-25 RBT, the FW-190 A8 Nachtjager & FW-190D, the Airbus A-400 , Heinkel HE-219 & F/A-18E.

 

Allan

Edited January 4, 2017 by Albeback52

[Dave Fleming]

But the Shack was inaccurate....

[71chally]

the Shack wasn't inaccurate, I can't believe this still being peddled here.

[roym]

I'm just waiting for the 2016 Mustang. Ford and in 1/25 scale with a full engine.

[Thomas V.]

11 hours ago, T7 Models said:

I'm asking where is the evidence that the Mk.IX will be poor just because the Mk.II has some errors. I know full well that the Mk.IX will be based on the Mk.II, but the evidence that the model is a write off will not be known until the kit is available for inspection. Instead of making sweeping, glass-half-empty statements when the kit is only just announced why not wait to see the finished item? Or is that too sensible?

 

Mk.II indeed does have "some errors" related to Mk,II variant, but ( and for our deduction most importantly ) has THE error in fuselage shape, I asked Revell if they plan on using that Mk.II fuselage and they confirmed, so to recap, they will use Mk.II fuselage and than add parts to do Mk.IX.

This is not the case of Bf109G-6/G-10Erla and Fw 190F-8, where one can easily replace troubled with AM parts, the core of the model will be flawed.

On the other hand I have no doubt that they will sell many, but it wont be accurate representation of Mk.IX.

 

[VMA131Marine]

42 minutes ago, Thomas V. said:

Mk.II indeed does have "some errors" related to Mk,II variant, but ( and for our deduction most importantly ) has THE error in fuselage shape, I asked Revell if they plan on using that Mk.II fuselage and they confirmed, so to recap, they will use Mk.II fuselage and than add parts to do Mk.IX.

This is not the case of Bf109G-6/G-10Erla and Fw 190F-8, where one can easily replace troubled with AM parts, the core of the model will be flawed.

On the other hand I have no doubt that they will sell many, but it wont be accurate representation of Mk.IX.

 

As I pointed out earlier, they will be using the Mk.II fuselage from the escape door back plus the entire wing root fairings. If there is an error here it will carry over to the Mk.IX.

[Dave Fleming]

14 hours ago, 71chally said:

the Shack wasn't inaccurate, I can't believe this still being peddled here.

 

You've just reminded me, I'll dig out the pics. At the very least, it had inaccurate panel lines on the wings.

[71chally]

I've already outlined my first hand knowledge and experience of the type, not to mention having plenty of drawings and references.

The only error I see with the Revell Shack AEW.2 was showing the upper inboard wing tank panel lines, which only appear on the MR.3.  This is such a small and subtle feature that you can either live with it (as I do) or fill it which is easy.

 

Most kits have errors of some sort, but I'm not sure why this kit gets such a repeated bashing from some quarters.

 

To me, it looks like the aeroplane I know and love,

Revell 1/72 Shackleton AEW.2 by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

 

[janneman36]

45 minutes ago, 71chally said:

I've already outlined my first hand knowledge and experience of the type, not to mention having plenty of drawings and references.

The only error I see with the Revell Shack AEW.2 was showing the upper inboard wing tank panel lines, which only appear on the MR.3.  This is such a small and subtle feature that you can either live with it (as I do) or fill it which is easy.

 

Most kits have errors of some sort, but I'm not sure why this kit gets such a repeated bashing from some quarters.

 

To me, it looks like the aeroplane I know and love,

Revell 1/72 Shackleton AEW.2 by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

 

Well if you like it just like it, i must say that i like them both when i see them built .

But i am thankfull to Airfix that they finally bring their AEW out.(though i think it is not a easy build at some points)

As you say a lot of kits have faults some way or another ,even Tamiya's mustang for instance is deemed incorrect and we have a hell of a lot of Mustang renditions at the moment in every scale...

I really love what is available at the moment..

A good thing that Revell delivered us is for instance is the very lovely DC4/C54 truly a masterpiece in my opinion.

I have build the 1/32 109G6 and Spit and even with their faults they build into something nice in a short amount of time.

It is good that you can choose also with those price differences, not everybody has a ton of money to spend..

 

Alll the best ,  Jan

 

[Albert RN]

7 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

You've just reminded me, I'll dig out the pics. At the very least, it had inaccurate panel lines on the wings.

 

Fuselage cross section is too rounded, the rear fuselage is short, nose too deep and the engines are undersized.

 

The criticisms are justified.

[tempestfan]

On Wednesday, January 04, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Albeback52 said:

I think the "argument" for the as yet unseen, far less actually produced Spitfire is based on the same logic that people used to condemn the (at the time) similarly as yet unseen, far less actually produced Shackleton kit. All based on the rather shaky premise that because Revell had produced an inaccurate X in the past that the forthcoming kit of Y was therefore also going to be inaccurate & could just therefore be written off in advance. 

While I don't endorse bashing kits before they have been released, the Spit is different to a full new tool in that it is based on the II according to their own statement, and the II ***apparently *** has problems affecting the looks (I don't have one). The Shack possibly earned a Bad reputation pre-release on account of the notion that only Airfix had access to the "official " documentation so only Airfix could make an accurate mould. Besides, the Revell people were reported to having been arrogant when trying to negotiate access with the Shack Trust or whomever. --- I have no idea if it's Hobbico trying to wring out more profit, or if the price increases are just the  reaction to ever shrinking kit sales. The RRP's of Airfix kits in Germany aren't any better,  with S.5 at 29 Euros. The  equivalent (almost) bought you a 48th Lightning when it came out,  which admittedly was more than a decade ago. As I've said elsewhere, I only buy Airfix kits on ebay auctions off a professional dealer, with substantial savings. 

[Procopius]

On 1/1/2017 at 2:01 PM, Phantome said:

And their obsession with tigermeet/special markings is really getting on my nerves

 

Seriously.

[Procopius]

34 minutes ago, Albert RN said:

 

Fuselage cross section is too rounded, the rear fuselage is short, nose too deep and the engines are undersized.

 

The criticisms are justified.

 

I don't intend to question you, but is there a thread where these claims are sourced from?

[71chally]

2 hours ago, Albert RN said:

 

Fuselage cross section is too rounded, the rear fuselage is short, nose too deep and the engines are undersized.

 

The criticisms are justified.

Can you back that up please?

 

According to my measurements off the real thing and looking at drawings I don't come to that conclusion.

The fuselage has the same cross section as the Airfix one, as I have swapped the interiors around in the two kits.

Edited January 5, 2017 by 71chally

[71chally]

1 hour ago, Procopius said:

I don't intend to question you, but is there a thread where these claims are sourced from?

Most of the criticism came before the actual release, can't help thinking by those that didn't like the fact that the Airfix Shack had only just been released before hand.

Most of the claims in one thread here at the time were utterly outlandish, sadly.

Interestingly I've never seen the kit criticised elsewhere.

 

Yes there are minor inaccuracies, but as said previously most kits have these.

[Albert RN]

15 hours ago, 71chally said:

Can you back that up please?

 

According to my measurements off the real thing and looking at drawings I don't come to that conclusion.

The fuselage has the same cross section as the Airfix one, as I have swapped the interiors around in the two kits.

 

No it isnt't. The Revell fuselage is too eggshaped and rounded. Fuselages, Revell right and Airfix left. 3mm difference in depth at nose. That's an MR3 nose.

 

 

Revell fuselage is around 6mm longer.

 

And a metric f-tonne of Shackleton drawings with all the data. 

 

 

 

There's no way you'd fit a V12 Griffon in the kit cowls and the spinners are undersized. The list goes on. Nice surface detail but even that isn't accurate.

 

The Revell kit is a mishmash of variants, it's an approximation of an AEW and the criticisms are fully justified.

 

RichW_82's posts have gone into great detail what is wrong with the Revell kit.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Albert RN

[71chally]

I remember that thread well, a low point for this forum I thought.

I'm well aware of Rich and have known him for a few years, away from this forum.  Great guy.

 

Your photographs of the two fuselages together doesn't show the full story, the Revell Shack has angled straight sides (as the original), and pretty well matches the Airfix one.

 

Your images of the fuselage frames above are misleading, due to the fold in the paper they come to a pointed top.  The Shackleton fuselage has an almost flat top across most of its length, rounds off at the rear.  I have walked up and down enough Shack roofs, enough times to know that, but it is also borne out in the drawings when spread properly.

 

To say that the Revell Shack has the same section depth as an MR.3 at the front, is just absolutely wrong, even just looking at the kit you can see it's nowhere near that.

The interiors of both kits (inc bulkheads) fit each other, details here,

Rich contributed to that thread and didn't mention the issues you have above.

 

The cowls etc I need to measure again before coming back to that point, but remember measuring at the time and wasn't unduly worried.

Surface detail was pretty bang on compared with WL795, the actual AEW that Revell used for their measurements etc. 

Only bit I see out, is the Inboard tank lines depicted on the upper wing, which is MR.3 only.  Very minor and easily corrected.

 

I really don't want to get bogged down in this, the damage to the kits reputation has been done, personally I believe because of the association with the Airfix kit to a certain team and their issues with Revell.

 

The long and short of it is the Revell kit is as accurate and inaccurate as most other kits (inc the Airfix Shack), it has high points and low points, as any other kit, but since it was announced it took a right unfair kicking on this forum.

 

And my issue now is that this yardstick is being used to gauge new and unreleased kits from Revell.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by 71chally
spelling

[Truro Model Builder]

11 hours ago, 71chally said:

I remember that thread well, a low point for this forum I thought.

 

And my issue now is that this yardstick is being used to gauge new and unreleased kits from Revell.

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Revell seems to have become everybody's favourite kicking post, and it is incredibly unfair.

 

[Col.]

22 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

 

Exactly. Revell seems to have become everybody's favourite kicking post, and it is incredibly unfair.

 

It certainly seems that way, which is strange, I always thought Trumpeter had that accolade tied down tight due to their apparently constant ability to introduce shape errors into everything they produce. At least Revell get some stuff right  

[Albeback52]

3 hours ago, Col. said:

It certainly seems that way, which is strange, I always thought Trumpeter had that accolade tied down tight due to their apparently constant ability to introduce shape errors into everything they produce. At least Revell get some stuff right  

The problem is of course that the Revellophobes always manage to ignore such beautiful models as the Breguet Atlantic, DC-4/C-54,Heinkel He-177, Junkers Ju-290, Fw-200, Bv-222, 1/32 Arado Ar-196 (both versions), 1/32 Ju-88 & Heinkel He-111 (but then, why let that get in the way of a good rant?!). There isn't a manufacturer in history that hasn't produced some clunkers. I do sometimes wonder that if Tamiya, Hasegawa, Z M etc managed to produce kits with noticeable issues in the same way the oft maligned Trumpeter does if they would attract the same ire that Revell does? I have absolutely no doubt that even if the new tool kits announced recently turn out to be spot on, there will be those who will do their best to rubbish them.

 

Allan

Edited January 7, 2017 by Albeback52