Jump to content

Italeri "new" (reissue, repop, rebox etc.) in 2017


Homebee

Recommended Posts

On ‎02‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 11:30 PM, gavingav said:

Which revell kit?, i wasnt aware they did a new or recent tool 1/48th f-4e

They didn't. I was replying to the post which commented on the Junkers Ju 88!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎02‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 6:00 PM, sroubos said:

Well, you are probably right because I'm assuming Italeri wouldn't have released this without gauging the demand for it, but I haven't met the modeller who prefers a less complex but thirty year old kit over one of the best new molds released in recent memory - at the same price!

 

There's something more though - I'm not a fan of repops when they add nothing to the market. In this case it's borderline maybe as the original still builds into a decent kit, but the shops are full of old stuff in new boxes that has no business being there. If you fool people into buying old crap (I'm looking at you Revell, with your Tony rivet fest, and you Italeri, with that awful awful 109F) it hurts the hobby because people feel they have wasted their money and companies take advantage of them - which they do.

 

I recently bought Revell's 'new' Heinkel He-70, which turned out to be a rebox of the almost ten year old ICM kit. I was very disappointed on opening the box - ICM do good stuff nowadays but back then is was very much short run. This He-70 is arguably worse than the much older Matchbox He-70, which provided more options (and incidentally was not all that long ago also repopped by Revell). So Revell have my money but I'll think twice before i buy from them again. It will have to be along the lines of that Ju-88 before they get my money.

Actually, you raise a good point. With regard to the Ju-88, those of us familiar with kit's lineage would opt for the Revell kit. However, the occasional modeller who may not be familiar is probably just as likely to go for the Italeri kit. The question of whether or not 30+ year old kits should go on sale at contemporary retail prices is a thorny one and, if I were to honest I would say they shouldn't. I'll bet we've all been suckered by the shiny new box with an old (but possibly still good) retread inside.

I have no problem overall with repops - especially if there is little in the way of alternatives.  Italeri had a lot of interesting subjects in their range. I would personally love to see the Cant Z.501, Gotha Go242/244, and Me 323 Gigant again. Very nice kits and, to my knowledge, never produced at least in IM form by any other manufacturer. Agree with you on Heinkel He 70 by the way! I don't think it is fair singling out Revell because, all manufacturers are guilty of putting old kits in new boxes. There are certainly plenty of Revell kits of the same quality as the Ju 88 - Heinkel He -177, Junkers Ju 290, Blohm und Voss BV-222 & Breguet Atlantic (love to see THIS repopped!!:lol:) to name but a few.

 

Allan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/04/2017 at 18:00, sroubos said:

I recently bought Revell's 'new' Heinkel He-70, which turned out to be a rebox of the almost ten year old ICM kit. I was very disappointed on opening the box - ICM do good stuff nowadays but back then is was very much short run. This He-70 is arguably worse than the much older Matchbox He-70, which provided more options (and incidentally was not all that long ago also repopped by Revell). So Revell have my money but I'll think twice before i buy from them again. It will have to be along the lines of that Ju-88 before they get my money.

I could be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but do you know about Scalemates kit database? It usually give the kits origins so you can check before you buy:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/972734-revell-03962-heinkel-he-70-f-2

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How bad are Italeri's colour scheme / profile caption people?

Just doing a little research on the re-issued RB-66 Destroyer and hells, bells - what on earth is going on here?

 

There are four very nice decal options included with this reissued kit, however Italeri are confused as to which one really is what?

 

13ff029c-1b3d-4268-a7a3-3beb465e1e17_zps

 

According to Italeri

Version A - (Box art) is from the 363rd TFW, 4417th CCTS, Langley AFB Virginia, USA 1969 (Also served in the Vietnam War, deployed to Tan Son Nhat - circa 1965)

Version B - 1st TRS, 10th TRW Spangdahlem, West Germany 1964    

Version C - 19th TRS, 10th TRW RAF Alconbury, UK 1964

Version D - 363 TRW, Yokota AB, Japan 1968 (Vietnam War)

 

Then compare this to the kits instructions ?  

Both Versions A & B as identical images, however include different captions (as above). 

Version C (RAF Alconbury based a/c) has the same side profiles as Version B (West German based a/c)??   

 

rb-66%20instructions_zps5ytx68yk.jpg 

 

So IMO (and according to SAM Vol 10 Number 6) - I believe the correct captions / decal combinations should be -

Version A - (BB-415) 6460th TRS, 343 TRW deployed to Tan Son Nhat, South Vietnam 1965 (Langley 1969 is also probable) (Red / White Airbrake decal)

Version B - (BB-543) 19th TRS, 10th TRW, RAF Alconbury, UK 1960 (Green Engine Nacelle band)

Version C - (BB-520) 1st TRS, 10th TRW, Spangdahlem, West Germany 1964 (Blue / Red Diamond Airbrake decal) 

Version D - Camo version, I assume is correct?   

 

On the other hand - I could also be as confused as Italeri, the more I look into this, the more confused I get!! 

 

rb-66%20decals_zpsl4avupch.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents..

 

BB543 is 53-0543, indeed from 19 TRS of 10 TRW. The aircraft served from Alconbury from 1960 to 1964 when she crashed. The green band is visible in several pictures.

BB420 is 53-0420, and served with 1 TRS at that time. Don't know why they mention Spangdahlem, maybe they have a picture taken there. 10 TRW was based in Alconbury in those days and I've seen a picture of the same aircraft in this same scheme captioned as taken in 1964 at Alconbury. I've seen a picture of this aircraft when based in Spangdhalem before 10 TRW moved to the UK (happened in 1959) but in those days the aircraft had different markings on the airbrakes.

BB415 is 53-0415. I've seen this aircraft listed as having served with 4417 CCTS of 363 TRW, may well have served with other squadrons of the same wing. 363 TRW had many combat deployments in Vietnam, this aircraft may have served there. A good picture of the aircraft in the same scheme proposed by Italeri can be found on Wikipedia..

The camouflaged option is 54-0542, that wore this markings after the conversion to EB-66E standard. Italeri is correct this time, 363 TFW operated detachments from Yokota during the Vietnam war and this is one of those aircrafts. There's a picture of this here:

 

http://www.gonavy.jp/bbs1/index.cgi?page:330=v

 

(keep this website in mind, it's one of the best I've seen around when it comes to pictures of Japanese and US aircrafts)

 

Italeri however may have ,ade a mistake, the serial number in black should be O-54542, not D-44542...

 

In general I hope that the decals look better in real life than the look in the pictures. The USAF titles are indeed in blue but this and the blue used on the insignia looks too light. The U.S. AIR FORCE titles should also be in insignia blue while look black here. I also feel that the stencils are oversized... in true Italeri fashion

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Giorgio and website link, you don't know if there's an English version of this site? 

 

I can confirm that the kits U.S AIR FORCE wording is indeed black whist the USAF wing decals are blue (light as you say - but probably still usable). Seems to be a very nice sheet, however very very glossy. They should work out well - I hope! 

 

Cheers.. Dave

 

EDIT - Taking a third look, the USAF wing decals and insignia blue look quite good. I've also just picked up that the D-44542 decal that Giorgio picked up on is also incorrect. This of course should read 0-44542.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2017 at 11:12, Gorbygould said:

I could be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but do you know about Scalemates kit database? It usually give the kits origins so you can check before you buy:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/972734-revell-03962-heinkel-he-70-f-2

 

Scalemates is a good site but it's not always right, like any database it's as good as the information it's based upon which sometimes is just plain wrong, that said, when errors are pointed out they're good at correcting them.:thumbsup2:

 

As for using Scalemates when making a prospective purchase, I can see a few problems with this:

 

1.  You remember to consult Scalemates before you make your purchase.

2.  You have internet coverage where you are...   ...I know many of us buy on-line these days but you may be in an actual model shop (remember those)?  It may or may not have good internet coverage to allow you to consult Scalemates.

3.  When confronted with a shiny thing of interest, our eyes gloss over, our judgement is impaired and senses dulled and the impulse to just grab the thing and own it overwhelms everything else (or is that just me :hmmm: )?

 

As has been said, all manufacturers trot out old kits in new boxes, I got caught out by Hasegawa doing that in the late 70's/early 80's, I won't get fooled again by those particular kits!  Unfortunately, I still see those same kits being re-popped at huge prices, these will catch the unwary.

 

Back to Italeri B-66, I made this kit a couple of times when it first came out, there's still one in the stash where I got over ambitious and hacked the wings about to replicate the slats.  It's a basically sound kit, I'm not saying it's perfect but it's easily the best plastic kit of a B-66 anywhere.  'Tis a shame they changed the mould to remove the tail turret option.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2017 at 11:56 AM, Albeback52 said:

Actually, you raise a good point. With regard to the Ju-88, those of us familiar with kit's lineage would opt for the Revell kit. However, the occasional modeller who may not be familiar is probably just as likely to go for the Italeri kit. The question of whether or not 30+ year old kits should go on sale at contemporary retail prices is a thorny one and, if I were to honest I would say they shouldn't. I'll bet we've all been suckered by the shiny new box with an old (but possibly still good) retread inside.

I have no problem overall with repops - especially if there is little in the way of alternatives.  Italeri had a lot of interesting subjects in their range. I would personally love to see the Cant Z.501, Gotha Go242/244, and Me 323 Gigant again. Very nice kits and, to my knowledge, never produced at least in IM form by any other manufacturer. Agree with you on Heinkel He 70 by the way! I don't think it is fair singling out Revell because, all manufacturers are guilty of putting old kits in new boxes. There are certainly plenty of Revell kits of the same quality as the Ju 88 - Heinkel He -177, Junkers Ju 290, Blohm und Voss BV-222 & Breguet Atlantic (love to see THIS repopped!!:lol:) to name but a few.

 

Allan

 

I fully agree with you on the kits you mention, and that's sort of my point - if a repop adds something to the market, I'm all for it. Those Italeri kits you mention are still the best kits around for those particular types, and the same applies to the Revell ones. I'm sure lots of us are waiting for them to rerelease their 1/72 Hunter again - I know I am! But that's because now you either settle for a very poor Frog or Airfix kit, or pay through the nose for the Revell kit on eBay.

 

On 05/04/2017 at 0:12 PM, Gorbygould said:

I could be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but do you know about Scalemates kit database? It usually give the kits origins so you can check before you buy:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/972734-revell-03962-heinkel-he-70-f-2

 

Yup I do know scalemates, and I check it regularly, but not always, and it's simply not always possible. I don't have a big fat data subscription on my phone so internet usage on the move is expensive for me. I usually know pretty well what I'm buying but with so many kits being released at the moment, it's hard to know everything.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yes, nice to have a couple of dark green/middle stone options, though I'm fairly certain that scheme B is not No.74 Squadron. I don't recall the Tigers ever using a winged bomb emblem.

 

Edited by T7 Models
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that all the major manufacture's don't employ one model maker each, they are not hard to find, ipms Telford have thousands walking 🚶 about .

They could have a good look at The next super kit, and help in it's design, think, Meteor, hornet, Halifax, Tornado and many others that manufacture's got wrong,.

I feel Eduard have got a collection of good model makers helping them( oops 1/43 109), but most the time it works.

I'm willing to bet a lot of military stuff has problems, but not as easy to spot 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

If Italeri's boxart date captions are to be believed (yet again), then the Harrier GR.3 could have been very useful to the RAF back in 1942?

Somehow I think they've missied their mark by 40 years (1982).

 

At least the Hunters' captions appear to be correct, and I must say even though I've heard that this 1/48 kit is not the most accurate, that 'Blue Diamonds' scheme is awfully tempting - even to someone who is trying hard to stick to 1/72.

I suppose it would look quite nice parked alongside a 1/48 Gnat and Hawk in Yelowjacks and Red Arrow colours - along with a second Hunter in Black!.

 

Cheers.. Dave.      

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I might back track to the Hurricane, oh, but I'd like to see a decent 1/72 kit with options like that, what a superb looking decal sheet. I did have a wee chuckle with the option D colour profile, Western Sahara? I'm guessing Western Desert, something getting lost in translation. :)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello chaps

 

On the subject of Italeri repops does anyone know anything about their re boxed Hasegawa Starfighter in 1/48? Expected release date etc.

 

Sorry if this has been covered here before.

 

 Thanks 

 

James

 

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...