New 1/48 Tornado IDS from Revell

[Jabba]

They were wired for TIALD but spent their time hunting Scuds. Do not know if they actually got fitted as I was one of the lucky few not to get a campaign medal. Great videos though. Wave at the camera... ex IX, ex 13, ex XV®. But that was a lifetime ago. I would love a really good GR1 to build.

That is interesting as I did not know that the GR1As were wired for TIALD at that time. The only GR1s that I know that carried TIALD and are documented as so were ZD739, ZD848, ZA446, ZA393, ZA406 and ZD844.

[Turbine_Man]

That is interesting as I did not know that the GR1As were wired for TIALD at that time. The only GR1s that I know that carried TIALD and are documented as so were ZD739, ZD848, ZA446, ZA393, ZA406 and ZD844.

You must have better documentation than my memory then. I can remember a handful of 13 sqdn Tonkas going to ASF for pre Granby mods, one of which was TIALD. However when I did the BF and crewed in very early one cold morning they were not fitted with them just lots of fuel and a couple of AIM9s

[Caerbannog]

OK - I admit I lost track of this topic - have to reaad it all over when I lay my hands on this kit.

When looking at the instruction sheet the most glaring mistake for me is: No RAF decals. Second: Just one livery and this is a very special one IMHO. I wonder if this is a clever decision by Revell. It surely means for me that I will "trash" them and I think many other potential customers will be put off by this.

The parts breakdown may look overengineered but I think the Tonka is a much more complicated thing to put in model form than many other planes. Revell has choosen "Skill level 5", which seems to be correct. And it is the first time that full intakes (yyyyyyyyyyyyes!!!!!!) and flaps are included (and more). Frankly - if theses were not included we would moan about their absence. And if we had to source aftermarket parts for these the build would become much more complicated again...

I suppose the Level 5 also reflects the fact that you will need an airbrush or you have to be very skilled with the rattle can to get the soft black colour demarcation needed for the one and only livery included in the box.

I wonder how likely it is that Revell will release other boxings with different marking - it really puzzles me why they include one livery only.

Rene

Edit: Just had another look on the instruction sheet and the spruces shown there. It looks as if other versions are planned sa there are sprue A, B, C, D, E, F (clear parts), G -then J, K, L and T. So there are some gaps. Plus there are "not-needed parts". Sorry if this was posted before - as said I lost track.

[Hit Or Miss]

Peter,

Some people like to make Armor look like it's just been in the field. I don't because, unless it's part of a dedicated diorama where the mud and snow and such can be blended into a 'live' environmental norm, you just end up with a model that looks...splattered. And amateurish.

I feel the same way about heavy amounts of grime on aircraft which are (and indeed _must be_, to the extent that ground crew wash and wax them, just like a car) kept clean, it is impossible to get scale effect on reverser smear that satisfies me and so you end up with a smudged, messy, model rather than an accurate replica of a specific mission event.

As for the cartoon artwork, the reality is the most of it was poorly executed at a mechanical level, even before you considered the questionable taste-

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/pics/gulfwar/torn/Tornado%20GR1%20'CL'%20Cherry%20Lips%20lh%20(Tabuk%20det).jpg

http://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/gb/helen_2.jpg

http://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/gb/anola_kay_4.jpg

With little color, too much clutter and poor perspective relief. Add the grime that was Saudi and you have jets wwhose personalized markings are all but lost, in-scale.

Compare this to the simple, full color, squadron flashes-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/RAF_Panavia_Tornado_GR1A.jpg

https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/tornado-gr1_8.jpg

http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/web/251246496658_1_0_1/1000x1000.jpg

Which set off the green-grey camouflage rather than appearing as just a black and tan ink blot.

Regardless of which aesthetic appeals to you, weaponry is a constant. If it's got tanks and CATMs, it's doing nav training. If it's got CBLS, it's working one of the ranges, perhaps preparing for a Flag.

But if it's got munitions onboard, you frequently know exactly what mission it's likely doing and that it's doing it _for real_. And that gives the model a kind of provenance with the real thing.

It doesn't mean you have to like war or endorse killing but military aviation isn't Formula One racing, now is it?

[Hit Or Miss]

Selwyn,

Anthony M. Thornborough. Roy Braybrook. Bill Gunston. All managed to get 'round the OSA one way or 'tother, to publish quite good books on modern airborne weapons.

BL.755 and JP-233 were both active during ODS. Just as Sea Eagle came after and is now long gone while ALARM was brand new and is just now leaving service. Much of what 'is and isn't permissible' is relative to the era and if the weapon has left service without replacement (i.e. the powers that be consider the -mission- obsolescent), I see no reason not to include it's -facsimile- in a model kit, especially if it's use is applicable to both NATO and Granby eras.

As indeed the low level, ballistic weapons and ALARM were.

TIALD is now replaced by LITENING. PWII 1,000lb (UK) is now secondary to PWIII/PWIV. SPEAR is coming soon.

If you cannot do the latest and greatest, at least include the basics.

If I was asking for a PAL link type on a WE.177, I suppose I might be in for some fright, but if Brimstone and Storm Shadow are accurately depicted in Hasegawa and Revell Typhoons, come on...

We both know that this is entirely about licensing and the refusal to pay same, hence the big disclaimer when people were complaining about the multiplicity of parts: "Revell got _zero_ help from BAe on this..."

[Homebee]

More sprues pics here:

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/testshots-vorgestellt-neue-tornado-von-revell-im-masstab-148/2014/

V.P.

[Selwyn]

Selwyn,

Anthony M. Thornborough. Roy Braybrook. Bill Gunston. All managed to get 'round the OSA one way or 'tother, to publish quite good books on modern airborne weapons.

BL.755 and JP-233 were both active during ODS. Just as Sea Eagle came after and is now long gone while ALARM was brand new and is just now leaving service. Much of what 'is and isn't permissible' is relative to the era and if the weapon has left service without replacement (i.e. the powers that be consider the -mission- obsolescent), I see no reason not to include it's -facsimile- in a model kit, especially if it's use is applicable to both NATO and Granby eras.

As indeed the low level, ballistic weapons and ALARM were.

TIALD is now replaced by LITENING. PWII 1,000lb (UK) is now secondary to PWIII/PWIV. SPEAR is coming soon.

If you cannot do the latest and greatest, at least include the basics.

If I was asking for a PAL link type on a WE.177, I suppose I might be in for some fright, but if Brimstone and Storm Shadow are accurately depicted in Hasegawa and Revell Typhoons, come on...

We both know that this is entirely about licensing and the refusal to pay same, hence the big disclaimer when people were complaining about the multiplicity of parts: "Revell got _zero_ help from BAe on this..."

Anthony M. Thornborough. Roy Braybrook. Bill Gunston. All managed to get 'round the OSA one way or 'tother, to publish quite good books on modern airborne weapons.

Having seen these publications the term “quite good books” when considering the British section is in my opinion a bit speculative, and the section has been obviously seriously weeded out to satisfy the Official Secrets Act.

BL.755 and JP-233 were both active during ODS.

Yes I know, and by the way Sea Eagle did not come after. ALARM is not just now leaving service. It was out of service last year.

Much of what 'is and isn't permissible' is relative to the era and if the weapon has left service without replacement (i.e. the powers that be consider the -mission- obsolescent), I see no reason not to include it's -facsimile- in a model kit, especially if it's use is applicable to both NATO and Granby eras.

I agree but many details of these weapons are still classified and you will not find much information about them. Lets face it The UK Government is still withholding information on cold war operations that took place in the early 1950’s!

TIALD is now replaced by LITENING.

Really. I thought LITENING was obsolete. The RAF use LITENING III, (yes, it is a different Item!)

PWII 1,000lb (UK) is now secondary to PWIII/PWIV.

Really, how interesting! Wonder where you got this bit of speculation.

SPEAR is coming soon.

Bet it isn’t. SPEAR isn’t a weapon. It’s well documented that this is a UK MoD requirement.

SPEAR

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/early-april-news-waiting-for-planning.html

If I was asking for a PAL link type on a WE.177, I suppose I might be in for some fright.

Don’t think so, there are lots of information sources on the WE177 (This store has been declassified) just search on the Net.

"Revell got _zero_ help from BAe on this..."

Revell got zero help on this because;

1. BAe (British Aerospace) does not exist, and hasn’t existed for over 10 years. (BAE Systems I think you mean).
2. They would have been better served by approaching the weapon manufacturers, not the people who built the Aeroplane.
3. And anyway examples of BL.755, JP-233, Sea Eagle and ALARM can now all be found in museums, so Revell or any aftermarket company can quite legitimately go and measure up these stores for their kits without even having to resort to going to the manufacturer or Aeroplane manufacturer!

Licencing is more to do with the Aircraft not the weapons.

Not putting weapon sprues inthe kit is just a cost reduction by the manufacturer.

Selwyn

Edited April 17, 2014 by Selwyn

[colin ritchie]

A passing interest in Tornados and complete disinterest in 48th means I've go no dog int he fight as regards this actual kit ,

But as a 32nd builder, I'd LOVE a 32nd Tornado tooled in the way Revell have put this kit together , I'm SO tired or re-scribing the belly of the Revell kit, and forking out money for increasingly expensive add on's that are getting harder and harder to find , not to mention decent intake trunking -

I can dream I suppose!

[Tiger331]

IT'S A NEW TORNADO JUST BE GLAD IT'S HAPPENED, Once again we have the self- appointed rivet counters, destroying another kit before they've seen in in the flesh,or even built it,my God They did enough damage to Trumpeter at the end of the day,IT'S A BLOODY MODEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,Not the real thing! Let's wait for it to arrive, if then you don't like it then don't buy it and don't build it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hawker

WELL SAID !!!!……….Totally agree………It's time to arrest this "ARCism" on BM before its too late…may already be given some of the posts I have seen recently, here and on other threads

[Calum]

Hawker

WELL SAID !!!!……….Totally agree………It's time to arrest this "ARCism" on BM before its too late…may already be given some of the posts I have seen recently, here and on other threads

Why did you bother waste your precious time first reading and then even posting in this thread?

This thread has been quite informative IMHO

[Tiger331]

Why did you bother waste your precious time first reading and then even posting in this thread?

This thread has been quite informative IMHO

You have misinterpreted what I said. I totally agree with you that much of what is written in this thread is quite informative and that is why I read those portions of it that were relevant and helpful in learning about the subject. What I object to (along with others, it may seem) is individuals pre-judging (yet again) the accuracy and buildability of a kit before it has even hit the streets. Once again, we are witnessing subjective criticism based on images and NOT actually seeing the plastic in one's hand or indeed conducting a build.

This kind on nonsense does, however, bring some amusement…..Several of our club members are currently working on the quote "unbuildable" unquote Italeri 1:32 scale F-104G/S Starfighter and quite enjoying the experience. It seems that all is not "as it seems" with this kit - yet more ill informed pre judgement.

[Calum]

You have misinterpreted what I said. I totally agree with you that much of what is written in this thread is quite informative and that is why I read those portions of it that were relevant and helpful in learning about the subject. What I object to (along with others, it may seem) is individuals pre-judging (yet again) the accuracy and buildability of a kit before it has even hit the streets. Once again, we are witnessing subjective criticism based on images and NOT actually seeing the plastic in one's hand or indeed conducting a build.

This kind on nonsense does, however, bring some amusement…..Several of our club members are currently working on the quote "unbuildable" unquote Italeri 1:32 scale F-104G/S Starfighter and quite enjoying the experience. It seems that all is not "as it seems" with this kit - yet more ill informed pre judgement.

Those discussing accuracy, IMHO rarely if ever call a kit "unbuildable".

It's usually the just shut and build it crowd that introduce that term, because it seems they think that those discussing accuracy are in some way judging them for wanting to build the particular kit under discussion. from what I've seen the accuracy crowd have no interest in whether the "just shut up and build it crowd" actually build it or not.

And why can't we discuss a kit from photos, CAD etc? Last time I checked this is a model discussion board... and we're discussing models?

I didn't realise we had to build a kit to discuss it's merits? Personaly I like to check a kit online before I buy it

[dambuster]

it is impossible to get scale effect on reverser smear that satisfies me and so you end up with a smudged, messy, model rather than an accurate replica of a specific mission event. Add the grime that was Saudi and you have jets wwhose personalized markings are all but lost, in-scale.

But if it's got munitions onboard, you frequently know exactly what mission it's likely doing and that it's doing it _for real_. And that gives the model a kind of provenance with the real thing.

It seems to me that you don't really want an accurate model of a war-fighter but a sort of symbolic weapons display vehicle which allows you to fantasise that it has some 'provenance'.

Peter

Edited April 18, 2014 by dambuster

[Tiger331]

Those discussing accuracy, IMHO rarely if ever call a kit "unbuildable".

It's usually the just shut and build it crowd that introduce that term, because it seems they think that those discussing accuracy are in some way judging them for wanting to build the particular kit under discussion. from what I've seen the accuracy crowd have no interest in whether the "just shut up and build it crowd" actually build it or not.

And why can't we discuss a kit from photos, CAD etc? Last time I checked this is a model discussion board... and we're discussing models?

I didn't realise we had to build a kit to discuss it's merits? Personaly I like to check a kit online before I buy it

Once again, you have totally misinterpreted what I have said. Never mind, I'll not waste any more of your or my time trying to argue the semantics.

Let's just say, I find it irksome that so many decide to judge a kit BEFORE it has actually arrived in the hands of those skilled and selfless reviewers that devote their time to providing all of us with accurate and timely information so we can then make an informed choice.

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

More sprues pics here:

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/testshots-vorgestellt-neue-tornado-von-revell-im-masstab-148/2014/

V.P.

Detail looks nice. Thanks for posting!

Andrew

[Calum]

Once again, you have totally misinterpreted what I have said. Never mind, I'll not waste any more of your or my time trying to argue the semantics.

Let's just say, I find it irksome that so many decide to judge a kit BEFORE it has actually arrived in the hands of those skilled and selfless reviewers that devote their time to providing all of us with accurate and timely information so we can then make an informed choice.

Likewise I find it irksome when people tell me we can't discuss models on a model board, regardless of where the model is along it's production cycle.

[AnonymousAA72]

IT'S A NEW TORNADO JUST BE GLAD IT'S HAPPENED, Once again we have the self- appointed rivet counters, destroying another kit before they've seen in in the flesh,or even built it,my God They did enough damage to Trumpeter at the end of the day,IT'S A BLOODY MODEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,Not the real thing! Let's wait for it to arrive, if then you don't like it then don't buy it and don't build it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Rivet Counters' didn't 'damage' the Trumpeter Tornado..........Trumpeter managed that all on their own....and the rivet counters were proved CORRECT!!..............

[Tiger331]

Likewise I find it irksome when people tell me we can't discuss models on a model board, regardless of where the model is along it's production cycle.

I give up…….again, misinterpretation. This is not what I said or advised. By all means discuss….just avoid pre-judgment until the kit physically arrives on the reviewers bench.

[Greg B]

It's a kit. We can either use the info given in here to make a judgment or just go out and buy it. Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing the first few examples being built on here. Until then, this thread has run its course.