XV571 Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Wings on a separate sprue.....a mk.V later perhaps? I wonder what "tropenfilter" means . If a V is on the cards. will It be a 'b' or 'c' wing? If priced right, this will sell by the container load. Trevor If you look at the the fifth and sixth pictures on the IPMS Deutschland preview: http://ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Revell/Preview_Rev_Spitfire_MkII/Rev_Supermarine_Spitfire_MkII.html there's among other things, a late style rudder, 500lb bomb, tubular and eight stack exhausts, a long style carburettor intake and curved undercarriage doors. Looks like there might be a Mk IX/XVI in Revell's future plans, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaVenom Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Has anyone got a good photo of the MkII's wingtip lights (I can't seem to find any) as those look terrible? Not only do they look like a featurless bump they aren't even in clear plastic which they should be in this larger scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 It appears the instrument panel is arseabout http://www.clubhyper.com/forums/forum.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenko Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Pictures of it made up on Hyperscale http://www.hyperscale.com/2014/galleries/spitfireiia32dw_1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazdot Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 just looked and the rivets don't look "as bad" under a coat of paint but still a bit heavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I was going to post this morning to say that despite the two 'negative' posts I've put up recently, I would still be buying a couple. The rivets don't bother me at all - with a coat of 'erratic' priming they could look very convincing. The curved top of the blind flying panel bothered me a bit, so much so that I didn't notice - It appears the instrument panel is arseabout http://www.clubhyper.com/forums/forum.htm . . . but that is really inexcusable - where the hell were the SMEs that Mr Ritger refers to (above)? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim T Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 It appears the instrument panel is arseabout http://www.clubhyper.com/forums/forum.htm Ooppss! I am sure Eduard will jump on that pretty quickly after release. Or maybe we will be treated to one of Roy Sutherland's superb Barracuda resin cockpits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelldoc Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 It's finished: http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/testshots-geabut-neue-spitfire-mk-ii-von-revell-im-masstab-132/2014/#more-36664 modelldoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Torque links? I'm beginning to think some of this is an April Fool story . . . Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Red crowbar........ It's totally unbuildable then. Seriously, it looks ok made up. I will refrain from doing the expert by photo analysis thing. Unfortunately my iPhone doesn't like zooming in on detail so I can't comment on the rivet issue. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I have a question, not knocking you guys but are you ever satisfied with a new model? Like we been wanting a new mould of the Mk I/II and here it is, minor flaws that are fixable by a decent modeller but here it is and from what l see l like it, it has potential. So enough with the criticisms and just enjoy building it when you get it. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm pleased with a number of the new models I've bought. Then again that's because I've read reviews and looked at photos of those kits before buying them to check if they are what I consider to be good value for money with the type of qualities I desire. Alas from what I've seen so far in this thread I'll not be parting with cash for this kit because I consider it to be a mess. The surface detail is not good enough in my personal opinion. The mirror image instrument panel is a rather foolish error. Those solid and mis-shapen wingtip lights are also not the sort of thing I want from a new large scale kit. The representation, or rather lack, of depth to the radiator under the wing is another minor but annoying point to me. The more I look at the photos the more I see missed oportunities within them. So the bean-counters are forcing the pace and the company is having problems with sub-contractors? Well employ a project manager who can manage the project effectively and either remind the sub-contracters who is in charge or sub-contract elsewhere if at all. The bean-counters can do well to remember the only way they will have beans to count is by releasing a decent product to the market that customers are tempted to give their beans for. Either do the job right or not at all. Revell have proved more than capable in the recent past so why not now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Exactly Col. Look at the progress Airfix has made recently - resulting in the 1/24 Typhoon - all in house? And 45 years ago, Revell were the pioneers in 1/32. The surface detail on those original kits was just incredible given that it was done by hand! Everybody was expecting this kit to be on a par with, from what I gather, a rather excellent recent Bf 109 - I'd like to see some of the test shots for that kit. That won't stop me buying some of these though. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas V. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 There should be another question-why is Revell / has Worldwide sales network and sales without precedent / not capable of preforming product development in house. When you have million X currency Business why is there a problem of enlisting permament paid help to ensure product accuacy-quality. There was a designer recently that botched numerous kits-among those were Revells DH Mosquito, Halifax and Minicrafts Mariner, all because of outsourcing, had that person been supervised and scholled properly end products would most probably been different-all for a fraction of costs of lost sales.-Hint Eduard. As for Spitfire, I am still looking foreward to the kit, and was more than happy seeing riveting on the model, but as shown by others up to date quality is not there, to a collector / builder knowing that Tamiya Mk.I/II kit could be around the corner given already tooled parts, I am more than surprised to see such mistakes. I applaud Revell for numerous kits, and find them almost perfect / Ju 88-Ar 196-Hawk / and they show what can be done, hope that they will tweak the toolings to provide more accurate model . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaVenom Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm pleased with a number of the new models I've bought. Then again that's because I've read reviews and looked at photos of those kits before buying them to check if they are what I consider to be good value for money with the type of qualities I desire. Alas from what I've seen so far in this thread I'll not be parting with cash for this kit because I consider it to be a mess. The surface detail is not good enough in my personal opinion. The mirror image instrument panel is a rather foolish error. Those solid and mis-shapen wingtip lights are also not the sort of thing I want from a new large scale kit. The representation, or rather lack, of depth to the radiator under the wing is another minor but annoying point to me. The more I look at the photos the more I see missed oportunities within them. So the bean-counters are forcing the pace and the company is having problems with sub-contractors? Well employ a project manager who can manage the project effectively and either remind the sub-contracters who is in charge or sub-contract elsewhere if at all. The bean-counters can do well to remember the only way they will have beans to count is by releasing a decent product to the market that customers are tempted to give their beans for. Either do the job right or not at all. Revell have proved more than capable in the recent past so why not now? Agree with the above and Revell have brought out some nice large scale kits over recent years but this looks like the worst of the bunch. Again those wingtip lights (or should I say lack of them) look horrendous. I know Spitfire wing lights are quite small and are surronded by metal but as far as I can see those are just featureless bumps without any light details. It's as if they just moulded the metal surround without the lights. Revell have had a fairly good track record for including such fine details as little transparent lights over the years with their larger scale aircraft but like many Spitfire kits it looks like they've just moulded these in a really half hearted way so the final result is nothing more than an inaccurate featureless bump. It looks like they've moulded other tiny lights as separate clear lenses so why not the most prominent ones? Hasegawa even did tiny separate lenses for the lights on their 1/48th P40 kits yet Revell seem to think the wing lights aren't an important, prominent part of the aircraft. Also the wing tips are in 2 halves by the looks of it which will give a nice messy line where the 2 lights are supposed to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I've just seen a post by Edgar on LSP saying that Revell is aware of the instrument panel issue, and that there is still some work to be done. Having read through this thread again, the initial pictures of the made up model on page one still look fantastic - I guess I'll just have to wait a little longer. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidelvy Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 The elvators are a bit bizarre. Revell have provided the Mk IX style, which you have to trim to fit the tailplanes. And as these parts are moulded on the same sprue I doubt it's a case of Revell providing for the release of later marks. The more I look at this kit the odder it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABeck Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Some features on the shown test shots lead to the assumption that the UK registered G-AIST ( a (modified?) Mk.1a) was a guide for the design. Photo evidence in the net is very limited, esp. on the wing tops. Maybe someone who is closer to that plane can give some help??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) What features of AR213 (G-AIST) did you want to know about, and are those the features that cause you to believe that it is the basis for the kit? It is one of the best-documented aircraft around. Like most Mark I and II Spitfires that continued in service until late in the war it was updated in period with the superior Mark V type oil cooler. It has the original style of tailplane and elevators. During its post-war life, taking part in the Battle of Britain movie and in private hands prior to its 2001-2007 major restoration, it had acquired a variety of other later features, most of which were upgrades for all practical purposes, including a 4-blade prop, six-stub ejector exhausts and the flat-panel windscreen side sections. Most of that was undone in the last restoration which put it into one of its historically accurate 57 OTU colour schemes. It has kept the Mark V oil cooler. Last year the aircraft was partially re-painted to masquerade as P7308/XR-D, a IIa. For those who may not be aware of its life in the '70s and '80s, here is a pic taken in that era when it was (for many decades) the only airworthy Mark I. Edited April 5, 2014 by Work In Progress 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the prototype was flush rivetted. However to ease production Supermarine had to compromise and only have them where aerodynamically nececessary, with mushroom headed rivets elsewhere. That is true up to and including the V and IX/XVI. The superior Mark VIII airframe and its descendants (XIV, XVIII etc) are all flush riveted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABeck Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Thanks a lot for information !!! It is the small rectangular cot out in rear lower corner of the oil tank cover. I think this is a unique feature for this aircraft (AR 213). In some photos the oil tank cover looks a bit oversized. This had been a feature in test shot 1 and 2 of the kit but this has been evened out since. My question is about a (more than) dubious hexagonal plate over the main spar about mid wing (top) and how the bulge over the wheel bay looks like. Meanwhile the German DPMV site has removed some pictures of the test shot which showed some "extra" parts. Maybe someone has saved them??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Read this over at my Facebook by Lynn Ritger .Sometimes we forget how much work does go into moulds This is all very interesting.... BUT ! As many others I'm involved in the development of products for a company and I can guarantee that the final customer does not give a .... about the problems I might have during this phase. If my final customer wants something made in this or that way, he's going to pay me only when he sees that everything is the way he wants. If there's something different from the customer desiderata, he's coming to me and he's either not buying or buying at a discount, he's not interested in listening to things like "hey, you have no idea how difficult it is to make things right...". So why should it be any different for a company making plastic model kits ? My customer does not excuses me if I don't make things right, why should I excuse any other company ? It's my job to make a product that my customer is happy with, it's their job to make a product that I'm happy with 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decoman Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) I have noticed on the IX verions that the IX has a small lid on the upper side of each wing, that afaik indicate to the pilot if the flaps are down. I think I can see that lid on this earlier version in one of the pictures on page 1, but don't know if the earlier versions had that. Does anyone know? It looks like this lid is simply molded together with the rest of the wing on this model by the looks of the sprues. Edited April 7, 2014 by Decoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The flaps down indicator was on all marks - it is situated about half way between the wing root and aileron and about the same distance from the trailing edge as the front of the aileron. It's actually above the flap, rectangular shaped with a conical front half. It can be seen on the first colour pics on page one of this thread. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Belbin Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Hopefully, Revell is busy 'improving' this. Anybody heard anything? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now