New Revell 1/32 Spitfire

[gingerbob]

[Edit: As usual someone slipped another comment in while I was writing this one.]

Can you show us any examples of wartime Mk.I/IIs with this type oil cooler? Or any of the evidence you referred to? I'd be very interested to find out more about refits (or installations during production).

I can't make any judgements about the Revell fuselage yet, since I don't have the kit (waiting... ) . Sure, I can look at photos on line, but I don't feel confident making any pronouncements until I've seen it for myself. Do you know what the width is supposed to be where you are measuring?

bob

Edited July 6, 2014 by gingerbob

[andrewfl290]

NO NEED

- can you not see the Revell kit just looks really wrong?

the fuselage does not take the shape of the real aircraft as it narrows below the midline, and while it is too wide at the cockpit, it is much too narrow over the top of the engine, all in all the shape does not reflect the shape of a Spitfire, it looks crude and clumsy -

- note also the three planes in the fuel tank armour on the Revell kit, which are completely out of character from a Spitfire, and the flats undr the wing leading edge at the wing root,

- I find it very strange some have identified the oil cooler as an issue, when it is not - and have not picked up on the basic shape of the main parts -

No need to shout

I merely pointed out that I felt the 3mm you initially quoted was excessive, at least on a comparative basis with the other kits I have and when the formers are fitted the difference between the kits is only about 1mm. Unfortunately I am unable to draw comparison with the real thing and your kits might be different to mine

Now, I can also see that the top of the cowl appears to be pinched in and the forward part of the fuselage in the area of the fuel tank is not smoothly rounded, as you have pointed out, I can also see that the entry door is a little short and the wheel hubs dish out.

Overall I think this is an excellent kit although not perfect, if it were the price would be considerably more, however none of the issues are major by any stretch of the imagination and something any adventurous modeller would easily overcome. If not, in the fullness of time correction sets will no doubt become available for those that desire them.

Edited July 6, 2014 by andrewfl290

[KingK_series]

No need to shout

I merely pointed out that I felt the 3mm you initially quoted was excessive, at least on a comparative basis with the other kits I have and when the formers are fitted the difference between the kits is only about 1mm. Unfortunately I am unable to draw comparison with the real thing and your kits might be different to mine

Now, I can also see that the top of the cowl appears to be pinched in and the forward part of the fuselage in the area of the fuel tank is not smoothly rounded, as you have pointed out, I can also see that the entry door is a little short and the wheel hubs dish out.

Overall I think this is an excellent kit although not perfect, if it were the price would be considerably more, however none of the issues are major by any stretch of the imagination and something any adventurous modeller would easily overcome. If not, in the fullness of time correction sets will no doubt become available for those that desire them.

Sorry didn't mean for anyone to think I was shouting, I really wasn't, just bewildered by all the talk about the coirrect oil cooler being "a MkV oil cooler" and no one picking up on how inaccurate the basic shape is - after all people were very quick to spot how wrong the Revell Bf109G nose is, and the nacelles on the Revell UHU.

however I have to disagree with your conclusion, - to correct this kit means, completely remodeling the top engine cowl, the fuel tank [less difficult] and then thinning the fuselage all the way back to the radio access hatch, with a great deal of work to reduce the wing fillet to anything like the right shape. Then there is the wing leading edge.

As I see it this is the worst, most inaccurate kit out for a very long time, worse still it is a very big step back in quality from the standards already achieved in this scale by Revell with their Ju88 and He111.

The Spitfire is by far trhe most beautiful and important aircraft ever designed, it has uniquely exquisite lines and this kit is a travesty of them -

Edited July 6, 2014 by KingK_series

[Jennings Heilig]

Overall I think this is an excellent kit although not perfect, if it were the price would be considerably more...

Not at all. If the designer had done *all* his homework the kit would cost a penny more. The old axiom is as true now as it's ever been: it doesn't cost any more to do something right.

[KingK_series]

[Edit: As usual someone slipped another comment in while I was writing this one.]

Can you show us any examples of wartime Mk.I/IIs with this type oil cooler? Or any of the evidence you referred to? I'd be very interested to find out more about refits (or installations during production).

I can't make any judgements about the Revell fuselage yet, since I don't have the kit (waiting... ) . Sure, I can look at photos on line, but I don't feel confident making any pronouncements until I've seen it for myself. Do you know what the width is supposed to be where you are measuring?

bob

AR213 a late MkI as she is today, - and was when built in 1941

and AR 238, similarly a MkI

and a MkII

Edited July 6, 2014 by KingK_series

[lpiccec2010]

Hi KingK_series

I do agree it's one of the most important designs and beautiful aircraft ever, though wouldn't this be a perfect time for someone like you who knows what is wrong to do a correction kit for this for the people like yourself who wants the aircraft to be as they want it.

If I remember, everyone made a great hoohaw on the Hobbyboss MkVb when that came out too. From what I can see this is another imperfect kit and there are now corrections out there for most of the problems........ it still builds well and unless you have a trained eye (my son, family and most of my friends don't) still looks like a Spitfire!

My honest opinion is it looks like it's going to be a fun build & that's what I want the hobby to be when I've come in from work and put the kids to bed & need a bit of relaxation.

It is something that is there for enjoyment.

Everyone gets their enjoyment in different ways........ but please........ why don't you make a correction kit? You could make money from Revell's mistakes!!

[KingK_series]

Hi KingK_series

I do agree it's one of the most important designs and beautiful aircraft ever, though wouldn't this be a perfect time for someone like you who knows what is wrong to do a correction kit for this for the people like yourself who wants the aircraft to be as they want it.

If I remember, everyone made a great hoohaw on the Hobbyboss MkVb when that came out too. From what I can see this is another imperfect kit and there are now corrections out there for most of the problems........ it still builds well and unless you have a trained eye (my son, family and most of my friends don't) still looks like a Spitfire!

My honest opinion is it looks like it's going to be a fun build & that's what I want the hobby to be when I've come in from work and put the kids to bed & need a bit of relaxation.

It is something that is there for enjoyment.

Everyone gets their enjoyment in different ways........ but please........ why don't you make a correction kit? You could make money from Revell's mistakes!!

Well a correction kit would need whole new wings and fuselage - !!

to be honest I think there is far far less work in converting the Tamiya MkIXc.

[lpiccec2010]

Well a correction kit would need whole new wings and fuselage - !!

to be honest I think there is far far less work in converting the Tamiya MkIXc.

Well there's your answer............. do a upgrade set for the Tamiya kit & you'll have the Mk1/Mkll you're after.

As I said, I can live with the errors as most people I know think it'll look like a Spitfire.

[KingK_series]

Not at all. If the designer had done *all* his homework the kit would cost a penny more. The old axiom is as true now as it's ever been: it doesn't cost any more to do something right.

I totally agree -

the trouble is - as I have heard it from an insider, is that Revell no longer has the master who made the tooling for their Ju88 and He111 in 1/32, so they have contracted out to an Italian CAD designer who has absolutely no interest in modeling or aircraft - it's just a job to him. To that end one of the best and well known modelers who has his own company supplying model parts and tools was contracted to Revell to advise and support the Italien with advice. In the event said expert fell out so badly over the CAD designers arrogance and lack of interest on the 109G - ie getting the nose right, that the Spitfire was done with no expert help at all - clearly!

[Work In Progress]

We have always known that Mark I and II Spitfires which survived to the late-war period or beyond had the late oil cooler at some stage in their lives, but I for one have yet to see any evidence of them in front-line service thus equipped, when they were in their prime.

As the roundels show, that picture of AR238 was taken in 1942 at the absolute earliest. given the dishevelled condition of the aeroplane, its July 1941 first flight, and the fact that it only ever served in second line duties it is quite possibly 1944 or 1945 by which stage the later oil cooler was the updated standard replacement part for all surviving early Merlin Spits. I'm afraid it proves proves nothing about the aircraft when it was built. Nor does a modern photo of AR213.

Can you provide any documentary evidence for Mark I and II Spitfire in 1940 and 1941 with the late type oil cooler housing?

[venomvixen]

I totally agree -

the trouble is - as I have heard it from an insider, is that Revell no longer has the master who made the tooling for their Ju88 and He111 in 1/32, so they have contracted out to an Italian CAD designer who has absolutely no interest in modeling or aircraft - it's just a job to him. To that end one of the best and well known modelers who has his own company supplying model parts and tools was contracted to Revell to advise and support the Italien with advice. In the event said expert fell out so badly over the CAD designers arrogance and lack of interest on the 109G - ie getting the nose right, that the Spitfire was done with no expert help at all - clearly!

Didnt you get the boot of LSP for carrying on like a chook over this kit?

I really have to wonder why you have such a massive hate on for it.

[The Crusty one]

Can you hear it?....the sound of 1/32 Revell spitfire being hurled into the bin in disgust,then Revells Chief Executive been dragged into the streets and publically flogged! (tongue firmly in cheek here)

[Tim T]

Danni - that's an interesting observation.

Now I am not a rabid rivet counter, but I do like things to be reasonably accurate. What we seem to have here is something that looks like a Spitfire, which will probably build well and will be well served by the aftermarket. I can live with it, with a little help from the likes of Barracuda Studios and it will look pretty good in my cabinet.

This thread is in danger of descending into something horrid. Please let's try and remain civil and retains sense of perspective.

[lpiccec2010]

Danni - that's an interesting observation.

Now I am not a rabid rivet counter, but I do like things to be reasonably accurate. What we seem to have here is something that looks like a Spitfire, which will probably build well and will be well served by the aftermarket. I can live with it, with a little help from the likes of Barracuda Studios and it will look pretty good in my cabinet.

This thread is in danger of descending into something horrid. Please let's try and remain civil and retains sense of perspective.

Nicely said Tim :-)

[Edgar]

AR213 a late MkI as she is today, - and was when built in 1941

Actually, no, she received a new port wing, from the V production line, during her OTU service; this information came from her then owner, Patrick Lindsay, during the 20-odd years she stayed a couple of miles from here, and was confirmed by the team which rebuilt her about 5 years ago, when they removed the over-wing stiffeners.

and AR 238, similarly a MkI

photographed after April 1942, which was when the "C1" fuselage roundels were introduced, and, as you well know, a retrospective programme, to replace the Mk.I/II oil coolers with the Mk.III, was put in place in September 1941.

and a MkII

photographed when?

Edgar

[gingerbob]

and a MkII

What am I seeing here? There's a bulge between gear leg and fuselage, and an odd angled something just to the right (our perspective) of the carb air intake. Then there's something more or less on centerline well aft. Where did this photo come from, and do you know the aircraft's serial?

[Edit: Hmm, wonder if that "angled thing" is an oil line from a wing-mounted extra oil tank? If so, that would presumably make this a PR.IV, and it's the first time I remember seeing what it looked like underneath. But it would also make it likely that it is fitted with a Merlin 45.]

Thanks for posting these- the first I discount, but the other two are interesting.

bob

Edited July 7, 2014 by gingerbob

[venomvixen]

Danni - that's an interesting observation.

Now I am not a rabid rivet counter, but I do like things to be reasonably accurate. What we seem to have here is something that looks like a Spitfire, which will probably build well and will be well served by the aftermarket. I can live with it, with a little help from the likes of Barracuda Studios and it will look pretty good in my cabinet.

This thread is in danger of descending into something horrid. Please let's try and remain civil and retains sense of perspective.

Not really, its going the same way it did on the other site, My question stands.

[Edgar]

There's a bulge between gear leg and fuselage, and an odd angled something just to the right (our perspective) of the carb air intake. Then there's something more or less on centerline well aft. Where did this photo come from, and do you know the aircraft's serial?

I first saw the photo in the Patrick Stevens book on the Airfix 1/24 Spitfire; it appears again, in "Spitfire the History," in which it's captioned as taking part in LOX trials in January 1942, several months after the programme (to retrospectively fit the Mk.III oil coolers) started.

[gingerbob]

Thanks Edgar- I was just adding my own (apparently wrong) musing as you were answering my question!

bob

[Work In Progress]

Evidence-based comments on the accuracy of the kit are totally legitimate: I suggest that what's perhaps off topic for this site is attempted gossip about personailities at the companies.

[Iain Wyllie]

I first saw the photo in the Patrick Stevens book on the Airfix 1/24 Spitfire; it appears again, in "Spitfire the History," in which it's captioned as taking part in LOX trials in January 1942, several months after the programme (to retrospectively fit the Mk.III oil coolers) started.

I can see the photo on p. 107 in Spitfire - the history but not in the PSL book, Classic Aircraft No.1. Mine was a first edition published in 1971. Was there a second edition, or was it a different book?

Incidentally, although published 43 years ago, it is still a great reference for the early Marks, showing a lot of details that are overlooked elsewhere.

[KingK_series]

Well there's your answer............. do a upgrade set for the Tamiya kit & you'll have the Mk1/Mkll you're after.

As I said, I can live with the errors as most people I know think it'll look like a Spitfire.

Well I am doing that, and all the props, rad ducts, oil cooler ducts, cockpits etc etc etc - but for myself I never thought of selling them.

[KingK_series]

Didnt you get the boot of LSP for carrying on like a chook over this kit?

I really have to wonder why you have such a massive hate on for it.

Now why use the 'H' word?

I haven't -

The LSP threads did throw up personal comments against me by just 3 or 4 individuals, and whilst I got massive support on that forum from so many others in PMs, I did complain privately about the abuse in PMs about that, and then - got banned, which was galling and totally biased - but that is their problem as far as I am concerned.

- this thread is about the kit and the Spitfire, it is not about you or me, and I really would appreciate it if it could remain about the kit and the Spitfire and all personal correspondence kept private and for no one to sink to personal comment, or abuse.

to that end if you have anything to say about the kit, it's accuracy or otherwise do post, if you have any pics or technical information about the Spitfire that can contribute to a better understanding of this iconic aircraft, please please do post it, -

[KingK_series]

Actually, no, she received a new port wing, from the V production line, during her OTU service; this information came from her then owner, Patrick Lindsay, during the 20-odd years she stayed a couple of miles from here, and was confirmed by the team which rebuilt her about 5 years ago, when they removed the over-wing stiffeners.

photographed after April 1942, which was when the "C1" fuselage roundels were introduced, and, as you well know, a retrospective programme, to replace the Mk.I/II oil coolers with the Mk.III, was put in place in September 1941.

photographed when?

Edgar

I have it that the mk III cooler was introduced onto the CB production line for all A and B wings in on April 11th 1941. -IE for all MKII and MkV Spitfires built after that point, production of the MkII ceased on 27th july 1941.

Why were the Wing stiffeners removed on the port wing but not the starboard wing on AR213 Edgar?

Have you accepted that those stiffeners were a field mod yet ? - I have now loads of pics of MkIIs and MkVs on the production line with no stiffeners, and very very few wartime pics of aircraft at Squadron with them, including MkIIs and MkVs.

[KingK_series]

We have always known that Mark I and II Spitfires which survived to the late-war period or beyond had the late oil cooler at some stage in their lives, but I for one have yet to see any evidence of them in front-line service thus equipped, when they were in their prime.

As the roundels show, that picture of AR238 was taken in 1942 at the absolute earliest. given the dishevelled condition of the aeroplane, its July 1941 first flight, and the fact that it only ever served in second line duties it is quite possibly 1944 or 1945 by which stage the later oil cooler was the updated standard replacement part for all surviving early Merlin Spits. I'm afraid it proves proves nothing about the aircraft when it was built. Nor does a modern photo of AR213.

Can you provide any documentary evidence for Mark I and II Spitfire in 1940 and 1941 with the late type oil cooler housing?

then why was R6195, K9942? or any other early surviving MkI that I can think of?

- most of these served out at OTUs after Squadron service -

I can see the photo on p. 107 in Spitfire - the history but not in the PSL book, Classic Aircraft No.1. Mine was a first edition published in 1971. Was there a second edition, or was it a different book?

Incidentally, although published 43 years ago, it is still a great reference for the early Marks, showing a lot of details that are overlooked elsewhere.

absolutely!