Uncle Dick Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Yikes - the front windshield where it joins with the fuselage looks more like an air scoop - or the sprue gate has not been separated from the whole front part of the windshield/canopy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnd Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Hmm. Definitely a watch and wait on this one. Not sure why they'd display it in that state but hopefully it'll be alright on the night. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thompson Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) On 2016-01-04 at 3:57 PM, Graham Boak said: I agree that the Airfix Spitfire Mk.I was a bit of a disappointment, and I would add the lack of washout at the wingtips to what's missing for it to be "really good", but it's still better than any alternative for this variant. Unless you can find an early production original 1970s Airfix Mk.I Spitfire.... By "original", do you mean before Airfix reworked the molds to convert it to a "snap-together" kit? Unfortunately mine, in both configurations, are buried in the deepest part of my stockpile, so not easily available for comparison, but I'd be curious to know whether, except for changes to make the parts snappable together, there were any real changes in shapes that would make the snap-together kit less desireable. Regarding the new Revell kit, I don't think anyone should get his hopes up that the canopy is just a convenient substitute from some other kit - I don't think I've ever seen one that ugly (and believe it or not, I've looked at a lot of Spitfire kits, regardless of what my current passions might be), unless it's the one from the Forces of Valor Mk IX! John Edited November 16, 2016 by John Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 The snap-together didn't change anything serious, if anything at all. The latest tooling is slightly longer in the nose than the older one, I think correctly so, but I don't recall anyone complaining about it before. For a better kit since my original comment, you might like to consider the new KP. I do have it and it looks good, but haven't started on it nor run the ruler over the bits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 On 11/16/2016 at 10:12 AM, Uncle Dick said: Yikes - the front windshield where it joins with the fuselage looks more like an air scoop - or the sprue gate has not been separated from the whole front part of the windshield/canopy... Looks like you could grind the amoured windshield down to about half of its current thickness and it would be more accurate and get rid of that step. The spinner looks like the one in this photo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Lingener Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) May I explain the windshield if allowed? The modell shown in January was a conversion from the existing Mk. V (remember the brown plastic? U-G-L-Y I´d say!) and has been done in a rush to be finished for Nürnberg. The model shown in Telford obviousely is a testhot build for the IPMS UK show. Hopefully the soon to be launched Mk. II will look much better - I´ll keep you updated. Michael Edited November 21, 2016 by Der Lingener 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 8 hours ago, Der Lingener said: May I explain the windshield if allowed? The modell shown in January was a conversion from the existing Mk. V (remember the brown plastic? U-G-L-Y I´d say!) and has been done in a rush to be finished for Nürnberg. The model shown in Telford obviousely is a testhot build for the IPMS UK show. Hopefully the soon to be launched Mk. II will look much better - I´ll keep you updated. Michael Michael, Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, by rushing to get something ready for the Telford show has meant the modelling community has been presented with something they now have a negative view of. Not all modellers who saw the kit there will see your explanation. This may hit initial sales until word gets around. An unwise decision by Revell methinks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 11 hours ago, Der Lingener said: May I explain the windshield if allowed? The modell shown in January was a conversion from the existing Mk. V (remember the brown plastic? U-G-L-Y I´d say!) and has been done in a rush to be finished for Nürnberg. The model shown in Telford obviousely is a testhot build for the IPMS UK show. Hopefully the soon to be launched Mk. II will look much better - I´ll keep you updated. Michael Good to know Michael, I'll wait to see what the actual kit looks like then. I was expecting a scaled down version of the recent 1/32 kit, was a bit surprised when I saw the pictures from Telford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyTiger66 Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 I'm not a Spitfire expert. All I can offer here is in relation to the hobby in general. I don't know about other countries, but when I lived in the U.K., toy shops, not model shops, but toy shops would often stock kits. These seemed to be nearly always Revell or Airfix brand. It seems that the non-modelling general public recognise these brands. Once, at an extremely busy toy shop close to Christmas (around 9 years ago), I overheard the conversations at the sales counter; mums were asking for Spitfire models. Any Spitfire models. There were non left, in any scale and the till assistant was suggesting a Hurricane. It wasn't going down well. Revell are usually extremely competitively priced. I think regardless of what experts really want, this will sell like hot cakes. Our few 'I won't buy this one because of X,Y etc' won't affect a thing. The further up the range kits are obviously aimed at serious modellers, or those with such aspirations; Shackleton, C-54. I love Spitfires and know it costs just the same to tool perfectly as it does with flaws. Nevertheless, I feel with this type of company, this is just seen as a mass market funds provider, one to build up the cash pile to allow eg development of kits like the Shackleton. Some manufacturers are specialising in trying to produce accurate single engine fighters. AZ is one, for example. Whilst they don't always get it right, they're sometimes a lot closer. It's probably them, Eduard etc we need to look to for 'experts choice' level of accuracy for this size and scale if plane? A little sad, a lot frustrating, but maybe true? ATB TonyT 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas V. Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 It does not cost more to produce accurate model, more detailed yes-accurate no., so the reason why poducts like this Spitfire appear is only due to a.) poor CAD ( once upon a time RoG outsourced model planning to a a certain Company, certain employee botched at least five toolings before being sacked ) and afterwards continued with poor preparation in kits like Bf 109G-6 B-17G etc...why? b.) no will, tooling costs today are fraction of costs even decade ago, if one has in house capabilities,for a few thousand Euros you can produce kits like B-17, no tens, no hundreds of thousand Euros...thus production costs can be very easily covered, and profit be made as easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Thomas V. said: It does not cost more to produce accurate model, more detailed yes-accurate no., so the reason why poducts like this Spitfire appear is only due to a.) poor CAD ( once upon a time RoG outsourced model planning to a a certain Company, certain employee botched at least five toolings before being sacked ) and afterwards continued with poor preparation in kits like Bf 109G-6 B-17G etc...why? b.) no will, tooling costs today are fraction of costs even decade ago, if one has in house capabilities,for a few thousand Euros you can produce kits like B-17, no tens, no hundreds of thousand Euros...thus production costs can be very easily covered, and profit be made as easily. Of course it costs more to produce a more accurate model - good research costs money. It's cheap to get a bad drawing off the internet and make a model from it, but to do proper research and take the time to get subtle shapes right costs a lot of money which is why some companies end up with so many errors in some of their kits. As for products like this Spitfire, well it appears we have not seen the finished product properly yet, so the kit might not be as bad as Revell has made it look. Edited November 22, 2016 by Tbolt 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 It does not appear that Revell have taken the leap to LIDAR scanning subjects like Airfix have. Given my experience with the US parent company, I am not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Lingener Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Tbolt said: Of course it costs more to produce a more accurate model - good research costs money. It's cheap to get a bad drawing off the internet and make a model from it, but to do proper research and take the time to get subtle shapes right costs a lot of money which is why some companies end up with so many errors in some of their kits. Rightly so! Rightly so! Take a look at HobbyBoss latest release, the IAR 80: Radu Brinzan pointed to the fact of bad, but cheap "research" and what came out of that (elsewhere on Britmodeller - sorry for not including a link) - it is a joy to build (I finished mine within a week), but definitely leaves a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy! Revell´s Spitfire Mk. II is hopefully a totally different story and I will show the test-shots as soon as they will be available to me! Then our "Spitfire-afficionados" might have their "Go" at this kit! Michael Edited November 23, 2016 by Der Lingener 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Lingener Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) On 22.11.2016 at 09:44, Wez said: Unfortunately, by rushing to get something ready for the Telford show has meant the modelling community has been presented with something they now have a negative view of. An unwise decision by Revell methinks. I do agreee, I fully do agree! And the discussion above is a testimony to that! I will pass this discussion on to the marketing department - we are in constant contact with those guys and we (as modellers and modelling press alike) are trying to help them in keeping in close contact to the modellers ... Michael Edited November 23, 2016 by Der Lingener Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Lingener Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said: It seems that the non-modelling general public recognise these brands. Exactly! That´s why RoG is right now trying to look for the "occasional modeller" ("Gelegenheitsmodellbauer" in German) as a new customer with their "Level 3"-kits: I reviewed their 32nd VW Beetle and Opel GT (old kits that resurfaced from the dark ages of modelling) and tried to explain that not us, the average and profi-modellers, are aimed at with these kits, but the old man who would like to build his first car for him and Grandma to remember the "good ol´ times" when they first exchanged kisses in the said Beetle: http://www.kitreviewsonline.de/vw-beetle-von-revell-in-132/ Or the manager in his mid-fifties who would like to build the Opel GT for his desk he never was able to buy in the 1970s! http://www.kitreviewsonline.de/opel-gt-von-revell-132-07680/ One of the soon-to-be-released kits is exactly aimed at such customers and due to it being produced in a less detailed but therefore buildable way will promptly cause furor among "real" modellers - but we are definitely NOT the ones such kits of "Level 3" are made for! And to make this clear to the "normal" modelling public will be a tough piece of work and will keep the marketing department busy for weeks! 11 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said: Revell are usually extremely competitively priced. I think regardless of what experts really want, this will sell like hot cakes. Our few 'I won't buy this one because of X,Y etc' won't affect a thing. As I wrote above: The "Level 3" kits are first of all not aimed at us, the "serious modeller" and they have to be sold at competitive prices to persuade the aforementioned manager or Grandpa to simply take one off the shelve, pay for it and simply click (or glue) it together. And maybe, if it was fun for Granpa/Mr. decision-maker to build them, he will come back and buy another one! And a third one, if the second one was also fun and easy to build! They actually are to be used as a sound basis for us "serious" modellers to really bring them to life, but that´s definitely not their first and foremost raison d´etre for being released! 11 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said: this is just seen as a mass market funds provider, one to build up the cash pile to allow eg development of kits like the Shackleton. Exactly what I am convinced of: If Revell can make some Euros with these kits (especially in the weeks before Christmas!) and will re-invest some of the earned money in new kits like the Shackleton or the C-54 or the new 32nd Me 262 ( http://www.kitreviewsonline.de/messerschmitt-me-262-b-1a-testshot-von-revell-132/ ), then everything is ok for us modellers! And you can be sure that in 2017 there are some new kits waiting to be released as a proof of what I just wrote. Michael (who, to make this clear, is NOT working for RoG nor does he get money from RoG!) Edited November 23, 2016 by Der Lingener 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meisnerr Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Src: http://www.72news.eu/2016/11/revell-supermarine-spitfire-mk-ii.html The sprue with the parts: http://www.revell.de/fileadmin/import/images/bau/03953_%23BAU_SPITFIRE_MKIIA.PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) Choice of markings seems bizarre, lots of active squadrons on IIs, but an AFDU aircraft? Edited November 29, 2016 by Dave Fleming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Markings we can live with. At least the oil cooler and radiator are separate items. Unfortunately, so are the wingtips and due to the way the lower cowling is broken down I suspect that they'll try to steal a march on Airfix and release a new Vb kit. Ailerons look to be the metal covered type, so it's more likely to be a Va and thus possibly more accurate than the Airfix IIa/Va offering with the fabric ones. Cockpit interior looks nice and spare 4 spoke wheels are a nice touch, as are what I think are lugs to get the wing/fuselage placement correct. Unsure of the spare windscreen and I suspect that we'll see vacform replacements in due course. Wonder if an Airfix one will fit, given that there's a spare bulletproof one in the mk I/IIa boxing if you go for the early option. Ditto the oil cooler and Rotol prop. Hmmn. Best wait and see. I have one on order for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Dave Fleming said: Choice of markings seems bizarre, lots of active squadrons on IIs, but an AFDU aircraft? Yes, well, it's Revell. They love stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I have a bad feeling about this..... As if the windscreen with the external armour weren’t bad enough, just what is that optional windscreen supposed to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr T Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 If Revell are planning a MkV, then the spare windscreen may be the later type with internal armour. If the model displayed is a production sample, I am not sure about the windscreen, although it may hopefully be down to an error in building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 The spare windscreen could be either a later one with internal bulletproof glass or the earlier one with no armour. Hopefully it's the latter as the internal armoured windscreen has a totally different shape of the frame, if this is what they wanted to represent then it's quite wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 12 hours ago, The Wooksta! said: Mspare 4 spoke wheels are a nice touch, as are what I think are lugs to get the wing/fuselage placement correct. Unsure of the spare windscreen and I suspect that we'll see vacform replacements in due course. Wonder if an Airfix one will fit, given that there's a spare bulletproof one in the mk I/IIa boxing if you go for the early option. Ditto the oil cooler and Rotol prop. Not 'spare', I suspect they are reduced in width as they are used for the 'wheels up' option. The interesting part is ahwt's missing from the top right hand side of the runners on 'B' - another prop? I suspect the unarmoured windscreen is either an internal armour one or an early unarmoured one - or could they actually be planning an early PR aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Didn't most Mk.IIs have the bulbous Rotol spinner? The one included looks like a deHavilland unit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 17 hours ago, The Wooksta! said: Markings we can live with. At least the oil cooler and radiator are separate items. Unfortunately, so are the wingtips and due to the way the lower cowling is broken down I suspect that they'll try to steal a march on Airfix and release a new Vb kit. Hmmn. Best wait and see. I have one on order for now. I think you're right about stealing a march on Airfix to produce a Vb, why else would they bother with the separate wing tips and lower cowling - an obvious hint at clipped wing tips and a Vokes filter. Agree about waiting and seeing. 15 hours ago, VMA131Marine said: I have a bad feeling about this..... As if the windscreen with the external armour weren’t bad enough, just what is that optional windscreen supposed to be? 6 hours ago, Giorgio N said: The spare windscreen could be either a later one with internal bulletproof glass or the earlier one with no armour. Hopefully it's the latter as the internal armoured windscreen has a totally different shape of the frame, if this is what they wanted to represent then it's quite wrong I thought later type with internal armour too but I'm not au-fait enough with the details to be sure. 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