REVELL 1:72 Boeing PT-17 Kaydet/Stearman

[GDumbrell]

Been a very very long time since I last posted anything on here.

Mainly due to work and time curtailing any modelling activity.

However, one has managed to be completed which I present to you here.

 

Now, as a kid, I found that Airfix kit quality decreased a lot to become quite poor. However, they have now improved greatly.

But, it now seems to be REVELL's turn to decrease in quality and some are downright shocking.

 

This model is their Boeing PT-17 Kaydet/Stearman.

It is painted in a fictional livery along with a British Civil Registration as I like the idea of creating a historic aircraft collection that could exist in the real world but is purely fictional.

I have added some 3rd party decals for the instrument panels and for the first time, I tried rigging.

I am quite pleased with the end result.

 

Anyway, here are the photos.

 

The last photo shows my airfield diorama which also doubles as a fictional bus depot.

If anyone wants to know, the hangar is a kit from Poland of a second world war style construction (card kit). Again, I like the end result.

 

Thanks for viewing and reading.

 

 

 

 

 

[SAT69]

That's really nice! I like the instrument panel detail.

[GDumbrell]

24 minutes ago, SAT69 said:

That's really nice! I like the instrument panel detail.

Thanks.

The instrument panel is no more than a decal but it does look nice.

[kapam]

Hey, very nicely done! 

Quite a classic plane in my view and nice when they turn up on this Forum (especially in 1/72, my favourite scale).

On 10/10/2020 at 10:37 PM, GDumbrell said:

Been a very very long time since I last posted anything on here.

Mainly due to work and time curtailing any modelling activity.

Yeah, jobs, family, etc. have to take priority, even though we sometimes wish otherwise!

👍

[GDumbrell]

9 minutes ago, kapam said:

Hey, very nicely done! 

Quite a classic plane in my view and nice when they turn up on this Forum (especially in 1/72, my favourite scale).

Yeah, jobs, family, etc. have to take priority, even though we sometimes wish otherwise!

👍

Many thanks.

Needless to say, I have gone headlong into my next project and am thoroughly enjoying it too.

I shall post on here once complete.

Yes the work/ life balance is very hard to juggle sometimes but I think I'm nearly there with it.

[malpaso]

That's a very nice result.

 

As for judging Revell progress from this kit, it's actually even more ancient than the helpfully moulded date, being from the early 60s.  So it's actually comparable to one of the Airfix so-called "Classic" range!

[Eric Mc]

Modern Revell kits are pretty good - in my view.

 

The Stearman is a very old mould and is typical of its era. But, as the pictures show, can still make a nice display when finished.

[GDumbrell]

1 hour ago, malpaso said:

That's a very nice result.

 

As for judging Revell progress from this kit, it's actually even more ancient than the helpfully moulded date, being from the early 60s.  So it's actually comparable to one of the Airfix so-called "Classic" range!

Ok fair enough.

I just regard Revell as on the same level as Airfix generally and I guess their price reflects this.

 

[GDumbrell]

22 minutes ago, Eric Mc said:

Modern Revell kits are pretty good - in my view.

 

The Stearman is a very old mould and is typical of its era. But, as the pictures show, can still make a nice display when finished.

Thanks for the comment.

I didn't actually mind this build but when I pulled out a P51 to build, the quality was so shocking that I put it back in it's box in favour of an Academy kit instead. I guess everyone has their own preference and skill level at the end of the day.

Maybe I'm shooting above my own skill level!

[GDumbrell]

33 minutes ago, Eric Mc said:

Modern Revell kits are pretty good - in my view.

 

The Stearman is a very old mould and is typical of its era. But, as the pictures show, can still make a nice display when finished.

Thanks.

I think I chose a simple but tricky kit to get back into modelling and it's amazing that even after a long lay off, the enthusiasm and skill set comes back with nostalgia and excitement.

I was quite pleased with my rigging attempt and that is mega fiddly in this scale. Onwards and upwards.

[RMCS]

Lovley 

[Wulfman]

Nice build on the ancient Stearman, remarkably good for it’s vintage . Their ghastly P.51 must be one of the most inaccurate kits of all time !
What’s next for the hanger, Proctor, Tiger Moth, Harvard ?

 

Wulfman

[Eric Mc]

9 hours ago, GDumbrell said:

Thanks for the comment.

I didn't actually mind this build but when I pulled out a P51 to build, the quality was so shocking that I put it back in it's box in favour of an Academy kit instead. I guess everyone has their own preference and skill level at the end of the day.

Maybe I'm shooting above my own skill level!

Nope - you are probably just not checking the age of the kits you are buying. Modern Revell kits are of pretty good quality. Since 2006 (the Hornby takeover), Airfix have been producing pretty good kits as well.

 

Both companies started producing kits in the early/mid 1950s and both companies have kits in their catalogue which can trace their ancestry to at least the late 1950s. Generally, older kits are more likely to be inaccurate and lacking detail - but there are lots of exceptions to that as well. Airfix's mid 1970s products are really nice, in my view and I have a soft spot for FROG kits. FROG ceased business in 1976 so there are no FROG moulds younger than that. Matchbox started production in 1972 and by the late 1970s/early 80s, were turning out some little gems - especially their biplanes. Monogram kits were always pretty sharp.

 

If you are unsure about how old a certain kit is - or what type of reputation it has got, chatting on places like Britmodeller is good as there are plenty on here who will have built lots of kits over the decades (I only have to look in the mirror to see one such modeller). Scalemates is a great site to use when checking the history of a kit.

[noelh]

Yes I  can confirm the  above. I have the same  kit. But your build proves you  can make a silk purse from a  sows ear. The engine to me is the  worst aspect of the  kit. It needs replacing. Incidentally I have the 1/48 version too. That's much  better. 

 

I've a soft spot for  Stearmans and you did a good job of it.

 

It's a  like  from me.

[Graham Boak]

The Revell P-51D was regarded as pretty poor and undersized when it came out.  As were others in the range - yet as said above the Stearman and others made perfectly acceptable kits for the time, and for some considerable time afterwards.  Every company has made some kits to be avoided.  The main problem with Revell in recent years is that so many of their releases actually came from someone else's tooling (which is fine when it's Hasegawa) and even their own have been erratic.

[GDumbrell]

3 hours ago, Wulfman said:

Nice build on the ancient Stearman, remarkably good for it’s vintage . Their ghastly P.51 must be one of the most inaccurate kits of all time !
What’s next for the hanger, Proctor, Tiger Moth, Harvard ?

 

Wulfman

Next up is the Spitfire XIV by Academy. I've always liked Academy kits as they're crisp, clean and have nice detail.

Seems to be plenty of aftermarket goodies too.

Mine already has resin exhaust stubs!

[GDumbrell]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The Revell P-51D was regarded as pretty poor and undersized when it came out.  As were others in the range - yet as said above the Stearman and others made perfectly acceptable kits for the time, and for some considerable time afterwards.  Every company has made some kits to be avoided.  The main problem with Revell in recent years is that so many of their releases actually came from someone else's tooling (which is fine when it's Hasegawa) and even their own have been erratic.

Interesting comment.

I guess it's hard to know what you're getting unless you know who's tooling the model in question. Sometimes, the older model is the only one available. There just seemed to be a period where the cheaper end of the market just had dire quality.

I remember I preferred to hunt for old matchbox kits than persist with Airfix and Revell.

Plus, these were pre internet days and that's all my model shop stocked!

[GDumbrell]

3 hours ago, Eric Mc said:

Nope - you are probably just not checking the age of the kits you are buying. Modern Revell kits are of pretty good quality. Since 2006 (the Hornby takeover), Airfix have been producing pretty good kits as well.

 

Both companies started producing kits in the early/mid 1950s and both companies have kits in their catalogue which can trace their ancestry to at least the late 1950s. Generally, older kits are more likely to be inaccurate and lacking detail - but there are lots of exceptions to that as well. Airfix's mid 1970s products are really nice, in my view and I have a soft spot for FROG kits. FROG ceased business in 1976 so there are no FROG moulds younger than that. Matchbox started production in 1972 and by the late 1970s/early 80s, were turning out some little gems - especially their biplanes. Monogram kits were always pretty sharp.

 

If you are unsure about how old a certain kit is - or what type of reputation it has got, chatting on places like Britmodeller is good as there are plenty on here who will have built lots of kits over the decades (I only have to look in the mirror to see one such modeller). Scalemates is a great site to use when checking the history of a kit.

Thanks for the info.

I'll be sure to do more research prior to purchasing but sometimes, the old kit is the only one!

TBH, I'd give any kit a go. I even did a Spitfire 22 once by PEGASUS!!!

Now there is a kit with zero detail!!!

[GDumbrell]

3 hours ago, noelh said:

Yes I  can confirm the  above. I have the same  kit. But your build proves you  can make a silk purse from a  sows ear. The engine to me is the  worst aspect of the  kit. It needs replacing. Incidentally I have the 1/48 version too. That's much  better. 

 

I've a soft spot for  Stearmans and you did a good job of it.

 

It's a  like  from me.

Many thanks.

Will be good to see the larger scale stearman when it's done.

They are an intriguing aircraft. Rugged, solid, noisy and punchy.

It has inspired me to tackle more biplanes or dare I say it.........Triplane!!!!!

[bigbadbadge]

Very nice indeed, like that a lot, great work.  There's a red one that flies around from Lydd Airport which looks very nice. 

The Revell 48th Stearman is a real Gem and goes together very well with great fit.  I have recently completed one on here and it was so good a fit , I was able to rig it before tge outer wing struts were added. I recommend that kit, i did the display version,  very enjoyable. 

Chris

[GDumbrell]

2 minutes ago, bigbadbadge said:

Very nice indeed, like that a lot, great work.  There's a red one that flies around from Lydd Airport which looks very nice. 

The Revell 48th Stearman is a real Gem and goes together very well with great fit.  I have recently completed one on here and it was so good a fit , I was able to rig it before tge outer wing struts were added. I recommend that kit, i did the display version,  very enjoyable. 

Chris

I shall have to look for the photos of your example.

The stearman came into my life as the mount for what was then, the Crunchie flying circus.

Of course, they became the Utterly Butterly Barnstormers, Team Guinot and Breitling Wingwalkers in time.

Lovely aeroplane with huge presence.

[Graham Boak]

48 minutes ago, GDumbrell said:

Next up is the Spitfire XIV by Academy. I've always liked Academy kits as they're crisp, clean and have nice detail.

Now is that next in line to be made or next in line for worst kit ever?  The latter would be a little harsh, but it isn't exactly accurate.  Bit like other Academy kits... though their Hurricane was worse.  But if you've got it, make it.   There have been only two kits I've got rid of immediately after buying, but that's only counting mass-market injection moulds.  (Academy Hurricane and Dragon Ki.61 if you want to know - or even if you didn't.)   There have been a lot worse kits than even the old Revell P-51D.

[bigbadbadge]

18 minutes ago, GDumbrell said:

I shall have to look for the photos of your example.

The stearman came into my life as the mount for what was then, the Crunchie flying circus.

Of course, they became the Utterly Butterly Barnstormers, Team Guinot and Breitling Wingwalkers in time.

Lovely aeroplane with huge presence.

Ahh Yes I remember the Crunchie and Utterly Butterley schemes to , they did look great. 

Yes they are lovely machines 

Chris

[GDumbrell]

8 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Now is that next in line to be made or next in line for worst kit ever?  The latter would be a little harsh, but it isn't exactly accurate.  Bit like other Academy kits... though their Hurricane was worse.  But if you've got it, make it.   There have been only two kits I've got rid of immediately after buying, but that's only counting mass-market injection moulds.  (Academy Hurricane and Dragon Ki.61 if you want to know - or even if you didn't.)   There have been a lot worse kits than even the old Revell P-51D.

I've built the Academy spit before and didn't think it looked too bad. As one getting back into the hobby, I'm trying the familiar ground first before I venture elsewhere.

[Eric Mc]

I can concur that the Academy Spitfire XIV is a bit of a disaster. Yes, it is crisp tooling, with neat panel lines and internal detail - but it's just horribly shaped. It looks like a Spitfire as viewed in a fairground distorting mirror. I know this because I built one and it was only when I placed it next to the other Spitfires in my collection that I realised how misshapen it is.

 

Use it to practice your model building skills but keep it hidden when finished- that's what I did.