Revell and Trumpeter Gannets, which one would you build in 2021 ?

[Giorgio N]

I've recently won a bid on that well known auction site for a lot of Revell kits and among these is a Gannet.. Revell's own mould, not the old Frog that Revell reboxed many years ago.

Now I did not bid for the Gannet, as I already have the Trumpeter kit in the stash, with Eduards coloured PE set for the cockpit, but as this kit is part of it I'm now wondering what to do... should I build the Revell kit and sell the Trumpeter one ? Or should I do the opposite ? Should I sell the Eduard parts as well if I keep the Revell kit or will they fit in this one ?

Now I'm aware that the matter of Revell Vs. Trumpeter Gannets was discussed a few years ago and I believe I have read all the relevant threads. Seems to me that neither kit is fully accurate, with both having their problems. I also understand that Revell's kit is better detailed but Trumpeter's is better engineered and an easier build. However I wonder what's the forum view on these two kits a few years later. Are there modellers who have built both ? If so, which one would you recommend building ? Or even, would it be worth mixing the two kits to get a better model ? Keeping in mind that of course there could still be the option of building both, one as an AS machine and the other as a COD one....

 

Thanks in advance !

[Navy Bird]

I built the Revell kit back in 2011, and I thought it came out pretty good. I seem to recall that there was some online discussions about the cross-sectional shape of the underside of the rear fuselage, and of course the kit does not have any goodies to put in the open bay. I tarted mine up with Eduard's Big Ed set and some anti-sub hardware from someone (Freightdog?).

 

 

 

My WIP is here (this was the first thread I ever posted to BM!):

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I have never seen the Trumpeter kit.  

[NAVY870]

Revell has some massive shape issues around the rear fuselage aft of the radome.

Trumpeter has a very basic interior but is very accurate shape wise.

Not surprisingly as its a part for part rip off of the CMR kit.

[modelldoc]

Here is my Gannet from Revell, strictly out of the box:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/5328421300/in/photolist-j7H7B9-97Ry1L

 

modelldoc

[rickshaw]

The Revel kit is more accurate than the Trumpeter one.

[Giorgio N]

15 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

I built the Revell kit back in 2011, and I thought it came out pretty good. I seem to recall that there was some online discussions about the cross-sectional shape of the underside of the rear fuselage, and of course the kit does not have any goodies to put in the open bay. I tarted mine up with Eduard's Big Ed set and some anti-sub hardware from someone (Freightdog?).

 

My WIP is here (this was the first thread I ever posted to BM!):

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I have never seen the Trumpeter kit.  

 

Thanks Bill, I remember your Gannet build, a great thread and a lovely model !

I'm not planning on too much detail, at the moment I only have the Eduard cockpit set

 

 

4 hours ago, modelldoc said:

Here is my Gannet from Revell, strictly out of the box:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/5328421300/in/photolist-j7H7B9-97Ry1L

 

modelldoc

 

Nice model !

[Giorgio N]

7 hours ago, NAVY870 said:

Revell has some massive shape issues around the rear fuselage aft of the radome.

Trumpeter has a very basic interior but is very accurate shape wise.

Not surprisingly as its a part for part rip off of the CMR kit.

 

57 minutes ago, rickshaw said:

The Revel kit is more accurate than the Trumpeter one.

 

Ok, now I'm a bit confused... I have read among the others threads like this, showing the problem with the Revell rear fuselage:

 

At the same time I've seen reference to other problems with the Trumpeter kit...

so I wonder, which of the two would in your opinion be easier to bring to a more correct shape ? I'll not be searching for absolute accuracy but if a problem can be sorted with some work I'd have no problem (I slimmed down the fuselage of the Academy Spit XIV in the past so no fear of chopping parts).

Clearly if none can be made to look nicer, I'd have to choose which one features problems that are less evident... with the possibility of building a model by combining parts of both (both came pretty cheap anyway)

 

[Seahawk]

Glad you found the 2010 thread which discussed (some of) the issues thoroughly with reference to photos of the real thing.  I’m not sure anything has changed much since then.

 

IIRC Danni’s measurement of the radome’s diameter showed that the Revell one was a bit too big and the Trumpeter one a lot too small.

 

To answer your question as posed, I would personally go for the Revell kit, but file the lower rear fuselage into a more rounded shape, reshape the bulges above the jet outlets with a bit of putty and maybe fiddle a little with the cabling ducts below the pilots’s cockpit.

 

Others’ mileages may differ.

[dov]

Giorgio, do you have photo material about this beast?

I may send you some private from the carier. After two weeks, since I am far from civilization now.

Happy modelling 

[spruecutter96]

5 minutes ago, dov said:

After two weeks, since I am far from civilization now.

You mean you're in Stuttgart....?? Please note that this is a JOKE and is not meant to cause any offence, whatsoever!

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.

[NAVY870]

21 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

 

Ok, now I'm a bit confused... I have read among the others threads like this, showing the problem with the Revell rear fuselage:

 

At the same time I've seen reference to other problems with the Trumpeter kit...

so I wonder, which of the two would in your opinion be easier to bring to a more correct shape ? I'll not be searching for absolute accuracy but if a problem can be sorted with some work I'd have no problem (I slimmed down the fuselage of the Academy Spit XIV in the past so no fear of chopping parts).

Clearly if none can be made to look nicer, I'd have to choose which one features problems that are less evident... with the possibility of building a model by combining parts of both (both came pretty cheap anyway)

 

Personally the rear end discrepancies on the Revell kit, Its pretty much pants from the rear of the bomb bay back as my offsprings posted above

(So glad I spent all that coin on her private school education 😐)

I found it easier to replace the cockpits in the Trumpy kit. 

At the risk of being publicly flogged I still think the old Frog kit is the most accurate in outline.

[tempestfan]

On 8/19/2021 at 12:43 PM, NAVY870 said:

 

At the risk of being publicly flogged I still think the old Frog kit is the most accurate in outline.

If the F40 drawings are anywhere accurate, I second that! Also from looking at a lot of pics. The shapes of the intakes are a bit off, however.

It is also my mantra that the Frog Sea Hawk, basic as it is, has an almost perfect outline. Few at age 65 can claim that.

[Navy Bird]

4 hours ago, tempestfan said:

It is also my mantra that the Frog Sea Hawk, basic as it is, has an almost perfect outline. Few at age 65 can claim that.

 

I'm always amazed (even though I'm used to it) by how accurate the old kits can be, especially when one finds errors in modern kits where the tooling was designed with CAD and LIDAR, etc. Whatever happened to that craftsmanship?

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Giorgio N]

On 8/19/2021 at 12:43 PM, NAVY870 said:

Personally the rear end discrepancies on the Revell kit, Its pretty much pants from the rear of the bomb bay back as my offsprings posted above

(So glad I spent all that coin on her private school education 😐)

I found it easier to replace the cockpits in the Trumpy kit. 

At the risk of being publicly flogged I still think the old Frog kit is the most accurate in outline.

 

This is good to know, since I have an old Frog kit maybe I could use this as a basis to decide any correction work on either the Trumpeter or Revell kit... I should receive the latter sometime this week, I'll compare the two and see where I'd prefer to start. So seems to be that the solution is either slim down the rear on the Revell kit or fatten the Trumpeter one.

Have to say that while the original plan was to build one and sell the other, pictures of the COD aircraft are now making me consider a different option: build the better as an AS machine and the other as a COD aircraft....

I remember that Danni posted pictures of both kits in parallel, so I guess there's no need for me to do the same. If anyone is interested though let me know, I may do it.

 

On 8/19/2021 at 12:26 PM, dov said:

Giorgio, do you have photo material about this beast?

I may send you some private from the carier. After two weeks, since I am far from civilization now.

Happy modelling 

 

Thanks for the offer ! This time fortunately I'm quite well sorted with references, not least a good number of pictures I took of XA434 at the RAN Museum in Nowra. In addition I have the 4+ book on the type, with many detail shots. I also have the Mushroom book on the Gannet in RAN service, that however has little for the modeller, while including a lot of interesting stories for the aviation enthusiast.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Giorgio N

[dov]

Ok, if you need any other a/c special let me know. Two choices, yes or no. I just had the chance some years ago to interview a former crew member of the  carrier Hermes in RN service. So I got many shots from backstage too. I scanned a lot.

Happy modelling 

[Giorgio N]

On 8/20/2021 at 3:47 PM, tempestfan said:

If the F40 drawings are anywhere accurate, I second that! Also from looking at a lot of pics. The shapes of the intakes are a bit off, however.

It is also my mantra that the Frog Sea Hawk, basic as it is, has an almost perfect outline. Few at age 65 can claim that.

 

Now that I think about it, I also have the F-40 book...

 

 

On 8/20/2021 at 8:40 PM, Navy Bird said:

 

I'm always amazed (even though I'm used to it) by how accurate the old kits can be, especially when one finds errors in modern kits where the tooling Ger was designed with CAD and LIDAR, etc. Whatever happened to that craftsmanship?

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

I'd say that the right word is "can be", as some old kits were indeed very accurate, while others were all over the place. One problem modern kits suffer from is that enthusiasts all over the world share their views in real time over the web while older kits are much less scrutinized. My view is that there were gems and lemons in the good old days in the same way as there are today. Not all companies are interested in high accuracy and even those that are sometime do make errors of one kind or another...

[alex]

I can't comment about accuracy, but only about the kit itselt: I built the Revell kit a few years ago as a COD-version, and I was disappointed. It looks nice in the box, but needed a *lot* of work. Ejector pin marks in places hard to reach like the gear well, bad quality of the transparencies, flash on almost every part...

 

here was the RFI:

Alex

 

 

[Seahawk]

19 hours ago, alex said:

[Revell kit] looks nice in the box, but needed a *lot* of work. …, bad quality  transparencies,….

It’s a complex kit moulded to very fine tolerances so a little flash causes a lot of trouble.  Also the engine exhausts are truly horrible: this is one case where the Quickboost replacements really are an  big improvement.  And, if you manage to buy a kit in which the rear canopy has not arrived broken, nip out and buy a lottery ticket!

[Giorgio N]

22 hours ago, dov said:

Ok, if you need any other a/c special let me know. Two choices, yes or no. I just had the chance some years ago to interview a former crew member of the  carrier Hermes in RN service. So I got many shots from backstage too. I scanned a lot.

Happy modelling 

 

Hermes ? Were those AS or AEW Gannets ? I would love to have some pictures of the AEWs, not only I have the two kits discussed here but I also have Sword's AEW.3 (actually 2 but I intend to sell one).

I'll contact you via PM ! Thanks for the kind offer !

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

It’s a complex kit moulded to very fine tolerances so a little flash causes a lot of trouble.  Also the engine exhausts are truly horrible: this is one case where the Quickboost replacements really are an  big improvement.  And, if you manage to buy a kit in which the rear canopy has not arrived broken, nip out and buy a lottery ticket!

 

Unfortunately flash and issues with the clear parts are all too common problems on many if not all Revell kits. Problems that can easily turn a potentially great kit into a nightmare...

[dov]

Well, next week I can mail you all pictures. Do you handle a drop box? It would be easier so. 

Happy modelling 

[alex]

A kit review I did for a german model site. The pictures speak of itself... http://modellmarine.de/index.php/bausatzvorstellungen/58-rev/3748-bausatzvorstellung-fairey-gannet-t5-revell-172

 

Alex

 

[Richb77]

My favourite plane. I wish their was a 1:32 version

 

[tempestfan]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:48 AM, Giorgio N said:

 

Now that I think about it, I also have the F-40 book...

 

I'd say that the right word is "can be", as some old kits were indeed very accurate, while others were all over the place. One problem modern kits suffer from is that enthusiasts all over the world share their views in real time over the web while older kits are much less scrutinized. My view is that there were gems and lemons in the good old days in the same way as there are today. Not all companies are interested in high accuracy and even those that are sometime do make errors of one kind or another...

Actually there are two, the original A4 size booklet from the mid 80s, and a later on which also features the Atlantique.

 

I agree and disagree at the same time. True, there were ghastly kits in the good ol' days (BT-K, Revell P-51 and, to a lesser degree, Airfix P-51 - only as a few random examples), and e.g. the Airfix Sea Hawk is markedly inferior to Frog re accuracy (lower wing to fuselage fairing); there were lemons straight from the manufacturer's mouth during the first Golden Age of Modelling (Airfix Battle - only hearsay, I hasten to add, this all happened before I was born). But with all the resources available to current manufacturers (many of which are free, like BM), one would expect one perfect kit after the other churned out by everyone. Which does not happen, even if they have the latest of technology at their disposal. Possibly it's because at least for some of them designing a kit is an 8 to 5 job, and they have no deeper interest in the subject whatsoever, or technical understanding. As the legend goes, John Edwards applied at Airfix because he felt BT-K sucked on all accounts, and he could do a better job - which he did with JE-J, with the available resources. --- Lest I go on a rant, and back on topic: Giorgio, you know the Frog kit was cloned by Lincoln - with "cut-out cockpits" - , so getting a Kader issue of that kit may spare you cutting out cockpits. And/or if you don't want to build your Frog kit, I have lots of Revell boxings of that one... happily brought to Milan, whenever that will happen ( I just struggle to find the place where we all met back then - Isola quarters)

[NAVY870]

On 8/23/2021 at 7:43 PM, Giorgio N said:

XA434 at the RAN Museum in Nowra. 

I have many names for 434, none of them pleasant.

Gannets have a circuit breaker panel beside the pilots right arm that has a hinged lid. This allows breakers to be quickly reset with the flick of the elbow.

434's electrics were so bad I got RSI from resetting the flipping thing!