Revell Hurricane IIB 1/32

[gavingav1]

Are they including a transparent wheel bay roof so you can look into the cockpit from the underside, seems weird and obligatory dihedral complaint -  wings you could use as an ironing board .

 

 

[VMA131Marine]

5 minutes ago, Bertie McBoatface said:

Whether it's a poor test shot, poorly assembled or a complete snafu, releasing pictures of it like these was not really a good move I think.

Revell didn’t do themselves any favours by including that shot from directly astern, that’s for sure.

Crikey! I cannot believe Revell screwed this up.

[VMA131Marine]

5 minutes ago, gavingav1 said:

Are they including a transparent wheel bay roof so you can look into the cockpit from the underside, seems weird and obligatory dihedral complaint -  wings you could use as an ironing board .

 

 

The clear roof is an oddity. There no clear view panel in the Hurricane’s gear bay that I’m aware of.

[Troy Smith]

39 minutes ago, Bertie McBoatface said:

Whether it's a poor test shot, poorly assembled or a complete snafu, releasing pictures of it like these was not really a good move I think.

Plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth over in the Facebook post on this, so hopefully we'll get some sense and better pics from Revell, 

 

Assuming the wing dihedral is poor assembly,  and from what can be seen, they have done a decent in the detail, UC looks good, and has correct radiator, including circular core,  and carb intake.

 

I await more and better pictures.   

31 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

Revell didn’t do themselves any favours by including that shot from directly astern, that’s for sure.

Crikey! I cannot believe Revell screwed this up.

I suspect they haven't, and this is just badly done test, not good PR for sure. Lets wait for better images. 

 

29 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

There no clear view panel in the Hurricane’s gear bay that I’m aware of.

Actually there is, certainly on the early ones,  small windows to check the UC was up or down, remember it was the first fighter type with retracting UC in the RAF

the little rectangular panel diagonally back from the wheel lock.  The one time I got to climb up on a Hurricane and peer in the cockpit, I was surprised to see daylight  coming in from these. 

It was a Canadian built one,   I think they were later eliminated on British production. 

PS this shows them back lit...

 

note, the site has a stunning series pf photo of the unrestored Hurricane Mk.I in Finland, here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235099841-hawker-hurricane-mkia/

my only compliant is there is no Ia....

Aside from the shorter Mk.I nose, prop, 5 spoke wheels, radiator, carb intake and pole attenna, and lack of 2nd fabric access hatch on starbaord, the airframe is the same for Mk.IIA, and the outer guns for the B wing, so it's great reference.

 

[Homebee]

Box art - https://www.revell.de/produkte/modellbau/flugzeuge/zweiter-weltkrieg/hawker-hurricane-mk-iib.html

 

 

V.P.

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Homebee

[TIGER HOBBIESLIMITED]

The UK RRP for this is is just £45.99 before dealer discount, so good value, but if the wings are that bad it is a shame, the rest can almost be forgiven.

[Cammer625]

So the built up kit shows an 8 gun wing and the box art shows a 12 gun wing - but there’s no obvious place in the built up kit for the extra guns. Strange??

[Corky]

Im not going to waste my time with a Revell kit. If it's like their MK2 Spitfire......I'll build the Fly kit or better yet wait for Kotare to do one 😉

Edited November 18, 2022 by Corky

[JayBee]

14 hours ago, Bertie McBoatface said:

Whether it's a poor test shot, poorly assembled or a complete snafu, releasing pictures of it like these was not really a good move I think.

 

Thats how it is, read here at LSP

[HL-10]

14 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

The clear roof is an oddity. There no clear view panel in the Hurricane’s gear bay that I’m aware of.

It's a test shot. They don't necessarily use the plastic it will be released in when they do test shots.

 

[gavingav1]

1 hour ago, Cammer625 said:

So the built up kit shows an 8 gun wing and the box art shows a 12 gun wing - but there’s no obvious place in the built up kit for the extra guns. Strange??

what do you want to bet that they'll try and get away with doing the outboard guns as two decal patches on the wing and not physically mold them into the wing, i have a bad feeling about this kit , revell is about to ruin Christmas .

[CheshireGap]

I for one will be buying this kit without any worries:

- Radu has been on (cough) "another forum" to confirm the kit does indeed have the correct dihedral

- there are clear panels in u/c roof, so that is actually a nice design touch

- the extra guns could be just flashed over holes that need opening up, hardly pushing the limit of modelling skills

- the test shot may be still using some 3D printed parts, and the moulds clearly hadn't been polished at that point, so the texture will disappear in the final version I am sure; remember the 3D printed test shots of the new Zoukei-Mura 109? Who would have bought that kit based on those?

- as for the cockpit, chances are I will be buying a Barracuda seat and snapshot upgrade anyway, but I think it will be better than the test shot

 

All in all its a new 1/32 Hurricane for barely £40 at the checkout...I am just sad that this, the Kotare & Airfix Spitfires and the Italeri Folgore did not make it in time for Telford, I think the traders missed not having a must-have kit or two to sell this year.

[alt-92]

12 minutes ago, CheshireGap said:

- the extra guns could be just flashed over holes that need opening up, hardly pushing the limit of modelling skills

Not quite as simple as that.

Notice the barrels protruding from the leading edge. 

 

Of course, everything can be modded.

However:

If you're marketing a kit as a Mk.IIB ánd blast your pictures of said test build all over your brand's social media channels, do yourself a favour and ensure those test builds are actually representative of the plane you purport to sell a kit of. 

It's meant to entice people to buy it, after all.

[CheshireGap]

16 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Not quite as simple as that.

Notice the barrels protruding from the leading edge. 

I was assuming that including barrels to go into the flashed over holes would be part of the plan! What would be useful though is a view of the top wing to see if the panel lines for the access hatches are moulded in place. 

And that is a great picture of the world's cleanest gun bay! One for the reference library

19 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

If you're marketing a kit as a Mk.IIB ánd blast your pictures of said test build all over your brand's social media channels, do yourself a favour and ensure those test builds are actually representative of the plane you purport to sell a kit of. 

It's meant to entice people to buy it, after all

Agreed, it is not good marketing, I am just saying we shouldn't rush to judgement without the complete picture - or just a few dodgy ones!

[VMA131Marine]

1 hour ago, CheshireGap said:

Radu has been on (cough) "another forum" to confirm the kit does indeed have the correct dihedral

I’m not buying it (his explanation) until I see a built model that has the correct dihedral, because the model Revell shows definitely does not.

[VMA131Marine]

2 hours ago, JayBee said:

 

Thats how it is, read here at LSP

I’m not convinced. The pictures Radu linked to in his post don’t even show what he is claiming.

[tony.t]

1 hour ago, VMA131Marine said:

I’m not buying it (his explanation) until I see a built model that has the correct dihedral, because the model Revell shows definitely does not.

 

58 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

I’m not convinced. The pictures Radu linked to in his post don’t even show what he is claiming.

 

I am in complete agreement. If Radu's saying the test shot build is how it should look then this kit's going to require surgery of some kind.

Whether that's PITAville or Easytown all depends on the parts break-down. (I suspect part of the ongoing Revell nohedral issue is to do with big parts moulding and easy alignment for kiddy modellers.)

 

But I'm definitely buying one and will build it the way I believe it should look. Whether a IIa or IIb gun arrangement depends on markings options in the box and by Xtradecal. 

 

Tony 

[Work In Progress]

Well, it can't be that hard to fix. Possibly a need to take a little off the wing root area to ensure the centre section comes out dead flat, and then just saw through the wing at the transport joint, re-attach at the correct angle with a bit of internal reinforcement, and re-make the transport joint cover strap out of anything thin, like pie-dish foil. TBH I am more concerned about the cockpit, and quite glad I have not yet sold any of my Fly kits

[tony.t]

4 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

Well, it can't be that hard to fix. Possibly a need to take a little off the wing root area to ensure the centre section comes out dead flat, and then just saw through the wing at the transport joint, re-attach at the correct angle with a bit of internal reinforcement, and re-make the transport joint cover strap out of anything thin, like pie-dish foil. TBH I am more concerned about the cockpit, and quite glad I have not yet sold any of my Fly kits

 

If I can afford both, I might do a side-by-side build of the new Revell and a Fly Sea Hurricane. 

Obviously, there'll be a lot of dry fit runs involved. 

Still excited by this new kit and the cockpit will be wait-and-see, but hopefully just needing an HGW harness and Löök IP. 

 

Tony

 

 

[New Tool]

That wing looks terrible .. utterly wrong and awful!!

I would most probably have bought this kit if it was correct. Not now.

I am disappointed with Revell, who I usually praise very highly.

 

How can such an obvious mistake occur? Surely they must have aircraft lovers on their team who would spot this type of mistake immediately? If not then they should most definitely have them.

How can beginner's mistakes ever get to this stage in the production process? There must be something wrong in the production process regarding  references and source checking. 

This mistake should have very easily been spotted.

[cmatthewbacon]

I'd really wait to see one in the flesh before going off on one. In particular, that low front angle everyone is getting uptight about is really difficult to get clear information about the dihedral from. The leading edge sweepback makes it very hard to judge where the undersurface and top surface are relative to the centreline. Until you can look at the model from dead ahead, and, if you want it to look like the three-view drawings, prop up the tail so the fuselage central axis is parallel to the ground, you can't really tell. The real thing from dead ahead on the ground looks like this:

 

 

I'm not sure that famous "dihedral" is that evident at a glance.... it's certainly not a Stuka, is it?

 

best,

M.

 

[Cammer625]

Maybe we need to wait to see the instructions- ‘file at wing root 1.25mm and test fit’ or ‘drill 4 holes as per diagram and add rod cut to x mm’ - and then all the problems will be fixed. After all, didn’t they do this with a F/A-18 they released?

[tony.t]

I can now see what appears wrong with the Revell: the gunports are depicted parallel to the ground rather than following the mid line of leading edge wing dihedral. This throws the whole wing off.

 

Tony 

[alt-92]

5 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

In particular, that low front angle everyone is getting uptight about is really difficult to get clear information about the dihedral from.

This is their own FB pic from rear (and the tail wheel is slightly crooked).

 

If it all turns out good, fine. 
They've not exactly taken the most advantageous of pictures though if that is the case.

[cmatthewbacon]

8 minutes ago, tony.t said:

I can now see what appears wrong with the Revell: the gunports are depicted parallel to the ground rather than following the mid line of leading edge wing dihedral. This throws the whole wing off.

 

Tony 

Really? Where’s the camera? If it’s below the mid line and the plane isn’t pointing front and centre then ports parallel to the ground point up. If it’s above, the ports point down. The leading edge is raked back from the  image plane. If the camera is above the plane the leading edge centreline is steeper; lower and it’s shallower.

 

Feel free to play here:

https://hum3d.com/360-view/?id=160760

Compare this to the Revell kit from all the angles and see…

best,

M.