Revell 1/48 Beaufighter TF.X panel lines?

[Bozothenutter]

I saw some old posts on Hyperscale where @samodeldad was very critical of the then new Revell kit.

especially the panel lines.

Having the kit, I thought I'd do some checking and it's becoming very murky indeed!

Basically none of the TF.X drawing I can find online is different from the kit, but also different from each other!

Any Beau expert on here that can shed some light?

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Bozothenutter said:

I saw some old posts on Hyperscale where @samodeldad was very critical of the then new Revell kit.

especially the panel lines.

Modeldad / Steven Eisenmann, He used to be a poster here,  long time poster on Hyperscale. 

Very knowledgeable, Very helpful, very opinionated, and sometimes wrong.   

It would really help to add a link, or  to copy over the critique so we know what is being discussed/questioned and it's validity.  

2 hours ago, Bozothenutter said:

Basically none of the TF.X drawing I can find online is different from the kit, but also different from each other!

Look for a walk round of a Beaufighter, be aware the one at Hendon has a non standard tailplane

 

FWIW, the Revell Beaufighter is rated as being overall better than the Tamiya kit, which has issues of it's own, both in detail and shape. 

I've not closely compared them, and don't now what are considered the best set of Beaufighter drawings.

@Sydhuey  IIRC know a lot about Australian Beaufighters,  so may be able to shed some light.

Given the Australian connection, @Magpie22 @Ed Russell  maybe have some recommendations.

HTH

 

[Bozothenutter]

This is post in question:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/revell-of-germany-and-tamiya-bristol-beaufighter-t514931.html

Second post.

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Bozothenutter said:

This is post in question:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/revell-of-germany-and-tamiya-bristol-beaufighter-t514931.html

Second post.

This post has drawings

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/revell-of-germany-and-tamiya-bristol-beaufighter-t514931-s10.html#p2724301

 

Look like the kit is in error,  but so is the Tamiya.

 

@Pete M. posting, as was @NAVY870 

 

Interesting debate on the merits of each kit.   I'd not seen comment on the Tamiya canopy being off, but I had on it having a 'fish belly' and the wrong wing incidence.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235056906-148-tamiya-beaufighter-tailplanes-elevators/#elControls_3379384_menu

"The other major error Tamiya has made is to rig the wing with the centre plane parallel to the aircraft datum. It should be set at +2.5 degrees. The engine thrust line is correct, being parallel to the aircraft datum, so if you were to try and re-rig the wings to the correct angle, then you would also have to cut out the engine nacelles and bring them back -2.5 degrees to get the thrust line correct. "       

 

 

How noticeable these are to the casual builder I don't know.    

 

HTH

[Ed Russell]

When preparing our RAAF Target Tug Beaufighter sets we did notice the panel line errors in all the available kits in 1/48 and 1/72 scale. It did make a difference to positioning the winch and the decals but we didn't include instructions on how to correct it as we felt it was beyond the scope of the conversion.

The Revell 1/48 and Airfix 1/72 kits were yet to be released so we did not do comparative studies. Unless the panel lines are trenches I doubt it will affect the model very much, perhaps more so in a aluminium doped example than in a camouflaged one.

Edit - reading that post I would choose the Revell kit

[Bozothenutter]

I have seen the drawings, hence my confusion.

Only one pertains to the TF.X, or is the wing paneling the same for all aircraft?

[Gordon J]

Thank you for sharing the link to the Beaufighter thread Bozo - fascinating stuff.

 

Despite reading the posts I still can't see what is wrong with the wing panelling. Will admit the Tamiya windscreen does look decidedly off though.

[Tomas Enerdal]

The Revell kit is the better of the two, regarding outline and shape. Not that the Tamiya is a bad, it has captured the tubbiness and soul of the beaufighter in an inspired way, it is just a little too rounded in places. I base this judgement on studies of photographs more than anything, there are very few plans I can fully trust. (Even Bentley did a few small mistakes a few times).

Your question regarding panel lines made me curious. I followed Troy's advise and took a closer look at the panel lines on some walk arounds, the Hendon TF.X seems to have original skinning. Comparing the Revell kit to what can be seen in the walk around, they seem to be identical WRT panel lines. My guess is that Revell studied and copied a real Beaufighter.

The Revell kit therefore seems accurate. The panel lines are very petite and narrow, but yet they leave something to be desired. They are way to even and uniform, as an example the ammunition hatches on the top of the wings, as well as the hatch for the dinghy cannot be distinguished from any ordinary panel line. I therefore suggest that at least any hatch be enhanced in order to give the surface more life and variation.

[Tomas Enerdal]

Looking through my various "plans/drawings" of the beaufighter, I note that one is almost exactly as the Revell kit with regards to panel lines. But not exact, small differences can be found in a few places.

They are found in the decal placement instructions for the Aviaeology Beaufighter Stencil/Data, AOD48S02. Unfortunately the sheet is out of print, but the instructions can be seen here.

I wonder on which plans Aviaeology has based them, or if they've drawn them themselves? They look utterly convincing! 

 

I found out that the TF.X at Hendon, RD253, comes from Portugal and is said to be a "hybrid".

 

[tempestfan]

Offhand, I can think of three sets of Beau drawings - by Alf Granger (printed several times in Planes/Wingspan), Geoff Duvall (?, I think he did those for the Aeromodeller range), and in the ModDatafile, probably by Jacek Jackiwiecz (hope the spelling is correct). Most certainly there were also some in the AvNews range. IIRC Granger thanked BAe Filton for assistance, so one may assume he used at least original Bristol archive material (and hopefully not of the Fairey Battle "official" PR dept. GA type...). My personal prefence coincides with the order above, but it's just a gut feeling; where the AvNews ones queue up would depend on the artist and when they were done...  

[Graham Boak]

The ones done by Aviaeology, which I think appeared in Airfix magazine a few years back, are almost certainly the best.  I'm sorry, but I don't recall the name of the individual concerned - Terry something?

[dragonlanceHR]

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The ones done by Aviaeology, which I think appeared in Airfix magazine a few years back, are almost certainly the best.  I'm sorry, but I don't recall the name of the individual concerned - Terry something?

May 2015 issue.

[Ed Russell]

Terry Higgins

https://www.aviaeology.com/#/

 

[Fukuryu]

On 4/4/2023 at 4:03 AM, Ed Russell said:

Terry Higgins

https://www.aviaeology.com/#/

 

 Who, by the way, is a member here: @Terry @ Aviaeology, although he hasn't been around for a while now.

[Tomas Enerdal]

I've been in contact with Terry Higgins.

-His plans were made over time, illustrating one of his absolute favorite subjects. They are based on primary source Bristol documents among others.

They were published in two installments in Airfix Model World May-15 and July-16. His info/plans were also used in the design of the 1/72 Airfix kit.

Digital back issues can be found at May-15 and July-16.

I tracked down and ordered paper copies (at eBay), I'm a bit old-fashioned.. They have yet to arrive but I am eagerly awaiting their arrival.

Mr. Higgins told me that the drawings are still being updated, station drawings are under preparation.

I've always thought that the research behind Aviaeology decals seems impeccable, I'm inclined to trust his plans without reservation!

I will compare the Revell kit with the plans when they arrive, will keep you posted. See also the rumourmonger section.

/Tomas 

[Tomas Enerdal]

I have received one of the two Beafighter installments, and have studied this issue further. (I've been studying Beau pics and building the kit for the last weeks, enough to make me crosseyed..)

First of all, I'm even more inclined to trust Mr Higgins plans, if at all possible. It is very obvious that very much research vent into them.

 

The Revell TF.X kit follows those plans meticulously. Almost that is, what is there is almost always correct, but there are a few, small omissions. 

-There are some small vents missing on the starboard upper engine gondola. There is no tube/hole for the flare chute. No downward ID lamps under the rear fuselage. A couple of vents are missing from the underbelly sides. No trailing wire fairlead included, no BABS aerial.

-The oil cooler housings on the wing leading edge are too small in the front opening diameter. The housings look too slim and cylindrical as well. But this may be because Revell have studied an Aussie Mk.21? They somehow seem slimmer in pics, and some of the restored ones look smaller as well.

-The wing mg openings are centered on the leading edge itself. They should be slightly higher up.

-The rear fuselage interior was always crammed full of items, the kits interior is almost totally empty..

-A pity that the front cannon openings are not drilled through. It's not that easy to do yourself (took me a couple of evenings to fix*)

EDIT:

-The ammo covers and the cover hatch for the dinghy on the top of the wings look just like any other panel line. (IMHO they should be slightly pronounced.) The ammo covers lack dzus fasteners and several small inspection hatches. The dingy hatch lacks hinges and lock details. Either pronounce the hatch itself, or cover and simulate covering doped-on stripes  

 

The kit is just getting better and better as I build and study it. I wonder if a VIf/c is next? Or an early If?

 

But, where we started; the panel lines look just about perfect. My only complaint is that they are almost too neat and even.

/Tomas

 

*start with a small drill bit (0.5 mm), make sure it is perfectly centered! Follow on with successive larger bits, I ended with 2,2 mm. Any final adjustments with a rat-tail file. Promise, it's worth the effort.

Edited April 25 by Tomas Enerdal