ironman1945 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Errors aside, it looks nice built up and painted. http://www.themodellingnews.com/2014/07/rabbit-leader-revell-mkii-take-off.html#more Sparzanza, dmthamade and Artful69 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KingK_series Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Errors aside, it looks nice built up and painted. http://www.themodellingnews.com/2014/07/rabbit-leader-revell-mkii-take-off.html#more The nose/top of engine cowl shape doesn't worry you? the three flats on the fuel tank armour don't worry you? the flats under the wing root leading edge don't worry you? the canopy srceen shape doesn't worry you? the heavyness and section of the wing root fillet doesn't worry you? Now on the other hand the old Hasegawa, was much better on all these basic shapes - ignore radiator ducts or rivets,.... - see nice round fuel tank armour nicely waisted wing fillet much better cowl shape over the engine rocker covers, in fact it looks like a Spitfire....... Edited July 1, 2014 by KingK_series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotsman Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Clearly these issues didn't bother the reviewer , or indeed Iron man , clearly they bother you , we apply different standards to what we find acceptable or objectionable , I have , in the words of our American friends, no dog in this fight , my early Spitfire itch has been well scratched over the years , so I have no real interest in this kit as a MkII , perhaps as a basis for other marks ok , but out of the box no So I suppose I can see both sides of the argument .. KingK you may well be right there are issues if built OOb , and to many such as your self that's a deal breaker , but please don't assume that your reservations and issues with the kit are seen in the same light by others , Frankly these thats by the time I've done butchering a kit , It's a miracle it bears even a passing resemblance to the original! LSP_Paul, dmthamade and Ads 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Errors aside, it looks nice built up and painted. http://www.themodellingnews.com/2014/07/rabbit-leader-revell-mkii-take-off.html#more I Agree ... it doesn't look too bad really Rog Ads 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KingK_series Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Clearly these issues didn't bother the reviewer , or indeed Iron man , clearly they bother you , we apply different standards to what we find acceptable or objectionable , I have , in the words of our American friends, no dog in this fight , my early Spitfire itch has been well scratched over the years , so I have no real interest in this kit as a MkII , perhaps as a basis for other marks ok , but out of the box no So I suppose I can see both sides of the argument .. KingK you may well be right there are issues if built OOb , and to many such as your self that's a deal breaker , but please don't assume that your reservations and issues with the kit are seen in the same light by others , Frankly these thats by the time I've done butchering a kit , It's a miracle it bears even a passing resemblance to the original! I'm sure your right about much of what you say XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX- not only but also not least because he writes "The largest visible inaccuracy with the kit can be found under the wing, the air-cooler doesn't have the correct shape for a MK.II Spitfire. It shouldn't be circular, just half round. I guess the A.M. companies will have a replacement part for it by the time you read this, though.(we are sure one company in the US is already on to it-hint hint)" when in fact the "round entry" oil cooler - [in fact a twin ganged oil cooler, as opposed to the single cooler with half round entry found on most MkIs and a few early MkIIs]] was not only common on MkIIs it was also fitted to late MkIs - would you like me to post Wartime pics of MkIs and IIs with the later cooler? I have plenty XXXXXXXXXX "The largest visible inaccuracy" is XXXXXXXXXXXXX incorrect -in both senses, the oil cooler IS correct for a MkII, and there are many real far worse mistakes. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Edited July 2, 2014 by LSP_Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The nose/top of engine cowl shape doesn't worry you? the three flats on the fuel tank armour don't worry you? the flats under the wing root leading edge don't worry you? the canopy srceen shape doesn't worry you? the heavyness and section of the wing root fillet doesn't worry you? Now on the other hand the old Hasegawa, was much better on all these basic shapes - ignore radiator ducts or rivets,.... - see nice round fuel tank armour nicely waisted wing fillet much better cowl shape over the engine rocker covers, in fact it looks like a Spitfire....... Simon ... My 2 kit's arrived today in the mail ... For comparison, I have the old Revell Mk.I/II kit ... which is a mix (apparently) of some Revell/Hasegawa tooling combined ... I am told (by many on here) that it was the most accurate kit on the market from which to build an early Spitfire - which is why I bought it. Opening the box of both releases and comparing sprues, I can honestly say that I can't see all that much difference - at least nothing to panic or get worked up about ... except the new released kit has detail that seems crisper, if overly done ... yes, there are very slight differences in shape, overall ... but not so drastic as to leave me wondering what type of aircraft I am assembling when I do. I understand you don't like the kit, you have made that abundantly clear - I don't mean that as an offence - you're just calling it as you see it! ... An opinion. However there are those of us that have waited to make our OWN observations until kit in hand ... I have done so ... and really, to me anyway, it's not half as bad as some have made it out to be ... It COULD have been much better, yes - of course! Any kit could be improved, really ... but I don't think people should be made to feel bad/stupid/inferior about expressing a different opinion to yours ... Kind regards ... Rog dmthamade and LSP_Paul 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cees Broere Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Simon, is that your build of the Hasegawa kit? If so, very nice. If not, your are getting boring with your comments on this kit. Cees LSP_Paul 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KingK_series Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Simon ... My 2 kit's arrived today in the mail ... For comparison, I have the old Revell Mk.I/II kit ... which is a mix (apparently) of some Revell/Hasegawa tooling combined ... I am told (by many on here) that it was the most accurate kit on the market from which to build an early Spitfire - which is why I bought it. Opening the box of both releases and comparing sprues, I can honestly say that I can't see all that much difference - at least nothing to panic or get worked up about ... except the new released kit has detail that seems crisper, if overly done ... yes, there are very slight differences in shape, overall ... but not so drastic as to leave me wondering what type of aircraft I am assembling when I do. I understand you don't like the kit, you have made that abundantly clear - I don't mean that as an offence - you're just calling it as you see it! ... An opinion. However there are those of us that have waited to make our OWN observations until kit in hand ... I have done so ... and really, to me anyway, it's not half as bad as some have made it out to be ... It COULD have been much better, yes - of course! Any kit could be improved, really ... but I don't think people should be made to feel bad/stupid/inferior about expressing a different opinion to yours ... Kind regards ... Rog Cut it off the sprue, tape it together and look hard at the shapes of the engine cowl over the rocker, the fuel tank shape, the leading edge wing shape, and the wing fillet shape, better still do that in front of a genuine unmolested Spitfire. If you can do that and still be happy, then I wish you the very best of luck with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 However there are those of us that have waited to make our OWN observations until kit in hand ... I have done so ... and really, to me anyway, it's not half as bad as some have made it out to be ... It COULD have been much better, yes - of course! Any kit could be improved, really ... but I don't think people should be made to feel bad/stupid/inferior about expressing a different opinion to yours ... Kind regards ... Rog I think that sums it up! Rog, just pop outside for a minute, find a nice brick wall and gently bang your head against it! Tony T and Artful69 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Cut it off the sprue, tape it together and look hard at the shapes of the engine cowl over the rocker, the fuel tank shape, the leading edge wing shape, and the wing fillet shape, better still do that in front of a genuine unmolested Spitfire. If you can do that and still be happy, then I wish you the very best of luck with it... Done (with the exception of the "genuine unmolested Spitfire" ... kind of scarce in Perth, Western Australia!!) ... My comments remain as before ... My opinion ... I am not incorrect for having it ... neither is anyone else! thank you for the kind wishes Rog LSP_Paul 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I think that sums it up! Rog, just pop outside for a minute, find a nice brick wall and gently bang your head against it! Awww Phil!! ... now you're just taking the P*** ;) Rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dekenba Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Florey Models reviewed the kit - he said that, although not perfect, for £20 it's a bargain. I feel that is pretty much how most people feel, outside of the hard-core Spitfire enthusiasts. dmthamade and Tony T 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I would prefer to see solutions, not just problems..... Solutions are positive, up-lifting, encouraging and generally sunny yellow in colour. Problems are mean, depressing, sapping of enthusiasm and dreary grey in their lack of colour. Tim mozart, Tony T, LSP_Paul and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The ...doesn't worry you? ...worry you? ...worry you? ...worry you? Nope, not at all. Not worried one bit. But if you're saying my two and only ever Spitfires should be built from a Tamiya or Hasegawa instead, I'll consider whether my desire for subject merits up to 6 X fold expenditure. Hmmm. Considered. No. Revell will do nicely. However, I *do* expect to spend 6 X the Revell when buying a DeHavilland Mosquito from HKM or Tamiya (or both, most likely). Sorry Revell, but a 1970 vintage model can't compete with the latest. Tony dmthamade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Brooks Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 when in fact the "round entry" oil cooler - [in fact a twin ganged oil cooler, as opposed to the single cooler with half round entry found on most MkIs and a few early MkIIs]] was not only common on MkIIs it was also fitted to late MkIsProvision for the fitting the "Mk.III oil cooler" was not made, on the Mk.II, until August 1941, and the Mk.I was never included. Supermarine did not start to fit the cooler on the Mk.II (only) until September 1941, at the same time issuing leaflets to repair depots on how to carry out the work. By the end of April 1941 there were, according to Air Ministry figures, "60-odd" V airframes fitted with the old-style cooler (which seems strange if the new one was so plentiful.) New cooler matrices were not readily available from Serck until May, 1942, in fact, in April, Serck could produce only 9 complete sets per day, of which three were for production, and the remainder for repair depots (and all earmarked for the Mk.V.) Once the V was in full production, Mk.I & II airframes requiring repair were fitted with a "Mk.V" wing with the new cooler; when it was stationed here, AR213 was so fitted with one original Mk.I wing and a Mk.V wing with attendant oil cooler. the guy obviously is not familiar with his subject..It would appear he's not alone......... SJL, Thomas Lund, LSP_Paul and 3 others 6 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