Aptivaboy

Its definitely the original 1969 mold, retractable landing gear and everything! She'll definitely need some new decals, though. The originals are in good shape, but man... 1971... Part of me wants to try them just to try them!

Thank you for all of the info! I do have some Fotokit cockpit details so I may be able to simply dress up the existing rather sparse cockpit. We'll see. I also have a lower fuselage correction from (I think) Airwaves. The prop, hear and gear bays, and radiators are going to be the real problem areas. EDIT: I rechecked the plastic and its an odd mix of styles. The wings feature engraved panel lines and rivets, the latter of which are rather deep and overdone, but some paint will cover up the worst of it. The fuselage, however, has a lot of raised details, including some very overdone rivets and some rather petite raised panel lines - thin but they're there. Its an off mix! This is also an early Revell Spit, as the instructions include an insert about the Apollo moon landings and building models of them, so this was likely an early 1970s molding.

Mostly raised panel lines. They're actually not horrible. Revell did great work for the era. I should add that the Seafire Ib was essentially a navalized Spitfire Vb, though as Revell reboxed this 1969-ish mold many times, I'm not sure that that point matters a great deal. Revell likely boxed it as whatever it wanted to box it as!

HI all, I'm looking at my old classic Revell Seafire and getting the hankering to finally build it. It's essentially the old 1/32nd Revell Spitfire dating from the 1970s with a Volkes filter. So... Is there anything specifically for it? I'll likely scribe the wings and fuselage and attempt to make it looks a tad more modern. Many thanks! Bob PS: It's this fellow: Revell Supermarine Seafire Ib | Large Scale Planes

Just curious, did Rev-Mon get the flat part right?

Same question. I recall someone offering really nice 3D print files of the engine, but as I couldn't find a review I didn't order one. Many thanks! Bob

Just hoping that they produce a Hellcat someday. I mean, there isn't a truly modern tool 1/32nd scale Cat around, and they could box it multiple versions (-3 [early and late gun fairings], -5, -5N, -3K drone, etc.), with markings from the USA (USN and USMC), the UK (FAA), the French Navy, and one or two others. A quality 1/32nd Hellcat would be a license to print money. Of course, now that I'm opining over it, it'll never happen! I'm a jinx! Take care all, Bob

Ha! The thing is, while I agree in principle that more smaller carriers might be better than one huge target, protecting those multiple smaller carriers becomes an issue. They're big enough to be targets themselves, but not large enough to carry enough aircraft, missiles, etc., to protect themselves from a saturation attack. Only a big CVN is. The idea of modern Midway-sized carriers has been brought up from time to time, but the Navy has batted that down on a number of grounds, one being the self-defense aspect. A smaller carrier would need a lot of support to survive in a saturation environment, so why not just build a bigger carrier that can support itself? That's the logic. Back on thread track, only something the size of a CVN could carry the F-14 and fulfill the fleet defense role (although the Midways could operate the F-14, they just couldn't take it below into the hangar). Now, having said all of this... Anyone who disses the F-14 is going to Hades. It is simply the most beautiful plane ever made. Chuck Norris doesn't fly the F-14, the F-14 flies Chuck Norris.

To add to my post last night, Spruebrothers has both versions in stock as of a few hours ago. Yeah, I'm weak, I grabbed one of each. I love early war Spitfires.

For those in the Colonies, Spruebrothers still has both versions. I'm ordering a Brian Lane version tonight. I've liked those marking for awhile, so I may as well.

An early Hurricane is likely the most probable kit, but a 1/32nd Hellcat would sell like hotcakes, probably almost as well as a P-51B/C. An accurate 1/32nd Cat would be wonderful!

At that point in the war, they would have most likely been using the FM-1, which was, as Thierry said, essentially a four gun F4F-4. However, the Fleet Air Arm was the launch customer for the folding wing -4, so it could have been either variant. Getting pictures of your subject and seeing if the gun ports were taped over would your best bet on determining the number of guns and hence which model Wildcat it was, plus whether your plane carried the FM-2's taller tail, or not. If it is an FM-2, I'm not aware of any 1/32nd scale conversions, although Eduard did recently release the FM-2 in 1/48th scale and it looks very, very nice! Robert

This is a super build! If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend Gilmer's book on the Constitution. Its chock full of little details. He also makes a pretty compelling case that she isn't in her War of 1812 appearance today, as the law governing her mandates that she be. https://www.amazon.com/Old-Ironsides-Decline-Resurrection-Constitution/dp/0877423466/ref=sr_1_23?crid=4X3SSCVF84UN&keywords=uss+constitution&qid=1695433949&s=books&sprefix=uss+constitution%2Cstripbooks%2C127&sr=1-23

Sort of an aside—- I find that presumed box art of the TBD apparently at Midway to be amusing. The TBD is in Midway markings and configuration. Then it shows the TBD flying over a burning carrier and what appears to be a burning battleship. Sorry, Trumpeter—it didn’t happen. No battleships were hit at Midway and no carrier was struck till after the TBD attack. And I doubt any TBD got that close to a carrier with torpedo in place. But I can put up with all sorts of artistic license on the box art, as long as the kit itself is accurate! Bill M. Apologies for being pedantic, but that isn't quite accurate. Elements of VT-3 were observed still on their run ins when the first carriers were hit. These were apparently the (seriously) tail end Charlies of the squadron. VT-3 went after Hiryu, which after the Kido Butai turned and maneuvered away from the incoming torpedo squadrons became the furthest Japanese carrier away from the attack vector or most of the US squadrons. The VT-3 Devastators therefore had a very long run to their selected target which would explain why several dive bomber pilots observed Devastators still heading in after they were pulling out of their dives. I'm not claiming that VT-3's attack was completely contemporaneous with the Enterprise dive bombers' attack, merely that one or two VT-3 elements (or, parts of them) were still in the area separated from their mates, their formations broken up by the Zero attacks, and still bravely heading in after the rest had been shot down or retired. George Gay almost certainly got that close. His account - more or less substantiated in Japanese accounts - was that he dropped his torpedo very close aboard, then executed a turn over or almost over the carrier's deck in an attempt to escape before being brought down. Nagumo himself may have witnessed this action according to a reference in Prange. Gay was suspected of "elaborating" on his actions that day, but the surviving Japanese reports do indicate that something at least approaching Gay's account may well have taken place. For some bizarre reason I was unaware that this TBD was out! Where have I been?????

Apologies for coming to this late. How can I order???? TAKE MY MONEY!!!!!