Tony T Posted May 25, 2019 Share Posted May 25, 2019 On 7 May 2019 at 1:02 AM, Neo said: The fact that lots of us got it on sale at dragon for 28$ kinda took the hype away of a revell rebox Didn't work out that way for Europeans, due to postage, the import levy and (in Britain) the domestic handling fee. A Revell boxing, OTOH, kinda duz. Espesh as the instructions etc get an overhaul. Another vote for the D/E night fighter version, so I'll pass on this for now. Tony nmayhew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Williams Posted May 25, 2019 Share Posted May 25, 2019 Assuming that the Revell reboxings continue to omit metal and PE parts, there is going to be an issue for the D models. The dinghy cable is a metal wire and there are three PE rings to attach it to the fuselage in the Dragon boxings. There are no alternative plastic parts for the cable. Revell would need to mold a new plastic cable to be able to do a D correctly, but the question is would they mold any new parts, or are they limiting the reboxes to just the existing Dragon plastic sprues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted May 26, 2019 Share Posted May 26, 2019 I think the plastic is down to the original manufacturer. The Revell repop of the ICM 1/48 RBT Foxbat, for example, contained corrected plastic nose parts but ICM likely had them in the works already. I haven't compared my copies of the 1/32 Italeri and Revell Mirage IIIE boxings, but am not sure anything was lost with the etch in any case. It's a shame Dragon never did a G, but having a Revell C repop — which will either disappear quickly or be heavily discounted at some stage — might bring an AIMS conversion slightly closer. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Griewski Posted May 26, 2019 Share Posted May 26, 2019 IIRC AIMS offers a G conversion with the C varient as the donor kit. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted May 26, 2019 Share Posted May 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Tony T said: It's a shame Dragon never did a G, but having a Revell C repop .... might bring an AIMS conversion slightly closer. Tony 1 hour ago, Rick Griewski said: IIRC AIMS offers a G conversion with the C varient as the donor kit. Rick I can't be sure ... but I THINK Tony was meaning that he might be closer to committing to buying an AIMS conversion now that the donor kit is much cheaper than the original Dragon kits??? At any rate John designed his F & G conversions so that ANY of the Dragon kits can be used as a base - the logical solution. All the purchaser needs to do is advise John of the particular donor kit being used and he will tailor the parts included to reflect the kits' needs. Rog Tony T and Rick Griewski 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted May 26, 2019 Share Posted May 26, 2019 Yes Rog, that's what I meant. The Bf 110 G was really the backbone of the Kammhuber defence and, regardless of rights and wrongs, or the regime that spawned it, is a very important player in the whole night fighter story. If the G can indeed be made from the C it merits further investigation... not quite sure what happened regarding the AIMS clear parts. Tony Rick Griewski and Artful69 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 On 5/26/2019 at 10:31 PM, Tony T said: ... If the G can indeed be made from the C it merits further investigation... not quite sure what happened regarding the AIMS clear parts. Tony Well ... rest assured it can be, Tony! ... Just advise John that you're using the C7 kit as a base when ordering your conversion. Originally the conversion set arrived with 2 clear vac canopy parts (in case of a cutting blunder!). They're not awful by any means ... but just lack the crispness of detail that the rest of the IM kit provides. John went on to form up some clear resin parts a while later ... I bought a couple (I have 2 conversion sets) ... they are first rate I can't be sure, so you will have to confirm with John, but I think they are standard issue on the conversion sets sold now? ... Rog Tony T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMaben Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 On 5/25/2019 at 12:54 PM, Dave Williams said: Assuming that the Revell reboxings continue to omit metal and PE parts, there is going to be an issue for the D models. The dinghy cable is a metal wire and there are three PE rings to attach it to the fuselage in the Dragon boxings. There are no alternative plastic parts for the cable. Revell would need to mold a new plastic cable to be able to do a D correctly, but the question is would they mold any new parts, or are they limiting the reboxes to just the existing Dragon plastic sprues? Shouldn't be too hard to scratch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) I was just looking at the instructions, and was a bit puzzled by the colour profile for the ZG26 option. The port side view shows the code as "3U+GT", as one would expect. But the starboard side, instead of the same (ie with "3U" aft), shows it as "GT+3U". I like to think I'm not totally uninformed on matters Luftwaffe, but I've never come across this presentation before. So is this a documented permitted variation; a documented fact, but unauthorised generally, eg a mistake by the painter, or a "quirk" of ZG26; or an error on Revell's part? Edited June 10, 2019 by MikeC Typo!! Andrea Ferrari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 3 hours ago, MikeC said: I was just looking at the instructions, and was a bit puzzled by the colour profile for the ZG26 option. The port side view shows the code as "3U+GT", as one would expect. But the starboard side, instead of the same (ie with "3U" aft), shows it as "GT+3U". I like to think I'm not totally uninformed on matters Luftwaffe, but I've never come across this presentation before. So is this a documented permitted variation; a documented fact, but unauthorised generally, eg a mistake by the painter, or a "quirk" of ZG26; or an error on Revell's part? Here are some photos of the starboard side: HTH Radu LSP_K2, Rick Griewski and MikeC 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 27 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said: That was just a boo-boo in production. They used the wrong piece of the tool and nobody noticed until it was too late. And the instructions etc? I heard that the earlier nose arrangement with the twin array was based on the Ukrainian museum example they measured up, which was otherwise a later recce airframe but not representative of a true RBT. The mod parts were added in time for the Revell edition (and I assume later ICM releases of the kit in question), but I can easily imagine things getting jumbled — ICM's prodigious output of subvariants of multiple aircraft types is mind-boggling! Wish they'd do a 1/48 Su-15 Flagon and scale-up the "flat pack" Foxbat to 1/32, but am guessing that's as likely as them scaling-up their rather nice Dornier 17/215/217 kits. Looking forward to the Gloster Gladiator. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 Thanks for sharing those photos Radu, that's useful. The kit decal option is in the earlier, 1940 scheme - 65/70/71 in a splinter pattern - but I think it's probably safe to assume the presentation on the starboard side is equally standard. Unless anyone knows different? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrea Ferrari Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 I was wondering if it would make sense painting 3U+GT in the transitional scheme of 02/71/65, which I always really liked. It looks too light in the photos to be 70/71/65 in my opinion anyway. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 4 hours ago, Andrea Ferrari said: I was wondering if it would make sense painting 3U+GT in the transitional scheme of 02/71/65, which I always really liked. It looks too light in the photos to be 70/71/65 in my opinion anyway. What do you think? That's definitely not 65/70/71 in the photos, as you rightly say. The kit's instructions specify the date of the profile as "France, June 1940", which would make that scheme likely. So assuming Revell are correct, apart from the "3U/GT" transposition, is the aircraft in the photo the same one after a repaint, or a later aircraft with that identity? The kit scheme is WkNr. 3063, can't see evidence of a WkNr on the photos. So I'd say: If the a/c in the photos is WkNr 3063 after a repaint, then the transitional scheme of 02/71/65 is quite likely. If it's another aircraft, possible but not so likely. Perhaps Radu has some more info from the photos? Andrea Ferrari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 2 hours ago, MikeC said: Perhaps Radu has some more info from the photos? Sorry, I found these photos on my hard drive and they came from the internet. I have no further info on them. Radu MikeC 1 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