1/32 REVELL Spitfire

[James Rademaker]

Guys,

  I’m thinking of building a Spitfire but do not want to dig in deep into my wallet for the Tamiya kit. My question is which Revel Spitfire do you think is their best kit? I don’t mind getting some AM to “spruce “ it up.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[LSP_Mike]

The original Mk I, unless you want a later mark.

[Kagemusha]

I'd either wait for the Kotare, or try to get the Pacific Coast kit.

[James Rademaker]

Looking at the REVELL MK. IXc. Seems like a good kit.

Jim

[npb748r]

I've built a number of both, for me the IX is a better looking aircraft and offers far more paint and user options so that would be my choice. I'd recommend them, great kits and even better value for money. No aftermarket needed either in my view. 

[Wurgermeister64]

Revell's Mk IX seems like a good place to start. Based upon the build reviews that I read here on LSP and elsewhere, it appears to be a fairly good kit with much potential to "accurize" it. It does not stand in the same company as Tamiya's superkit, but minus the engine, and with various add ons (ie: lower cowl, modifying the lower wing, resin wheels, interior accoutrements, leveling the rivets etc.), it can be made into a respectable presentation of the prototype. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but you get what you pay for.

[James Rademaker]

Thanks guys, the REVELL MK. IX it is.

Jim

[chrish]

6 minutes ago, James Rademaker said:

Thanks guys, the REVELL MK. IX it is.

Jim

If I could suggest one thing, it'd be after market landing gear, the kit gear is very nice but very weak, just one man's opinion.

[James Rademaker]

Check, thanks.

[AdamR]

I built the Revell Mk II and quite enjoyed it.   Not nearly as complex as the Tamiya Mk. IX, it needed a little help from aftermarket propeller blades, spinner, etc. to look quite right.  It was a low-stress build and came out looking good.

[James Rademaker]

Your comments are much appreciated. 
Thanks,

Jim

[Martinnfb]

Bluntly speaking, after you add up the cost of all of the aftermarket, you will end up with Tamiya price tag with far inferior result .

[AdamR]

5 hours ago, Martinnfb said:

Bluntly speaking, after you add up the cost of all of the aftermarket, you will end up with Tamiya price tag with far inferior result .

"Far" inferior?  That’s a bit subjective, wouldn’t you say?  But okay, my Tamiya Mk IX does look better on very close inspection than my Revell Mk II, but the bare Tamiya kit cost twice as much as the Revell and it still needed AM wheels, cockpit stencils, exhaust stacks, gun barrels, etc. just as the Revell did.  Plus, it was cursed with a bunch of toy airplane crap like retractable gear and movable control surfaces.

 

I liked the final results of both kits, but I must say there was less irritation involved in building the Revell, and less cost too.

 

 

 

[Martinnfb]

Yes, indeed. Very subjective. I started by (with maybe higher expectations after building their 109 and 262.,)  re-shaping the rear of the fuselage just behind the canopy also the door size, then dihedral with the overall MLG stand and it turned that build into a waging of a never ending war. At the end I gave the aftermarket to a friend and trashed the plastic.  

I don't mean to be overly negative, only sharing my experience. Revell is definitely buildable and it does look like Mk IX.  We all have different approach and expectations which makes this hobby so interesting and fun.

[LSP_Mike]

Is the RoG Spitty to the Tamiya kit as the RoG Mustang is to the Tamiya kit?

Asking for a friend.