Revell 1:32 Spitfire I

[FZ6]

I have just purchased the recently rereleased 1:32 Revell Spitfire I in their classics Range. I was half expecting the MKI issued a few years ago based on the Hasegawa VB with a new wing but this kit looks different so I'm guessing this is an earlier kit of Revells own design.

My first impression is it looks like a nice kit. It has nice surface detail consisting of raised rivets and recessed panel lines which I don't think looks overstated at all.

I think it will need an updated cockpit and maybe some new exhaust and wheels. I'll be having a closer look when I get home but I was just wondering if anyone had built this kit and if there were any problem areas or issues with the kit that need correcting.

Thanks in advance.

Mark

[avro683]

I built one in the 1970's when it first came out, it;s definitely a repop of Revells original kit. As far as I recall it went together really well, I think that you may have difficulty finding a replacement cockpit though. The wheel wells need boxing in and the engine is rather basic but you should have fun with it.

Tony

[keith in the uk]

What you have there my friend is a kit dateing back to 1969 , not bad for its time and i have made a few over the years.

To make a decent Spitfire you will need to replace the exhausts , wheels , and loose the huge hinges on the tail planes also the prop blades are a little suspect ( all Revell kits of the time seemed to have the same prop

blade shape ) The wheel wells need boxing in and there is no gull wing on the undersurface , untill the Tamiya MK9 arrived this was the only Spitfire kit in 32nd scale where the engine could be shown.

with some work it can be made into a nice looking spit but you will need to rob the Hasagawa kit for some decent wheels and exhausts.

Heres a pic of the kit in its first issue box.

[Nick Belbin]

I'm doing the same thing at the moment and I have to agree that the panel and rivet detail is superb - way ahead of its time. The kit is let down by the gimmicks though – the retractable u/c and moveable surfaces. Having said that, I am cross-kitting with the more recent Revell/Hasegawa MkI/II and using the wings which have the gull wing finish as well as more 'lumpy' detail and better undercarriage although I'm hoping to improve that if I can. That kit also supplies a better spinner/prop combination and several other details. However, MDC do replacement spinner/prop, exhausts and both underwing coolers as resin replacements. I am also using the Aires and Eduard cockpit details modified from the MkV version. It's going to be / is time consuming so won't be entered for the BoB GB . . .

Nick

[spitfire]

It is a nice kit, built one ages ago and the Seafire version, for it's age the detail is great.

Cheers

Den

[maltadefender]

Does it still have the moveable elevators, undercarriage etc.? My Dad built one when I was v small and I've often wanted to replace it after a teenage pyromaniac moment!

[FZ6]

Thanks for all the responses. I feel I'm better informed now.

The kit looks like it has all the movable parts and even the same painting on the box art. The decal sheet looks like it's nicely printed too.

I've had a look at the kit and it looks like you get the Seafire IB parts included as well. The biggest problems I've spotted so far are on the wings. Firstly the gullwing shape isn't well defined and the Wheel Well openings look a little big but I'm sure the issues can be fixed with a bit of TLC.

I was thinking either replacing the cockpit with an adapted Aires one or making my own. I won't have the engine on display so don't need to worry about that. The exhausts and wheels definately need to go though.

[HBBates]

1:32 Revell Spitfire I, Me109F, and P40E, were the first to really start 1/32 as a common aircraft model scale

They all came out around 1966!.. at $2.00 US each

1/32 was picked in part because it was a common model scale for car model and, in part because Revell wanted their large scale models to fit in the same size box!...

That how come the Revell large scale WW1 models are 1/28 and the Ad1 Skyradier is 1/40

Edited June 22, 2010 by HBBates

[Trubbie]

I'm doing the same thing at the moment and I have to agree that the panel and rivet detail is superb - way ahead of its time. The kit is let down by the gimmicks though – the retractable u/c and moveable surfaces. Having said that, I am cross-kitting with the more recent Revell/Hasegawa MkI/II and using the wings which have the gull wing finish as well as more 'lumpy' detail and better undercarriage although I'm hoping to improve that if I can. That kit also supplies a better spinner/prop combination and several other details. However, MDC do replacement spinner/prop, exhausts and both underwing coolers as resin replacements. I am also using the Aires and Eduard cockpit details modified from the MkV version. It's going to be / is time consuming so won't be entered for the BoB GB . . .

Nick

Nick,

I am contemplating the same sort of conversion using the Revell fuselage, which in my opinion, has far more accurate cross sections and nose profile. There seems to be a problem, however, with the root chord of the Hasagawa wing and that of the Revell fuselage, ie the Revell part is about 2mm longer.

I have a 1/32 enlargement of the Roy Cross Spitfire MkI plans and the Hasagawa wings look to be almost spot on. The problem seems to be with the Revell fuselage...being about 2mm too long in the area of the windscreen/pilots door. Removing a slice there would solve the problem but it's in the area of the cockpit so some card will have to be used to line the cockpit walls at that point to ensure a strong joint.

The MDC radiator and oil cooler look very similar to those on the Revell wings so these could be utilised on the Hasagawa wings, whose units are too short. Another thing, the flap chord on the Hasagawa wing is too wide. If this is reduced, the layout of the radiator and oil cooler will fit the plan better.

Untill Eduard produce a mark I (that's if they still have the heart for it after the hysterical outbursts of criticism of their 109E on Hyperscale), this might be the only way to get an accurate model.

Good luck with your project.

Trubbie

[KLP Publishing]

untill the Tamiya MK9 arrived this was the only Spitfire kit in 32nd scale where the engine could be shown.

Not quite! You're forgetting the Matchbox (now Revell) Mk 22/24.

Kev

[HBBates]

Nick,

I am contemplating the same sort of conversion using the Revell fuselage, which in my opinion, has far more accurate cross sections and nose profile. There seems to be a problem, however, with the root chord of the Hasagawa wing and that of the Revell fuselage, ie the Revell part is about 2mm longer.

I have a 1/32 enlargement of the Roy Cross Spitfire MkI plans and the Hasagawa wings look to be almost spot on. The problem seems to be with the Revell fuselage...being about 2mm too long in the area of the windscreen/pilots door.

The Tamiya MK9 is now taken as the new gold standard in 1/32 Spits

In would be intresting to match up oldest to newest 1/32 Spitfires, the Tamiya MK9 fuselage to the Revell fuselage to see how they match up (1966 vs 2009= 43 years diff!)

Spitfire Mk1 to Mk9 rudder post to firewall should be the same

Edited June 22, 2010 by HBBates

[Trubbie]

The Tamiya MK9 is now taken as the new gold standard in 1/32 Spits

In would be intresting to match up oldest to newest 1/32 Spitfires, the Tamiya MK9 fuselage to the Revell fuselage to see how they match up (1966 vs 2009= 43 years diff!)

Spitfire Mk1 to Mk9 rudder post to firewall should be the same

I'll have a look tonight.

Trubbie

[Trubbie]

The Tamiya MK9 is now taken as the new gold standard in 1/32 Spits

In would be intresting to match up oldest to newest 1/32 Spitfires, the Tamiya MK9 fuselage to the Revell fuselage to see how they match up (1966 vs 2009= 43 years diff!)

Spitfire Mk1 to Mk9 rudder post to firewall should be the same

Without removing the Tamiya fuselage halves from the sprue frame (which I am reluctant to do untill I start the kit....chicken), the Tamiya fuselage , from the rudder post to the firewall is just over one millimetre longer than that of the Revell kit, it's cockpit cut out having the same difference.......hardly anything really. What I did notice, was that the Revell rear fuselage, just in front of the fin, is quite noticeably under sized, ie, in height, compared to the Tamiya kit. The Tamiya kit looking very similar to the photographs of real Spitfires I have.

I aslo had a look at the root chord of both kits with the Revell being about one millimetre wider. Their plan forms vary qiute a bit, with the Revell leading edge extending further forward. The ailerons are markedly different which may be due to the difference in mark numbers? However, I must stress that this was a very casual comparison.

The plan I quoted above was in fact drawn by a Mr Cox, not Mr Cross , whose name I must have got from reading the Classic Aircraft No 1 book on the Airfix Spitfire (appologies).

Interestingly, the Hasagawa fuselage, when placed over the Cox plan is almost spot on. I measured the overall length of the plan's fuselage and it comes out to a squeak under the 29 feet 11 inches of the prototype, but there may have been some distortion, in various places, in the enlargment process, as it was done yours truly, on my trusty, wind-up printer.

I think this bodes very well for a Revell/Hasagawa hybrid project, but it is a shame about that undersized rear fuselage.....and I'm not about to hack into a Tamiya fuselage, just to build an accurate mark one.

Let's hope that one of the big names of the modelling world decide that a Spitfire I is a good bet.

Regards,

Trubbie

[HBBates]

I'll have a look tonight.

Trubbie

Im going to go out on a BIG limb (and most likely fall flat on my face IN FLAMING DEATH when proved very wrong) but I think the old Revell 1966 Spitfire fuselage basic shape will match up very well with the new Tamiya fuselage and that the kits and drawing from the 70's to 90's will not

[warreni]

Im going to go out on a BIG limb (and most likely fall flat on my face IN FLAMING DEATH when proved very wrong) but I think the old Revell 1966 Spitfire fuselage basic shape will match up very well with the new Tamiya fuselage and that the kits and drawing from the 70's to 90's will not

People nowadays seem to place lots of faith in old drawings. What all the AMS people out there need is someone to go out there with modern computer tools and do CAD drawings of all these subjects. For the rest of us, including me, I am happy with the creed that if it looks like the subject when it is finished then I am happy!

[Trubbie]

Im going to go out on a BIG limb (and most likely fall flat on my face IN FLAMING DEATH when proved very wrong) but I think the old Revell 1966 Spitfire fuselage basic shape will match up very well with the new Tamiya fuselage and that the kits and drawing from the 70's to 90's will not

You're right, almost. See above

Trubbie

[Nick Belbin]

Trubbie, interesting comparison on fuselage length comparison because comparing the Revell fuse to the Has fuse actually removed from sprues shows the rudder post to be further back – on the Revell kit – by about 1mm. So, if the Tamiya dimensions are 2mm longer that the Hasegawa and the Hasegawa kit is 'spot on' then . . . ? But then again you've only done a very rudimentary comparison.

I started one version sometime ago where I used the Hasegawa gull wing section together with the wheel wells and coolers intact and, after some delicate surgery, matched them up pretty well to the rest of the Revell wing. I was aware of the discrepancy in the wing root differences and this was proven when joining these bits together (and the flaps being too wide). I've put that on hold because there were/are still other little niggles that bug me!!! These include the bottom of the fuselage from the tail wheel mounting point to the back suddenly 'boat tailing' although this could be corrected easily with some hot water and shims of plastic. I think also that the tail planes may be a little high (which might be a reason why that section looks smaller height-wise than the Tamiya one. Both problems could be remedied by using the Hasegawa tail which would help because I want to use the Has tailplanes anyway (however, the rudder starts at different points on each side – aaaaaaaaaarghhhhhh.

There are other details like blisters on the cowling missing as well as the wheel bulges and other blisters on the wings missing. But these can be rectified.

So I've been looking again and starting a second version . . . I am using another set of Hasegawa MkI wings in their entirety and will add the gun heater exhausts lifted from Has's MkV wings. (I said missing bits could be easily rectified!) I also agree that the Revell fuselage sections are vastly superior to the Hasegawa ahead of the cockpit at least – Hasegawa's is far more slab sided – so I'm using Revell's. Top cowling blisters will be 'robbed' from the Hasegawa's. I'm still undecided on the tail. I prefer the Has windscreen but need the Rev canopy even though it distorts everything so badly.

However, I've still been unsure about fitting the wings because the wing to fillet joint is, well, awful. So I did some more armchair modelling studying more images and noticed that the wing fillets 'join' the fuselage much lower on the Revell version. (If you look at the Revell version, the distance between the fillet joint to the bottom of the access door is about the same as the depth of the access door itself – it should be about two thirds what it is.) So that's my way in – I'm using the wing fillets themselves as the mating point for the Revell fuselage and the Hasegawa wings. I just hope that by 'raising' the join I don't remove the curvature in the fuselage.

Phew!

Nick

[Nick Belbin]

People nowadays seem to place lots of faith in old drawings. What all the AMS people out there need is someone to go out there with modern computer tools and do CAD drawings of all these subjects. For the rest of us, including me, I am happy with the creed that if it looks like the subject when it is finished then I am happy!

I agree – but I love that old Revell fuselage and just feel that some of the bits around it could be improved . . .

Nick

[HBBates]

People nowadays seem to place lots of faith in old drawings. What all the AMS people out there need is someone to go out there with modern computer tools and do CAD drawings of all these subjects. For the rest of us, including me, I am happy with the creed that if it looks like the subject when it is finished then I am happy!

On old drawing, not really...it's more I think that we got a lot on new drawing in the 70's to 90's that were bad and clouded the issue …

I agree with you 100 % we need laser scan survey and photometric scans of the real subject to develop modern accurate CAD drawing

Edited June 22, 2010 by HBBates

[Trubbie]

Trubbie, interesting comparison on fuselage length comparison because comparing the Revell fuse to the Has fuse actually removed from sprues shows the rudder post to be further back – on the Revell kit – by about 1mm. So, if the Tamiya dimensions are 2mm longer that the Hasegawa and the Hasegawa kit is 'spot on' then . . . ? But then again you've only done a very rudimentary comparison.

I started one version sometime ago where I used the Hasegawa gull wing section together with the wheel wells and coolers intact and, after some delicate surgery, matched them up pretty well to the rest of the Revell wing. I was aware of the discrepancy in the wing root differences and this was proven when joining these bits together (and the flaps being too wide). I've put that on hold because there were/are still other little niggles that bug me!!! These include the bottom of the fuselage from the tail wheel mounting point to the back suddenly 'boat tailing' although this could be corrected easily with some hot water and shims of plastic. I think also that the tail planes may be a little high (which might be a reason why that section looks smaller height-wise than the Tamiya one. Both problems could be remedied by using the Hasegawa tail which would help because I want to use the Has tailplanes anyway (however, the rudder starts at different points on each side – aaaaaaaaaarghhhhhh.

There are other details like blisters on the cowling missing as well as the wheel bulges and other blisters on the wings missing. But these can be rectified.

So I've been looking again and starting a second version . . . I am using another set of Hasegawa MkI wings in their entirety and will add the gun heater exhausts lifted from Has's MkV wings. (I said missing bits could be easily rectified!) I also agree that the Revell fuselage sections are vastly superior to the Hasegawa ahead of the cockpit at least – Hasegawa's is far more slab sided – so I'm using Revell's. Top cowling blisters will be 'robbed' from the Hasegawa's. I'm still undecided on the tail. I prefer the Has windscreen but need the Rev canopy even though it distorts everything so badly.

However, I've still been unsure about fitting the wings because the wing to fillet joint is, well, awful. So I did some more armchair modelling studying more images and noticed that the wing fillets 'join' the fuselage much lower on the Revell version. (If you look at the Revell version, the distance between the fillet joint to the bottom of the access door is about the same as the depth of the access door itself – it should be about two thirds what it is.) So that's my way in – I'm using the wing fillets themselves as the mating point for the Revell fuselage and the Hasegawa wings. I just hope that by 'raising' the join I don't remove the curvature in the fuselage.

Phew!

Nick

That is quite an engineering project Nick, but should be worthwhile in the end. I remember somebody else here on Britmodeller doing a similar thing with the wing fillets on a 1/48th Tempest. The end product certainly looked so much better and realistic than the basic kit.

When I compared the Tamiya fuselage ( still on the sprue) to the Revell version there was a also quite a difference in height about mid way between cockpit's fixed rear glazed section and the beginning of the fin fillet. Just looking at both kit parts, laid side by side, it's quite obvious. How to remedy that ( always assuming that the Tamiya kit is 'spot on') is down to good old Milliput I suppose.

At the moment I'm finishing the Revell Spitfire I/II ( Hasagawa moulds) having first attempted to reprofile the nose sections to achieve that nice, subtly curved shape. It's was much harder to extend the curved sides to the cockpit area. This was partially achieved this by inserting the Airies mark V cockpit floor a little higher than normal, thus pushing out the cockpi sidesa little....crude but it worked (sort of).

Good luck with your projects Nick, your efforts will certainly be worthwhile.

Trubbie

PS Can you please explain what 'AMS' means? I've seen it used before on Hyperscale when somebody points out that a kit may not have the right dimentions or looks just a bit odd in certain areas, often resulting in arguments.

[KLP Publishing]

PS Can you please explain what 'AMS' means?

Advanced (or Anal) Model(l)er Syndrome, that disease which, when allowed to run its course, can suck the enjoyment right out of the hobby. It starts with you wanting to add a bit of extra detail, and ends with you refusing to build any kit that isn't rivet-perfect.

Kev

[Pete M.]

Trubbie

PS Can you please explain what 'AMS' means? I've seen it used before on Hyperscale when somebody points out that a kit may not have the right dimentions or looks just a bit odd in certain areas, often resulting in arguments.

Advanced (or Anal) Modellers Syndrome! Also 'Fatal Flaws' on HS!

Cheers,

Pete M.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Pete M.

[Trubbie]

Advanced (or Anal) Model(l)er Syndrome, that disease which, when allowed to run its course, can suck the enjoyment right out of the hobby. It starts with you wanting to add a bit of extra detail, and ends with you refusing to build any kit that isn't rivet-perfect.

Kev

I see. So it's just a trendy use of an abbrieviation that describes someone who ends up building nothing because no kit is perfect? A kind of ridicule?

Did it originate in the USA?

I wonder how many ''AMS' modellers there are around?

Thanks Kev.

Trubbie

[Nick Belbin]

Trubbie,

I thought you were being sarcastic when you asked what AMS meant!!

Advanced (or Anal) Model(l)er Syndrome, that disease which, when allowed to run its course, can suck the enjoyment right out of the hobby. It starts with you wanting to add a bit of extra detail, and ends with you refusing to build any kit that isn't rivet-perfect.

Kev

I had thought that this thread started with a genuine enquiry about how good an old kit is.

This AMS business is an 'argument' of which I've always steered clear of. One man's meat . . . etc. However, up until the point where Trubbie asked 'THAT' question, I believe that the original query was answered – and appreciated – with integrity.

The 'problem' with knowing/getting to know/researching your subject is that you cannot avoid spotting 'errors', if they are there, and that you might want to do your best in correcting said errors, if you can, by whatever means possible. This might mean scratchbuilding (that seems to be 'acceptable' because it's 'real' modelling), buying aftermarket items that have the scratchbuilding already done for you (thereby giving you more time for research!! and finding even more errors) and/or cross-kitting. I believe all are acceptable means of getting the result you want.

I've no doubt that Kev's 'summary' will apply to some people. But to be quite blunt, I would rather complete one kit in a year to MY satisfaction (with the added bonus of learning on the way) than just assemble one kit a week following a set of instructions with no questions asked!!

Nick

[KLP Publishing]

I've no doubt that Kev's 'summary' will apply to some people. But to be quite blunt, I would rather complete one kit in a year to MY satisfaction (with the added bonus of learning on the way) than just assemble one kit a week following a set of instructions with no questions asked!!

I based my 'summary' on the generally-accepted colloquial use of the term only. I think it's fair to say that the term is generally used to describe someone who is hung up about these things, rather than someone who simply has advanced skills or is dedicated to accuracy. In other words, someone who is paralysed by their inability to accept or resolve a given kit's inadequacies. In my mind, it certainly doesn't apply to someone who works assiduously to correct or improve a model, and both enjoys the process and is pleased with the result.

Kev