Revell 1/72 Hawker Hunter

In a recent posting, I referred to a review of the Revell 1/72 Hunter F6 as
saying that the wing extensions should extend 5mm further inboard and the
outer pylons should be moved inboard by the same amount. The November issue
has a letter from Mr. Banyard of Suffolk who says that he has measured a
Hunter FGA9 in a museum and found the Revell kit to be correct "within the
limits of moulding technology".
Mr. Banyard attributes the mistake to various drawings of the Hunter that
show the dog tooth as extending inboard to line up with the inner edge of
the ailerons. In fact, he says, the aileron extends 7.25 inches inboard of
the dog tooth.
I was going to buy the kit anyway but now I won't have to wait for the
aftermarket correction parts before adding it to the piles of unmade kits in
the loft.
Gordon McLaughlin
Reply to
Gordon McLaughlin
Loading thread data ...
I would say grab it while you can. I like the kit and so I visited Hannants today and bought another four of 'em... It's not as if there is a lack of decal sheets.
Reply to
Enzo Matrix
After comparison with many sources and considering many "so called" many many scale drawings, it seems hat many and many pictures are also still very important. That has resulted in the following conclusion by a couple of modellers of IPMS The Netherlands: The Revell kit for the Hunter F6 is easily the best offering in 1/72 scale. Suggested corrections / "tiny" errors are: - Mainwheels are 1mm to small in diameter - nose wheel is 0.5 mm too small in diameter - belly airbrake at rear fuselage is 2 mm too short in length - Sabrina gun pods are 2 mm too short in length - sawtooth at wing leading edge 2 mm too far outboard; (check the position of the fueltank and its pylon); the fueltank is very near the main gear outboard door. And YES: it has been considered relative to the gear doors and the ailerons! (see tread above)
And that's it! Suggestions: 1/
replace main wheels with Matchbox/ or Airfix kit wheels 2/ set fueltank and its pylon 2 mm more inboard 3/ leading edge kink; leave as is, or correct with "putty and card" 4/ replace Sabrina's with FROG parts
But, again... the kit is very nice. Please note that the comments in FSM about the canopy and the aft fuselage fairing are incorrect! The canopy SLIDES aft, so there should be " a step" !
Have fun! Meindert and Peter IPMS The Netherlands
Reply to
Meindert
"Gordon McLaughlin" wrote in news:4359198d@212.67.96.135:
Some sage advice, if I may... Never, I say never, trust any published plan. Especially if it's been printed. Look at a real one if you can, gather photos if you can't.
RobG
Reply to
RobG
Biggest problem (other than the hweels) is the shape of the windscreen - it's too wide at the base, which affects the whole 'look' - it doesn't look too bad when faired in and painted, but the real thing has a subtle 'toe -in' that the kit fails to capture. John Adams posted on HS that he reckoned this was due to Revell making the fuselage with a round rather than oval cross section
I can live with it!
Remove nospam to reply!!
Reply to
Dave Fleming
It's essential for painting as well as construction. With Google I can always find a photo of the actual aircraft. Once of the things that makes a model look "right" IMHO is when it has been based on observation of the actual aircraft or good color photos of it.
Here's a well known site for WWII subjects:
formatting link
Reply to
dancho

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.