1. Home
  2. Scale modeling discussions
  3. Revell Hunter variants

Revell Hunter variants

I've just completed a Revell Hunter kit. This provided a couple of firsts for me. It was the first 1/72 aircraft model that I've built since 1985 and it was the first kit that I've built totally Out Of the Box since I were nowt but a lad. (I made the 66 Sqn option)

I must admit to having my doubts about it while I was building it. Once painted and varnished ready for the decals, it just looked very toylike. I think that this was a combination of the glossy finish and the very sleek lines of the aircraft. In such a small scale, I feel that a model needs to either be an ugly shape or to have lots of bits hanging off it before it starts to look good.

Thankfully, now that the model is finished, with drooped flaps, underwing tanks, open cockpit and a very dull satin finish, it looks great. So great in fact that I'm hooked! I feel that I'll be buying quite a few more of these in the future.

I tend to build variations on a theme which explains why 83% of my collection is comprised of Spitfires and Bf109s! I'm now becoming fixated on Hunters and believe me, there are a lot of possible variations. The recent Xtradecal sheet for International Hunters has a Singaporean aircraft in essentially USAF SEA camouflage but using British colours, which looks very tasty indeed.

However, to my point...

The Revell Hunter has obviously been produced with other variants in mind. The nose cone, tailpipe and wing leading edges are all seperate parts, which makes the production of kits for early and late versions very easy. Does anyone know if Revell has any plans to actually do this? Failing that, are there any after-market resin sets in the pipeline?

A realise that making an early Hunter from the Revell kit is a very easy matter - a few strokes with a razor saw and five minutes work with a file... However, making an FGA9 or an FR10 is a little more complex. I don't want to have to take the back end from an Airfix kit every time - that would just be a waste.

Ideally what is needed is a companion kit from Revell, an FGA9 with an optional FR10 nose and a decent assortment of underwing stores. What are the chances?

Reply to
Enzo Matrix
Loading thread data ...

Hi Enzo,

When the first sprue shots appeared on the web some of them contained parts for the FGA 9 tailpipe, the sprues are "gated" so that different parts appear for different releases, I also believe that some of the earliest kits included these parts but this may be a "modelling myth".

Incidentally the 1/32 Revell Hunter also has a similar breakdown of parts and it would be a simple matter for Revell to produce an F.4, F.5 or F.6, but as sales of the 1/32 kit were apparently disappointing (although I have

4 ???) it has been left to the cottage industry companies like Flightpath to produce conversion sets.

I expect Revell to announce a 1/72 FGA.9/FR.10 kit sometime next year, with parts for a Swiss F.58 too maybe, we may have to rely on the cottage guys for the trainer variants however.

Happy modelling Ant

"Standing on the shoulders of giants"

Reply to
Ant Phillips

I've just had a look at my second unbuilt kit. You are right about this. The F6 tailpipe is on a small sprue, together with the ejection seat and the Sidewinder missiles. There is a whacking great section missing from the main fuselage sprue that is big enough to hold an FGA9 tailpipe and an FR10 nosecone. The F6 underwing tanks are on another small sprue so it seems possible that the large tanks and any rockets could be added by simply including yet another sprue.

Aeroclub will shortly be releasing a conversion set for the trainer variant. While I'm waiting for the FGA9 I suppose I could build a couple using the tailpipe from the Airfix kit. I wonder if it is possible to use that as a master to cast my own resin parts.

Reply to
Enzo Matrix

I haven't got this kit yet but I've had a look at the sprues. It looks to me as if a GA11 could be in contemplation. I'd love a FR10 with markings for No.11 (AC) Sdn.

A review in this month's Scale Aviation Modeller says that the leading edge extensions should extend about 5mm further inboard, the outer weapon pylons should be moved inboard by the same amount and the wheels are too small (mainwheels 3mm, nosewheel 1mm I think). I hope he's wrong. More aftermarket stuff that I can't afford!

Gord> >

Reply to
Gordon McLaughlin

I've compared the shape with lots of photographs and I can't see a problem. I can't say for sure whether the dimensions are perfectly correct, but the finished kit certainly looks like a Hunter. It even gives the impression of weight on the undercarriage. The "sit" of the model appears just right. I'm very happy with it and I plan to make a lot more...

Reply to
Enzo Matrix

I think he's wrong with the wing l/e extensions, but I know why - all the drawings/plans show these as being much further inboard than the kit, but looking at photos I think the kit is right.

Unfortunately, all the Hunters in Scotland are 'straight wing' versions, so if anyone has access to a Hunter with extensions, could they measure the distance from the 'dog tooth' to the intake?

The wheels are too small.

A few kits have come out with the FGA9 tail - it's on the sprue that the fuselage halfs are on. These seem to have been incomplete due to the gates not beng shut.

Separate tail pieces also makes an F4 a probability.

Remove nospam to reply!!

Reply to
Dave Fleming

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.