I had this way back when it first came out by FROG....it was not bad for the day. You did a very good job on what has become an ancient kit. I agree with you that Revell should indicate it is not a recent molding. Hint to manufactures...we need a new kit of this aircraft.
@@richsmith7200 that’s like saying there are loads of spitfires… when we are only referring to one specific variant which doesn’t have massive representation in 1:72 (and the kits that are available are either dated and clunky like this one, or much more expensive and hard to source)
@@Reactordrone lol what? That’s not true. The price seems to relate to the amount of plastic that is inside the kit, it just so happens that the old toolings have less parts. For example, the F117 is older than their p47 but it costs more because it’s bigger…? Not because it’s “newer”
The Revell ta-152 is a disaster kit with no detail cockpit but just a seat for the pilot someone needs to make a better new 1/72 Ta-152 with a nice detail cockpit great modelling. Please review and build a Revell Ju-88A-1 or Ju-88C-1.
I built this kit a little while ago. Impulse bought it with another order since it was only $10. The price should’ve been the first warning. Pretty below average as far as kits go, but I guess that’s to be expected for sprue that was manufactured in 1970. Should’ve checked Scalemates
You've done a brilliant job on a poor kit, it looks great. Personally I think The Ta152 would make a excellent model for Mr. Airfix to do his magic and create a nice new tooled version of it for us all..
I didn’t bother glueing the pilot or seat into mine. I simply built the fuselage without them, and glued the canopy into place with plastic cement (unusually, there was not much frosting). When I get around to painting it, I’ll paint over the canopy and experiment with solid ‘glass window’ paint effects. For me, if there’s no interior detail to show, there’s no point in leaving the canopy clear.
Revell don't care about the customer and it's owners being that their an investment company are only interested in profits and the bottom line. I don't see them changing their practices unless someone else takes the helm
I like how the stand has that slight turn/bank angle. Don't think i would have put more time into weathering it either. Kudos for getting it done well enough where it is a consideration if needing to work on panel lining stc. 👍☕🐢
1968 tooling date doesn't surprise me. The cockpit 'detail', and I use the word quite wrongly, reminds me of the kits I made in the 1970s. The propeller cockup in the instructions is a rookie error they really should have caught before the kit was released. As well as the lack of mention of a tooling date Matt mentioned, calling this a Level 3 is also misleading IMHO.. it implies the kit - which I think is barely a Scale 1 - is far more complicated than it actually is. I suspect the Level 3 rating is an attempt to make it look more reasonably priced. Way beyond time I think that the big manufacturers like Airfix, Revell, Tamiya, etc. agreed an industry standard for each scale.
It's not just the instructions, the prop has the mounting point for the axle on the wrong side, so it was designed wrong. I bet they realised and just stuck to their guns "well, it's done now, we just won't tell people how to fix it"
Tbh, it's a pretty weird-looking plane. It's an Fw190, but with the exhaust pipes from a Bf109, and sort of awkwardly stretched out into this weird long shape. It's like it had a growth spurt and no longer fits into its old clothes. You did a good job with what you got though! I'm really enjoying these builds of old, bad kits! Good job calling out the deceptive marketing of repackaging such old toolings in new boxes without any indications towards their tooling dates, if you and other modelmakers call it out enough maybe you can get them to be more honest about it! Loving all of your 3D-printed trinkets, by the way. They look like they really come in handy!
I’m not sure if this will work for you. I use Vallejo airbrush thinner for all my airbrushing needs in 2 drops of paint for one drop of Vallejo thinner(2:1). I get pretty convincing results when making something look hand applied in the field. However, I use a Pasche Talon airbrush at around 20 psi. It has worked for Vallejo and Tamiya acrylic paints very well. I don’t want any shoutout or anything if it works for you and you show it in your next video. I just hope it works for you and others.
Although it was not the best kit to make. I agree with what has already been said. You did a really great job on this kit. Keep up the great work Model Minutes
Now that is one gorgeous looking plane - I love these stunning luftwaffe aircraft designs, probably why my ceiling and shelves are full of them! 😂 If this was my ta152 i'd feel very proud like I do about my FW190D-9 JV44. Fantastic job Matt!
Tbh I think the worst revell kit is the 1/72 p51D mustang with the cookie decals...wrong in all aspects I know it's old Tooling but it looks nothing like a mustang.
I really don't uderstand why are you buying and making all these poor old WWII fighter kits when there is plenty of new nice kits on the market. Maybe you can pick some more interesing objects as vintage lover?
a lot of these kits were already in my stash, perhaps I went through a bit of a "phase" with clearing my stash out and building some of the not-so-good kits? That being said, I uploaded a video on the new 2023 Hurricane from Revell only 3 weeks ago - so it isn't all old kits at the moment Edit: forgot to mention that some of these kits and videos take a long time to create, so although they may be released at similar times, they may have been started months or even years apart
@@ModelMinutes I really like vintage models however another spitfire/hurricane/mustang/fw190/me109 is kind of boring. I thin there is plenty of vintage Airfix, Heller od Revell to discover
im currently making this modell, when i bought it i did knew about the age. but that the prop is facing the wrong way is just insane. i had to drill the other side and even needed a nail as an axle. in the end i just thought: just build it as it is and dont spend more on extra details. im surely gonna get a better version from another company in the future. and i do like to make retro kits, but mostly because you can modify a ton on them and that is fun
Yea... by today's standards it is a very lacking kit, but for $13 it's not bad at all! like you said perfect for practicing new stuff, and if you don't look at it too closely, it actually looks like a nice kit.
I enjoyed your build and review. You seem to be very objective in your assessment and I think that's very helpful. I've been caught out by Revell with a 1:72 Messerschmitt Bf109G, which needed a lot of work to produce a decent model. I think that was also an old kit dressed up as something new. It's put me off Revell's aircraft kits as a result.
Nice build, the classic-ness really shows through with this old kit 😅 but well done with the build, cant wait to get around to mine Coincidentally whilst watching this video, noticed the Tamiya Fw190D is also from JG301
I agree. The assembly took minutes, but the enjoyment stopped abruptly when I tried to paint it. Nothing sticks to it. Literally nothing. Haven't thrown it away yet. Enjoying other builds. Like Airfix's new Aston Martin. And not forgetting the Bond Bug (bought three of them!). Oh, and I ordered your three books and became a Patreon last night. Keep going, brother!
Great job! That is one of my biggest gripes, buying what I think is a relatively new kit, only to find its from a mold that is 50 years old! I've built my share, just have to make some fun out of it! 😅👍
The end result looks splendid especially on the stand. There must be some profit in still producing the kit for Revell and the shops that sell it but as you say there is no indication that it is an (very) old kit. Airfix produce relatively complex kits like the SR-N1 and Bond Bug for not much more than the Ta152, label them as Classic and sell tons of them. Decent, strong stands would be a nice option as it would certainly help with display space.
Yes, good points. I have no issues with companies selling old toolings, when they are clearly labelled as such, but making money off of a deceptive practice of putting old toolings in the same kind of boxes as newer ones just doesn't sit right with me
Good job making something decent out of a sow's ear of a model kit! Looking at the parts and how they build up that's a rough and simple kit. It's like stepping back to some of the 1960's Airfix kits! Not one I'm going to be getting. Thank you for 'taking one for the team' and building it for us!
I like the way the plane came out, maybe a little putty would help some fit, and I would have painted red and yellow bands, I hate band decals, they never work for me! The model build feels like an Airfix build, only with better fit, but less details.
I built this one in 2018. The decals were the best part as you said. Revell actually did label some 1:32 planes as 'Classics.' These were the 1960s Spitfire Mk.I (which I have, fully knowing what was I getting into), Bf 109'F' (a G-6 with F decals), and the Hurricane Mk.I (a Mk.II where you have to remove the bumps of the cannons on the wings).
The 1/32 Hurricane started life back in 1971 as a Mk I. Then in the 1980s Revell modified the mould to represent (sort of) a Mk IIc by adding the cannon and those fairings on the wings but without removing the completely different access panels for the Mk 1's 8 Browning machine guns, they simply slapped the fairings on top of them! There was also a new spinner, which was good as the attempt at the first style of Rotol spinner in the original kit was awful. They didn't bother with any of the other differences between the two marks, notably the Mk II's longer nose. In 2009, they reissued this hybrid in their Classic range as a Mk I.
Well done on making a very good plane out of this ancient kit. Its usual revell. You have no idea what will be in the box. I have the Dragon one in my stash plus the Ta152C.
Display stands: Airfix sold bags of a number of display stands in different sizes some years ago, and Dogfight Doubles stands in a box of a few. I keep all my stands, so I'm still occasionally using an 'M' - shaped swivelly stand from an old Matchbox kit when I feel like it. Got an old Revell 1960s SE5a kit with a round base and a transfer set for a Sopwith Camel recently, so somebody is collecting them and putting them in kits for re-sale.
Revell had problems with their older kits beyond few parts, etc. Their Morane-Saulnier 'N' monoplane WWI fighter was billed as a particular 'N' type, sold with Russian Imperial markings, and was actually a different type 'N'bis, sold only to the Russians, of different shape. Revell keep re-releasing this over the decades as a French air force 'N', which it is not. People have tried to re-work this kit to represent a standard 'N' type, extending the fuselage, etc. but all they really need is to get Russian Imperial transfers. The original release was more correct than all of the subsequent ones.
As bad as this kit seems now, you have to appreciate how FROG was taking on subjects that nobody else was interested in. There wasn’t the same amount of interest in Luftwaffe subjects back then, nor the reference material, and every German aircraft was Black-green/dark green splinter camo over light blue. RLM numbers? What are those. So credit to FROG for a kit that was ahead of its time really.
Whilst I don't doubt that it was an interesting subject and a popular kit at the time, I'm not sure they were ahead of their time - had this kit featured a full cockpit, rivet details and recessed panel lines (like the ones that Tamiya had been producing back in the early 70's) then perhaps it would have been considered an advanced model. If anything, it seems quite typical of that era in the design, features and level of detail
I honestly don't think it's that bad of a kit, especialy compared to something like the AML Siebel Si 202 or PM Models Spitfire. The parts fit well and while the detail is lacking, even for a kit that costs that little, it's a great little kit for beginners in my opinion.
Hi. This is typical Revell practice, its a bit of a liberty really. The amount of money that have made over the years you would think that they could produce a new mould. I built this kit decades ago and even then it was a poor kit. But its always been cheap.
If you think that's bad try the 1/72 Airfix Fieseler storch it's horrendously bad. I think your152 came out looking good to be fair,just needs a swastika to finish it off.
The kit is 1/72 scale exactly how detailed can anyone expect it to be? I think the builder's expectations for such a small kit are too demanding. The paintwork to the prop blades looks atrocious. Much better to spray it.
compared to other model kits that also exist in 1/72 scale? It could be a lot more detailed . . . Edit: - I've built 1/144 scale kits which have waaaaay more detail than this one
I don't see how the Prop could possibly be backwards - it isn't like the orientation of the blades could possibly change based on which way it faces. Is it because of how it connects to the spinner?
The orientation of the blades does change, if you put the the prop in as per the instructions then the engine would “push” the air forwards and the plane would move backwards, which is wrong. But that is the way the kit was designed. So to fix this you have to flip the prop round but now it doesn’t have the mounting hole in the right place
The instructions are correct and this model appears to have been assembled as per the instructions. Engine rotating anticlockwise when viewed from the front with the straighter part of the blade leading.
The model has not been built as per the instructions - i flipped the prop so that it would be the right way round, therefore the instructions are indeed wrong (as is the design of the prop) @@Reactordrone
An old kit with lots of inaccuracies but it's ok as a nostalgia build and a placeholder until you can find the Aoshima or Dragon kits. The short fuselage bands are a pain since, to get the correct angle on them, the gap is at the top and very obvious.
I am currently building the 1970s version of this kit. I knew it looked awfully familiar but it hit me at the end when I saw the same box art. I have to admit, the older variant is slightly better but still with similar issues just not as bad. I did have some pretty big gaps between the wings but some putty easily dealt with it. I have yet to paint it but the Frog version also included a model stand with the kit where the plastic on this Revell version still has the softer plastic for the small slot for the stand. It’s unfortunate because the stand is actually alright. Love seeing these videos. For the time, it is really good but not up to modern standards.
I would love more accessible options for display stands, but manufacturers oughts to include some better pilot figures in their kit.😒 A pilot not interacting with the controls, is not a pilot. Worse still is that most figures have their hands in positions to 'enjoy themselves'.😅 Zvezda's 1/72 Pe-2 has some good pilot and aircrew figures. Can't wait to build that one! Edit: I forgot to mention all the pilots incapable of looking ahead or through the gunsight.
So pleased you are flying your builds as that’s where they should be!! Also very pleased you mentioned your shoddy build…..it’s as if you just didn’t have the interest! Boy it’s poor in parts. Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it. Bob England
@@ModelMinutes lol right back at ya! I was sure you knew…….well I shall go back and look again to recall however the wings to body looked rather iffy, the painting of the prop spinner was below par. I shall get back to you on other stuff.
@@ModelMinutes i ask myself the same question. In this case. I believe the model community wants interesting kits to build at an affordable price point. New tooling costs a great deal of money (even in China). I believe the community wants a challenge when building a model. These kind of kits offer that. I believe a portion of the community loves the nostalgia of building an old kit that they may have first built in their youth. I built the USS Arizona Revell kit. It was very old tooling. Poor detail and lots of flash. I researched the proper colors ( I went to Peral Harbor and confirmed the color scheme ). It was a tough build for my skill level. In the end, I have never been more satisfied. I’m happy Revell still puts out these old kits. I wish they would update or at least repair the tooling. I have worked in the plastics injection molding industry for 34 years. So I understand the challenges of these old tools. With all that said. The title of the video begged for a response. I respect your opinion and like your videos. Sorry if you don’t agree. It’s ok not to agree. Opinions are not right or wrong. They just are opinions.
@@briantracy5529 that’s not what I was replying to, people often use the word “assembler” to put down other members of the modelling community, thus gatekeeping
@@ModelMinutes I’m not some people. I thought assembler is a level. Assembler to modeler is a natural progression. Something to strive for. I frame things positive in my mind. I Guess others don’t do that.
Only kit I've really had that was TRULY unbuildable was the Glencoe BTR....PT-76, I forget which one, but there wasn't even a single part worth saving for a scratch build.
For me a wheels up prop job looks odd on a stand with a static prop, also i hate having pilots in .. hence i always have wheels down .. but that's just me .. ( also Cats and models on stands don't mix very well :)
haha - very true! I tend to use the static prop to show off the part that was included in the kit, but adding a spinning prop effect is something i could do in the future
I had this way back when it first came out by FROG....it was not bad for the day. You did a very good job on what has become an ancient kit. I agree with you that Revell should indicate it is not a recent molding. Hint to manufactures...we need a new kit of this aircraft.
Thanks! Yes, a new tooling would be nice
There are TONS of nice FW kits out there.
@@richsmith7200 that’s like saying there are loads of spitfires… when we are only referring to one specific variant which doesn’t have massive representation in 1:72 (and the kits that are available are either dated and clunky like this one, or much more expensive and hard to source)
Revell indicate age by price but it would be nice to have the mould tooling date on the packet.
@@Reactordrone lol what? That’s not true. The price seems to relate to the amount of plastic that is inside the kit, it just so happens that the old toolings have less parts.
For example, the F117 is older than their p47 but it costs more because it’s bigger…? Not because it’s “newer”
May be a bad kit but you did it amazingly !
Thanks very much :D
The Revell ta-152 is a disaster kit with no detail cockpit but just a seat for the pilot someone needs to make a better new 1/72 Ta-152 with a nice detail cockpit great modelling. Please review and build a Revell Ju-88A-1 or Ju-88C-1.
thanks for the suggestion!
Nicely done - proof you can polish a turd @model Minutes, big shame Revell are still doing this.
yes, i agree, i wish they were at least honest with the toolings
I built this kit a little while ago. Impulse bought it with another order since it was only $10. The price should’ve been the first warning. Pretty below average as far as kits go, but I guess that’s to be expected for sprue that was manufactured in 1970. Should’ve checked Scalemates
Yes, companies not putting tooling dates on their boxes is a bit shady
You've done a brilliant job on a poor kit, it looks great. Personally I think The Ta152 would make a excellent model for Mr. Airfix to do his magic and create a nice new tooled version of it for us all..
I didn’t bother glueing the pilot or seat into mine. I simply built the fuselage without them, and glued the canopy into place with plastic cement (unusually, there was not much frosting). When I get around to painting it, I’ll paint over the canopy and experiment with solid ‘glass window’ paint effects. For me, if there’s no interior detail to show, there’s no point in leaving the canopy clear.
an interesting idea!
When I built my Corsair, I didn't even bother adding the cockpit at all. Too much time and I don't care about internal detail.
Revell don't care about the customer and it's owners being that their an investment company are only interested in profits and the bottom line. I don't see them changing their practices unless someone else takes the helm
Thanks for sharing your thoughts :D
I like how the stand has that slight turn/bank angle. Don't think i would have put more time into weathering it either. Kudos for getting it done well enough where it is a consideration if needing to work on panel lining stc. 👍☕🐢
Thanks 👍 yes, this design of stand from thingiverse has the joint on the top which allows it to pivot which is nice
1968 tooling date doesn't surprise me. The cockpit 'detail', and I use the word quite wrongly, reminds me of the kits I made in the 1970s. The propeller cockup in the instructions is a rookie error they really should have caught before the kit was released. As well as the lack of mention of a tooling date Matt mentioned, calling this a Level 3 is also misleading IMHO.. it implies the kit - which I think is barely a Scale 1 - is far more complicated than it actually is. I suspect the Level 3 rating is an attempt to make it look more reasonably priced. Way beyond time I think that the big manufacturers like Airfix, Revell, Tamiya, etc. agreed an industry standard for each scale.
It's not just the instructions, the prop has the mounting point for the axle on the wrong side, so it was designed wrong. I bet they realised and just stuck to their guns "well, it's done now, we just won't tell people how to fix it"
Tbh, it's a pretty weird-looking plane. It's an Fw190, but with the exhaust pipes from a Bf109, and sort of awkwardly stretched out into this weird long shape. It's like it had a growth spurt and no longer fits into its old clothes. You did a good job with what you got though! I'm really enjoying these builds of old, bad kits! Good job calling out the deceptive marketing of repackaging such old toolings in new boxes without any indications towards their tooling dates, if you and other modelmakers call it out enough maybe you can get them to be more honest about it! Loving all of your 3D-printed trinkets, by the way. They look like they really come in handy!
Thanks! Yes, i'm hoping that as a community we can encourage companies to make a change for the better
@@ModelMinutes Vive la revolution!
lol fingers crossed
@@stuff31
I’m not sure if this will work for you. I use Vallejo airbrush thinner for all my airbrushing needs in 2 drops of paint for one drop of Vallejo thinner(2:1). I get pretty convincing results when making something look hand applied in the field. However, I use a Pasche Talon airbrush at around 20 psi. It has worked for Vallejo and Tamiya acrylic paints very well. I don’t want any shoutout or anything if it works for you and you show it in your next video. I just hope it works for you and others.
Thanks for the tip!
Although it was not the best kit to make. I agree with what has already been said. You did a really great job on this kit. Keep up the great work Model Minutes
Thank you very much!
Now that is one gorgeous looking plane - I love these stunning luftwaffe aircraft designs, probably why my ceiling and shelves are full of them! 😂 If this was my ta152 i'd feel very proud like I do about my FW190D-9 JV44. Fantastic job Matt!
Many thanks!
Stay clear of Revel's 1/32 harrier. It's cheap but awfull
that's a shame
It turned out OK. Ive the same kit have built half of it . Think it should be a 4 pound kit 👍
I'd settle for £3 lol
Lovely job Matt. Somehow, I have 3 of these kits on the shelf.
Wow, 3! 😂
Well……i still wanna build it
Someday…..
Maybe……
I'm sure you will have the chance, I seriously doubt that Revell will remove it from their range any time soon
@@ModelMinutes thanks
Tbh I think the worst revell kit is the 1/72 p51D mustang with the cookie decals...wrong in all aspects I know it's old Tooling but it looks nothing like a mustang.
I really don't uderstand why are you buying and making all these poor old WWII fighter kits when there is plenty of new nice kits on the market. Maybe you can pick some more interesing objects as vintage lover?
a lot of these kits were already in my stash, perhaps I went through a bit of a "phase" with clearing my stash out and building some of the not-so-good kits?
That being said, I uploaded a video on the new 2023 Hurricane from Revell only 3 weeks ago - so it isn't all old kits at the moment
Edit: forgot to mention that some of these kits and videos take a long time to create, so although they may be released at similar times, they may have been started months or even years apart
@@ModelMinutes I really like vintage models however another spitfire/hurricane/mustang/fw190/me109 is kind of boring. I thin there is plenty of vintage Airfix, Heller od Revell to discover
stay tuned, got some more interesting vintage kits (mostly unboxings at the moment) to come soon
@@pawelpw1161
im currently making this modell, when i bought it i did knew about the age. but that the prop is facing the wrong way is just insane. i had to drill the other side and even needed a nail as an axle. in the end i just thought: just build it as it is and dont spend more on extra details. im surely gonna get a better version from another company in the future. and i do like to make retro kits, but mostly because you can modify a ton on them and that is fun
Over all I think you did a satisfactory job on this plane. It’s a 1/72 scale great for practicing on.
For a not so great kit, you got some pretty great results
Thanks very much 👍
Yea... by today's standards it is a very lacking kit, but for $13 it's not bad at all! like you said perfect for practicing new stuff, and if you don't look at it too closely, it actually looks like a nice kit.
I enjoyed your build and review. You seem to be very objective in your assessment and I think that's very helpful. I've been caught out by Revell with a 1:72 Messerschmitt Bf109G, which needed a lot of work to produce a decent model. I think that was also an old kit dressed up as something new. It's put me off Revell's aircraft kits as a result.
Glad it was helpful! Yes, Revell is a bit of a mixed bag and i find i have to research a kit before i can justify adding it to my stash
Nice build, the classic-ness really shows through with this old kit 😅 but well done with the build, cant wait to get around to mine
Coincidentally whilst watching this video, noticed the Tamiya Fw190D is also from JG301
That is insteresting!
I`ve build this kit a while ago. Not much detail indeed, but still a lot of fun to put together :-)
glad you enjoyed it :D
I agree. The assembly took minutes, but the enjoyment stopped abruptly when I tried to paint it. Nothing sticks to it. Literally nothing. Haven't thrown it away yet. Enjoying other builds. Like Airfix's new Aston Martin. And not forgetting the Bond Bug (bought three of them!).
Oh, and I ordered your three books and became a Patreon last night. Keep going, brother!
Thanks so much for the support! I hope you enjoy the books 😊
Have you put a primer on the plastic? I found that worked for me
Great job! That is one of my biggest gripes, buying what I think is a relatively new kit, only to find its from a mold that is 50 years old! I've built my share, just have to make some fun out of it! 😅👍
I totally agree!
The end result looks splendid especially on the stand. There must be some profit in still producing the kit for Revell and the shops that sell it but as you say there is no indication that it is an (very) old kit. Airfix produce relatively complex kits like the SR-N1 and Bond Bug for not much more than the Ta152, label them as Classic and sell tons of them. Decent, strong stands would be a nice option as it would certainly help with display space.
Yes, good points. I have no issues with companies selling old toolings, when they are clearly labelled as such, but making money off of a deceptive practice of putting old toolings in the same kind of boxes as newer ones just doesn't sit right with me
Good job making something decent out of a sow's ear of a model kit!
Looking at the parts and how they build up that's a rough and simple kit. It's like stepping back to some of the 1960's Airfix kits! Not one I'm going to be getting.
Thank you for 'taking one for the team' and building it for us!
Lol thanks! At least Airfix tells us it is an old kit so we aren't surprised these days
I like the way the plane came out, maybe a little putty would help some fit, and I would have painted red and yellow bands, I hate band decals, they never work for me! The model build feels like an Airfix build, only with better fit, but less details.
The recent kits from Airfix have really good fit, and is considerably better than this one
I built this one in 2018. The decals were the best part as you said. Revell actually did label some 1:32 planes as 'Classics.' These were the 1960s Spitfire Mk.I (which I have, fully knowing what was I getting into), Bf 109'F' (a G-6 with F decals), and the Hurricane Mk.I (a Mk.II where you have to remove the bumps of the cannons on the wings).
Thanks for the info!
The 1/32 Hurricane started life back in 1971 as a Mk I. Then in the 1980s Revell modified the mould to represent (sort of) a Mk IIc by adding the cannon and those fairings on the wings but without removing the completely different access panels for the Mk 1's 8 Browning machine guns, they simply slapped the fairings on top of them! There was also a new spinner, which was good as the attempt at the first style of Rotol spinner in the original kit was awful. They didn't bother with any of the other differences between the two marks, notably the Mk II's longer nose. In 2009, they reissued this hybrid in their Classic range as a Mk I.
Well done on making a very good plane out of this ancient kit. Its usual revell. You have no idea what will be in the box. I have the Dragon one in my stash plus the Ta152C.
Thanks for sharing!
You did a great job with the kit, Matt! Especially considering how crudely it is molded. Maybe I'll have a go at mine some day.
Thanks! Good luck!
Display stands: Airfix sold bags of a number of display stands in different sizes some years ago, and Dogfight Doubles stands in a box of a few.
I keep all my stands, so I'm still occasionally using an 'M' - shaped swivelly stand from an old Matchbox kit when I feel like it.
Got an old Revell 1960s SE5a kit with a round base and a transfer set for a Sopwith Camel recently, so somebody is collecting them and putting them in kits for re-sale.
You can get airfix stands seperately, but they have also made a reappearance in the Fokker Dr1 + Bristol F2B dogifight doubles set
Thanks Matt and well done
Thanks for watching!
Revell had problems with their older kits beyond few parts, etc.
Their Morane-Saulnier 'N' monoplane WWI fighter was billed as a particular 'N' type, sold with Russian Imperial markings, and was actually a different type 'N'bis, sold only to the Russians, of different shape.
Revell keep re-releasing this over the decades as a French air force 'N', which it is not.
People have tried to re-work this kit to represent a standard 'N' type, extending the fuselage, etc. but all they really need is to get Russian Imperial transfers.
The original release was more correct than all of the subsequent ones.
yes, it is a shame that they seem to be fairly inaccurate with their choice of releases
As bad as this kit seems now, you have to appreciate how FROG was taking on subjects that nobody else was interested in. There wasn’t the same amount of interest in Luftwaffe subjects back then, nor the reference material, and every German aircraft was Black-green/dark green splinter camo over light blue. RLM numbers? What are those. So credit to FROG for a kit that was ahead of its time really.
Whilst I don't doubt that it was an interesting subject and a popular kit at the time, I'm not sure they were ahead of their time - had this kit featured a full cockpit, rivet details and recessed panel lines (like the ones that Tamiya had been producing back in the early 70's) then perhaps it would have been considered an advanced model. If anything, it seems quite typical of that era in the design, features and level of detail
I built one a few years ago. Getting the wings right took a lot of cutting and putty. Not very detailed but it turned out nice.
Thanks for the tips!
I honestly don't think it's that bad of a kit, especialy compared to something like the AML Siebel Si 202 or PM Models Spitfire. The parts fit well and while the detail is lacking, even for a kit that costs that little, it's a great little kit for beginners in my opinion.
When you compare it to the rest of the Revell range how does it do?
Hi. This is typical Revell practice, its a bit of a liberty really. The amount of money that have made over the years you would think that they could produce a new mould. I built this kit decades ago and even then it was a poor kit. But its always been cheap.
Thanks for sharing
If you think that's bad try the 1/72 Airfix Fieseler storch it's horrendously bad. I think your152 came out looking good to be fair,just needs a swastika to finish it off.
i've got that one in the stash somewhere, it does look pretty bad
looks great
Thanks!
The kit is 1/72 scale exactly how detailed can anyone expect it to be? I think the builder's expectations for such a small kit are too demanding. The paintwork to the prop blades looks atrocious. Much better to spray it.
compared to other model kits that also exist in 1/72 scale? It could be a lot more detailed . . .
Edit: - I've built 1/144 scale kits which have waaaaay more detail than this one
I don't see how the Prop could possibly
be backwards - it isn't like the orientation of the blades could possibly change based on which way it faces. Is it because of how it connects to the spinner?
The orientation of the blades does change, if you put the the prop in as per the instructions then the engine would “push” the air forwards and the plane would move backwards, which is wrong. But that is the way the kit was designed. So to fix this you have to flip the prop round but now it doesn’t have the mounting hole in the right place
The instructions are correct and this model appears to have been assembled as per the instructions. Engine rotating anticlockwise when viewed from the front with the straighter part of the blade leading.
The model has not been built as per the instructions - i flipped the prop so that it would be the right way round, therefore the instructions are indeed wrong (as is the design of the prop) @@Reactordrone
An old kit with lots of inaccuracies but it's ok as a nostalgia build and a placeholder until you can find the Aoshima or Dragon kits. The short fuselage bands are a pain since, to get the correct angle on them, the gap is at the top and very obvious.
Yeah, those bands were a pain
I am currently building the 1970s version of this kit. I knew it looked awfully familiar but it hit me at the end when I saw the same box art. I have to admit, the older variant is slightly better but still with similar issues just not as bad. I did have some pretty big gaps between the wings but some putty easily dealt with it. I have yet to paint it but the Frog version also included a model stand with the kit where the plastic on this Revell version still has the softer plastic for the small slot for the stand. It’s unfortunate because the stand is actually alright. Love seeing these videos. For the time, it is really good but not up to modern standards.
Thanks for sharing! I wish they would bring the stands back tbh
@@ModelMinutes It would make a world of difference. Have a good evening!
Haha I literally just bought it yesterday and am waiting for it to come .Thanks for the review
I hope my video helped
It is what it is Matt, an old kit with poor detail. Your paint job certainly hids those facts and was a fare better build than your last spitfire
Well, that last spitfire was hand painted using humbrol paints, Vallejo through an airbrush will give very nice results
Good job 🎉🎉 and i had a quistion can you do pre shading with a brush?? Thank you if u reply
Yes, I’ve tried it in the past, but as painting by hand usually involves thicker paints with less soft edges, the effect isn’t quite the same
Thanks!
i like the thin flat long Wings O_o
Funny enough, i considered buying it yesterday. But i chose the legendary bf-109 instead which had much higher rating.😊
Yeah, that is a more recent tooling i think
Great video mate! You should try there 1:72 P51 mustang! I kept the decals and threw the kit away!😂👍
I used the decal’s on the airfix kit instead! 👍👍
lol yeah, i've done one of those and it is pretty bad @@bullseyecooper1739
It's an old FROG kit and you can't polish a turd.
Yeah we know it’s a frog tooling lol
Cool tutorial and paint job.
Thanks 👍
I can't believe I found this! Subscribed and eagerly awaiting more from your channel! - "Challenges are stepping stones to personal development..."
Awesome! Thank you!
Good effort Matt, cheers Liam
Thanks 👍
I would love more accessible options for display stands, but manufacturers oughts to include some better pilot figures in their kit.😒
A pilot not interacting with the controls, is not a pilot. Worse still is that most figures have their hands in positions to 'enjoy themselves'.😅
Zvezda's 1/72 Pe-2 has some good pilot and aircrew figures. Can't wait to build that one!
Edit: I forgot to mention all the pilots incapable of looking ahead or through the gunsight.
lol these are some good points. A lot of the time the pilot is generic and shared across many models so not a good fit
So pleased you are flying your builds as that’s where they should be!! Also very pleased you mentioned your shoddy build…..it’s as if you just didn’t have the interest! Boy it’s poor in parts.
Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it.
Bob
England
what exactly is shoddy?
@@ModelMinutes sorry Matt you have lost me, do mean what does the word mean (I doubt this) or which area/part is shoddy?
@@BobMuir100 lol I know what the word means, I just would like to know the areas I can keep an eye out for improving next time
@@ModelMinutes lol right back at ya! I was sure you knew…….well I shall go back and look again to recall however the wings to body looked rather iffy, the painting of the prop spinner was below par.
I shall get back to you on other stuff.
You have to challenge yourself with poor model kits. That’s how you get better. That’s how you graduate from an assembler to a modeler.
Why do people have to gatekeep this hobby?
@@ModelMinutes i ask myself the same question. In this case. I believe the model community wants interesting kits to build at an affordable price point. New tooling costs a great deal of money (even in China). I believe the community wants a challenge when building a model. These kind of kits offer that. I believe a portion of the community loves the nostalgia of building an old kit that they may have first built in their youth. I built the USS Arizona Revell kit. It was very old tooling. Poor detail and lots of flash. I researched the proper colors ( I went to Peral Harbor and confirmed the color scheme ). It was a tough build for my skill level. In the end, I have never been more satisfied. I’m happy Revell still puts out these old kits. I wish they would update or at least repair the tooling. I have worked in the plastics injection molding industry for 34 years. So I understand the challenges of these old tools. With all that said. The title of the video begged for a response. I respect your opinion and like your videos. Sorry if you don’t agree. It’s ok not to agree. Opinions are not right or wrong. They just are opinions.
@@briantracy5529 that’s not what I was replying to, people often use the word “assembler” to put down other members of the modelling community, thus gatekeeping
@@ModelMinutes I’m not some people. I thought assembler is a level. Assembler to modeler is a natural progression. Something to strive for. I frame things positive in my mind. I Guess others don’t do that.
@@briantracy5529 no, they don’t. It’s more commonly used to segregate the hobby and put other peoples skills and abilities down
Only kit I've really had that was TRULY unbuildable was the Glencoe BTR....PT-76, I forget which one, but there wasn't even a single part worth saving for a scratch build.
Try the SMER SE5….an absolute shocker that I just didn’t bother with in the end
thanks for sharing!
I will build this kit!
Have fun!
I just looked up if you had a video in this like 2 hours ago! 😅
Hope you enjoyed it!
Old Matchbox kit?
Frog
About the tail fin decal ....
which one?
Revell don't include them being a German company. You have to source from aftermarket such as Xtradecal.
For me a wheels up prop job looks odd on a stand with a static prop, also i hate having pilots in .. hence i always have wheels down .. but that's just me .. ( also Cats and models on stands don't mix very well :)
haha - very true! I tend to use the static prop to show off the part that was included in the kit, but adding a spinning prop effect is something i could do in the future
I see Revell, I dont buy. Once was enough!
fair enough
At least they included a pilot's chair . . .