Revell Emils

Military or civil, triplanes, biplanes or monoplanes, props, jets or helicopters...models in here.
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

(Apologies ... this is going to get a bit wordy ....)

Prologue

The Messerschmitt Bf109 is such an iconic aircraft of WW2, and its availability in kit form (in various scales) is so widespread, that it might be surprising to realise that it wasn't always the case.

In 1/72 scale, the first such kit of the E variant (that I'm aware of) was from Revell in 1962. And for ten years or so, it was the only kit of that variant in that scale. I think the next such kit was from Matchbox in 1973, then the original Airfix kit in 1977. Hasegawa also released their original tooling at around this time.

Since that time of course there have been many releases from many companies (quite a few coming from Eastern European manufacturers). These vary in quality but certainly the 21st Century modeller has no shortage of choices for kits of this aircraft in this scale. Throughout the 1960s though, if you wanted to make a Bf109E in 1/72, there was only one choice: the Revell kit. So what is it like?

Well, there are good and bad points, but mostly bad. I strongly suspect that 109 "purists" would argue there are no good points at all, but I want to build the kit so I'll take a slightly more positive approach. First we must ask the question: what exactly is the kit representing? For the vast majority of its considerable production run, Revell never claimed anything other than "a 109E". However, as there are clearly cannon mounted in the wings, it must be at least an E-3. The canopy is late-style which points to an E-4 or later, although the later canopy was often retrofitted to earlier marks so that isn't conclusive. The kit in its original form had no provision for carrying a bomb or drop tank, so an E-7 is unlikely. It has no "tropical" features so it seems safe enough to just call it an E-4. This indeed is how Revell finally chose to "officially" describe it when they released it once again in 2010 (!). (More on that in a moment.) So if we call it an E-4, how well does it fit that pattern? In general outline and dimensions I think it's "close enough". It sure isn't perfect or even close to it, but IMO there aren't any it's-too-bad-to-ignore dimensional issues. (FWIW, there are lots of Bf109E plans out there in various scales, and it would be asking too much for them all to agree on all points. For my own convenience I'll be basing all of my comments on the plans provided in the Kagero "TopDrawings" booklet, #7004.)

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the end of the "good points". From here it rapidly goes downhill. The first thing you'll notice is that all of the exterior surfaces are studded with rivets (not in itself unusual for a '60s-era kit). That would be merely annoying if they accurately portrayed the various panel lines on the aircraft, but they don't; they're not even close. Again, as is typical for a kit of this vintage, the interior is largely non-existent, and what they do provide (the seat) isn't even close to accurate. The wheels are flat discs with vaguely-detailed hubs, and something seems to have gone wrong with the basic undercarriage measurements, so that the wheel-well outlines are not positioned correctly (although otherwise they're not too bad; of course there is no interior to the wells, and the legs are represented in a very basic form). Exterior details like the exhausts, air intakes and machine-gun troughs on the nose are pretty woeful. The propeller and spinner aren't dreadful but the blades are a little too small. The three-part canopy is engineered so that the centre section can be posed open, which is a nice feature in theory, but the parts are rather thick and not very convincing unfortunately (and with no interior, why would you want it visible any way?). For some reason Revell decided that the radio mast was positioned behind the canopy, not right on top of it. Remarkably tiny pieces are included for the pitot tube and what are, I think, the counter-balance weights for the elevators? (I am probably getting my aircraft terminology mixed up, but I hope you know what I mean.) I'm not sure if these tiny parts are accurately shaped; it just seems surprising to see them here at all, when so much else was ignored or otherwise made quite inaccurate.

This kit has had rather a strange history. When it was the only game in town there was probably no particular incentive to make "improvements", yet a very early change appears to have been exchanging the three-piece canopy for a single-piece item. This improved the looks of the canopy a little bit. Sometime in the '70s -- surely after the competitors began arriving -- Revell retooled the kit further to add a decidedly non-optional fuel tank or bomb. This retooling involved adding an extremely unconvincing lump to the bottom of the wing to serve as an attachment point, as well as sealing over the slot for the stand (no longer included). It must have been around this time that the parts were re-arranged on new runners. A new mini-sprue was provided with the bomb/drop tank parts. The kit could still be considered an E-4, since many of these were indeed fitted with the attachment points necessary to carry either the bomb cradle or the drop tank cradle. You could also consider it an E-7, where the attachments were always present. Minor other modifications in the moulds also appear to have been made at this time, the most significant of which is removing the rear halves of the air intakes from the underside of the wings and attaching them to the separate front halves. This was probably to make the intakes look like a single unit as opposed to an obvious two-part split in the original kit (I imagine it would need a lot of filler); there would also be a benefit of removing two big lumps of plastic from the wing parts, which would have been prone to sink-holes. (Certainly my 1962 kit has them!) Unfortunately the now single-piece intakes look no more convincing than they did before, which is to say, not at all.

Despite these modifications surely no-one was fooled; all of the contemporary kits must have appeared quite superior to the Revell, even with their own various faults; I don't believe that it could be fairly said that the Revell kit was superior to any of them in any respect. The Matchbox kit was quite basic but very accurate in outline, while the Airfix kit was IMO very good indeed (and not itself bettered until the '90s). The original Hasegawa had some shape issues but it was IMO still a better representation than the Revell. From "only game in town" the Revell kit quickly descended to "worst of the lot" where, sad to say, it pretty much still resides. This makes their decision to re-issue it in 2010 frankly astonishing (even more so when you consider that they presumably have ownership of the MB moulds). The plastic in that re-issue raises some questions: they have resurrected the 3-piece canopy of the original (although they've added a pin mark right in the middle of the rear piece that never used to be there!) and reverted to a runner layout more similar (but not identical) to the original. The air intakes are once again in two parts, with the rear halves attached to the wing as in the original kit; but the lump serving as bomb carriage (and the sealed-over slot for the stand) are as per the reworked moulds! There seems to have been some curious mixing-and-matching going on, but I simply can't work out why they bothered at all? Surely the effort would have been better spent in either producing a new tooling to truly compete with with the various excellent kits, or they could have taken an easier approach and simply placed someone else's plastic in a Revell box; the Hasegawa mould would seem an obvious choice, given that many of that manufacturer's other kits have been likewise treated. The Hasegawa '90s-era 109E is not the best possible kit, but I don't think it's particularly bad and is certainly miles ahead of Revell's kit in every respect.
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

With the kit history out of the way, what are we going to do with it? I have three Revell 109E kits in my stash: a 1962 original, a 1984 polybag re-issue, and the 2010 Frankenstein's Monster issue. I have different plans in mind for the latter, so I'll just concentrate on the first two this time around for a simultaneous build. One of the advantages of working with such a poor kit IMO is that you are really free to experiment. If what you try for doesn't work out, well, you haven't lost much have you? On the other hand if you succeed you get the glory for getting a silk purse from a sow's ear! Furthermore the Revell kit, having been in production for so many years, is readily available on the second-hand market and not at all expensive. So it's time to start hacking!

The 1962 kit (H-612)

First kit of the pair is, as mentioned previously, an original issue from 1962. It comes in a cute wee box just large enough to hold the contents, which are supplied in a rather glorious bright blue plastic, very crisply moulded (as one might expect). There's a rather impressive stand (which I won't be using) and decidely less-impressive decals, which depict an aircraft that seems to be completely fictional -- the kit makes no specific claims. Test fitting of various pieces indicates that the overall fit is pretty good.

Third-party manufacturers have, not surprisingly, not fallen over themselves in making improvements specifically for this kit, but the worst components are the detail parts which are pretty generic in and of themselves, and there is no shortage of improvement parts for those. So I have a replacement vacform canopy from Pavla (whether it will fit this fuselage is yet to be determined!) with suitable Montex masks, lovely turned brass gun barrels from Master, resin wheels from Barracuda, resin seat from Loon (there are two in the set, so the other will be used with the other kit), resin prop and spinner parts from AML (which provides options for a couple of different spinner types as used on different variants), resin tail wheel and control stick parts from Quickboost (2 and 3 parts provided respectively, so again will also be used with the other kit), and some "generic" PE improvements for some exterior panels and the cockpit interior from Airwaves and NH Detail. The latter is a big disappointment - it is a set of fuel cap covers for various aircraft types, including the early 109 types. The exact number you will need will vary according to whatever plans you go by -- or even if you just stick with the rather sketchy details provided with the PE set -- but no matter how you count it you will need more than the four that are provided! I think that the set is just a rip-off, at least for the purpose of using it with this aircraft type. I shall make my own fuel caps, I think. I'm not entirely sure that I'll be using the "exterior" Airwaves PE set either -- not because it's necessarily bad, I'm just not sure it's required here. The good news is that they seem to provide sufficient parts to treat two kits, so if I do decide to use it, then it will also be used on the other kit. The Airwaves interior set is marketed as "generic" (although I'd bet good money it was scaled specifically for the 1977 Airfix kit) so hopefully will not cause problems here.

For markings I have chosen those for a Bf109E-1 from an "EagleCals" sheet: "Graf & Grislawski Part 3", i.e., (some of) the aircraft flown by those two pilots. In fact all of the options on this sheet are for Herr Graf. The specific aircraft is "Black 17" in a fairly "traditional" BoB scheme. Now, as noted above, the kit does not represent an E-1 at all, because of the presence of the bulges under the wings. This means additional conversion work will be required (and the wing cannon parts from the Master set will not be required), but I don't anticipate that it will be anything particularly difficult, especially in light of everything else that will be going on!

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

The 1984 kit (4149)

The second kit is a 1984 issue and the parts have undergone the modifications as noted previously. The bright blue plastic has been replaced by a dull light grey, which seems quite a bit softer. Unsurprisingly there is a fair amount of flash and the overall definitions are a bit "soft", but since most of that consists of the rivet detail which I will be sanding off any way, I'm not overly concerned. The markings are different from the original kit but still appear to be equally generic. The "extras" I'll be using are much the same as for the other kit; I'm using a Rob Taurus vacform canopy (again, whether it will actually fit here has yet to be proven!) although I don't currently have appropriate masks -- I still need to source those. Instead of the Master replacement guns set I decided to try the equivalent Aber set, which also includes a pitot tube. Replacement wheels are from Aires (which include wheel masks) for this build.

Markings for this kit will be sourced from the Kagero "TopDrawings" book, which supply them in 1/32 and 1/48 scale as well as 1/72. This booklet also happens to come with yet more barrels from Master (again in the three scales)! I'll save those for later. What is not included are any nationality markings or stencils of any kind -- only the markings unique to the specific vehicle. I have a set of stencils from Propagteam, crosses from a Techmod sheet and swastikas from an Xtradecal sheet. Easy. Not so easy will be the paint scheme itself which seems a little complex, but that's part of the challenge isn't it? The aircraft is an E-7 ("Black 10", as depicted on the cover), complete with drop tank, so not quite so much conversion work required. The horrible lump under the wings protending to be the cradle for the tank has to go, though. I'll steal a replacement part from one of the several Airfix kits I have in the stash.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Here are some specific comparisons of the differences in the kits:

Image

Image

Image
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
User avatar
Eric Mc
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 4795
Joined: May 3rd, 2011, 8:27 am
Location: Farnborough, Hants

Re: Revell Emils

Post by Eric Mc »

Absolutely the spirit of a CBK. I built one of these in the early 70s and bought another one more recently. However, I gave it away to a youngster for him to practice his model building skills on.
User avatar
Stuart
Raider of the Lost Ark Royal
Posts: 19204
Joined: February 25th, 2013, 4:55 pm
Location: Forever England
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by Stuart »

Wow - a wordy (as you said) but excellent post with some really interesting history - I can't belive they re-released this kit in 2010... actually seeing some of the old tool stuff that airfix has re-boxed in the past few years yes I can.

So you have two nice old kit, and a mountian of AM which is probably worth three times the cost of the kit? I like your style BWP - looking forward to seeing it all come together!

Cheers

Stuart
Stuart Templeton I may not be good but I'm slow...

My Blog: https://stuartsscalemodels.blogspot.com/
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

Thanks for the encouragement lads ... personally I really don't care much about the costs of kits ... I mean either I can afford it, or I can't. I know some people don't like to pair cheap kits with expensive after-market but my attitude is, when I build a kit, I want it to look as good as I can make it. I'll scratch-build bits if I have to, but I prefer the simplicity of just adding something ready-made ... so long as it looks right! And often it's the older, nastier kits that will benefit more from good after-market stuff any way!

These will stretch my skills (such as they are) since after removing the multitude of rivets the bare fuselage will need to be scribed to some degree, and scribing is not something I've ever done much of before. So that will be fun (?).
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
Gadfly
Active Participant
Posts: 652
Joined: July 15th, 2015, 12:44 pm

Re: Revell Emils

Post by Gadfly »

Hi,

Man that is aftermarket heaven... With an interesting choice of Base kit very 'Yin Yang'..

Interestingly on the 1980's version the box art and decal placement guide feature a 'Black 1' but the decals are not on the sheet?????

Have fun and Bon Chance...

Cheers
GF
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

Heh ... well-spotted Gadfly ... hadn't noticed that!
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
User avatar
IvanV22
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 1205
Joined: January 24th, 2012, 9:36 am
Location: Norway

Re: Revell Emils

Post by IvanV22 »

Great reading!!
Best from Ivan
User avatar
Zee28
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 2834
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 10:21 pm
Location: South London

Re: Revell Emils

Post by Zee28 »

Looking forward to this BWP, I don't think I've ever seen so much After Market thrown at a Classic Kit before! I've never had the guts to wrestle with AM stuff, I'm strictly OOB so this will be interesting to me, new territory!

Zee28
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

Not much progress to report. All rivets removed from both kits. The cannon bulges have been sanded flat on the E-1. Unfortunately the plastic is a little brittle and the lower wing part has broken in a couple of places because of the stress I was putting on it. Fortunately they were clean breaks and easily repaired, and I glued some bits of plastic card on the other side to act as reinforcement.

I thought to make a start on scribing some panel lines and I'm afraid I just can't get the hang of it. I made some tentative scratchings which didn't look good at all so I filled them and now I'm thinking that maybe I'll put that in the "too hard" basket for now. I don't think I'll be wildly upset if I finish the kits with no panel lines .... That being wasted time and effort, I decided to work on the cockpit. The Airwaves PE is pretty straight-forward, but it really just adds detail to what's already there. Well, of course, for this kit, there isn't anything there, so I need to scratch some basic details - floor, back seat "rest", etc. I pulled out the relevant part from the Airfix 109E kit (the new tool version) to get an idea of sizes, shapes and angles I need to replicate in plastic card. It's pretty straight-forward I think.

I also have to think about what I'm going to do about the main wheel wells. Obviously they need to be boxed in, just a matter of working out the best way to do that.
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
User avatar
SJPONeill
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3518
Joined: May 1st, 2011, 12:01 am
Location: Near the Spiral, NZ.
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by SJPONeill »

A great read to this point, Bruce...I remember buying the original kit from the bookshop in Waikouaiti in 1974 and building it OOB...will be following your project with great interest...
Please critique my posts honestly i.e. say what you think so I can learn and improve...
The World According To Me
User avatar
Eric Mc
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 4795
Joined: May 3rd, 2011, 8:27 am
Location: Farnborough, Hants

Re: Revell Emils

Post by Eric Mc »

I liked the fact that the cockpit canopy could hinge sideways - like on the real aircraft.
User avatar
BWP
Got in under the wire
Posts: 774
Joined: April 28th, 2011, 2:23 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Revell Emils

Post by BWP »

Sluggish progress over the last few days, but here's a couple of photos.

I've finished scratch-building the E-1 cockpit. It's very rough but should be more than adequate once the canopy is on. Some work will be needed to fill in a couple of obvious gaps but that should not present any problems.

Image

Image

What WILL present a problem is the canopy. As feared, the Pavla vac-form will not fit this kit, at all. Neither will the canopy from any other 109E kit, for the very simple reason that this area is where Revell got the dimensions seriously wrong. The cockpit itself is in the wrong place in the fuselage -- it sits too far forward by several mm -- but I can live with that (mostly because there isn't much I can do about it!). More challenging is the fact that the fuselage is too wide and the cockpit area is too large -- hence the reason no canopy from a more accurate kit (i.e., all of them) will fit. For the E-7, I'll just not use an after-market canopy and revert to (one of) the supplied kit canopies instead -- I'll decide later whether I want to use the one that can open or not. The kit canopy is a later "flat roof" type, though, not the "round roof" version as fitted to the early marks. Now, I know that many early aircraft were retro-fitted with the late canopy, so it would not be the most inaccurate thing in the world to use the kit part(s) -- but so far as I can tell, that would not be appropriate for the particular aircraft that I want to represent, nor would it fulfill my "vision" of what I want this kit to be. Hmm.

My current thinking -- definitely subject to possible change! -- is that I can "widen" the Pavla canopy without too much issue (since it's quite flexible). That might lower the profile a little but I can ignore that. I can then fill in the gaps around the canopy with Milliput. Hopefully the end result won't look too strange. Well, I guess we'll find out.

For anyone with one of these in their stash to build, though, I would definitely say: you need to use the kit canopy, or be prepared to make your own.
Bruce Probst
Melbourne, Australia
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
My Model Profile
User avatar
DazDaMan
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 5643
Joined: March 7th, 2012, 3:45 pm
Location: Penicuik

Re: Revell Emils

Post by DazDaMan »

Fascinating stuff.
Daren

Half-assed Spitfire builder!
Post Reply

Return to “Aviation Modelling”