What Revell Monogram Aircraft Kit Re-Issues to Avoid?

I built the typhoon years ago and have another one somewhere around here. It build into a fairly decent kit and with a little additional detail turns out well. There was another one issued some years ago with  a full interior but I can't recall who the manufacturer was. From what can be seen after the kit is built I would'nt try for a full interior.

I have two in the stash and one is up for my next RAF 1/48 build. It is a nice little kit, that could use some dressing up in the cockpit, but otherwise holds up very nicely for its age. Ultracast and Squadron make some nice resin accesories to make it shine.

There is also a few Hasegawa kits, the car door and bubbletop versions, but at more than twice the price.

DoogsATX

Brad - yep, I'm 30, so for me any first or second generation kits just blend together as Monogram kits. It's interesting that the Kingfisher's included in the same "simple and lacking detail" category as the SBD, since that's one of my three all-time favorite Monogram kits, alongside the P-47 and 72nd B-52.

As I mentioned a few posts above, a wave of Kingfisher nostalgia actually spurred me to bid for one on eBay. Since my scratchbuilding skills are non-existent, I think I may try to track down some of the various Cutting Edge resin kits for it. Already got an idea in my head for a diorama of it being hoisted onto a catapult launcher. Which would most certainly involve developing some of those scratching skills.

Lone Star has the corrected floats (early and late), as well as cowling and interior for about one fourth the price of Cutting Edge! They also have a 1/48th catapault

gary

squeakie

 

 

Lone Star has the corrected floats (early and late), as well as cowling and interior for about one fourth the price of Cutting Edge! They also have a 1/48th catapault

gary

Thank Gary - didn't even know Lone Star existed! Of course, there's a Lone Star everything, so it makes sense. That catapult looks amazing. Pricey, but amazing. 

Well, an eBay nostalgiafest this weekend nabbed me a Monogram P-47 and Kingfisher. Both the exact same boxings I built when I was growing up. I'm 99% certain the P-47 still exists at my parents' house, so it'll be fun to do a comparison.

Cbax1234

The P-61 is a bear of a build from what I hear. 

Biggest issue with the Widow is the canopy fit.  It definately needs a bit of filling and shimming here & there, and the wing/boom joints will require some attention too...  But it's definately a buildable kit, and if you got two of them, you're golden for building one with the cowl flaps closed, and another with them open, with a little minor surgery... Also, the flaps are molded with the hinges in the down position, which is incorrect for anything but take-off and landing... The flaps were always raised when taxiing...

And for what? 16-18 bucks?  Can't beat that price with a stick... And there's a plethora of AM parts out there for that kit as well, so there's no real reason to worry about the few shortcomings on the RM kit...  I used the R-2800 in that kit to cast about a dozen copies for future use in other aircraft equipped with it as well... Same goes for te figures included.. I cast a bunch of them as well, especially the guy with no shirt...

I love all of the original Mongram and the current Revell/Monogram kits.

Here is a re-pop P40B

and I won this original F7F Tigercat off of ebay for $5

I'm looking to bid on a kingfisher and a Fokker D7 as well

Hans von Hammer

 

Cbax1234:

 

The P-61 is a bear of a build from what I hear. 

 

 

Biggest issue with the Widow is the canopy fit.  It definately needs a bit of filling and shimming here & there, and the wing/boom joints will require some attention too...  But it's definately a buildable kit,

As I recall, the old Aurora P-61 kit was once highly sought after by builders as the only kit of the night fighter.

Monogram issued their P-61 and received rave reviews at the time.

Was the Aurora kit so bad at that time that builders ignored the Monogram kit faults?

I've seen a few pics of the old Aurora 61, built up....looks AWFUL!!!! (they weren't very well built, so that helps take away from them though)

For me, the Monogram -61 is weird because it has a built-in frustration factor. It's certainly a better kit in terms of fit issues than a LOT of current stuff out of eastern Europe. And it has really first rate interiors and gobs of detail, for a mainstream hobbyshop type kit, sitting on it's shelf next to a bunch of cabooses. And then with all that, the center pod just won't go together right. And you don't find this out until you've built up all the crew areas. But I'm sure if I built one now, I'd figure out how to get it to work.

It's an interesting subject as a prototype. They had a short wartime service life, in smallish numbers. After spending three years coaxing life out of a batch of increasingly tired airplanes, when my Father-in-Law got his in late 1944, the rule was pretty much- break it, get a new one. His pilots managed to break three in six months, once with him along.

bondoman

 when my Father-in-Law got his in late 1944, the rule was pretty much- break it, get a new one. His pilots managed to break three in six months, once with him along.

What happened, landing gear collapse?

First one was a muddy field landing and the gear failed.

Second one was a 37mm cannon shell. He was along on that one. The shell killed the pilot, and the radar guy in back went into shock. He couldn't get back to the guy because of the turret, so he would not obey orders to bail out, instead crawled up to the pilots seat and moved him, flew the rest of mission and back. Landed belly up because the throttle quadrant was destroyed and the engines were stuck at attack speed.

Third one hydraulic system failed from a golden bb hit, and landed gear up.

He has a Monogram 1/48 Widow on his mantle, built by yours truly, next to a Beaufighter in USAAF colors.

I don't think I can say the Monogram P-61 is a bear to build.  It goes together very nicely but I will agree that, in order to do so, one needs to take a LOT of care and patience while doing so.  I've build maybe seven of their P-61s and with each one, I learn something new.

But yes, I know where the stumbling blocks are on this kit.  However, while the P-61 kit has its faults like any other kit, the faults are very easy to correct!  I don't think all kits with issues can say this.

Eric

Guess it's not that bad after all.  I've got a P-61 or two somewhere in my stash, but never had an urge to build one yet.  But, now I know what to look for and fix when I do.  Thanks, guys!

Was the Aurora kit so bad at that time that builders ignored the Monogram kit faults?

Oh GAWD, yes...  First, it wasn't 1/48th scale, it was closer to 1/40th... The canopy was one big piece of hazy plastic, pilot/gunner were mummified figures' heads & shoulders molded into the top of the (non)cockpit..  The engines' jugs were some kinda  wavy lines stamped into the front of a closed-cowl front , cowls themselves were flat rather than curved on the front edge,  the gear doors were molded in the closed position with the peg-like lumpy struts poking out of holes in the bottom of the fuselage pod and booms, although there was a stand..

It was almost completely smooth with few panel lines, way out of scale control surface "trenches" and all the markings had "Idiot outline" locators molded into the plastic...  There was no radome or interior parts for it, no tanks, the 20mm barrels were molded into the sides and the turret .50s had barrels the size of scale 37mm AT guns...  I had one parked next to my 1st Monogram Widow for a VERY short spell...The Aurora kit got "fire-crackered" within a day of completion...   I bought it because of the price though...  It was, IIRC, about 2.99 when the Monogram kit was released at about  5.50...  The only thing it had in common with the Monogram kit was that it was molded in black styrene... 

The few fit- faults of the Monogram Widow weren't even noticeable (IMNSHO) compared to the Aurora P-61...   The WW2 Aircraft Recogniton/ID models of the P-61 (the black "silhouette" models made of Bakelite) were more detailed than the Aurora kit...

It's not often I can recall a kit's details  with this much clarity after 35 or so years, but the Aurora kit is an exception... Absolutely horrible kit, even by 1969's standards...

Today, it'll cost you about 175.00 to own if you want it complete in box and mint (Read: Collector s only)...  Saw a "builder kit " on Ebay for 24.99 though it's been rifled through and re-bagged in zip-locks...   Heh, the Revell release is only 16.99 new...

All said, that old Monogram kit is still a nice one, warts & all... 

Thanks for the excellent Aurora P-61 kit review, Hans.

I enjoyed reading your description about the kit; reminds me of my first impression upon opening the box of the Aurora Fw-190 kit.

I'll be doing the Hammer thing and using two Revell P-61s for open / closed cowl as well as making resin engine copies. Hobby Lobby  40 pct coupons will help.

I presume the P-61's model 2800 engines are close enough for use on the Revellogram  F4U....

from what I understand, once I break the seal of the resin casting material I need to use it quickly so the more casting molds I create, the better.

Thanks, Goose...

Every once in a while, a kit burns itself into your memory, lol..

I presume the P-61's model 2800 engines are close enough for use on the Revellogram  F4U....

Yupper, that and the Revellogram F6F, P-47, B-26 (Marauder and A/B-26 Invader), the AMT F7F and HAWK/Testor's, Hobbycraft, and Academy F8Fs, and the Revell Germany F4U-5...  About the only real difference is to make sure you have the correct magneto covers on them (if that matters to ya)...

I use Alumalite Casting Resin m'self, and it (so far) has kept well after opening... The bottles I'm currently using have been opened for at least 6 months... I close them tightly (clean up the threads, BTW) and bag them in zip-locks...  I get it at Hobby Lobby (40% off, ya know)

So far, I've cast about two dozen spares of the Double Wasp engines, and that'll probably do me for the forseeable future...  Now I just gotta get my hands on a Revell 1/48 B-25B/C and cast copies of  THOSE engines..   Don't forget to cast copies of the P-61 figures either...  I especially like the guy with no shirt for my PTO and MTO dioramas..

Being an old timer I just had to post here, I loved those old Mongram kits.

Maybe they lacked details like they have today, but when you compare them to their era, they destroyed most of teh compition.

Since I returned this year, the first kit i bought of Ebay was a dauntless, and now it sits on my desk, a reminder of things past and things yet to come.

I still love those old Monogram kits. The SBD project of mine is a labor of love. Working on it just a bit at a time. Last nite I fabricated a prop shaft for the resin motor I used to replace the kit one. I am using a propeller off an old Monogram TBD since that is closer to the style mounted on the SBD-3. The spinner came from a Hobbycraft P-35.

In the rear cockpit you can see where I thinned down the kit's gunners canopies to where they can actually be stowed in the proper position. Took a bit of sanding and polishing, but it fits! The twin .30s were taken from a Hasegawa A-24 If Quick boost ever does some twin .30s I'm buying a dozen! The white plastic are the storage doors for when the .30s are stowed.