Revell AG 1/32 DH.82 Tiger Moth
Revell AG 1/32 De Havilland DH-82 Tiger Moth In box review Introduction This is a re-boxing of the Matchbox 1/32 Tiger Moth, which dates from the late 1970s/ early 1980s, which would explain why I didn't build it first time round. It is in all respects identical to the previous Revell AG re-boxing of 1997, except that the decals are now printed in Italy. Contents In the standard Revell AG end-opening box, you get 114 pieces of light grey and five pieces of clear plastic, arranged on five grey sprues and one clear sprue. There is a decal sheet with three finish options, standard Revell AG-style instructions with 60 construction stages and 3 finish sections, a health & safety leaflet in 20 languages, and a spool of black thread more suited for rigging 1/96 sailing ships than 1/72 biplanes. In fact, I’ve seen this self-same spool of thread in Revell AG’s 1/96 sailing ship kits… Plastic parts and instructions At first, things look promising. There seems to be a lot in this box. You get a pupil, an instructor and a mechanic. You get a choice of open and closed cockpits. You get a Gipsy Major engine and removable cowlings. You get a choice between wheel, ski and float undercarriages, and a choice of tailwheel or tailskid. The fabric effect is quite restrained. Recessed panel lines are provided where appropriate, and are quite un-trench-like. The instructions call out the extra work needed for the Canadian version, and the kit provides the tailwheel used by this version. The instructions tell you where to drill holes for the rigging. However, the way in which the rigging instructions are laid out strongly suggests that the person who designed/ drew them up has never made a plastic scale model kit in his life. You don't rig a biplane as you go along, and before main painting... So far, so good. However… Fit A quick dry run of major components suggests that filler will need to be used on the wings and tailplane. While the fuselage centreline join is good, previous reviews have suggested that the bulkheads, seats and other cockpit components are too wide, and this tends to throw this seam out. If so, much -*test*-('")-fitting will be needed. Cowling fit is crude, and, in any event, Tiggie cowling side panels weren’t removable, they were hinged upwards. Do not expect this to be a shake&bake exercise. Detail Again, pretty good…by mid-1970s standards. Hence, the cockpit side framing, throttles and trim levers are moulded integrally with the fuselage sides. Both the pupil and instructor are identical – handlebar moustaches, inflated Mae Wests and all. Pity – 1/32 early 1940s RAF pilots aren’t exactly thick on the ground, and if you leave them out, you’ll have to add a lot of cockpit detail. The mechanic figure is good, though, but shouldn't his overalls be blue, not brown?. There are no rudder pedals. The pieces of equipment mounted on the firewall are moulded solid in bas-relief. The Gipsy Major I shows a level of detail which, today, would be seen as barely adequate in 1/72. If you want to display the cowlings open, you will want to add, at the very least, wiring and improved piping. The transparencies are, by today’s standards, much too thick and there are no vac-form replacements available. You might feel that it’s unfair to criticise a 30-year-old kit for not matching up to today’s standards, but for reasons I’ll explain in my conclusions, I don’t think it is. Accuracy Dimensionally, it scales out as near as makes no odds, and it looks like a Tiggie. And you won’t be using black cotton thread for the rigging, will you? However. You can’t make a Canadian Tiggie from the kit OOB. Not only were the cockpit internal arrangements – especially the instrument panels – different, but so were the engine cowlings. Also, the wing leading edges of Canadian Tiggies were covered with plywood, not fabric. And the exhaust pipe was longer, and of a different design. There’s nothing in the instructions to alert you to this, so if you want to make one of the kit finish options, or nearly every ski- or float- equipped Tiggie, You’ve got a bit of conversion work, even by the standards of the Good-enough Club, ahead of you.Edit - after further research, and discussion over on Hyperscale, it turns out that Canadian Tiggies did have fabric-covered leading edges; Aussie ones had the plywood jobs. Obviously, this means that making a Canadian Tigge from this kit is much easier, but you still can't do it OOB, except for an open-cockpit job, which wouldn't have the longer, heat-exchanger-equipped exhaust - If your subscription to the Good Enough Club is high enough, you could ignore the other differences.
Note that the Pavla 1/72 Tiggie, which can only be built as a closed-canopy DH.82C, does have non-fabric leading edges, so somebody seems to have made the mistake of believing that preserved aircraft are necessarily accurate for the original... :oops:
Finish options
1) DH.82A Tiger Moth OF184, of No.5 Glider Training School, RAF, Shobdon, 1943, Colour scheme is Dark Earth/ Dark Green/ Trainer Yellow, with lower wing uppersurfaces countershaded and upper wing outer sections and fuselage stripe in Trainer Yellow.
2) DH.82C Tiger Moth 4057, of No.6 Elementary Flying Training School, RCAF, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, 1940. Trainer Yellow overall, with semigloss black cowling, struts and u/c, and choice of ski or wheel u/c. Remember that, unfortunately, you can’t actually make this version OOB.
3) DH.82A Tiger Moth A-10, of RNl.AF High Command, Woensdrecht, Netherlands, 1947. Semigloss Trainer Yellow (presumably that's what 50% Gelb glazend 12 + 50% Gelb matt 15 gets you :???: ) overall. Currently preserved, but in storage, at the Dutch Military Aviation Museum at Soesterberg.
Decals
These provide almost all the markings you’ll need, and are now printed by Revell AG’s Italian printer, so should be a lot more user-friendly than they were last time, when they were printed in Germany, refused to settle down even with the application of serious decal solvents, and silvered at the sligh-*test*-('") excuse. They’re well-printed in the right colours, and fully in-register. It might be prudent to back the roundels and fin flashes with white decal, to minimise the chance of the yellow showing through the white sections.
If these things matter to you, the instrument decals are wrong for the Canadian version.
Conclusion
It’s a 1/32 injection-moulded Tiggie, it’s a CBK, it comes with pilot figures, and it looks like a Tiggie. It repays a little simple additional detail work. It’s the only one we’re ever likely to get. These alone are good enough reasons to go out and buy at least one.
However. How hard would it have been to produce three decal options which could have been built OOB? And it costs £14.99. Compare this to Revell AG’s recent and world-class own-mould 1/72 FW200 and soon-to-be-re-released He.177 for £13.99. Not, I am afraid, good value for money. I bet Revell AG paid almost nothing for the moulds, and that about 80% of the price is pure profit, one way or another. £9.99 would have been a much more realistic price. I’d have bought three at that price, one to convert to a Canadian floatplane…
Cheers,
Chris.
Revell AG 1/32 De Havilland DH-82 Tiger Moth In box review Introduction This is a re-boxing of the Matchbox 1/32 Tiger Moth, which dates from the late 1970s/ early 1980s, which would explain why I didn't build it first time round. It is in all respects identical to the previous Revell AG re-boxing of 1997, except that the decals are now printed in Italy. Contents In the standard Revell AG end-opening box, you get 114 pieces of light grey and five pieces of clear plastic, arranged on five grey sprues and one clear sprue. There is a decal sheet with three finish options, standard Revell AG-style instructions with 60 construction stages and 3 finish sections, a health & safety leaflet in 20 languages, and a spool of black thread more suited for rigging 1/96 sailing ships than 1/72 biplanes. In fact, I’ve seen this self-same spool of thread in Revell AG’s 1/96 sailing ship kits… Plastic parts and instructions At first, things look promising. There seems to be a lot in this box. You get a pupil, an instructor and a mechanic. You get a choice of open and closed cockpits. You get a Gipsy Major engine and removable cowlings. You get a choice between wheel, ski and float undercarriages, and a choice of tailwheel or tailskid. The fabric effect is quite restrained. Recessed panel lines are provided where appropriate, and are quite un-trench-like. The instructions call out the extra work needed for the Canadian version, and the kit provides the tailwheel used by this version. The instructions tell you where to drill holes for the rigging. However, the way in which the rigging instructions are laid out strongly suggests that the person who designed/ drew them up has never made a plastic scale model kit in his life. You don't rig a biplane as you go along, and before main painting... So far, so good. However… Fit A quick dry run of major components suggests that filler will need to be used on the wings and tailplane. While the fuselage centreline join is good, previous reviews have suggested that the bulkheads, seats and other cockpit components are too wide, and this tends to throw this seam out. If so, much -*test*-('")-fitting will be needed. Cowling fit is crude, and, in any event, Tiggie cowling side panels weren’t removable, they were hinged upwards. Do not expect this to be a shake&bake exercise. Detail Again, pretty good…by mid-1970s standards. Hence, the cockpit side framing, throttles and trim levers are moulded integrally with the fuselage sides. Both the pupil and instructor are identical – handlebar moustaches, inflated Mae Wests and all. Pity – 1/32 early 1940s RAF pilots aren’t exactly thick on the ground, and if you leave them out, you’ll have to add a lot of cockpit detail. The mechanic figure is good, though, but shouldn't his overalls be blue, not brown?. There are no rudder pedals. The pieces of equipment mounted on the firewall are moulded solid in bas-relief. The Gipsy Major I shows a level of detail which, today, would be seen as barely adequate in 1/72. If you want to display the cowlings open, you will want to add, at the very least, wiring and improved piping. The transparencies are, by today’s standards, much too thick and there are no vac-form replacements available. You might feel that it’s unfair to criticise a 30-year-old kit for not matching up to today’s standards, but for reasons I’ll explain in my conclusions, I don’t think it is. Accuracy Dimensionally, it scales out as near as makes no odds, and it looks like a Tiggie. And you won’t be using black cotton thread for the rigging, will you? However. You can’t make a Canadian Tiggie from the kit OOB. Not only were the cockpit internal arrangements – especially the instrument panels – different, but so were the engine cowlings. Also, the wing leading edges of Canadian Tiggies were covered with plywood, not fabric. And the exhaust pipe was longer, and of a different design. There’s nothing in the instructions to alert you to this, so if you want to make one of the kit finish options, or nearly every ski- or float- equipped Tiggie, You’ve got a bit of conversion work, even by the standards of the Good-enough Club, ahead of you.