I have built two of these in a row. One yellow with wheels and one in the white livery with floats. I enjoyed them a lot, it's a really nice plane to build and look at after it's done, in both versions.
I built several of the Matchbox version of this, and liked it immensely - being a 'wilderness' aircraft, the range of civil schemes is vast. It's a really unusual subject, which was the USP of the Matchbox kit range. It's an old kit, but easy to modify - like the real aircraft. The only thing I like about the Revell version is that it is moulded in one colour. The moulding on it seems very soft now, which is a pity. I remember the Matchbox ones being pretty crisp.
@modelminutes I believe that the question mark in the instructions next to the landing gear step is there to indicate that you have a choice between wheels, skis and floats.
I’m trying to build this kit at the moment and as much as I was looking forward to it, it’s ended up being a right faff. The fit isn’t great, the clear parts are a headache and keep dropping out…into fuselage no less! Trouble is I love the dehavilland otters so will keep trying with it!!
This Matchbox/Revell kit is the only one in 1/72. I build it some years ago on skies in Air Greenland livery. There are som issues with the canopy, nose and tail but only an expert will notice the two latter. Thanks for the review👍🏼🍻
Here in the States, you'd be hard pressed to find any kit new-in-box for less than $20 USD in a retail store. So, I'm quite happy to find any model that cheap.
Funny thing is that I just built this kit a few days ago and it was my first model kit I've fully built and painted. I also had some trouble with the confusing paint instructions but in the end, it was a pretty good kit and I recommend doing the yellow and red paint scheme for looks; however, the yellow paint is a bit difficult to apply since it's a lighter colour.
I remember making this kit during the early-to-mid-80s. As all Matchbox kits, it was somewhat chunky and clunky, but, as the majority of Matchbox kits of the time, the fit was quite good and, for the time, reasonably accurate, certainly when compared with their competitors of the time.
Got to see a real one in Canadian Forces colors recently. There are still four of them in military service in Canada. I have a number of Matchbox and Revell releases to build so I can build wheeled, ski, and floatplane versions in military and civilian schemes.
I bought and built this last year from Hobbycraft - a few issues with it definitely, and I ballsed up the weight and ended up waith a tail sitter!!! Looks nice when finished though!
Nice review. I've always been tempted to get this kit - there's a nice decal set available that includes a British Antarctic Survey version in bright orange.
decent kit mat for a 80s tooled model personally i think revell should use something similar to airfix who use the vintage kit series where you know its a old kit and not to be disapointed in the quality i do wonder if the person who is incharge of the instructions for revell has actually ever built a kit because revell instructions are awful and hard to follow sometimes great unboxing as usual and looking forward to your next one
Built this kit probably about 10 years ago. by no means a bad kit, but it does show its age compared to newer kits. I did it in the Canadian Firefighting scheme, but if I were to get another one I'd do it in the West Coast Air scheme
I believe if Revell don't use cartograf for their decals on some kits then they usually use zanchetti out of italy aswell. On the whole Revell decals are generally quite good quality. 👍
@@NigelsModellingBench I believe that would be the case yes. As someone who has built many Revell kits now, I have found this, however the Cartograf decals are of course the best overall. I'm currently doing a weekend build of Revell's re boxed Frog Ta152 which has excellent quality Cartograf decals 👍 I did build the 1/32 Mosquito MkIV which had the Zanchetti decals which don't age as well as the Cartograf ones...
Matchbox really did produce some unique and interesting subjects in its time and I particularly like the floatplane option. What would have been nice though is a fully detailed passenger compartment given the small size of the aircraft.
That kit has the honour of being the only one that ended up in the bin. I went for the float plane version and the struts just didn't seem to support the rest of the aircraft weight. Maybe the Matchbox plastic was harder and stronger than Revell's or it was just me.
Just remember to modify the props if you are building a "parked/shutdown" Twotter. PT6 turbines have the props feathered when at rest. As for the nose, check references for the particular plane you're building. DHC-6-100s, and most, if not all float equipped versions, were originally fitted with the short nose, and DHC-6-200 and -300 series had the long nose. The -300s also had slightly (at this scale) different props and exhausts. But... There are long-nosed 100s out there (retrofitted for extra nose locker) and short and long nosed float equipped Twotters out there too! Later engines have been retrofitted to older airframes also. The -400 series, produced by Viking, are another kettle of fish entirely. All in all, a wonderful aircraft!
I’m building one of these myself now and am really struggling with it. Primarily with how things fit and such. I’mm really curious what your opinion is when you build it.
Certainly not a 2014. Its a Matchbox kit, from the 1980's probably. I started building it once but it was such a long time ago that I can't remember why I didn't complete it.
I primarily model 1:76 bus, trains etc. I am reasonably experienced in code 3 adaptions, fully dismantling diecast models, repainting and finishing with transfers. However, I have *zero* experience with Airfix, revell etc nor model aircraft. Given the difficulty levels are meaningless, is this likely a good first kit for me or is it likely to be challenging as a first? Many thanks
@ModelMinutes last week i picked up a mint in box Airfix 1/72 Tornado kit from 1975...kit nmbr is 0419-6,series 4...the 3 options on the decal sheet are a West German Navy IDS,an R.AF. Gr1 and the 2nd prototype of when the aircraft was still known as the M.R.C.A.
I mean, at least it's dirt cheap... Edit: I see we have a different opinion of the price. To me, £10 for a twin engine of this size in 1/72 is really cheap - you couldn't get a Mosquito or a Mitchell for that cheap, to my knowledge.
I have built two of these in a row. One yellow with wheels and one in the white livery with floats. I enjoyed them a lot, it's a really nice plane to build and look at after it's done, in both versions.
Very cool!
I built several of the Matchbox version of this, and liked it immensely - being a 'wilderness' aircraft, the range of civil schemes is vast. It's a really unusual subject, which was the USP of the Matchbox kit range. It's an old kit, but easy to modify - like the real aircraft. The only thing I like about the Revell version is that it is moulded in one colour. The moulding on it seems very soft now, which is a pity. I remember the Matchbox ones being pretty crisp.
@modelminutes I believe that the question mark in the instructions next to the landing gear step is there to indicate that you have a choice between wheels, skis and floats.
Yes, that is right :)
I’m trying to build this kit at the moment and as much as I was looking forward to it, it’s ended up being a right faff. The fit isn’t great, the clear parts are a headache and keep dropping out…into fuselage no less! Trouble is I love the dehavilland otters so will keep trying with it!!
This Matchbox/Revell kit is the only one in 1/72. I build it some years ago on skies in Air Greenland livery. There are som issues with the canopy, nose and tail but only an expert will notice the two latter.
Thanks for the review👍🏼🍻
I built one of these in the Matchbox line and enjoyed the build. I applied Alaska Airlines decals in the Golden Nugget livery.
I actually have that in my basket on amazon it's 18 euro there, good to get the review. thank you very much
Here in the States, you'd be hard pressed to find any kit new-in-box for less than $20 USD in a retail store. So, I'm quite happy to find any model that cheap.
Funny thing is that I just built this kit a few days ago and it was my first model kit I've fully built and painted. I also had some trouble with the confusing paint instructions but in the end, it was a pretty good kit and I recommend doing the yellow and red paint scheme for looks; however, the yellow paint is a bit difficult to apply since it's a lighter colour.
I think I saw you post it on Reddit
@@ModelMinutes You probably did, I made it just after the comment.
Looking forward to this one😃
I remember making this kit during the early-to-mid-80s. As all Matchbox kits, it was somewhat chunky and clunky, but, as the majority of Matchbox kits of the time, the fit was quite good and, for the time, reasonably accurate, certainly when compared with their competitors of the time.
Got to see a real one in Canadian Forces colors recently. There are still four of them in military service in Canada. I have a number of Matchbox and Revell releases to build so I can build wheeled, ski, and floatplane versions in military and civilian schemes.
I bought and built this last year from Hobbycraft - a few issues with it definitely, and I ballsed up the weight and ended up waith a tail sitter!!! Looks nice when finished though!
Nice review. I've always been tempted to get this kit - there's a nice decal set available that includes a British Antarctic Survey version in bright orange.
That would be cool!
decent kit mat for a 80s tooled model
personally i think revell should use something similar to airfix who use the vintage kit series where you know its a old kit and not to be disapointed in the quality
i do wonder if the person who is incharge of the instructions for revell has actually ever built a kit because revell instructions are awful and hard to follow sometimes
great unboxing as usual and looking forward to your next one
Built this kit probably about 10 years ago. by no means a bad kit, but it does show its age compared to newer kits.
I did it in the Canadian Firefighting scheme, but if I were to get another one I'd do it in the West Coast Air scheme
I believe if Revell don't use cartograf for their decals on some kits then they usually use zanchetti out of italy aswell. On the whole Revell decals are generally quite good quality. 👍
Yes, these are Zanchetti? as there is a "Z" suffix after the number at the bottom left of the sheet. Cartograf has.. you guessed it, "C".
@@NigelsModellingBench I believe that would be the case yes. As someone who has built many Revell kits now, I have found this, however the Cartograf decals are of course the best overall. I'm currently doing a weekend build of Revell's re boxed Frog Ta152 which has excellent quality Cartograf decals 👍 I did build the 1/32 Mosquito MkIV which had the Zanchetti decals which don't age as well as the Cartograf ones...
Matchbox really did produce some unique and interesting subjects in its time and I particularly like the floatplane option. What would have been nice though is a fully detailed passenger compartment given the small size of the aircraft.
Looks like a fun little kit, just ordered one! I like the West Coast Air float version.
Very cool!
That kit has the honour of being the only one that ended up in the bin. I went for the float plane version and the struts just didn't seem to support the rest of the aircraft weight. Maybe the Matchbox plastic was harder and stronger than Revell's or it was just me.
Matchbox was harder than Revell for sure.
Ah that is a shame :(
This is a brilliant aircraft, but a woeful kit. Would love to have an up to date tooling of this!
Just remember to modify the props if you are building a "parked/shutdown" Twotter. PT6 turbines have the props feathered when at rest.
As for the nose, check references for the particular plane you're building. DHC-6-100s, and most, if not all float equipped versions, were originally fitted with the short nose, and DHC-6-200 and -300 series had the long nose. The -300s also had slightly (at this scale) different props and exhausts.
But... There are long-nosed 100s out there (retrofitted for extra nose locker) and short and long nosed float equipped Twotters out there too!
Later engines have been retrofitted to older airframes also.
The -400 series, produced by Viking, are another kettle of fish entirely.
All in all, a wonderful aircraft!
That's interesting, thanks for the info!
Never built this but i may if i find it cheap somewhere. Would build with floots or skids . Look forward to seeing it built 👍
An interesting kit, don't see too many built up 😮
I’m building one of these myself now and am really struggling with it. Primarily with how things fit and such.
I’mm really curious what your opinion is when you build it.
Certainly not a 2014. Its a Matchbox kit, from the 1980's probably. I started building it once but it was such a long time ago that I can't remember why I didn't complete it.
This was my first-ever kit. I got it from my granddad in the set with paints and a brush.
Cool model. 🛩
Sure is!
Ive worked on these in canada. (Aircraft mechanic) the real thing has its problems to lol.
I always wanted to buy the Matchbox version of this, and modify it to a Norwegian Widerøe version, but never could afford it...
This would be perfect if you can find one then - its the same kit really :)
@@ModelMinutes I know, Revell took over all of Matchbox' catalogue AFAIK
I primarily model 1:76 bus, trains etc. I am reasonably experienced in code 3 adaptions, fully dismantling diecast models, repainting and finishing with transfers. However, I have *zero* experience with Airfix, revell etc nor model aircraft. Given the difficulty levels are meaningless, is this likely a good first kit for me or is it likely to be challenging as a first?
Many thanks
If you have similar experience this may not be too hard for you
@ many thanks, I’ll get one and give it a try!!
Have 1 of these on the bench as we speak.....and yes,for anyone who is wondering, it IS a reissue of the old Matchbox kit.
Yup, I do explore that a little in the video
@ModelMinutes excellent....after i get this done i am doing the Revel 1/72 Dornier Do -228.....a very similar aircraft .
@ModelMinutes last week i picked up a mint in box Airfix 1/72 Tornado kit from 1975...kit nmbr is 0419-6,series 4...the 3 options on the decal sheet are a West German Navy IDS,an R.AF. Gr1 and the 2nd prototype of when the aircraft was still known as the M.R.C.A.
I did buy it. It is indeed a former matchbox kit.
@vincentlefebvre9255 not a bad kit...considering the toling is 31 years old
Can you make a harpy hare paintjob for yaeklore harpy hare on a plane or helicopter with Cole on the vertical stabiliser
thanks for ths suggestion
I’d recommend you either watch harpy hare to see Cole or look at a pic of her (so we get business) ok thanks Matt (you also said Ths not the 😂)
The kit was originally released by Matchbox in 1983. 🙂
Yep, as mentioned in the video 👍🏻
@@ModelMinutes yup, sorry, I wrote before I saw the whole video.
I mean, at least it's dirt cheap...
Edit: I see we have a different opinion of the price. To me, £10 for a twin engine of this size in 1/72 is really cheap - you couldn't get a Mosquito or a Mitchell for that cheap, to my knowledge.
Yeah, it is pretty cheap, but I think that the quality kind of reflects that. Tbh, its not as big as a B25
@@ModelMinutes They're nearly identical in size, in fact. The Mitchell is only about 3% larger.
Transfers 😂
yep?
@@ModelMinutes It's what we called them in the 70's! No issues with pronouncing the word unlike the word mangling versions of decals😀