I completely agree that model companies should put the tool date on the box. There is such a huge quality difference between recent kits and ones from before about 2010 it's almost dishonest to have them on the same shelf!
I would have become aware of this kit back between '68 - '70-ish when I loved building models as a very young child! I always preferred the Airfix kits because the 'transfers' at the time were far better than Revell's (which always silvered and flaked-off the model!). Of course now, Airfix use Cartography who make some of the best decals you can get, and Revell now use them sometimes too!! 😄 Funny to see that back when this first came out that Revell even bothered to make a semi-detailed cockpit; most models only a horizontal peg for the pilot figure to sit on!! 😂 The whole fuselage shape is too stretched; too long - especially at the nose, and the canopy is very poor, but then, that's the way that models were back then: Simple, crude detailing, etc - especially at the sort of pocket money prices they sold for back then... 2/6 was a common price at the end of the '60s! For these cheaper kits, things didn't really change until Matchbox came out in about '72, and their kits for the day were incredible good details, well moulded, decent transfers, etc, and they sold for similar pocket money prices (25p-ish!!). I look forward to seeing what you can do with this in coming videos! 😉
This was the third kit I assembled and the first one I "tried" to paint, I was 8 years old in 1981 and the version was Revell Kikoler (Brazil) boxtop with model's photo and markings of the "Texas Terror IV". This kit is kind of hated by the old local modelers for being so bad but I have nostalgic affections for it, I even got a version from the same period still sealed that I intend to assembly again 40 years later.
i put this kit right in the bin after i bought it. I was suckered because the revell p-47 was so nice. Taught me a valuable lesson about researching kits
I agree! The Revell P47 was my first ever introduction to revell brand models, and I mistakenly thought they would all be like that! How wrong i was . . .
@@ModelMinutes the funny thing is if you look at the little picture of the completed model closely on the side of the box you can tell what a dog's breakfast the kit is. Academy has a p-51d i think might be same mold.
Watching your video I realized that Revell did update that kit's molds in the last 59 years. I still have the old "Millie P" that I built as a kid, and it was even more awful than it is now. Specially the propeller and nosecone were very wrong. But their P-51B from 1998 is a far better kit.
I seem to be addicted to your vids. I love your honesty and the projects- quick builds but still enjoyable. Personally I LOVE your challenges you do. You make really good work but when you do the challenges you make them with the eyes of a newbie and we've all been there eg. artists acrylic paint because parents didn't know and bought cheap set thinking quantity over quality, superglue because we literally used whatever we had in our draw, included paints because to be honest we didn't know what range the companies had or whether we could use other companies paint because we didn't have access to paint conversion charts and newbies don't know that or where to find it. Excellent channel, I think it's extremely fun what you are doing here. Keep up the good work Sir
I must say that I’m learning to dislike Revell Germany and their lack of date transparency. Thank goodness for Scalemates! Otherwise good honest review as always Matt and congratulations too 😊👍🏼
@@ModelMinutes The blue series box range covers all the older model kits but black series represents new ones ( including outsourcing kits to Italteri, Hasagawa, and other Chinese brands + their own made in Germany).
@@amuxpatch2798 not sure that’s 100% the rule. I’ve got blue boxes like the p47 and me262 which are fairly recent toolings whilst an 80s tooled f117 is in a black box
@@ModelMinutes I think Revell company must have kept their earlier tooling and modern tooling of model kits to cover vast range of kits and make it affordable for the mass market while other kit companies went for retooling to produce more detail and flash free kits thus more expensive to buy to cover their production cost.
@@amuxpatch2798 yes, but my issue isn't that they are selling old tooled kits, it's that they try and pass them off in the same range as their more modern stuff, which is essentially a bit like false advertising. Other companies like Airfix (and i think Heller) have their "vintage" ranges - so you know that anything there is not a new release
I would suggest everyone to search for the model you are planning to buy on the internet, then go to stalemates and watch from what time it is. You then know a bit what to expect. Nice unboxing as always matt!👍
Yep.. As an example, when Airfix brought out their "Top gun" series recently they would have us believe the fictious "MiG - 28" kit was new but when I looked it up on scale mates I discovered its simply a reissue of their F-5 E kit from 1987...new my arse.... Still bought it though for the decals for my Italeri F-5 E/F so I can do it as a 2 seat "MiG - 28".....and yes, if you watch top gun carefully you will notice at least 2 of the mig-28s are indeed 2 seat variants. (F-5F Tiger 11).
Definitely think that Revell needs a Classics or Vintage range for kits like this one. To some extent Matchbox looked like it would fufill this purpose for Revell. Maybe they could use the Monogram brand if they don't want to go down the Revell Classics or Revell Vintage route.
I recently got a Revell 1/32 Spitfire to build again to see if I have improved. It isn't just the actual build process but also the painting and weathering with different products from the original build. Look forward to see your two compared. Some old kits are fine. I did the Revell HMS Bounty which is from 1956! Yes it did have a lot of flash but the actual kit is good and with a little bit of effort get a good model at the end all for about £16. Had some Revell kits that really were old and awful and did end up in the bin. Airfix's Vintage Classics lets you know that it will be an older kit from the start and you know that it could need some work. Having some sort of tooling date just seems fair to the customer.
It takes a few minutes to look up on Scalemates. This is a 1963 tooling that's been reboxed a number of times since then. They've added new decals over the years, as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if the instructions weren't updated (literally!) as well. As 1960s kits go it's not that bad, actually. This is the quality of kits modellers of my age grew up with... and we enjoyed building them, too! Obviously modelling was VERY different back then!
First of all, congratulations on crossing the 25,000 mark! Revell's sales strategy is very shocking. I also fell for them with the Battle of Britain Gift Set (05711) and was quite disappointed with the models and when I saw in 2020 that they had brought the set back in a slightly different form (05691) for the 80th anniversary, I was really annoyed, because now people will probably fall for the same sales strategy again.
Had this kit in 1970… Came in a combo kit from REVELL called the FLYING DUSES along with a JAPANESE HAYATE no drop tanks, had a pilot and only star n bars decals… pretty basic A good model builder could make it into something YEP… that’s the kit… I think I paid .99cents AMERICAN for the combo kit in 1970… still like building the old stuff KITS are KITS… If you’re building something, you’re doing something… MODEL ON
What I like about this kit is the pilot figure. It's very rare to find 1/72nd aircraft model kits with pilot figures sporting oxygen masks on their faces. That's a very nice touch.
I do agree that model companies need to identify their kits, if they are new tool or not, maybe even list the original release date. Honestly, my favorite P-51dD kit is Tamiya from, 2000, it is detailed enough (why doe's everybody think a 1/72 kit needs 1/32 detail is beyond me), fits perfect, just some sanding, no filler. My second choice would be, sit down for this, Hasegawa, I know, it is positively ancient by today's standards, but it fits well, and is accurate, just not the most detailed, but isn't that what most of us want. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think most of us just want a reasonably accurate kit, that fits together well, doesn't cost a month's salary, and doesn't require 50g of filler to fix a 5g kit, and looks good on our shelf or in our cabinet. If you are a contest modeler, I applaud you, and appreciate the effort and dedication you put into the hobby, if it wasn't for you, pushing for newer and better kits, the rest of us would still be building1960's tooled crap
It's not the fact that the kit is old. I enjoy building old kits. It's the fact that the model barely resembles a P-51D. It has the look of a flying scale replica with a lawn mower engine built in someone's shed.
The more i watch your revell videos, the more i realize how lucky i am to choose one of their newer toolings for my first ever kit, it only had afew tiny problems and flash.
I built that for a diorama, it was one of the best kits I ever built, no problems fit perfectly, I liked it so much that I built a Revell 1/32 Spitfire and then a 1/48 F-14 all great kits.
I hope you realize in 1962 plastic modeling was about 10 years old… the idea of comparing P-51’s from early days (Revell, Frog, etc) mid-era (Tamiya, Academy…) and current time (ARMA hobby) would be a great way of showing how model kits have evolved and developed over the decades!
You have been quite fair. Most of Revells kits, are very old, and/or molds from the east. I have a Revell TA-152 in my stash, it's crude, flashy and very simple. I will never build that....
Revell were all over the place when it came to quality in the sixties. The P-26 peashooter, stearman, he-162 and a few others can still be built into decent looking models. The P-51D on the other hand has absolutely no redeeming qualities. I built this as a kid and even the old Heller P-51D (wich should also be avoided) was lightyears ahead in terms of both shape and fit.
Must admit when I bought this as a kid because of the colour scheme and the sliding canopy and while I wouldn't touch it nowadays at the time it was an improvement over the original Airfix P-51D.
Seeing this kit on Amazon, where I get all my kits, I was appalled by the grotesque misproportions of this kit. The drop tanks are horridly oversized, the canopy is poor, the gear doors and vertical tail is all wrong. Revell kits are generally good, but this kit is garbage. The Chinese snap kits look good in comparison. Just avoid this howler!
Glad I never wasted any $$ on that kit!!! Having done around 40 P-51's over the years...1/144, on up to 1/24. In 1/72, the new-ish Airfix is a winner. I'd take it in a heartbeat, over Tamiya even...actually, I could get 2-3 for the same price!
@@teenagerinsac NICE!!! I've only done a handful of em...every one of them had a severely bent main gear (bends back easily enough though)...how 'bout your kits?
For me the best low cost 1/72 scale P-51 Mustang model was the one from Matchbox of 1973 for its fidelity to the true shape and details with a number of 37 pieces as for novice modelers.
My review is due to go live tomorrow (27th March). I was so distracted by the general roughness and age of the kit (1963) that I didn't notice the shape of the undercarriage doors. The primative shape of the doors is just 'offensive' and I won't be building the kit (unless I use it for a "what if" monstrosity).
Just compared the P-51 kit to the drawings of the P-51H I just found after 20 seconds. Much of it seems to be a P-51H, but the tail is not tall enough, and the slope up and down from the canopy on the fuselage is very flat, if they were going for the P-51H. It looks like a hybrid of P-51s from about the D forwards. Overall, I'd use it for parts to make the navy experimental version out of another, better cheap P-51 kit, or perhaps as a cheap source to make an F-82 quickly and cheaply. Lots of work needed to accurise it for anything else, but that's what was normal in the 1960s and 1970s, as I recall; cross-kitting to make what you wanted.
Thanks for the video. Judging the quality of kits molded in the 1960-1980´s by todays´ standards will inevitably result with the kit on the loosing side. I think that manufacturers should include in the box information about the year in which the kit was tooled and indicate any "new" additions such as decals, instructions, extra parts, etc. The buyer can then choose to buy it for many different reasons: a nostalgic built, first-time built, to complete a collection, etc. without having much expectations on the final look of the built kit as compared to other modern kits.
If revell had marked this as a vintage kit in some way, I would be considerably less harsh. But seeing as they are trying to "sneak" this off the shelves by selling it alongside more recent toolings, I will always measure it as such and call out the companies for doing so. Some of the other manufacturers have started taking this on board, but not all
I have a couple of original Revell 3in1 Collectors choice versions of this kit. (it really is a dog of wolfhound proportions) In fact I have all the 3in1 range. Looking forward to getting them all built.
Had this in my stash, and opened the box a few years back. The plastic went in the bin, the decals in my storage box. Hoping to do "Cookie" using the Airfix kit, at least it goes together without a ton of filler.
I built this kit back in the '60's when I was about 13. I seem to remember, though, that the cockpit canopy came in two parts, and could be slid back. Can't imagine why, there isn't much in the way of cockpit detail, still it was the kind of thing I enjoyed!
It might not be the same kit if you could slide the canopy back (or perhaps they changed the included clear part) because this canopy comes as a single piece
@@ModelMinutes I was thinking that they probably changed the clear part. When I look at the fuselage part it does seem as if there is a rudimentary rail for the canopy to run against. Or is that just me?
@@ModelMinutes I don't think so. If you look at 7.44 it does look like a canopy rail on the cockpit sill. Several of this series of kits had multi-part canopies, the Spitfire, Bf 109 with a working side hinge, the P.47; not sure if any more did.
@@rogueriderhood1862 maybe but it’s not an option they currently provide in this kit not make reference of in the instructions. You sure you aren’t thinking of a 1:48 scale version?
I just got this same kit a few weeks ago from amazon japan. Obviously it should be a new tooling. But after building it, i have to agree with Matt that this kit is not a very good kit. There were a lot of fit and flesh issues. Has to use a lot of putty to cover the gap at the top and bottom and along the fuselage joint... 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The dead giveaway was the totally bad landing gear doors. BTW, the pilot figures in the original '60s Revel kits were, in fact, the best representation of RAF fighter pilot kit I've ever seen in this scale. Oh, and I actually like the one piece tailplane, no prob keeping it straight! And thanks for the heads up, I was thinking about getting a Mustang kit--lets see if I can find the Academy -1/5 (no tail fillet)--V-14 engine and all!
I see that you have been honest, when you have told what are the advantages, and disadvantages of that model kit. I also have that model kit. I have 2 or 3 of them I think (from Revell I mean). One of them was with the Yugoslav markings. And what I don't like is the way how was canopy made. When I say that, I mean on the thing that it's not fitting right just like it's showed on the box how is suppose to look like no matter how much I pay attention in instructions. I also have from Airfix P-51 D mustang, and also from Mister Craft in that same scale, waiting to be assembled as well. But one model kit that you don't like, doesn't mean that you don't like some other model kits from Revell. I like some other Revell model kits, but that's like we are talking about the tastes, and it's useless to discuss about the tastes. But of course everybody can choose what's best for them. It's important that you like what's best for you. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Back as a kid I built an Airfix 1/72 Mustang after the Revell model. I thought the Airfix model was inferior. I get the feeling the Airfix release discussed here was a later completely new release.
There really is no excuse for a kit from the 60's still being boxed and sold now when it is such a popular subject and Revell could have either tooled a replacement or licensed another manufacturer's more accurate offering in this scale.
My issue with Revell kits is that 9 times out of 10 their either outdated, poor quality, deformed or shortshot parts, or just not enjoyable to build. Also, reboxing vintage kits as "new." I built their 1/72 scale Wirbelwind recently (along with some other Panzers) and they were bad kits. Plus a few HMMWVs that were terrible. I also built their 1/35 MANN truck and it was bad too. I've built one really good Revell kit, but it was retooled and remodeled by dragon (1/144 Space Shuttle) and I liked it a million times more than the original. Revell is good if you're stuck in the 70s and 80s. Now, I've built bad kits from every manufacturer, it's just they don't pale in comparison to the Revell kits that were bad. Now, I enjoyed Revell as a kid, but now that I'm more experienced and like what I like (1/35 and 1/72 US Vietnam era and up,) Revell kits don't fit that niche normally. Yeah, they have the only 1/72 scale M997 Ambulance HMMWV but it was a bad build with shortshot parts, bad plastic and terrible decals. If you're a new modeller, go with Revell if it fits your planned niche. Otherwise, stay away.
I brought the 1/32 revell Bell Huey gunship helicopter ,the parts were crude and badly distorted ,after building for a while ,it went straight into the recylcing bin , Revell never updated their manufacturing mold cast die (but kept the 1960s one and transfer to make in China). Academy is the best using cad/cam systems to produce accurate model parts and flash free parts with good clear panel lines on their aircraft series.
Do you think Revell kits are good kits over all? 🤔 I think manufacturers should tell us year of manufacture. I'm looking forward to seeing the build. You are fair on models over all and I enjoy the unboxings and builds, that's why I support this channel 👏.
Generally, there are lots of good revell kits. But sadly they mix new and ancient toolings in their range (along with reboxes), so it can be hard to know the quality of a kit before you buy it
I find most Revell kits are decent, some are great. Some, like this one, are true stinkers. All companies have good and bad kits (except Starfix of Israel, all are grotesque stinkers!), Revell is no different. Even Tamiya and Hasegawa have put out the occasional bad kit.
Is this the same Airfix P-51D they had in starter sets? I managed to put my hands on that one and it sure does look quite lovely. I have built both Italeri and Academy P-51Ds in 1/72 and both had their issues. Italeri, quite basic level of detail and troublesome fuselage/wing joint area. Academy was quite excellent in terms of fit, and detail, but it does have strangely wide canopy. Airfix really looks like the best bet between all of them.
Seeing as this is a Revell kit, no, it is not the same as the Airfix P-51. The Airfix version is a much more recent tooling whereas the Revell one (despite being only slightly cheaper) is ancient by comparison
@@CrazyChemistPL yes, the gift set p51 is the same version as the non-gift set product. It just comes without the paints etc and usually has a different paint scheme
Revell has amazing plastic in there fighter jets like there Grumman f14 super tomcat but on the wwll the plastics terrible like this Love the videos keep up the good work btw could u plz build a bf110 bye airfix (I think it was airfix anyway)
I believe the box should bear a large, red, label "Tooling Un Revised Details!!"? Airfix does such a nice job of marking their classic issue kits. Bad form, Revell Ag.
@@ModelMinutes That being said, it seems as hobbyists we owe it to ourselves to be more thorough about our purchases. Scalemates makes a fine reference for such things. Tamiya boxings of Italeri models also come to mind.
It's a really, really old kit. I can remember making one in the late 1970's, and swapping the pilot figure for an Airfix 'Biggles' pilot (the old, but nicely detailed one), as the Revell figure was so squat and lumpen. I'm astonished that this kit is still on sale - I didn't really like it - it seemed a bit 'off' in it's proportions, to me. I remember this kit, as I had read a book of 'Great Mysteries', which contained the true story of American pilot, Thomas Mantell, who chased a UFO in his Mustang, and disappeared, the wreck of his 'plane and his body being found sometime later, in the desert. This creeped me out a bit, as a teenager, and I had to make a Mustang kit, just because. Probably would have done better with the old Airfix P51-D 'Fool's Paradise IV'.
Tom didnt resupply is O2 from previous flight and passed out at altitude , and he was found in cockpit , no mystery there gentlemen , he was in a hurry again , he was always in a hurry , they call it safety third now days.
I remember this kit. It is inaccurate, the fuselage shape is wrong, the undercarriage doors are wrong. I used it for spares, plastic, paint practice. Even the OLD airfix kit is better.
I don't think this is such a bad kit, but I totally agree that Revell should mention that's it's pretty old. Other than that it's very easy to build and paint. It was one of the first models I ever made and I loved it. Hope to do another one someday if I can find a very cheap one that's worth the price. Also, this box looks rather dated as well from around the 2005-2010 era.
@@ModelMinutes Could be, but although it's on the Revell website it is out of stock and on Scalemates the most recent rebox of this is the 2013 modelset. (other than the P-51B). Nonetheless I wouldn't be surprised if they just rebox it in the next year or so.
Shame that I have to live in Germany where you exclusively find Revell kits in all stores and buying airfix online is surprisingly pricy. I have yet to find a Revell kit that is at best better than average, and many times you pull absolutely time capsules of awfulness (Ta-152, Jesus Christ what an abomination). Oh wait their Bf109-F3 was pretty good.... Ahh, it's repackaged Zvesda, oops.... I always pick up a few Airfix kits when I'm over in Belgium, their recent releases are very good 😄
Has anyone compared this abortion against the P-51H drawings? If I am to be asked, this kit resembles more the H model Mustang than D. How about merging two of these into a P-82?
Jake, you might be surprised by the quality and standard of detail in the newer Airfix kits, please check them out. I have a Revell B17G that I bought in late 2021, the manufacture date is 2010, it's very detailed and looks to have a quality fit. You might be surprised now.
@@ModelMinutes Mind you, mine was the 'all you need' flavour with three paint pots, a not very good double-ended brush, and cement. Probably should have mentioned that... 😆
Italeri and revell are constantly miss representing their products. They sell very old kits (that cost next to nothing to make), for modern prices. I flat out refuse to purchase any italeri or revell kits. And in the case of revell their quality control is non-existent. I once purchased a type viic sub from the and one half of the hull was bent about 30 degrees. They still put it in the box for sale. Pathetic.
@@ModelMinutes thanks for the compliment...... its probably jealousy on my part as all my models tend to not even look like kits, i have a cupboard full of 24 scale kits now i can afford them but daren't build them as my 72nd scale ones frighten the kids....... any tips😁😁
@@paulnutter1713 might be worth looking at some of my build videos for most of the techniques I use, but generally I find the big skills to practice are brush control and paint thinning
@@ModelMinutes i watch as many vids from lots of modellers, as i said each to their own, I'm a good drawer but can't paint for toffee, my models went the same way hence why most are still in boxes..... win win
If you think the Revell kit is bad you should try finding the Airfix kit of the same vintage the only redeeming feature of that kit is that it was a fraction of the price of the Revell kit.
Worst kit I ever got. Landing gear is very wrong. Rivets all over that would be about 3" wide and 1/2" tall! Flash all over. Radiator is not right. Unfixable. Canopy wrong. Tossed it in the trash. Lesson learned.
It’s a dog to do. More filler than plastic. Revell has let me down too much. Thinking of doing a model from these, run outside to burn £20 and you’d get more enjoyment.
At least Airfix market old/ancient toolings as “Vintage classics”. Revell should be ashamed to sell this turd. How many new modellers have been put off the hobby by these cynical marketing cons. For the price of three of these disgraces you could buy a Tamiya 1/48 P-51B and love it. I don’t buy this nostalgia angle, I look back and thank the heavens for Arma, Tamiya, Meng and even Accurate Miniatures for being the best they can be. Even a 1970’s Tamiya panzer II is light years ahead of that abomination. Melt down these moulds and stop the bull shit Revell.
Some of the older toolings are still pretty good, but yes, i think that in this modern age - to sell an old tool kit at similar prices as new tools is just wrong
Imagine all the poor saps coming into the hobby for the first time, buying this cos they love P-51s, it's cheap and the box art is good, and getting some mess tooled in the 70s
That kit looks horrid by today's standards. 100% on manufactures making it clear when the tooling was made. 90% of modellers probably don't even know scalemates exists!
This is a terrible kit not because it's old, it's because of all it's awful dimensions. It's like a caricature of the plane. All the shapes are wrong. Plus the molds are so worn that all the parts have flash on all the edges.
This isn't a commercial - I have not been paid by revell to advertise this kit. This is a review video where i highlight the flaws that exist and i think that you must have missed the (many) parts of the video where i mention what is bad about it . . .
Horrible kit, it takes a lot of cutting, filling and sanding and some parts don't fit either; it's a level experienced to come somehow accceptable with the kit
I completely agree that model companies should put the tool date on the box. There is such a huge quality difference between recent kits and ones from before about 2010 it's almost dishonest to have them on the same shelf!
I agree, say what you will about Airfix they do put the tool dates on the box (if you know where to look).
Indeed!
@@thekeithfulbarrums I think only for their 'Vintage Classics.'
Here's a tip: If you find a Revell 1:76 Diorama kit, chances are good it's a Matchbox tooling -- which are usually flawless.
No, their main line kits do have a tooling date on the box if you know where to look.@@stevesmodelbuilds5473
I would have become aware of this kit back between '68 - '70-ish when I loved building models as a very young child! I always preferred the Airfix kits because the 'transfers' at the time were far better than Revell's (which always silvered and flaked-off the model!).
Of course now, Airfix use Cartography who make some of the best decals you can get, and Revell now use them sometimes too!! 😄
Funny to see that back when this first came out that Revell even bothered to make a semi-detailed cockpit; most models only a horizontal peg for the pilot figure to sit on!! 😂
The whole fuselage shape is too stretched; too long - especially at the nose, and the canopy is very poor, but then, that's the way that models were back then: Simple, crude detailing, etc - especially at the sort of pocket money prices they sold for back then... 2/6 was a common price at the end of the '60s!
For these cheaper kits, things didn't really change until Matchbox came out in about '72, and their kits for the day were incredible good details, well moulded, decent transfers, etc, and they sold for similar pocket money prices (25p-ish!!).
I look forward to seeing what you can do with this in coming videos! 😉
Thanks for the info!
Perhaps we should call the "skill levels" the Vienna Levels as "it means nothing to me, oh Vienna"
Haha, very true
Aaaaahhhhh Ultravox!
A classic!
And your comment is very funny, I’m gonna Nick that! 😂😂😂👍🏼Ian
@@bugler75 Help yourself 😃
@@tinplategeektoo Ta mate 😁
This was the third kit I assembled and the first one I "tried" to paint, I was 8 years old in 1981 and the version was Revell Kikoler (Brazil) boxtop with model's photo and markings of the "Texas Terror IV". This kit is kind of hated by the old local modelers for being so bad but I have nostalgic affections for it, I even got a version from the same period still sealed that I intend to assembly again 40 years later.
yeah, i think that even bad kits can be revisited to see if you would do them differently
i put this kit right in the bin after i bought it. I was suckered because the revell p-47 was so nice. Taught me a valuable lesson about researching kits
I agree! The Revell P47 was my first ever introduction to revell brand models, and I mistakenly thought they would all be like that! How wrong i was . . .
@@ModelMinutes the funny thing is if you look at the little picture of the completed model closely on the side of the box you can tell what a dog's breakfast the kit is. Academy has a p-51d i think might be same mold.
@@robmarsh6668The Academy kit is much better but it is not accurate .
@@bobgibb2781 yeah the landing gear seem waaay to long and academy decals are usually pretty gross but a fun, cheap build.
Ah you meant p51. Haven't done that. Though i liked the p51b but decals were atrocious
Watching your video I realized that Revell did update that kit's molds in the last 59 years. I still have the old "Millie P" that I built as a kid, and it was even more awful than it is now. Specially the propeller and nosecone were very wrong. But their P-51B from 1998 is a far better kit.
I might look at their P51B in the future
I seem to be addicted to your vids. I love your honesty and the projects- quick builds but still enjoyable. Personally I LOVE your challenges you do. You make really good work but when you do the challenges you make them with the eyes of a newbie and we've all been there eg. artists acrylic paint because parents didn't know and bought cheap set thinking quantity over quality, superglue because we literally used whatever we had in our draw, included paints because to be honest we didn't know what range the companies had or whether we could use other companies paint because we didn't have access to paint conversion charts and newbies don't know that or where to find it. Excellent channel, I think it's extremely fun what you are doing here. Keep up the good work Sir
Thanks so much! Glad you like my videos :D
I must say that I’m learning to dislike Revell Germany and their lack of date transparency. Thank goodness for Scalemates!
Otherwise good honest review as always Matt and congratulations too 😊👍🏼
Well said!
@@ModelMinutes The blue series box range covers all the older model kits but black series represents new ones ( including outsourcing kits to Italteri, Hasagawa, and other Chinese brands + their own made in Germany).
@@amuxpatch2798 not sure that’s 100% the rule. I’ve got blue boxes like the p47 and me262 which are fairly recent toolings whilst an 80s tooled f117 is in a black box
@@ModelMinutes I think Revell company must have kept their earlier tooling and modern tooling of model kits to cover vast range of kits and make it affordable for the mass market while other kit companies went for retooling to produce more detail and flash free kits thus more expensive to buy to cover their production cost.
@@amuxpatch2798 yes, but my issue isn't that they are selling old tooled kits, it's that they try and pass them off in the same range as their more modern stuff, which is essentially a bit like false advertising. Other companies like Airfix (and i think Heller) have their "vintage" ranges - so you know that anything there is not a new release
I would suggest everyone to search for the model you are planning to buy on the internet, then go to stalemates and watch from what time it is. You then know a bit what to expect.
Nice unboxing as always matt!👍
Yep.. As an example, when Airfix brought out their "Top gun" series recently they would have us believe the fictious "MiG - 28" kit was new but when I looked it up on scale mates I discovered its simply a reissue of their F-5 E kit from 1987...new my arse.... Still bought it though for the decals for my Italeri F-5 E/F so I can do it as a 2 seat "MiG - 28".....and yes, if you watch top gun carefully you will notice at least 2 of the mig-28s are indeed 2 seat variants. (F-5F Tiger 11).
Thanks for the tip!
Definitely think that Revell needs a Classics or Vintage range for kits like this one. To some extent Matchbox looked like it would fufill this purpose for Revell. Maybe they could use the Monogram brand if they don't want to go down the Revell Classics or Revell Vintage route.
Yeah, maybe they could do something like that
I recently got a Revell 1/32 Spitfire to build again to see if I have improved. It isn't just the actual build process but also the painting and weathering with different products from the original build. Look forward to see your two compared.
Some old kits are fine. I did the Revell HMS Bounty which is from 1956! Yes it did have a lot of flash but the actual kit is good and with a little bit of effort get a good model at the end all for about £16. Had some Revell kits that really were old and awful and did end up in the bin. Airfix's Vintage Classics lets you know that it will be an older kit from the start and you know that it could need some work. Having some sort of tooling date just seems fair to the customer.
Yeah, i think Airfix are going along the right lines with their vintage range
It takes a few minutes to look up on Scalemates. This is a 1963 tooling that's been reboxed a number of times since then. They've added new decals over the years, as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if the instructions weren't updated (literally!) as well. As 1960s kits go it's not that bad, actually. This is the quality of kits modellers of my age grew up with... and we enjoyed building them, too! Obviously modelling was VERY different back then!
well said
First of all, congratulations on crossing the 25,000 mark!
Revell's sales strategy is very shocking. I also fell for them with the Battle of Britain Gift Set (05711) and was quite disappointed with the models and when I saw in 2020 that they had brought the set back in a slightly different form (05691) for the 80th anniversary, I was really annoyed, because now people will probably fall for the same sales strategy again.
Thanks! Yeah, my first revell kit was the p47, which is good! This is considerably worse
Had this kit in 1970…
Came in a combo kit from REVELL called the FLYING DUSES along with a JAPANESE HAYATE
no drop tanks, had a pilot and only star n bars decals… pretty basic
A good model builder could make it into something
YEP… that’s the kit… I think I paid .99cents AMERICAN for the combo kit
in 1970… still like building the old stuff
KITS are KITS…
If you’re building something, you’re doing something… MODEL ON
thanks :D
What I like about this kit is the pilot figure. It's very rare to find 1/72nd aircraft model kits with pilot figures sporting oxygen masks on their faces. That's a very nice touch.
I'm sure i've come across others with masks
I do agree that model companies need to identify their kits, if they are new tool or not, maybe even list the original release date. Honestly, my favorite P-51dD kit is Tamiya from, 2000, it is detailed enough (why doe's everybody think a 1/72 kit needs 1/32 detail is beyond me), fits perfect, just some sanding, no filler. My second choice would be, sit down for this, Hasegawa, I know, it is positively ancient by today's standards, but it fits well, and is accurate, just not the most detailed, but isn't that what most of us want. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think most of us just want a reasonably accurate kit, that fits together well, doesn't cost a month's salary, and doesn't require 50g of filler to fix a 5g kit, and looks good on our shelf or in our cabinet. If you are a contest modeler, I applaud you, and appreciate the effort and dedication you put into the hobby, if it wasn't for you, pushing for newer and better kits, the rest of us would still be building1960's tooled crap
thanks for sharing! I'm glad you agree with my thoughts :D
Good review, congrats on 25k!
thanks!
It's not the fact that the kit is old. I enjoy building old kits. It's the fact that the model barely resembles a P-51D. It has the look of a flying scale replica with a lawn mower engine built in someone's shed.
Haha well said!
The more i watch your revell videos, the more i realize how lucky i am to choose one of their newer toolings for my first ever kit, it only had afew tiny problems and flash.
yes, they are a mixed bag - some are amazing whilst others kinda suck
One of the things I enjoy most is color research. Mostly German ww2 colors.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for watching 😊
I built that for a diorama, it was one of the best kits I ever built, no problems fit perfectly, I liked it so much that I built a Revell 1/32 Spitfire and then a 1/48 F-14 all great kits.
Thanks for letting me know :D
I hope you realize in 1962 plastic modeling was about 10 years old… the idea of comparing P-51’s from early days (Revell, Frog, etc) mid-era (Tamiya, Academy…) and current time (ARMA hobby) would be a great way of showing how model kits have evolved and developed over the decades!
yeah, that could show an interesting evolution
You have been quite fair. Most of Revells kits, are very old, and/or molds from the east. I have a Revell TA-152 in my stash, it's crude, flashy and very simple. I will never build that....
I have the same kit. I'm building it right know. Yes it is a very simple and old kit (its a Frog tool i believe) but the fit is very good actually
@@EindbaasToad I have built it once before, and yes old Frog, but it fits OK. Cockpit is non existant, but ok, it''s 1/73...
Yeah, i've got a Ta152 as well - i probably will build it but not expecting wonders
Revell were all over the place when it came to quality in the sixties. The P-26 peashooter, stearman, he-162 and a few others can still be built into decent looking models. The P-51D on the other hand has absolutely no redeeming qualities. I built this as a kid and even the old Heller P-51D (wich should also be avoided) was lightyears ahead in terms of both shape and fit.
Must admit when I bought this as a kid because of the colour scheme and the sliding canopy and while I wouldn't touch it nowadays at the time it was an improvement over the original Airfix P-51D.
I built the Heller P51 many years ago, generally it wasn't too bad, but not the best kit in the world
Seeing this kit on Amazon, where I get all my kits, I was appalled by the grotesque misproportions of this kit. The drop tanks are horridly oversized, the canopy is poor, the gear doors and vertical tail is all wrong. Revell kits are generally good, but this kit is garbage. The Chinese snap kits look good in comparison. Just avoid this howler!
@@lancerevell5979 yeah the way Revell managed to mess up every single detail and proportion on this kit is almost impressive.
I remember buying two of this kit when I was younger. The second one came with two decal sheets with the same subject.
interesting!
Glad I never wasted any $$ on that kit!!!
Having done around 40 P-51's over the years...1/144, on up to 1/24. In 1/72, the new-ish Airfix is a winner. I'd take it in a heartbeat, over Tamiya even...actually, I could get 2-3 for the same price!
I have over 30 of the Airfix P-51D 72 kits got them on sale at HL mostly :)
good points
@@teenagerinsac NICE!!!
I've only done a handful of em...every one of them had a severely bent main gear (bends back easily enough though)...how 'bout your kits?
Sale at HL is 4.59 or 4.99 40 off 9.99 price
For me the best low cost 1/72 scale P-51 Mustang model was the one from Matchbox of 1973 for its fidelity to the true shape and details with a number of 37 pieces as for novice modelers.
nice suggestion!
Great Content I'm starting my new hobby and my youtube channel to run along side. your videos are very helpful. Thank you
Good to hear! Best of luck!
My review is due to go live tomorrow (27th March). I was so distracted by the general roughness and age of the kit (1963) that I didn't notice the shape of the undercarriage doors. The primative shape of the doors is just 'offensive' and I won't be building the kit (unless I use it for a "what if" monstrosity).
Thanks for the info!
Just compared the P-51 kit to the drawings of the P-51H I just found after 20 seconds.
Much of it seems to be a P-51H, but the tail is not tall enough, and the slope up and down from the canopy on the fuselage is very flat, if they were going for the P-51H.
It looks like a hybrid of P-51s from about the D forwards.
Overall, I'd use it for parts to make the navy experimental version out of another, better cheap P-51 kit, or perhaps as a cheap source to make an F-82 quickly and cheaply.
Lots of work needed to accurise it for anything else, but that's what was normal in the 1960s and 1970s, as I recall; cross-kitting to make what you wanted.
thanks for the info!
This kit is just rubbish, it's neither a D nor an H or any other model!
Ah this infamous little "kit" from Revell, and the interesting "pilot" figure with his elephant feet!
Yeah, is pretty bad
Thanks for the video. Judging the quality of kits molded in the 1960-1980´s by todays´ standards will inevitably result with the kit on the loosing side. I think that manufacturers should include in the box information about the year in which the kit was tooled and indicate any "new" additions such as decals, instructions, extra parts, etc. The buyer can then choose to buy it for many different reasons: a nostalgic built, first-time built, to complete a collection, etc. without having much expectations on the final look of the built kit as compared to other modern kits.
If revell had marked this as a vintage kit in some way, I would be considerably less harsh. But seeing as they are trying to "sneak" this off the shelves by selling it alongside more recent toolings, I will always measure it as such and call out the companies for doing so. Some of the other manufacturers have started taking this on board, but not all
Agree about putting the tool date on the kit. And would like to see a comparison build video 👍
thanks!
I have a couple of original Revell 3in1 Collectors choice versions of this kit. (it really is a dog of wolfhound proportions) In fact I have all the 3in1 range. Looking forward to getting them all built.
nice!
Had this in my stash, and opened the box a few years back. The plastic went in the bin, the decals in my storage box. Hoping to do "Cookie" using the Airfix kit, at least it goes together without a ton of filler.
very true!
I ditched the kit but used some of the main decals on the airfix kit😉👍
The lack of underside vent on the fuselage is criminal 😂👍
there is a lot more missing than the vent lol
Revell and Rong often go together... 😆
😂
You were right this kit was unbuildable for me
It says it all when the box art is the best part of the kit
@@eddiebirdie1545 that’s right
sad times
I built this kit back in the '60's when I was about 13. I seem to remember, though, that the cockpit canopy came in two parts, and could be slid back. Can't imagine why, there isn't much in the way of cockpit detail, still it was the kind of thing I enjoyed!
It might not be the same kit if you could slide the canopy back (or perhaps they changed the included clear part) because this canopy comes as a single piece
@@ModelMinutes I was thinking that they probably changed the clear part. When I look at the fuselage part it does seem as if there is a rudimentary rail for the canopy to run against. Or is that just me?
@@rogueriderhood1862 it could be a mould seam 🤷♂️
@@ModelMinutes I don't think so. If you look at 7.44 it does look like a canopy rail on the cockpit sill. Several of this series of kits had multi-part canopies, the Spitfire, Bf 109 with a working side hinge, the P.47; not sure if any more did.
@@rogueriderhood1862 maybe but it’s not an option they currently provide in this kit not make reference of in the instructions. You sure you aren’t thinking of a 1:48 scale version?
I just got this same kit a few weeks ago from amazon japan. Obviously it should be a new tooling. But after building it, i have to agree with Matt that this kit is not a very good kit. There were a lot of fit and flesh issues. Has to use a lot of putty to cover the gap at the top and bottom and along the fuselage joint... 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Yeah, this is not a good kit for the price
Looking at the details on this kit and particularly the pilot figure I'm sure this kit came out in the 1960's or 1970's.
yeah, i do mention the age in the video with the tooling date
@@ModelMinutes Sorry I made the comment before your video finished.
The dead giveaway was the totally bad landing gear doors. BTW, the pilot figures in the original '60s Revel kits were, in fact, the best representation of RAF fighter pilot kit I've ever seen in this scale. Oh, and I actually like the one piece tailplane, no prob keeping it straight!
And thanks for the heads up, I was thinking about getting a Mustang kit--lets see if I can find the Academy -1/5 (no tail fillet)--V-14 engine and all!
thanks for the info :D
@@ModelMinutes Welcom
I see that you have been honest, when you have told what are the advantages, and disadvantages of that model kit. I also have that model kit. I have 2 or 3 of them I think (from Revell I mean). One of them was with the Yugoslav markings. And what I don't like is the way how was canopy made. When I say that, I mean on the thing that it's not fitting right just like it's showed on the box how is suppose to look like no matter how much I pay attention in instructions. I also have from Airfix P-51 D mustang, and also from Mister Craft in that same scale, waiting to be assembled as well. But one model kit that you don't like, doesn't mean that you don't like some other model kits from Revell. I like some other Revell model kits, but that's like we are talking about the tastes, and it's useless to discuss about the tastes.
But of course everybody can choose what's best for them. It's important that you like what's best for you. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks for watching! Not all revell kits are bad, it's a shame that they still think this is a good representation of their brand
Arma hobby made a mustang in 1:72 for like 20£ or 25£ . And it have a lot of markings
thanks for the info!
Model Minutes No problem
Wing roots seem to be a different shape between the two..?
yes, i think they are
Ive never build that model from revell,, the airfix version is a good kit
It certainly is :D
Back as a kid I built an Airfix 1/72 Mustang after the Revell model. I thought the Airfix model was inferior. I get the feeling the Airfix release discussed here was a later completely new release.
yes, the version you built has been retired, a new tool (circa 2010ish) is now in use by airfix
There really is no excuse for a kit from the 60's still being boxed and sold now when it is such a popular subject and Revell could have either tooled a replacement or licensed another manufacturer's more accurate offering in this scale.
I agree
My issue with Revell kits is that 9 times out of 10 their either outdated, poor quality, deformed or shortshot parts, or just not enjoyable to build. Also, reboxing vintage kits as "new." I built their 1/72 scale Wirbelwind recently (along with some other Panzers) and they were bad kits. Plus a few HMMWVs that were terrible. I also built their 1/35 MANN truck and it was bad too. I've built one really good Revell kit, but it was retooled and remodeled by dragon (1/144 Space Shuttle) and I liked it a million times more than the original. Revell is good if you're stuck in the 70s and 80s. Now, I've built bad kits from every manufacturer, it's just they don't pale in comparison to the Revell kits that were bad. Now, I enjoyed Revell as a kid, but now that I'm more experienced and like what I like (1/35 and 1/72 US Vietnam era and up,) Revell kits don't fit that niche normally. Yeah, they have the only 1/72 scale M997 Ambulance HMMWV but it was a bad build with shortshot parts, bad plastic and terrible decals. If you're a new modeller, go with Revell if it fits your planned niche. Otherwise, stay away.
I brought the 1/32 revell Bell Huey gunship helicopter ,the parts were crude and badly distorted ,after building for a while ,it went straight into the recylcing bin , Revell never updated their manufacturing mold cast die (but kept the 1960s one and transfer to make in China). Academy is the best using cad/cam systems to produce accurate model parts and flash free parts with good clear panel lines on their aircraft series.
good points!
The decals are the only part of this kit which is usable - but with another kit please, Airfix or Tamiya.
the decals are indeed the best part
Nice review using scalemates is a must now when buying so called new releases cheers
Yeah, whilst the information on scalemates isn't perfect (especially for older kits) it's still a great resource and incredibly helpful
Do you think Revell kits are good kits over all? 🤔 I think manufacturers should tell us year of manufacture. I'm looking forward to seeing the build. You are fair on models over all and I enjoy the unboxings and builds, that's why I support this channel 👏.
Generally, there are lots of good revell kits. But sadly they mix new and ancient toolings in their range (along with reboxes), so it can be hard to know the quality of a kit before you buy it
I find most Revell kits are decent, some are great. Some, like this one, are true stinkers. All companies have good and bad kits (except Starfix of Israel, all are grotesque stinkers!), Revell is no different. Even Tamiya and Hasegawa have put out the occasional bad kit.
Is this the same Airfix P-51D they had in starter sets? I managed to put my hands on that one and it sure does look quite lovely. I have built both Italeri and Academy P-51Ds in 1/72 and both had their issues. Italeri, quite basic level of detail and troublesome fuselage/wing joint area. Academy was quite excellent in terms of fit, and detail, but it does have strangely wide canopy. Airfix really looks like the best bet between all of them.
Seeing as this is a Revell kit, no, it is not the same as the Airfix P-51. The Airfix version is a much more recent tooling whereas the Revell one (despite being only slightly cheaper) is ancient by comparison
@@ModelMinutes I meant the Airfix one you shown as a comparison
@@CrazyChemistPL yes, the gift set p51 is the same version as the non-gift set product. It just comes without the paints etc and usually has a different paint scheme
Revell has amazing plastic in there fighter jets like there Grumman f14 super tomcat but on the wwll the plastics terrible like this
Love the videos keep up the good work btw could u plz build a bf110 bye airfix
(I think it was airfix anyway)
Thanks for the info. I have a hobbyboss BF110 which i might build in the future
I believe the box should bear a large, red, label "Tooling Un Revised Details!!"?
Airfix does such a nice job of marking their classic issue kits. Bad form, Revell Ag.
yes, not telling the purchaser the date of the tooling is certainly a problem
@@ModelMinutes That being said, it seems as hobbyists we owe it to ourselves to be more thorough about our purchases. Scalemates makes a fine reference for such things. Tamiya boxings of Italeri models also come to mind.
I think it’s a shame that you hardly get pilot figures in kits these days
yeah it can be quite rare
It's a really, really old kit. I can remember making one in the late 1970's, and swapping the pilot figure for an Airfix 'Biggles' pilot (the old, but nicely detailed one), as the Revell figure was so squat and lumpen. I'm astonished that this kit is still on sale - I didn't really like it - it seemed a bit 'off' in it's proportions, to me. I remember this kit, as I had read a book of 'Great Mysteries', which contained the true story of American pilot, Thomas Mantell, who chased a UFO in his Mustang, and disappeared, the wreck of his 'plane and his body being found sometime later, in the desert. This creeped me out a bit, as a teenager, and I had to make a Mustang kit, just because. Probably would have done better with the old Airfix P51-D 'Fool's Paradise IV'.
Tom didnt resupply is O2 from previous flight and passed out at altitude , and he was found in cockpit , no mystery there gentlemen , he was in a hurry again , he was always in a hurry , they call it safety third now days.
@@Russianpaintrain - I know that now, but reading that when you are 14, really sets the ideas flowing.
'Safety third'. I like that.
Thanks for the info!
It looks alright but I do hate it when manufacturers use coloured plastic instead of a grey colour for the sprues.
yeah, the worst is when it is a bright yellow or red
@@ModelMinutes I cannot agree more
Could I get better results buying this kit and also an airfix mustang and using this kits decals on the airfix kit?
If you really wanted a Mustang in this paint scheme, yes it is a possibility
I remember this kit. It is inaccurate, the fuselage shape is wrong, the undercarriage doors are wrong. I used it for spares, plastic, paint practice. Even the OLD airfix kit is better.
yeah, this kit is great for practicing new techniques, but that is about it
Doesn´t look like a great kit, now, but you could have fun with it? :) Nostalgia..
True!
This must be the same as the Matchbox kit I had years ago
From my research, Revell reboxed the Matchbox P51 kit once in 1992, but the version in this kit is the original Revell tooling from 1963
I don't think this is such a bad kit, but I totally agree that Revell should mention that's it's pretty old. Other than that it's very easy to build and paint. It was one of the first models I ever made and I loved it. Hope to do another one someday if I can find a very cheap one that's worth the price.
Also, this box looks rather dated as well from around the 2005-2010 era.
I think this box is 2010, but they could still be making them just without updating the printing
@@ModelMinutes Could be, but although it's on the Revell website it is out of stock and on Scalemates the most recent rebox of this is the 2013 modelset. (other than the P-51B). Nonetheless I wouldn't be surprised if they just rebox it in the next year or so.
To be honest after building a lot of airfix and revell kits then moving to Tamiya and Eduard kits I can see how much detail airfix and revell miss.
yeah, they do come up short in a few places, but I feel they are slowly improving
@@ModelMinutes agreed
I bought this kit for 3,79 € only as decal source for my old academy mustang.....
that's a good idea!
Can you compare it to the italeri p51d?
I imagine the italeri one is considerably better
@@ModelMinutes ok, thanks!
Shame that I have to live in Germany where you exclusively find Revell kits in all stores and buying airfix online is surprisingly pricy. I have yet to find a Revell kit that is at best better than average, and many times you pull absolutely time capsules of awfulness (Ta-152, Jesus Christ what an abomination). Oh wait their Bf109-F3 was pretty good.... Ahh, it's repackaged Zvesda, oops....
I always pick up a few Airfix kits when I'm over in Belgium, their recent releases are very good 😄
The revell p47 was pretty good from my memory
oh yeah didnt you built this kit a few years ago
right at the beginning of the channel :D
Saw another review where the builder simply said it was time to call it a day on this kit, retire and retool it. So your review is quite lenient
yeah, if they really want to keep a mustang in their range, they really should re-tool it
Made a Redtail version out of it… as best as I could…🤨
Sounds fun!
g a r b a g e
isn't it
can you matt do a video on your second channel thanks
Yes I can, when i get some spare time - it's hard enough finding enough free time to make videos here :(
@@ModelMinutes that's okay
Has anyone compared this abortion against the P-51H drawings? If I am to be asked, this kit resembles more the H model Mustang than D. How about merging two of these into a P-82?
hmmm that is an interesting thought
I tend to avoid Revell kits, and Airfix… for the same reasons.
Jake, you might be surprised by the quality and standard of detail in the newer Airfix kits, please check them out.
I have a Revell B17G that I bought in late 2021, the manufacture date is 2010, it's very detailed and looks to have a quality fit.
You might be surprised now.
@@markcussens5380 Revells classic B -17F 72 scale "Memphis Belle" was very accurate and only missed the mark with out of scale rivet details.
Not all revell and airfix kits are bad though
I always avoid Revell unless they are the only maker of a specific subject
I think i tend to buy models without minding the brand, as long as it is an interesting subject :D
@@ModelMinutes the Revell SMS Dresden I have isn't a bad kit, vehicles are hit or miss but I haven't had good luck with aircraft
Hi Mat I love old Revell modelkits but only this P-51 is horrible
yeah, this p51 isn't very good at all
This was the WORST purchase I ever made in modelling. I've never been as disappointed with a kit as I was with this one haha.
yeah, it is very poor lol
I built this very boxing at the start of the year, awful kit.
yeah, it's not great
They couldn't even get the shape of the wheel wells right.
i think there was a lot they got wrong
@@ModelMinutes Oh no doubt. Thats and the gear doors were just the ones that jumped out at me immediately.
*SpongeBob narrator voice* “6 months later”
lol
So $7 in USD........I mean it's still not bad......
compared to other kits it isn't great
£6! SIX?
I paid double that from a shop in Whitby a few weeks ago. 😞
This is a terrible kit. I think I was had!
On Amazon it’s not retailing for more than about £6
@@ModelMinutes Mind you, mine was the 'all you need' flavour with three paint pots, a not very good double-ended brush, and cement. Probably should have mentioned that...
😆
oh, well, in that case that seems to be the RRP for the starter set version - it doubles the price because of those inclusions @@JeffJefferyUK
Italeri and revell are constantly miss representing their products. They sell very old kits (that cost next to nothing to make), for modern prices. I flat out refuse to purchase any italeri or revell kits. And in the case of revell their quality control is non-existent. I once purchased a type viic sub from the and one half of the hull was bent about 30 degrees. They still put it in the box for sale. Pathetic.
well said!
they all look like plastic model kits anyway, some better than others but obviously kits no matter how much "weathering" and other stuff is on them.
this is certainly an astute observation . . model kits are indeed model kits
@@ModelMinutes thanks for the compliment...... its probably jealousy on my part as all my models tend to not even look like kits, i have a cupboard full of 24 scale kits now i can afford them but daren't build them as my 72nd scale ones frighten the kids....... any tips😁😁
@@paulnutter1713 might be worth looking at some of my build videos for most of the techniques I use, but generally I find the big skills to practice are brush control and paint thinning
@@ModelMinutes i watch as many vids from lots of modellers, as i said each to their own, I'm a good drawer but can't paint for toffee, my models went the same way hence why most are still in boxes..... win win
I like old kits if their shape is right but that Mustang is so dimensionally inaccurate as to not be worth bothering with.
If you think the Revell kit is bad you should try finding the Airfix kit of the same vintage the only redeeming feature of that kit is that it was a fraction of the price of the Revell kit.
yup
Caricature of a Mustang. The shape does not correspond to the real airplane.Thumbs up!
yup, it's not a very accurate looking model lol
Worst kit I ever got. Landing gear is very wrong. Rivets all over that would be about 3" wide and 1/2" tall! Flash all over. Radiator is not right. Unfixable. Canopy wrong. Tossed it in the trash. Lesson learned.
yeah, is a poor kit
It’s a dog to do. More filler than plastic. Revell has let me down too much. Thinking of doing a model from these, run outside to burn £20 and you’d get more enjoyment.
lol. Not all revell kits are bad - the newer ones are pretty good tbh
At least Airfix market old/ancient toolings as “Vintage classics”. Revell should be ashamed to sell this turd. How many new modellers have been put off the hobby by these cynical marketing cons.
For the price of three of these disgraces you could buy a Tamiya 1/48 P-51B and love it. I don’t buy this nostalgia angle, I look back and thank the heavens for Arma, Tamiya, Meng and even Accurate Miniatures for being the best they can be. Even a 1970’s Tamiya panzer II is light years ahead of that abomination.
Melt down these moulds and stop the bull shit Revell.
Some of the older toolings are still pretty good, but yes, i think that in this modern age - to sell an old tool kit at similar prices as new tools is just wrong
Imagine all the poor saps coming into the hobby for the first time, buying this cos they love P-51s, it's cheap and the box art is good, and getting some mess tooled in the 70s
yeah, i know i got fooled by it back in 2016
@@ModelMinutes lucky it didn't turn you off the whole thing. At least the Internet is here to help with research on what kits are good or bad
Thicc and basic 😏 7:13
😂
That kit looks horrid by today's standards. 100% on manufactures making it clear when the tooling was made. 90% of modellers probably don't even know scalemates exists!
Yeah, I didn’t know about scalemates until only a few years back
This is a terrible kit not because it's old, it's because of all it's awful dimensions. It's like a caricature of the plane. All the shapes are wrong. Plus the molds are so worn that all the parts have flash on all the edges.
yes, it's a shame that they haven't looked into a new version
What? You are making commercial for the junk? This kit is a piece of s..t. Try to see Tamiya kit. :)) Or you have never see the P-51 in live.
This isn't a commercial - I have not been paid by revell to advertise this kit. This is a review video where i highlight the flaws that exist and i think that you must have missed the (many) parts of the video where i mention what is bad about it . . .
Horrible kit, it takes a lot of cutting, filling and sanding and some parts don't fit either; it's a level experienced to come somehow accceptable with the kit
well said :)
For some reason YT thinks i didnt reply to this comment
I can hardly believe Revell still editing its worst model ever. It Is a 60 decade model even a very bad one for that time,a shame.
it is a pretty poor model kit
I it a really terrible kit, i buy it only vor the decals for another better P-51 kit.
yeah, it's just a lump of plastic really
What's the matter super detailers no 1000 peice cockpit or 100 part landing gear 🤣🤣🤣🤣
lol, i'd not build a kit if it was that complicated