Tag Archives: revell

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss.

Image May 22, 2015 Hutchins AAron

I ‘built’ a collection of 1:48 scale Ling Temco Vought A-7 Corsair 2s. Time to compare them, as a lot of kit bashers always want to know which is the best, or at least which looks the best out of the box.

The first 1:48 A-7 was the old 1969 issue Aurora kit. It was marketed as a D version, but is actually an A/B/C version. The main difference is that the A/B/C versions had two single barrel Colt Mark 12 20mm guns firing through troughs on either side of the air intake. D and E versions had a single six barreled M61 20mm Vulcan gun on the left (port) side. The Aurora kit has two gun troughs on either side of the air intake, making it an A, B or C version.

Click the pics to make bigger

: Monogram supposedly re-tooled the Aurora kit.

: The Monogram re-tool resulted in a longer fuselage.

: The Monogram kit is also slightly larger in cross section.

: The Monogram wing (the one underneath the tan wing) also got longer in span.

: Monogram gives us more detail in the cockpit, but for some reason the canopy got really fat.

: Aurora’s legs are down right ugly, but Mongram’s aren’t great, either.

: Pathetic weaponry. At least Monogram gives you decent looking pylon-ejector racks and external fuel tanks.

: Note how round the Aurora tailpipe is.

The old kit is interesting in that it has recessed panel lines (Matchbox ‘trench’ style), something unique for a 1960s kit. Other than the recessed surface details the kit is basically a toy. There are very little details anywhere else and the landing gear and ordinance are pathetic. I do not have 1:48 scale drawings of the A-7, so the best I can do is compare the kits and make judgments based on the 1:72 scale drawings I have. The Aurora kit is mentioned because the next 1:48 scale A-7 kit to be issued came from Monogram, and supposedly evolved from the Aurora kit.

In 1976-77 Aurora went out of business and sold-off its kit molds. Monogram bought most of the molds. Reports say Monogram re-tooled the Aurora A-7, if this is true they did a crappy job (compared to the ground breaking kits they issued in the mid 1970s-early 80s). It is currently issued by Revell U.S.A. (do not confuse it with the recent A-7 issued by Revell Germany, which is a re-boxing of Hasegawa’s A-7).

Monogram made some major changes, which resulted in raised panel lines and a longer fuselage. The wing span is also longer. The most ugly change was the widening of the cockpit area, the canopy is not only bigger than the original Aurora canopy, it’s the biggest of all the kits I compare. The ordinance is no better than Aurora’s but at least you get big external fuel tanks. At least Monogram made the tailpipe more oval, as Aurora’s is round.

Monogram did market it as an A-7A. So far Hobby Boss is the only other kit maker to issue an A-7A Corsair 2. The Monogram-Revell kit is a crappy kit, and I’m surprised by how much the original Monogram issue kit sells for on the internet. I’m also surprised Revell U.S.A. re-issued the thing, especially when Revell Germany sells the Hasegawa kit (unfortunately, I’ve discovered that sometimes Revell-Germany also issued the old Monogram kit).

Close on the heels of the Monogram issue came Italy’s ESCI A-7D/E versions. I read many posts saying how bad the ESCI kit is, but in my opinion it’s still better (in some ways) than the Monogram/Aurora kits.

: ESCI’s fuselage is molded in 4 parts.

: ESCI’s air intake sits farther back.

: Note how round the ESCI air intake is.

: The position of the elevator on ESCI’s kit is higher up than the Revell-Monogram kit.

: ESCI multi-part fuselage reveals a problem caused by size difference. Did ESCI cast it this way because they were planning a TwoSair version?

: The instructions in the AMT issue calls this a “missile launch rail”!

: AMT’s instructions would have you mount this even when building the A-7E version.

: At least ESCI gives you separately molded wing tips and flaps.

: The Revell-Monogram (on the bottom) wing is still longer.

: The ESCI elevators are slightly narrower and more pointy at the tips than Revell-Monogram’s.

: Finally some decent looking ordinance. Don’t look at the ‘ejector racks’, no, don’t look at them!

AMT has re-issued the kit after ESCI went bust. AMT’s instructions call the U.S. Navy refueling probe a “missile launch rail”. Also, the kit I have is supposed to be a USN A-7E yet the instructions have you mount the USAF A-7D refueling receptacle on top of the fuselage anyway.

The kit has some good points like a long intake trunk, the onboard boarding ladder, a separately molded radome, separately molded folding wing tips and some okay looking ECM pods, Snakeye bombs and Maverick missiles.

Some of the bad points are lack of cockpit/wheel well details, the fuselage is molded in four parts with the forward parts being slightly larger in diameter from the rear parts, and incredibly bad ordnance ‘ejector racks’ which look like sticks of plastic.

Compared to the Revell-Monogram kit the ESCI fuselage seems the same length, but the ESCI intake lip is further back from the Revell-Monogram kit (I line up the fuselages at the tailpipe end). The ESCI intake is too round. From the rear, the tailpipes are similar in shape, but the ESCI elevator location is higher up on the fuselage. The Revell-Monogram main wing and elevators are slightly larger than the ESCI kit, with the ESCI elevators too narrow at the tips.

Finally, in the 1990s Japan’s Hasegawa issued a 1:48 A-7D and E Corsair 2. Out of the box it’s the best yet, with good looking shapes, recessed panel lines, exposed avionics bays, boarding ladder, intake trunk, some cockpit and wheel well details, separately molded wing tips, flaps and slats, nice looking Sidewinder missiles and even a separately molded air (speed) brake (which can only be posed in the extended position if you model the plane in-flight with wheels up).

: Both ESCI & Hasegawa give the option of displaying the built in boarding ladder and steps.

: The Hasegawa 1990s issue is still the answer to A-7 lover’s prayers!

: Hasegawa’s fuselage is slightly shorter than Revell-Monogram’s, but who’s correct?

: Hasegawa’s tailpipe is similar in shape to Revell-Monogram’s, but is larger in diameter. Also, note that Hasegawa’s elevator locator position is higher up, just like the ESCI kit.

: Hasegawa gives you separately molded wing fold tips, flaps and slats.

: Hasegawa’s wing span is longer than Revell-Monogram’s.

: Hasegawa failed to bomb up their kit, but gives us awesome Sidewinders. The Hasegawa external tanks are skinnier than Revell-Monogram’s.

I compared it to the Revell-Monogram kit, which has a slightly longer fuselage. From the rear the tail pipes are similar in shape, but the Hasegawa’s is larger and, like the ESCI kit, the position of the elevators are higher up on the fuselage. The main wing span is longer than Revell-Monogram’s, but the folding wing area is smaller than Revell-Monogram’s. The elevators are similar. The Hasegawa external fuel tank is the same length but skinnier. The downside is Hasegawa does not provide bombs or other ground attack ordinance and, as usual, Hasegawa’s decal color register is off (the only time they get it right is when they subcontract with aftermarket decal printers).

In 2009 China’s Hobby Boss issued a new series of A-7 Corsair 2s, including an A-7A. Out of the box it looks great, until you spend more time looking it over.

: Out-o-the box the Hobby Boss looks loaded with details, but….

: …the Hobby Boss fuselage is longer….

: …and the nose is skinnier.

: The Hobby Boss tailpipe is squatier. (squatier? more squat)

: No folding wing tips with Hobby Boss.

: The Hobby Boss main wing span is slighlty shorter, but the ‘chord’ is much, much wider than Hasegawa’s.

: Hasegawa (smallest) on the left, Hobby Boss in the middle, Revell-Monogram (biggest) on the right.

: The Hobby Boss external fuel tank is anorexic.

: You get a lot of ordinance, and a FLIR, but the Mark 82s are questionable.

The fuselage is the longest, with a skinny nose/radome, and the most oval shaped (and skinny) tailpipe of all the kits. The main wing does not have a folding section, is shorter in span than the Hasegawa kit yet much wider. This is interesting because the Hobby Boss 1:72 scale A-7 wing matches the scale drawings I compared it to.

The external fuel tank is longer and skinnier than the Hasegawa kit. The canopy size lies in between the Hasegawa and Revell-Monogram kits. The Hobby Boss kit does have nice looking ordinance including FLIR pods, but the Mark 82s are too skinny.

As far as surface details (panel lines) all the kits are different. I’ve read that some of the Hobby Boss surface details for the A-7A are in the wrong location and are more accurate for later versions of the Corsair 2. Apparently the two gun troughs are the only surface detail that matches an A-7A.

It looks like the Hasegawa kit is still the overall best 1:48 scale A-7 Corsair kit available.

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/72 scale A-7 Corsair 2 comparison: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix & Hobby Boss

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/72 REVISED comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix, Hasegawa, Matchbox, Revell & Hobby Boss. More reason not to trust scale drawings?

Image June 13, 2014 Hutchins AAron

I’ve collected a few LTV A-7 Corsair 2 kits in 1/72 scale, and noticed a lot of difference in shape. I’ve also learned that the latest and greatest kit issue from Asia isn’t so great.

Update: I recently got the ancient 1979 The A-7 Corsair II in Detail & Scale and immediately noticed a difference in the Ed Moore scale drawings and the Bunrin-Do (1989 #18 Famous Airplanes of the World: LTV A-7 Corsair II Navy Version) drawings I originally used for this review. The Bunrin-Do drawings look much better than the Ed Moore drawings but does that mean they’re more accurate?

Click the pics to make bigger and read results

: This is the Japanese 1/72 scale drawing I used to compare fuselages.

: The ESCI/ERTL/AMT kit is far too short at the rear. The fuselage is very slightly thin going by the overhead drawings.

: The Fujimi/Testors kit is narrow at the exhaust, and the vertical tail is too tall.

: Amazingly this expensive kit, with all its extensive surface detail and exposed avionics bays, has the most inaccurate fuselage! It’s long and way too skinny!

: Which one is the best?

: Good idea, too bad the shape of the wing is wrong.

: Ed Moore drawing from 1979.

The Hobby Boss kit (it needs to die or be completely re-tooled) is disappointing dimensionally, even the Mark 82 bombs are incredibly anorexic! The Hobby Boss main wing is almost right on with the Bunrin-Do drawings. The elevators are accurate close to the fuselage, but start to slightly narrow at the tip (but nothing like the narrowness of the other kits). Despite the fuselage being too narrow, the canopy is slightly too fat. If you think the Hobby Boss kit fuselage is too long and skinny, wait until you compare it to the Ed Moore drawings; it’s anorexic! Amazingly the wing is almost spot-on in shape, span and chord! The elevators are ever-so slightly short in span. The canopy is still fat.

The 'mold parting' line on this Hobby Boss canopy is not in the right place to be the result of mold halves, but matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

The ‘mold parting’ line on this Hobby Boss canopy matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

And I think I’ve discovered why many Chinese made kits have ‘mold parting’ lines down the center of their canopies: Perhaps they’re not mold parting lines, but the lines from scale drawings? However the Chinese companies are transcribing scale plans of aircraft to the mold making process, they’re including the line drafters use to indicate the center-line of the fuselage?

(Note: I didn’t check windshields, just canopies.)

The ancient Hasegawa kit (still being issued) fuselage has good shape but is slightly short when compared to the Ed Moore drawings. The antennae on the spine are in the wrong place. The old issue kit is missing the ECM antenna on the vertical tail, but supposedly later issues were revised. The elevators are too small. The wings are slightly short in span but match the shape of the drawings. The canopy profile matches the drawings but is slightly fat in cross-section. Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Hasegawa fuselage is too short. Here’s where it gets weird, the elevators and canopy match the Bunrin-Do drawings, but the wings are even shorter in span when compared to the Ed Moore drawings!

When compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Airfix (also issued by MPC) kit fuselage is the most accurate shape wise, but the main wings are too short in span, narrow in chord, and the wing tips are cut straight instead of being curved. The elevators are too short with incorrect shaped tips. The canopy looks the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is missing as it is part of the kit fuselage, so no way to pose it open. Compared to the Ed Moore drawings the Airfix main wings have the same problem; too short, wrong shape. The elevators are not only short in span but in chord as well. The canopy is slightly fat. The fuselage length matches the Ed Moore drawings, but the vertical tail is further back on the spine and the antennae are in the wrong place. Interestingly the 1979 edition of the Detail & Scale book praises the Airfix kit as being “the best kit available”.

The Matchbox kit fuselage matches the shape of the Ed Moore drawings almost perfectly (the kit was issued after the Detail & Scale book was first published) but is slightly long. The canopy is slightly flat in profile, but matches in cross section, it is molded as a one piece canopy-windshield, and like the Airfix kit, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage. The wing matches the span and wing tip shape of the Ed Moore drawings, but is narrow in chord. The elevators match the drawings. Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the elevators are the correct size, but the tips are the wrong shape. The wing is too short and too narrow. The canopy matches the profile and cross-section. The fuselage is too short, and too narrow at the ass-end.

Revell’s ancient kit (repeatedly re-issued, somebody put it out of our misery!) matches the shape of the Ed Moore fuselage, but is slightly long. The ECM antenna on the tail (apparently added to later issues of the kit) is too small. The canopy-windshield matches the drawings, but like the Airfix and Matchbox kits, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage. Revell’s wing is the best as far as how it mounts to the fuselage; it is molded as part of the spine which greatly reduces the need for filling in join lines (debatable), however, the wing is the wrong shape and long in span. The elevators have too great a sweep. According to the Bunrin-Do drawings the wing is too short in span and too narrow. The elevators have the same sweep-back problem. The canopy-windshield seem slightly small compared to the drawings. Like the Matchbox kit, the fuselage is too short, and too narrow, at the ass-end.

Comparing the ESCI (re-boxed by AMT-ERTL/Italeri) main wing to the Bunrin-Do drawings it is way too short in span, and the elevators are too narrow. The canopy seems the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is not correct. The Ed Moore drawings say the same thing about the main wing, the elevators fair better by barely matching the drawings. The canopy looks good. The fuselage matches the profile of the drawing but is slightly short. The tip of the vertical tail does not match Ed Moore’s drawing, but none of the kits do as the drawing shows the tail tip being rounded, which is wrong (oh my, you mean an authoritative scale drawing is wrong?)! ESCI kits usually come with good decals.

The Fujimi main wing is barely short going by the Bunrin-Do drawings. The elevators are way too narrow, and the canopy slightly fat with incorrect rear frame. The fuselage matches the Ed Moore drawings. Spine antennae are in the wrong location. The canopy matches. The elevators are narrow in chord and have incorrectly shaped tips. The wing is slightly short in span due to incorrectly shaped tips. Nice decals came with my kit.

Ordinance: The only kits in this review with decent weapons load are the ESCI and Fujimi kits, not great, but better than the lumps of plastic you kit with the other brands. The skinny Hobby Boss Mark 82s come with optional fuse extenders.

IFR (In-Flight Refueling): The Matchbox kit provides IFR for USAF aircraft only. The Airfix kit provides IFR for USN aircraft only. Hasegawa provides IFR for USN only, which is interesting because the AMT re-box (A-693:130) comes with markings for a USAF version. Revell’s kit has IFR for USN only, despite numerous re-issues with USAF decals. Fujimi, ESCI and Hobby Boss provide IFRs for both USAF and USN (depending on which issue of the kit you buy).

Out of the kit manufactures I compared none are accurate overall (and none got the main wing tip shape correct). I read from other kit builders that the only way to get an accurate 1/72 scale A-7 is to kit-bash several kits from different makers. From my perspective, it might be done by combining the Fujimi or Airfix fuselage with the Hobby Boss wing, for a start. If you’re planing on building a kit to enter into a highly competitive model contest then kit-bashing is your only choice, but most of us don’t have the time (or money).

The A-7 has such a unique look and all the kits capture that look despite having shape issues, so, if you’re building one just for the heck of it then save some money and buy the cheapest one you can find, and go for it.

Notes: Before re-boxing the ESCI kit, AMT also re-boxed the Matchbox kit (late 1970s) and the super-ancient Hasegawa kit (early 1970s). The AMT/Matchbox issue uses the original Matchbox artwork and the phrase “Molded in 3 Colors” (using the U.S. English spelling of the word colors).

The website ScaleMates reports the Ace Hobby Kit A-7 is a copy of the Hasegawa kit, wrong! The Ace A-7 is a re-tooled terrible copy of the ESCI kit. Ace offers it in A, B, D, E versions, but all are wrong, like not having the correct parts, or decals, for the version offered! Stay away from the Ace kit.

Heller re-boxed the Airfix A-7 in the 1990s when Airfix and Heller were owned by a single parent company (Humbrol).

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss

Cold War Aggressor: EA-7L THE ‘ELECTRIC’ TA-7C CORSAIR-2

Cold War Maintenance Walk Around: A-7D CORSAIR-2

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Revell 1937 Ford Pickup or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

Image February 16, 2014 Hutchins AAron

Click/tap pics to make bigger and read the text:

: Cool looking kit, but fiddly construction with instructions that don’t help.

: No attachment points for the wiper blades. I didn’t notice until after painting, and assembly was 99% complete. I could’a swore earlier issues of this kit had locating holes. So, on this latest issue drill holes before painting. Also, no ‘positive’ attachment points on the “stock” headlight shells. I did drill holes in the bottoms of the shells, you’ll get frustrated if you don’t.

: I had problems with the grill shell. When I attached it to the radiator it tilted too far back and prevented the hood from fitting. I suspect the crosspiece between the front fenders is the cause. I ended up gluing the grill shell to the hood. In fact the instructions don’t show the attachment of the stock grill shell to the radiator! It is a prime example of the necessity of lots of dry fitting and modification before assembly on this kit.

: The brake lights look more like rubies. I had to drill out the end of the stock exhaust pipe. I think attaching the wheels/tires earlier than what the instructions say is a good idea, as the axle to chassis connections are a little fiddly, and it took some pressure to get the stock wheels to snap on.

: If you’re using the custom dual exhaust, these cool metal pipe tips come with this issue of the kit.

: The bed has nice wood floor details, or you can use the included decals.

: I have lot-o-decals left over for custom builds. I decided to make this pickup a stock build, using only the decals for the stock gauges.

: The decal gauges look good. I taped them to the backside of the panel. The down side is that if you somehow screw up the decals there are no plastic gauges in the kit. Attachment of steering wheel shaft can be frustrating. Instead of a hole to slide it through, you have to somehow hold it in place as the glue dries (I turned the interior upside down and used gravity).

: No attachment points on the chassis. I used lots-o-glue where the frame meets the floor pan. Ignore the instructions and attach the bumper mounts at the beginning (especially before the gas tank is mounted), otherwise you’ll have problems clamping them in place while the glue dries. The instructions show steering linkage for the custom version, but no mention of it for stock. Also, instructions mention stock lever action (torsion) front shocks but not how to attach them (I eventually figured it out).

: Major faux pas here! The stock exhaust does not line up with the stock manifold opening on this side of the engine! What happened Revell? The instructions are totally focused on the “custom” version with little help for a “stock” build.

: Extra clear parts not used on this kit.

: The “custom” tires, which don’t look much different than the stock tires.

: By building a stock version I’m left with two unopened bags of cool custom parts for other projects!

: Take some time to double check your dry fits with the instructions and you’ll get a nice looking stock 1930s pickup truck.

Here’s a real 1930s Ford pickup truck in Idaho: 2015 Chubbuck Days Car Show

Kit Bashing: MULTI-MAVERICK OR WHY MODEL ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE WRONG!

Kit Bashing

2006 Mustang Funny Car dragster

Image May 30, 2013 Hutchins AAron

Click pics to make bigger

: 4 kits bashed to make a unique 2006 Mustang Funny Car.

: Chassis from Revell’s Vega dragster kit. The 429 V8 engine came from Revell/Monogram’s 1970 Boss 429 Mustang. The molded on automatic transmission was cut from the 429. The Vega’s supercharger, transmission and exhausts fit with very little modifications.

: Two Revell 2006 Bullet Mustangs were chopped to make a long nosed Mustang Funny car.

: What was that about measure twice, cut once? A lot of bondo and sanding coming up.

: All openings were filled and smoothed.

: Those plastic bread bag clips were used to join the body parts together. They are made from the same polystyrene plastic.

: More body putty and sanding. I added plastic strip at the bottom because I got carried away and cut too much from one spot (maybe it’ll also help hold the body parts more securely).

: The Boss 429 cubic inch (7 liter) V8 looks good. The Vega came with a 426 ci Hemi.

: I used a wing from a crashed up rail dragster. I had to make a new fence from plastic sheet.

: I tried protecting the windshield as I cut it for the Funny Car, unfortunately it still cracked.

: White decals sheet was used to create a company sponsor with red marker. The kit is for an employee of WinCo.

: Decals came from the Revell Vega and Revell/Monogram Boss 429 Mustang kits, as well as AMT kits and a fragile Slixx Decals set.

: The silver strips came from an AeroMaster silver decal sheet.

: The black lettering came from a sheet of stickers.

: Now you can see the damaged windshield. Racing damage, yeah that’s it, racing damage.

: Open wide! In hindsight I should have used a wider/stronger chassis as the modified 2006 Mustang body is very heavy.

: Lots of putty, sanding, thick red paint, lots of decals followed by thick clear lacquer, helps smooth hacked up body joins.

Kit Bashing: SALVAGING TWO DIFFERENT JUNK KITS INTO ONE UNIQUE CORVETTE

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Revell’s Chevy COPO Nova

Image February 19, 2013 Hutchins AAron

Click pics to make bigger

: A great out-o-the box build!

: The COPO Nova was a stripped down issue from the factory with a big 427 ci (6.9 liter) V8 and four speed manual transmission (aka a Sleeper).

: I like it when the kit comes with decals for the instrument panel. Other details on the dash were dry brushed with a toothpick. Note that the steering wheel has the SS logo on it.

: For some reason I wanted to try that Krylon Glitter Blast paint, for a 1970s look on the interior (I had a bike that had similar glitter colored seat). The first can I tried blew the nozzle right off, and I couldn’t get it back on. Threw it into the dumpster with paint blasting out. A second can resulted in the same thing, the glitter is so big that it gets stuck in the outlet of the spray can.

: Engine compartment looks great straight from the box, and with some careful painting.

: Nice looking chassis. Road grime is homemade (never throw away your old bottle of thinner, with all that gunk at the bottom).

: Kit Bashing: Wheels, tires and disc brakes are not from this kit. Wheels/tires are from Revell’s 2006 Bullet Mustang kit. Disc brakes from Revell’s recent issue of their 1966 El Camino (they had to be jury rigged into place).

: More paint experiments: The body is Rust-Oleum’s Hammered Green, and the hood is HD’s flat black.

: Hammered Green looks like painter’s disaster known as orangepeel. The kit comes with the plain jane COPO grill, as well as the SS grill.

: Ooops, out-o-focus. At least you won’t see the screw ups I made at the very end.

: Valspar Gloss Lacquer Varnish was used on the Hammered Green. The Bullet Mustang wheels got Chevy Bowtie decals, left over from the El Camino kit.

: The clear coat only slightly filled in the Hammered look of the paint. It’s very shiny, and prone to greasy fingerprints.

: The hood got a clear coat of Plaid acrylic matte. The inner lip of the front fender wells had to be sanded slightly thinner so the Bullet Mustang tires would fit inside. I think the problem was caused by the way I mounted the disc breaks on the front suspension.

: Not bad for an almost straight from the box build. Heater hoses did not come with the kit.

Kit Bashing: SUPERCHARGING THE OLD AMT OPEL GT KIT

Blind Bat News

Tag Archives: revell

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss.

1/72 REVISED comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix, Hasegawa, Matchbox, Revell & Hobby Boss. More reason not to trust scale drawings?

Revell 1937 Ford Pickup or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

2006 Mustang Funny Car dragster

Revell’s Chevy COPO Nova

News you didn't know mattered