1/28 Revell D7

I wonder if someone would post a brief (or not so brief) rundown on the deficiencies of this kit, before I shell out bucks for the Copperstate stuff. Also I am looking for Web links to some model reviews of this subject.

Thanks, Tony

Fine Scale Modeler has a build article on this kit in its January 1999 issue.

According to the article - "The two main problems are the fuselage is too deep and a wing that has too much downward curve when viewed from the front."

The author, Frank L Mitchell, reckons correcting the problems are not too hard.

[PeterL]

First I must declare an interest. I mastered the Copper State stuff so you judge whether I may have an axe to grind.

The Revell kit is not nearly so black as some have painted it. Ray Rimmel is a modeler himself and rarely has a harsh word for an on topic (OT) kit. The fact that it's an OT subject is usually sufficient grounds for RR to take a positive line, so I feared the worst when he took Revell to task on this one.
Many of us suspect that the kit is not new but unreleased and has in fact been around as long as the other three subjects in the 1/28 range. Viewed then as a thirty odd year old kit rather than a more recent effort it stands up to the others reasonably well and requires no more corrective surgery than they do.

If nothing else the wings should have spars placed inside to counteract a pronounced brewers droop, particularly on the top wing. Additionally, reducing the depth of the fuselage by taking a few mil off the bottom is a good idea and *will also allow repositioning of the lower wing with consequent reduction in wing gap. Reducing the fuselage width is a little more difficult but worth the effort IMO.You may also wish to scratch a new tailplane to be entirely accurate though the existing one is just about passable *if you're not so inclined.

Of the two Copper state conversion sets the early Fokker built (Udet's) is my personal favourite. If you choose the Stark set note that the OAW cowls as supplied (and as mastered by me so don't blame Copper State) have the full complement of louvres, some of which will need to be shaved off for Stark's aeroplane.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

oberursel:
The 1/28 scale Fok. D.VII is not impossible to correct, but near, there is very little correct about it. I have one, I corrected the wings and then stopped, the rest of the kit can be reworked by throwing away the fuselage, tailplane, rudder, and all the struts, keep the wheels. Now scratch build the all new parts.
My recommendation is to buy the new Battleaxe 1/32 scale Fok. D.VII, at least it looks like the real thing.
It is available at The Squadron, they are on the net at: mailorder@squadron.com I have seen the kit, my nephew bought one and it looks pretty good! Only a suggestion, however don't waste your money on the Revell Fok. D.VII.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Hans]

Hi, forumites out there!

DSA is completely correct. Throw away fuselage, empennage and wings. Use the guns if not interested in Copperstate replacements. Start from scratch.

The upper wing is flat on the underside and has negative v on the upperside. It looks like as if they have hold the plans other way round. The fuselage does not have the constant taper from the beginning to the tail, but has a profile (if looked from above) like a boat. I never found a plan with this profile and any attempt to clear where Revell got their wisdom from failed.

The kit is definitely coming from new moulds ( 90ies ). I know the artist who paints the box top pictures quite well and he usually got test shots of the kits. When we both saw those test shots we nearly got crazy and tried to get things straight. But is was too late. The mould was done and that was it.

We never managed to get an answer from Revell what happened.

That's the bad part of the story. The good part is: Correct the wings and use the other parts. It will give you a quite good representation, especially if made in good lozenge plus correct staffel markings. Use every Copperstate part you can afford. And

HAVE FUN!

Hans

[PeterL]

There you go Oberusel, three fairly widely differing views on exactly the same box of plastic bits. I differ from Dan-San in that I do not believe that any kit is irredeemable and certainly not this one. We can all aspire to 100% accuracy but few if any of us will actually achieve it. So it becomes a question of how far you are willing to compromise. You decide. I can only echo Hans and say, HAVE FUN

[Dan_San_Abbott]

PeterL:
I would normally agree with you, but hell this one is 98% wrong. >
Darkening skies,
Dan-San

[PeterL]

Hans, you clearly have the inside track on this question and I should not like to let such an opportunity pass. Let me explain why I think this kit is much older than it's release date.

First the question of accuracy, or lack of it. Leaving aside the wing droop, which can be laid at the door of the toolmaker rather than the master modeler, this kit conforms exactly to the Model Airplane plans from the late fifties. The other three kits in the range can be traced back to the same source. At the time these were considered the best plans available, looked at now the errors are glaring to those who know. Revell's 1963 release in 1/72 scale has it's problems but is basically accurate. So by 1963 Revell were aware that the M.A. drawings were no longer the best available and had moved on.

Next the kit itself. Comparing it with the others in the range it is clear that the DVII comes from the same hand as the DrI. The similarities are striking. They are so close that they must be contemporary. There is not a forty year gap in technology and technique between these two kits.

What I am suggesting is that, whilst the tooling may be new, the masters for the Revell DVII have been gathering dust somewhere for the better part of forty years. Can you comment?

[Hans]

For DSA:
You are perfectly right. The kit is wrong. I would say the only definite correct part is that the wheels are round. But PeterL said: Make a compromise.
When built it looks like a D VII. It's like those old Pfalzes or Halberstadts by Aurora. They can be made to beautiful representations... (If you don't take a measurement instrument and...).

PeterL:
I can't give you a definite answer. I am not working at Revell and my connection to that kit was over my friend, the box top painter. He told me that the moulds are new and made somewhere in the former Eastern Bloc countries, Poland, If I remember correctly. We tried to get an answer from Revell and even my friend failed.

But your theory makes sense. Perhaps the moulds were begun and finished now or simply the plan archive at Revell did not have anything else than those old plans?

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Peter L:
I think you are correct, I had read a review of this kit when it came out, that said the dies were made as a follow on to the Camel and Triplane, however for some reason Revell at Venice, California, decided not to kit it. I now think I know why. They used Joe Nieto's drawings which were very badly drawn and it explains the screwed-up wings, fuselage, etc.........Junk! I figured out how to fix the wings, but the fuselage was beyond reclamation. so it sets in it's box on the shelf in the den closet. :'(
The skies are rainy,
Dan-San