modelmkr

Posted this on ARC, but figured I'd thow it up here as well, since others don't frequent there... Well, just came back from my LHS with this kit in tow. Spent an hour or so pouring over it. Here are some of my impressions: Observation 1: Holy Fark!!! Observation 2: See observation 1. Things I’ve already noticed: - A case of three steps forward and two steps back? Wings (as we already knew) have to be built folded or open, no option to change afterwards. Turns out the same is true for landing gear and control surfaces… build them up or down, no option to change afterwards. Good? Bad? I don’t know, but options are always welcome in my opinion. - This release (for export market) includes clear cowl parts to "show off" the engine... Instruction insert tells you to spray a "heavy coat" of clear to help make parts more transparent. Nice option, I suppose, but I'll stick with removeable cowl bits. - Unlike the last two kits, this one uses NO magnets anywhere. I find this a step backwards as they could have easily been employed for cowling parts, tailwheel up/down assemblies, and landing gear closed doors. - Easter eggs: On photo etch sets, they include a Sutton seat harness; so this coupled with the seperate wing tip option to have clipped wings (not included in this kit) show their “intention” to do a British FAA Corsair of some mark or other. Also, as also seen in the Mustang kit, the end rocket plates for 5” HVARs (8 of) and Tiny Tim rockets (2 of) are included on PE sheet 'b'. Lets see if they actually follow through with any of these this time. I’m sure others will pick up on more, but that’s what I see initially. Surface detail is amazing, but in dire danger of being hidden under a coat of paint.… Mist on thin smooth coats to preserve. Marc. B.

I'd "like" to believe that there is an FAA Mk.I or later to follow due to this breakdown, but I've been rather dissapointed with Tamiya's engineered "good intentions" lately. Case in point: 1/32 (and 1/48) F-16C obviously engineered forward fuselage section break for two seat version... not seen to date. Rear tail on same broken down to accomodate para housing for EU versions... not seen to date. 1/32 Mustang contained PE parts for 5" HVARs and Tiny Tims and drill out points for rocket stubs... none seen to date. I fear the above series are done as far as Tamiya is concerned, but I have to ask why the added expense of engineering and inclusion of parts for these items and then no follow through? Teased and then dissapointed. So, yeah, good to see the breakdown that way... just hoping they will follow through with an addition to the likely F4U-1A/ 1D and we will actually see an FAA rendition... (fingers crossed, but not getting hopes up), Marc B.

Lou, Depends what seat you're referring to. Some of the early P-51Ds used the earlier Schick-Johnson seat which was sometimes seen in Bronze Green (some will say DDG as well), but has also been seen in IG. For the later P-51Ds, and a good number of early ones as well, the typical seat used was the later Warren-McArthur seat which was always (?) painted IG. The only way to be sure is to know what your particular aircraft was fitted with... not always easy or available. If it was a later block (-10NA and onward) chances are it used the later Warren McArthur seat. HTH, Marc B.

Are you stuck on an F-14? Because if all you're looking for is a large scale US Navy jet there are some better (IMHO) options out there by way of the Tamiya F-4J Phantom or Academy F/A-18C Hornet. My 2 sheckles, Marc B.

Another vote for the Sea Fury. I've seen this kit and it's a beauty. The Trumpeter Su-27 is impressive in size, but needs a LOT of aftermarket help to get it accurate and looking good (look at the Zactoman corrections). The Sea Fury is good to go out of the box. Marc B.

I have the D-1/R1 kit, and they are applicable. Marc B.

Okay, so there are a "few" more items and clarifications. These notes are for the Dragon Bf110D-1/R1 "Dackelbauch". The variant may be different but the instructions are largely the same (and wrong!) 1) In the Hyperscale Errata article it notes that the D20 ammo racks are called out in wrong locations and one is shown on the first (Hyperscale article) picture on the starboard side. This is shown backwards; it should be attached to part D47 as in the instructions. 2) In the same Hyperscale article photo, there is a block just ahead of the installed ammo rack on the port side. This is an attachment point for another ammo can (part D55/58). There are a total of 7 ammo cans to install, not just 4 as indicated in the instructions. 3) Clarifications: In step 2, the end of the ammo racks of sub-assembly C mate up with part D35. Also the open slot at the bottom of sub-assembly C mates with the tab at the end of part E14 of sub-assembly E. Sub-assembly B "attachment arrow" is shown going to the wrong area, it should go in the open weapon bay area. 4) The forward windscreen, H9, can have an optional armoured glass plate installed. This would be part H20 and is fitted on the outside (standoffs against frame) if used. 5) Errata to errata: In the Hyperscale article "Step 5:" they reference part H16. This should actually be G16. 6) In step 6, part F32(31) does not go exactly as shown. Reference the completed assembly in step 7 for clarification. 7) Errata to errata. In the Hyperscale article "Step 8:", the first bullet refers to the radiators being glued inboard facing each other. This is just a perspective thing. It looks that way at first but the illustration is looking from the underside of the assembly and they are shown correct (details facing out). They are not pictured upside down, the illustration is again, looking from a lower underside perspective. The radiator locating correction of this errata bullet is accurate (glue into recess in wing). 8) Clarification of part N5... on part N18/N19 (in the illustration step 8), there is a small dot at the forward edge; this is one end of N5 location. The larger end of N5 locates on the wing... in step 8, on part C7/C6 illustration, locate the 3 dots at the front of the radiator recess; now just aft of that on the illustration there is another dot; this is the locating hole for the other end of N5. The larger dot/locating hole at the aft end of the wing radiator recess (C7/C6 illustration) is the other end of part N3. 9) If your instruction has you open 5 holes in the wing marked "T", DON'T! These are for wing tanks not used (or provided) in the kit. Wing fuel tanks shown installed in further illustrations should be ignored. Well, that's all I got. This plus the Hyperscale article should get you pretty close. Marc B.

That's a good start, but I seem to recall there are more issues I found not covered by that errata list. I'll have to dig out my instructions tonight and see what else there may be from all my crib notes. If I find more, I'll post them up here. Marc B.

Be aware that although the Dragon Bf110 kit fits well, the instruction sheet is a complete disaster! It is so error ridden as to be mostly unsueable (wrong part # callouts, parts shown in the wrong location, parts missing from assembly, etc.) I had to actually use the Dragon 1/48 Bf110 instruction sheet to interpret their 1/32 sheet. Just FYI, Marc B.

No to both. Barracuda (Roy Sutherland) should have his Mustang bits out soon (read: early in the new year). WingXL has been silent. Marc B.

Fair call... I was thinking of British and American bomber crews, I'm certain I've seen some sporadic photos of these crews wearing peak caps and radio head sets, but after a little digging, flying leather headger seems to be the more common usage, especially at altitude. As to German bomber crews, I believe leather head gear with headsets incorporated were the standard. Cobwebs in the brain again... Marc B.

Aviator Helmets in WWII? Don't think so. But yes, the head sets were typically incorporated into the leather flying headgear for smaller (1 and 2 man) aircraft. Larger aircraft (4 engine bombers, for example) would wear standard radio headsets. HTH, Marc B.

The new tool F-104 is potentially from Italeri. They have listed a 1/32 F-104 in their catalogue since 2010 or so. This jives with "no masters to China" and European moldings. Personnaly, I shudder to think what kind of a fresh mess this would turn out to be given Italeri's track record lately, not to mention the horrifically over inflated price tag they'd slap on it (can you tell i'm not a fan of current italeri stuff?) Marc B.

Also, a small but noteable difference; the Navy -H had its landing lights on the main gear legs, whereas the AF -J had its landing lights on the wing undersides near the tips. And as was said, antennas, which could vary significantly. Also, I believe the equipment for the seat extraction on the -J on the turtledeck (under rear of the canopy) was different than what was seen on an -H. On the -J this area was typically covered with a canvas boot. I assume you're feeling out whether it's reasonable to produce -J decals for the upcoming ZM -H kit? Never mind, just re-read and see you're talking about making an H out of a J. Which begs, what 1/32 kit of a J is out there? The ZM offering is an H, is it not? Marc.