Lee_K

I built this twelve years ago, using the Fisher resin conversion set to depict an F-8C. The base kit is actually pretty good, for Trumpeter. There is an issue with the width of the windscreen, shape of the radome, and inaccurate raised panels around the cockpit area. The leading edge slats and the wing control surfaces do not fit very well if you pose them in the down position. I used an AMS resin ejection seat and Zotz decals. If I were to do it over again, I’d build an E with wings deployed and control surfaces in the neutral position.

Here's a post made to rec.models.scale (anyone remember that?) by John Clements: I'm consulting the B-25J E&M manual AN 01-60GE-2 with the revision dated 5 August 1944. In a nutshell, here's the Reader's Digest version of what it says: Flight deck and glare shield are Dull Dark Green Everything aft of the flight deck is yellow-green/Interior Green Bombardiers station is yellow-green/Interior Green Bomb bay, engine nacelles, and wheel wells receive no finish coat Instrument panel is flat black - John Clements When I built my B-25Js (in various scales), I used the above as a guide. Note that B-25 production lasted the entire war and earlier B/C/D/G models used Bronze Green in the cockpit rather than Dull Dark Green and that one often saw Neutral Gray used in the bomb bay. For the J model, the bomb bay was left unpainted. Also note that despite the "everything aft of the flight deck is Interior Green", that does not apply to the rear section of the fuselage aft of the bomb bay, which was also unpainted aluminum. North American Aviation was interested in getting compensation from the Army to get as many B-25s out into the field as quickly as possible so the less painting they had to do with their bombers, the faster the bombers could leave the line. This is one of the main motivations for US aircraft dispensing with any camouflage whatsoever from 1944 on. Interior Green was a formula, not a specific paint. It involved Yellow Zinc Chromate primer tinted with lamp black, which makes the color turn green. FS34151 is generally regarded as the color most closely resembling the mix although there was a lot of variation throughout the war depending on the factory and how the paint was mixed that day. Lastly, warbirds are a terrible reference for interior colors. They have another issue to deal with and that is long-term protection of the aluminum, so they tend to paint everything the same color which often means some kind of loose match with Interior Green. Very, very rarely do we see the proper colors researched and then restored.

I don't remember during the research for my build reading any complaints about the overall accuracy of the model -- it generally gets high praise for its treatment of the surface detail, which is almost all raised. But as far as the build goes, it wasn't very much fun as I remember. The interior cockpit frame was a royal pain in the butt and the wings did not fit well at all. Hurricane models are notorious for not providing enough dihedral and this one wasn't much different. Also, I found that the styrene canopy doesn't fit in the closed position. You can see the gap in this photo below towards the rear lower edge how it sits a couple of millimeters off the fuselage side. If I remember correctly, you could at the time order a vacuformed canopy from Fly -- I don't know if that is still available but it would be highly recommended. The tail wheel strut is really fragile so don't add it until the very end. As it is today, this model sits with a piece of wood propping the tail wheel up because I have no faith it will hold the weight of the model over time.

That's certainly true on fighter aircraft due to the common approach from the port side (a tradition started with mounting horses), with the P-39 being the exception. On bombers however, it could be just a carryover from fighters as most bombers were accessed via ladders and hatches or through the bomb bay.

Wow Thomaz -- that is fantastic reference material. Thank you very much!

Outstanding Tom -- thank you very much!

Agreed. I add prop abrasion to almost all my WWII era models. What I still can't my head around is if the Belle had abrasion on the port wing root due to ground crew filling the tanks before missions, then why wouldn't it be there on the starboard wing as well? Perhaps the armorers added wear by always using the port wing to lower belts of ammo into the radio room?

I'd love to see that!

I came across this photo of the Memphis Bell during the War Bond tour and noticed the huge wear pattern on the port wing root, all the way to the metal apparently. Any idea if that was caused by loads of school children being lifted on top to take a look at the famous bomber, or if this occurred during combat operations? There's also some wear on the trailing edge portion of the starboard wing as well. I don't think I've seen any other B-17 with that much wear in that location. Also note the grayed-out national insignia on the wing and no splotching on the port stabilizer.

“Hobby Boos”? They didn’t even get the brand name correct on the decal sheet? Oy vey...

9 mm. Whether that is exactly the correct width in 1/32 scale I cannot say, but it compares fairly well with pictures of the aircraft during WWII, at least to my eye.

I built the Fly kit and found it to be overly fussy, suffering from brittle plastic (the cockpit tubular frame structure was an exercise in cursing) and poor fit of the wings which I had to fight mightily to introduce some proper dihedral. I haven’t built the PCM kit, but I have built their Spitfires IX and XIV and could only postulate that they would be an easier row to hoe. Yes, I know the PCM kits are limited run Sword-engineered models, but I truly had no fun building the Fly Hurricane Mk. I and only finished it because of stubbornness.

When I painted the wing walk areas on my Tempest, I used very thin strips of tape to outline the edges, curving to match the sweep of the wing fillet. I measured carefully to insure uniform width across the entire length length on both sides, and then sprayed a very dark gray color. The key is the very thin tape strips, which I cut from masking tape placed on a piece of glass and sliced off using a metal straightedge and sharp x-acto blade. The thin tape strips (2 mm) allow one to apply a gentle curve to the outline. It worked for me.

I told myself that when I finally retired from my career in IT that my model completion pace would accelerate to make a sizable dent in the ever-growing stash. Well after one full year of being fully retired, I ended up building a grand total of three — count ‘em — three models last year. Only two of those were 1/32 scale. That has led to a sobering realization: having a stash of kits that will never, ever be realistically built in my lifetime is truly a waste of money and storage space. I sold or gave away just about everything, including all of my previouslyxbuilt models. I have lots of photos of my built models, but I honestly can say that I don't really miss any of them. My stash is now down to just five kits and I buy one a year now. I don't feel my enjoyment of the hobby is diminished in any way, and there's far less guilt involved. Anyone in the Southeast US remember the estate sale of a modeler who died about ten years ago and left 10,000 kits to be disposed of? I do, and the auction held by his fellow model club members in an attempt to liquidate the lot was a truly sad experience. The stuff went for pennies on the dollar and they still couldn't get rid of it all. There was no joy amongst the participants, just the shaking of many a head in trying to understand how someone could manage to accumulate so many models in his shortened lifetime. I also experienced the same feelings when a guy in my model club passed away and we sold off about 400 or so kits to give back some money to his surviving family. It was a hell of a lot of work in cataloging, storing, transporting, and selling the kits at a contest, again for pennies on the dollar. It too had an equally profound effect on me, and that was a determination to get my model stash down to a reasonable level. I don't want to come across as preachy, but to share my current mindset and to say that the whole purge process has been liberating. When I want a model, I just buy it and pretty much start building it immediately, like the Fly Models Hurricane that I'm currently working on. Model kits aren't rare and just about any kit can be found on the used market if you look hard enough. There is no harm in having a ginormous stash of kits as long as you're providing for your family and paying all your bills on time. But understand that when you go to that Big Hobby Shop in the Sky, your family is going to be sorely inconvenienced with the task of what to do with the damn things.

I just finished building the C-7 kit and found, other than the infuriating instructions, the model to build up pretty nicely with two exceptions: 1. the fuselage insert on the belly did not fit well and required a lot of filler and 2. the engine cowling pieces around each exhaust were a mess with large gaps that all had to be filled, removing almost all detail in that area. I used Quickboost resin exhausts as the only aftermarket addition. Net: very good kit, terrible instructions, and a couple of places to watch out for.

Thank you!

Thank you, Chuck! There is a complete account of my experience on the Modeling Madness website: http://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/kolav8.htm

When I researched the Trumpeter 1/32 scale Harriers a couple of years back, the consensus was that the AV-8B Plus kit had the fewest issues so I built that, adding a Wolfpack Design resin ejection seat as well as Wolfpack's set for the four prominent air scoops on the spine. I added a representation of the kink to the wing and filled in the missing sections of the inner wing pylons. I also filled in the underside of each LERX with sheet styrene. With Trumpeter, one has to be dubious of the provided ordnance provided in the kit and source appropriate hardware from the spares box if necessary.

I built my F-14D earlier this year with the Tamiya kit and Wolfpack Design conversion and a Black Box cockpit. Between rescribing the fuselage and getting all the resin pieces to fit plus dealing with a 30+ year old kit, it was a heck of a lot of work. Yes, I know the Trumpeter D has issues, but in my opinion it would be an easier place to start.

Stress-free build? Probably not, as the fit in places is not very good and a lot of seam filling is required. The provided "power egg" of the kit's design of the engines is fictional. Accurate? No, not really. The windscreen is too wide and the nose in general is too fat, both of which are very difficult to fix. The turbofan engine faces are too shallow and the shape of the exhausts are wrong. The refueling door is slanted in the wrong direction. The panel line layout shows that the designer of the kit never really looked at plans for a real A-10. Others have mentioned the ordnance is not good (many of the provided pieces were never carried on the A-10 and the Mk 82 bombs are ridiculously too thin), so a realistic load is going to require some sourcing from other 1/32 scale kits. I had both the Cutting Edge resin cockpit set and the resin external correction set (both long out of production) which helped, but to me the sore thumb was the too fat windscreen and nose which are as bad a goof as Trumpeter's misshapen A-7D/E canopy and air intake. The model just looks wrong to anyone familiar with the lines of Warthog. Of course to the casual observer it looks like an A-10 when it's done, and your son will most likely be thrilled. It's a very big and impressive model and one can't be faulted for wanting to just build the kit as is and be done with it, accuracy be damned. There's room in our hobby for many approaches and if you have a desire for a 1/32 A-10, the Trumpeter kit is the only option.

Back to the subject at hand: a new Revell Spitfire IXc. Having just finished a Tamiya Spitfire VIII this past week, I would most welcome a simpler and more straight-forward IX providing that Revell doesn't screw it up like they did with their II. My issue with the Tamiya VIII/IX/XVI series is the requirement to build up most of the engine and mounting frames in order to get the front half of the model in place. Even with their ingenious use of magnets and metal pins and poly caps, I've yet to see a buttoned-up Spitfire look right unless the modeler glued the cowling panels shut, which eliminates a good 25% of the parts of the kit involved with the engine. I know I tried my best to use Tamiya's design with the removable panels, but I Will most likely just glue everything in place, which is a shame because of all the time devoted to getting the engine assembled, painted, detailed, and realistically weathered. For modelers that enjoy the look of the internal guts of the Spitfire, the Tamiya kit provides an excellent starting point. But for those of us that just like Spitfires and want something a little less crude than the out-of-production Pacific Coast Model kits (yes, I've built two of those too), then a Revell kit could provide a very enticing proposition. I've built the Revell II kit and had to add all the necessary resin corrections (radiators, wheels, ailerons) and brute force solutions for the shape issues with moderate success (I'm most irked by the too-shallow rear canopy vision panel), so my question would be: can Revell issue a IX that isn't as badly researched as their II was? I'm afraid their track record is not a good one on this matter. Still, there's always hope.

Unless the kit cockpit is horribly under-detailed (Tamiya F-14 comes to mind), I rarely spring for an aftermarket cockpit set. In most cases, I find them more trouble than they are worth and certainly a source of considerable effort and aggravation getting them to fit inside the fuselage. Instead, I find a tremendous improvement in just replacing the seat with a resin one. The pattern makers for most aftermarket companies do these very well and they are relatively less expensive than the entire cockpit set. Also, the casual viewer of the finished model tends to focus on the ejection seat rather than the side consoles or instrument panel. I know the Cockpit Accuracy guys get all apoplectic when a console is missing an important gauge or control device from a kit, but I'm in the Shep Paine school of "creative gizmology" where if the cockpit looks busy enough, then it's good enough for me. Even when I bring my models to club meetings for show 'n' tell, no one has ever stared inside the cockpit and yelled out loud, "It's missing the CRM-114 Discriminator panel!" Build models to satisfy yourself. If your modeling satisfaction requires absolute accuracy, then aftermarket solutions are often a shortcut (but not always -- they have research errors too) to achieving that goal. But please be prepared for an awful lot of work that isn't necessarily much fun to do.

The Tamiya F-16CJ kit is arguably the best large scale jet kit on the market today. It would certainly win my vote and I am not a frequent builder of Tamiya kits. The Academy F/A-18C is a very close second -- my opinion, of course. The Tamiya Viper is dead-nuts accurate and the only minor criticism I've ever seen of it is that some of the panel lines on the rear portion of the spine are very slightly engraved incorrectly. The Academy F-16C has more issues, the most glaring being a prominently misshapen instrument panel shroud. It's still a good kit and can be found for nearly half the price as the Tamiya. It all depends on how sensitive you are to shape errors and price. Both provide a nice selection of ordnance and both build up nicely with no known fit issues.

I can confirm having built the kit two years ago with the nose cone glued in the closed position, that it does NOT need any weight.

Ben Brown, a F-100 enthusiast and excellent modeler, tried to eliminate the rivets on the Trumpeter kit with Mr. Surfarcer and had indifferent results. What he found is that tiny air bubbles got trapped in each rivet hole, which became exposed again when he sanded the Mr.Surfacer. He was very frustrated and said, "never again".