Dave Williams

What's funny is that the newsletter from Great Models calls it a "life raft" under the fuselage. http://www.greatmodels.com/main/090117.htm

What I mean is that the hinge line between the wing/aileron and rudder/tail isn't well defined. It looks the same as any of the other panel lines on the part as opposed as looking like a separate moving part. Conversely, the elevator hinge line looks a lot more realistic.

Now that I have the kit, I wish it was a scaled up AM kit. They may have used a similar parts breakdown, but I think the detail level is a bit lower on the 1/32 kit. At first look...well...it's an Allison Mustang and not quite as bad as the Sea Fury. However, I don't think it's as good as I was expecting (and I wasn't expecting much). It just isn't detailed enough for the scale. The 1/48 AM kit is much better detailed. For example, it has sidewalls like the AM kit, but they are thick and have just box shapes with no surface detail whatsoever stuck on the right sidewall. The elevators are well defined on the tailplanes, but on the wings the lines for the ailerons and flaps are the same thin lines as used on the rest of the panel lines on the wings, and the rudder is only slightly better. As noted on the Cybermodeler buildup, the tires look too wide because of the almost square transition between the tread and the sidewalls. Yeah, you can do a nice paint job on the kit and make it look good, but it really isn't a good kit for the price IMHO. Too me it looks like a $20 kit at best as far as quality and detail are concerned. Comparing the $40 HC Mustang to a $55 Hasegawa Tony, you are getting a much better deal with the Hasegawa kit, even if it does cost more. Yes, there is the standard argument that it looks like an Allison Mustang and there is no other choice in 1/32 scale. Maybe there will be aftermarket stuff like cockpits and other stuff, but once you add the costs for all of that stuff, you'll end up paying a lot more in the end. Just be prepared when you get the kit and decide how much you really want a 1/32 Allison Mustang. Just a heads up. If you aren't expecting much, you might not be disappointed.

I'm not surprised that the wheel well is wrong. The kit seems to be a bit basic, like a scaled up AM kit with no increase in detail, so making a simple wheel well ties in with the overall detail level of the kit. For Mustang wheel wells, I get the impression that people who make Mustang kits are either too heavily influenced by other kits, or too lazy to make the correct wells. Even Tamiya didn't bother getting it right on their 1/48 P-51.

But does HC list, or even control, the MSRP in other contries besides Canada? Those prices may be in Canadian dollars and apply to the MSRP in Canada only. I don't know how they can set the price in the US or anywhere else. That seems to be up to the distributors. The two kits currently released are the 20mm wing cannon versions. I don't think you'll see the chin guns until the A-36 release. Bought the Operation Torch kit this morning off of eBay also, same place as you other guys. $41.50 plus $11 for Priority mail. I'll see how this one looks and then probably go Sprue Brothers for the rest when they come in.

Another factor to consider is that the Eduard set contains stuff for the nose gear bay, plus the main and nose gear doors. In fact, only a small part of the Eduard set is for the MLG bay itself. The CMK set contains parts for the MLG bay only.

The cockpit detail on the Hasegawa kit is much, much better than the Revell, and as noted the Hasegawa has a 3 piece canopy that can be shown open. The Hasegawa kit seems generally better detailed overall. The Hasegawa kit has an engine and a split front/rear fuselage if you want to show it off, but the Revell is one piece, which may be an advantage if you don't want to show the engine off so you don't have to deal with the seam. Also the speed brakes on the Revell kit are molded closed, which was most common on the ground, while the Hasegawa speedbrakes are designed to be shown open (work if you close them). Both kits have wing tanks and belly Sidewinders and no underwing tanks. However, the Revell kit also has the F-104C external refueling probe, plus they must have got their versions mixed up because they include two underwing pylons for each wing, and a pair of Sparrows (with fictitious launch rail) a la the F-104S. They claim they are used on the "F-104G" in the instructions. The kit also has some dumb bombs which appear to be vaguely M117s. Finally, the Revell kit has both the -C tail and the -G tail in the box, while the Hasegawa kits only have one or the other. Both kits only have -G type wing tank fins and wheel hubs, though, so you can't make an accurate -C from either. I plan to build the Hasegawa kit, but I picked up the Revell kit cheap to rob some parts like the refueling probe and wing pylons.

According to the D&S book, the tailplane span of the F-8E and F-8J is 18' 2" and 19' 3.9", respectively. The 1/32 dimensions the book gives is 6.81" and 7.25". I taped the Trumpeter fuselage halves together, stuck on the stabs, and using a tape measure got 6 7/8 (6.88) inches. If something is wrong, it appears to be that the Hasegawa stabs are undersized. The source cited for the D&S dimensions is "Standard Aircraft Characteristics, US Navy". The Trumpeter kit is fine (unless .07 inches bother you ).

I guess TC missed the center pane of the windscreen being off (sides are too straight instead of following the curve of frame around it) The above is the image on the side of the box that the clear part comes in, but it's accurate for the actual clear part. Other nits: No gunsight glass, the seat appears to be an F7 (sort of) and not the proper F5,and no instrument face detail. Still, the intake shape looks good, the wing has anhedral and the stabs have dihedral like they should, in fact overall shape looks good and there is very nice detail in the wheel wells, speed brake well and the underwing fuselage bay. Definitely not the same bunch that cranked out the A-7.

The -J had double droop leading edge flaps (not obvious unless the flaps were down) and the horizontal stabs were larger.

One on the way from Tower Hobbies. They had a $15 off coupon for an order over $75.

Here's the Trumpeter product page for the -E. Looks like it comes with Tico and Oriskany markings. http://www.trumpeter-china.com/war513/prod...sage.asp?id=632 Also looks like the same funky PE turbine wheels for the jet engine like in the F-100.

Those building the kit might want to check out the instruction sheet corrections over at Hyperscale. The instructions have a large number of errors and omissions, far more than any other recent kit from a mainstream manufacturer than I've ever seen. http://www.hyperscale.com/2008/reviews/kit...3reviewbg_1.htm look near the bottom.

http://www.verlinden-productions.com/vp_ht..._2400/2349.html The link says 1/32, but it's really 1/35 like the kit.

I don't believe the Warhammer Hind sets were ever made. I had them on preorder from VLS for years and they never got released before VLS got gobbled up by Squadron, and I haven't heard they got released since. However, Verlinden did a set which includes a nice passenger compartment interior, including the space between the pilot's cockpit and the rear compartment.

I don't think the old Revell 110 is anywhere near in the same league as the new Dragon kit, so as far as I'm concerned, this really isn't a competing kit. If it were true that no one should produce another kit of something that's already been done, then we would have never gotten a new P-47, Fw109D or 109G, since Revell did kits long ago. Same for the F-4, F-15, and F-16.

http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=AIRM3210

Airdoc and CE did.

Did Dragon ever fix the too narrow for the fuselage cockpit or the tires not fitting right on the hubs? I know they didn't fix the accuracy stuff, but since this was basic construction stuff, I thought they might have fixed at least that. TIA

There is something weird with the code on the Sonic BB. If I try to go there with Firefox, I get what appears to be an error page. If I go there with IE, I do get the thread, but all the pics are red Xs and even right clicking and using the Show Picture command does work. Fortunately, someone posted the pics over at ARC. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....t&p=1405571

The size of the HS prop boss isn't a real issue for the -N since they seemed to have only used the Curtiss symmetric prop. Actually, the kit instructions are wrong in that they give you the option of the HS prop, or the Curtiss asymmetric prop, neither if which I think were used on -Ns. The correct prop to use is part M2. The seat doesn't have armrests, but from what I understand, those didn't appear until the N-15 and the kit birds are N-1s or N-2s.

The Avionix set is for a "Mk.3". I have the set and the top of the rear IP looks like that in an F.3 (two side by side TV tabs), but the bottom rear IP doesn't match the F.3's panel. I'm sure the kit is just their original IDS cockpit with a few modified parts to make a F.3. It's designed to fit the new tool kit, not the old F2. The very big question is whether BB knows something about an upcoming F.3 release, or just just made a cockpit for a kit that doesn't exist, like their 1/32 A-4M cockpit. It's been discussed on ARC, but no one seems to know. People have tried to call or email BB asking about it, and haven't gotten an answer. You have thought that if Revell was going to release an F.3, they would have announced it an Nuremberg.

I remember the old mold as being an RF-4B and RF-4E, don't remember it being offered as a -C. The new mold is only offered as a RF-4C and RF-4E, not a -B AFAIK. I think that if it's listed as a -B, it's the old mold, while if it's listed as a -C it's the new one. The -E could be either, although you are probably more likely to find the new molds around. The new tool mold is definitely the better way to go.

The kit does include a Malcom hood, but it has almost no bulge on the sides, just a little bulge on the top. Yes, it's clear and better than the Revell, but it still isn't quite right. Make sure you look at the curve at the bottom front edge of the inner gear doors, that doesn't look right either.

For the -D: The main wheels hubs are different. The nose gear lacks the catapult strut. No carrier approach lights on the left nose gear door. No refueling probe on the side of the nose, instead the A-7D has a prominent raised fairing for the boom receptacle on top of the fuselage. The IP is a little different. No cable ducts/ECM waveguides on the sides of the fuselage. No aft ECM "point" above the exhaust ILS blade aerials on either side of the fairing near the top of the tail Late A-7Ds carried a Pave Penny seeker under the nose A-7Ds only used the ESCPAC seat. That's about all that I can think of at the moment. HTH.