Jump to content



Recommended Posts

Looking at those photos, even with those "errors", it is by far the best P51B in this scale, period. There is no such thing as the perfect model, but there is such a thing as modeller with a modicum of talent that can fix "errors".

I for one am very excited about this kit and can't wait to get one.



I agree completely. For those of us who have wanted a good Mustang III/ P-51B this will be a far better starting point than anything else out there. If you're happy with the old Revell kit, that's great, but I think we all have a favourite aircraft for which we would like to see the "ultimate" kit. Believe it or not, a lot of us love the Mustang, and there has been a need for an up-to-date kit. This one might not be perfect, but I'm willing to make the effort to correct what I can see is wrong/missing. I'm looking forward to the stunning models some of our master builders will be able to produce with this one. I have J Rutman's P-51B and will eventually build that too, but I am more comfortable with injection molded styrene and will try Trumpeter's first.


As for those who can't stand to see a new Mustang released (or 109, 190, )... don't buy it. Your favourite aircraft may be coming along shortly, after all who expected to see a 1/32 Gloster Gamecock, or a MS.406 or P-36 variants. And now some of the jets are also being addressed...Lightnings (!!) and Eurofighters. But I still can't figure out where the late-marque Spitfires are!?


I know I'm going to give up on trying to convert my Revell P-51B "monster".


Looking forward to January (hopefully PCM's Spit IX will be ready by then too.)




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of you say "it's much better Than the old Revell kit" which is true, but don't you think the new kit should be compared to a P-51B instead of a bad outdated kit?

What bugs me isn't so much that there are mistakes (most of which can be fixed) but the fact that these mistakes could have been avoided if Trumpeter had done it's job seriously.

We're not talking about a secret aircraft for which just one out of focus photo exists.

It's a sloppy job any way you look at it, reading through any Mustang book would allow someone to spot all the mistakes.

I for one don't feel like rewarding sloppiness, especially when the reason behind it is a greedy aggressive attempt at drowning the market.

Jerry Rutman has a better Mustang, he did his homework, he gets my money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi tourist,

Your opinion, to which you are entitled, is duly noted. You do what you gotta do. :lol:


There is "sloppiness" everywhere, no matter where you look, whether it is Hasegawa, Tamiya, Revell, Trumpeter, MPM, Azur, Special Hobby, etc. Lots of kits have issues (the net is full of negative reviews), you just have to fix what you can and live with what you can't. So what if the Mustang is well known? So are the Focke Wulf or the Bf109, and manufacturers still manage to mess some bits up. Errors just happen. :lol:


I will still get the kit. I have been waiting for a P51B for years.

I always wanted to build "Sweet Clara II". When I saw that Trumpeter included that decal option in the box, there was no way that a "5mm-too-long" ammo bay door or a "curved cockpit floor" could deter me!

Please let me explain: some of you may be familiar with my Constantin "Bazu" Cantacuzino sheet, http://cgi.ebay.ie/1-32-RB-Productions-dec...6QQcmdZViewItem

Well, when "Bazu" flew to Foggia in his Bf109 decorated with US flags, one of the US flyboys thought that he was good enough to fly a 109 without any prior training and tried to have a go at it. Of course, the infamous Bf109 take-off swing was too much for the pilot to handle and he banged up the Messerschmitt on take off. As he had no plane to go home in, Bazu was given a Mustang, which he flew without any problems after a very brief verbal training (he was, after all, one of the aviation's greatest and a world-renowned aerobatic pilot) That plane was "Sweet Clara II".

I have to build both planes side by side! :rolleyes:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Jerry Rutmans' resin P-51B is a more accurate option and is only slightly more ($ 0,05) expensive.





Sorry Hans, .....no way jose......i own a Rutman's P51B, and was "slightly" disappointed at the total outcome, ..mind you i don't want to criticize jerry's work, it is better than the Revell issue, but....ofcourse this isn't "fisher's quality" (now i KNOW i'm gonna get some comments on this..... :rolleyes: ).

I guess it is all depending on ones likings, and i tend to give the Trump 51B the bennefit of the doubt, let's have a closer look when it hits the shelves, ok?






Link to comment
Share on other sites



Some of us just don't know when to keep their mouth shut. I refer to myself of course. However, I too will add something to the fire. There will never be a perfect kit. Clearly some manufacturers strive for better quality and some, it would seem, couldn't care less. Everyone's argument has its own merit. In the case of the Mustang, regardless of the type, I believe the axiom of there will never be a perfect kit holds even greater moment. The Mustang, while heavily documented, has not been represented in number as many other kits have. It is, simply, a nightmare of curves and subleties that appear in some views and are invisible in others. Something as simple as landing gear doors on most aircraft are straight forward and simple; not so on the Mustang. Im sure you guys remember the "prop" discussion. Ultimately it was resolved, but not without much noise. At best, a kit is a rudimentary representation of a shape with its associated appurtances. This does not mean that obvoiusly poor research is forgiven. What this is, however, is a captive audience and manufacturuers know this. Consider your choices. You can scratch build your Mustang (trust me, you wont get very far or be near as successful as a kit manufacturuer) or you can buy the kit and modify it to your own liking and tolerance.


I mean no disrespect or wish to minimize all that has been said in this thread. All here have valid points, and we have a new B model Mustang on the horizon. Consider the alternatives.


With all due respect,



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point except I think it's possible to get the shape right not to mention the adequate equipment.

I wasn't joking before, some people would be more than happy to provide the "how to".


I didn't expect a perfect kit. I didn't think Trumpeter would get everything right but what I see here falls under the "couldn't care less" category.

I bought their Razorback P-47D because you could see they made a real effort with it and with a minimal amount of additional work you can get a very nice Thunderbolt.

Not so with the P-51B.

I can see I'm clearly in the minority here, but the point is this:

Do we buy everything they throw at us just because it's there, even when they clearly didn't do as good a job as they could have?

Or, do we let them know we expect a good effort for our money?

Believe me, if enough people show they're unhappy with this kit it will be retooled, it has happened before.

It's not like we don't all have a million kits in the closet to fill the gap.

Finally, to everyone that brought up Revell's P-51B as a justification/excuse let me just say; two wrongs don't make a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of interest on the photos:

-There are no underwing port holes for the spent shells/links.

-Wrong curved cockpit floor.

-The engine may indeed be too small (for those who care).

-They didn't get the wheel wells right, the front looks OK but the back part has the usual wrong shape.

-The ammo bay doors are too big, they look like the ones on a P-51D.

-The wingtip lights are the wrong ones (good for a P-51D).

-The propeller cuffs have a wrong shape commonly seen on Mustang kits.


Thankfully the rest looks good and these issues shouldn't be too hard to correct.

Still... :angry:


I really think we should complain as loudly as possible, on all the forums, if we want some adjustments made on the upcoming P-51D!


Um, I notice that most of these errors aren't even applicable to the P-51D that you're worried about. You may have 3 things to deal with or possibly four if you use the kit engine. Wheel wells and shell chutes are quick cuts and the props, well, whether or not they are accurate will probably be debated for as long as people build Mustangs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titan, only two of the issues you quoted don't apply to P-51Ds, that's hardly "most".

There's no way the wheel wells are just a "quick cut" and the props are definitely wrong. B)


I only listed the most visible issues, there are more and if you want an accurate P-51B you'll need heavy corrections EVERY step of the way.

If you don't care about accuracy, then this kit is perfect but so will be the much cheaper 21st Century Toys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading all the postings and going over the IPMS Philippines review I plan on holding out to see a production copy review. I would love to have a nice P-51B on my shelf. The major drawback that I have read is the non-laminar-flow upper wing. If this pans out with the production copy, I don't see any chance that my modeling skills could scratch a correct wing. The rest of the items will be within my modeling skills to fix. I hope Trumpeter gets it right but I’m not going to hold my breath. Hopefully a Mustang fanatic will review a production kit and list the problems found along with possible fixes for them. Until then, only time will tell what we will get in the box. ;)

Happy holidays. :(


Cheers and fun modeling,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixing the wing airfoil section might not be too difficult. Looks like "simply" bending the upper wing half span-wise at about 60% cord might get at the worst of it. Then redoing the wing fillet a bit.


The one thing that ought to be almost a non-issue is the engine, as no one ever gets a kit engine correct. They are all too small in order to fit into the kit cowl. I'd wish the manufacturers would simply not bother or do a proper scale engine in a cowl-less alternate build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...