Z-M vs. Tamiya 'Stang D

[JRutman]

I still contend that the only reliable source are the wartime dated FMs and maintainence /parts list books.

J

[Radub]

I still contend that the only reliable source are the wartime dated FMs and maintainence /parts list books.

J

 

I agree! I have a few bits and bobs, including a flight manual and a parts list ctalog. The greatest pity in the world is that there is no "ultimate book" on the Mustang.

Radu

[Ironwing]

Yeah... but what's the point? According to "he who knows everything about everything on the other website", no one should rely on preserved/restored aircraft. I fear that in their headlong rush to be be seen as "right at all costs", just a handful of loud and persistent ego-driven fools managed to bring into disrepute almost all sources of info we have on Mustangs. Right now, I doubt very much that anyone or anything can be regarded as a "reliable source" when it comes to Mustangs. Pick something, anything, and someone will poop on it.

Radu

 

 

All,

 

I would agree that, as a reference source, restored aircraft really arent a solid foundation. However, a preserved aircraft, given that it is "preserved" as it was found, is probably a more accurate source. Keeping in mind however that it could have been modfied in the field which would make it a reference for only itself.

 

Happy Jacks Go Buggy,a P-51 D, is a stunning restoration. It was done from the original airframe.Curiously, the left wheel well was finished in interior green, not chromate green overall. The right well had only the main spar done in interior green with Chromate Green longerons. The top of the well was unfinished bare aluminum. This is the way the restoration team found the original airframe. Rather hard to explain but still factual.

 

Note: Interior green is called out as an option in the NAA finishes spec. As such, the spec states that as an alternate finish, Chromate Green can be tinted with black to "resemble" interior green.

 

For those unfamiliar with engineering product development, one needs to remember that things change within a production cycle frequently. Those changes are well documented and controlled. Exceptions are made for any number of reasons depending on the situation at hand and whether or not the change will adversely impact performance of the part, assembly, or the end item. If you read the NAA finishing specs as they were writen back in 44/45, they are quite specific in their requirements but leave room for some "kentucky windage" when things need to be altered or dont quite fit the hard spec.

 

Having now spent a good deal of time researching the Mustang along with many others, often times, a question asked leads to another question From first to last, Mustang production is well documented. There are some areas which remain clouded at best. The biggest topic in this area is finish. To be honest, I dont think there will ever be a diffinitive answer on this. Even if you know what the spec called for, theres no telling if therre was an exception made within the build cycle and more importantly what happened in the field.

IMO, much has been published over the years regarding the Mustang. Much of it is suspect and down right wrong. Thats why we think the way we do about it. Myth has supplanted fact. The bottom line is, its your money, your model, your reference material and your right to believe what you want to believe about it. Do whatever you want to do and enjoy it.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Bill Cross]

Geoff, we face the same problems over in the "treads" category: is a museum piece an accurate representation of the historical vehicle?

 

To my knowledge, there are very few totally un-restored museum relic vehicles. Nearly 7 decades, often with much of that time spent outdoors, means that paint jobs fade, chip off, etc. I have seen photos of some vehicles in Europe, often in private collections, that ARE more or less unrestored. But so many were lost, especially on the losing sides, that you're faced with determining an entire category (e.g., Panther G tanks) from 1 or 2 examples. Which features were factory-installed, which were field modifications, and which we perhaps even done post-war (some Axis vehicles, for example, served on after the war in the armies of the smaller countries)? And even the un-restored vehicles occasionally got coats of paint from the victors to preserve them in the outdoors. Tanks at Aberdeen proving grounds have sat out in the elements since they arrived (often with souvenir hunters carting away even things welded-on). What a mess.

 

The challenge for we consumers is that 32 scale planes are EXPENSIVE. It's not like braille scale, where you can buy several different brands and come up with the best one. The Dragon P-51D is about half the "early bird" price for the Tamiya, and we don't even know what our friends at Z-M will want for their bird, but that kit has been (as Radu said above) "pooped on" by any number of critics.

 

So what's to be done? I took the plunge yesterday and put in my order with HLJ. Good, bad or ugly, I'll have a Tamiya 'Stang in July.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Bill Cross

[LSP_Mike]

I'm glad to see this more on topic.

Bill, for my money, I'll prolly go with a Tamiya Mustang. Since we seem to have a plethora of kits coming out right now, I have to pick and choose where my money goes. I'll be setting some aside for a Skyraider though. When Wing nuts releases their next round of kits, that'll be where the funds go, so for me, the 'stang will wait.

I'm sure you are aware that for planes,decals, like PE bits, they fit better when designed for a particular kit. Come to think of it, just like PE bits for tanks....

[JamesHatch]

To comment as Jennings did is both presumptuous, misleading and off-key.

 

There will be some news in the not too distant future on the ZM P-51D. I'm sure there will be many pleased 'Stang fans here.

[Radub]

While I agree that some restorations are dodgy, I do not agree that all restorations are to be ignored.

Looking at my shelf, I have a mountain of "walkaround" and "in detail" type of books that bristle with photos of restored/preserved aircraft. I built models based on these. I made patterns based on these. I learned an immense amount of information from these books.

I think I will keep trusting these references, even though they concentrate on restorations.

Radu

[Bill Cross]

While I agree that some restorations are dodgy, I do not agree that all restorations are to be ignored.

Radu, I hope you did not take that as MY meaning.

 

Restorations can provide us with a great deal of learning, it's just that we have to "filter" what they say through a net of research. Kit makers often make decisions based on incorrect restorations. This is problematic, for example, with tires on AFVs: vehicles that have spent the last seventy years in the muck of river bottoms are being pulled out of the mire and cleaned off, so we can see what types of tires they had, who made them, the tread, etc. Or the way they were painted (just reviewed the Canfora Pub "Panther" book which has a fascinating "archeology" of Panther side skirts and how they were camouflaged that runs counter to what we all thought).

 

Same with aircraft.

 

I don't believe there's any "definitive" Mustang or Panther tank or anything for that matter. Factory production lines adapted to wartime exigencies, and troops in the field made modifications based on their needs, availability of parts, the whims of the motor pool/flight teams. At some point, a modeler has to stick his or her foot into the river of time and build a particular build.

 

But it would be nice to get as close as possible. I guess I'm a little gun shy at this point, having spent more $$$ on AM upgrades for the Hasegawa Thunderbolt bubble top, Bf109-G6, and FW 190-D, as well as the Trumpeter 262 jet than I did for the base kits. I wouldn't mind a kit that, like the WNW WW I beauties, are pretty much complete OOB. Some PE for the Revell Arado 196 is one thing; fixing "wrong" cowls, flaps, spinners, props, cockpits, wheelwells, tires....

Edited May 20, 2011 by Bill Cross

[Radub]

What I meant was that I do not really believe in "aboslute rules of thumb" and "definitive" rulings when it comes to restorations. Some restorations are great, some are not. I would rather start from a position whereby I "trust" a restoration and then "avoid it" if needed rather than the other way round. A bit like "innocent until priven guilty".

Radu

[BobG]

To comment as Jennings did is both presumptuous, misleading and off-key.

 

There will be some news in the not too distant future on the ZM P-51D. I'm sure there will be many pleased 'Stang fans here.

Agreed, ZM has been hinting as to what SWS#4 would be for quite a while now, over a year ago in the "Thought to SWS" columns on the Ta 152H. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, and actually, quite logical, that while they were in DC, crawling over, under, around, and through, the NASM Ta, that they would have also spent some quality time with the P-51.