Tamiya 1/32 kits - working features

[Phartycr0c]

Sometime i think that the moveable stuff is similar to PE in that you can spend an age getting it to work properly only for it to sit for the remainder of eternity in one position.

 

Added to that is my ham fistedness that will inevitably rip the radome of the front of the F15 demosntrating how it works together with the airbrake and electronic bay covers. 

 

Bin there done that so now i tend to fix stuff into place unless I need to transport it in which case I make some items removable but for the most part fixed. 

 

That said, the moving parts do allow for a variation in poses . 

 

 

 

 

[Ben Brown]

I’ve found that having moving parts tendS to lead some to try to move non-moving parts.

 

Ben

[chuck540z3]

I have built both the 1/32 Tamiya P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX, both with detailed engines and removable cowlings.  The Mustang cowlings fit almost perfect and are very easy to remove, other than the bottom part as noted, so I was glad I did.  Here it is with the cowlings off.

 

 

and with them installed.  Very nice fit and you don't notice that they are removable.  Since the engine is only so-so, I keep the cowlings on most of the time.

 

 

For the Spitfire, however, it was a different story.  Here it is with the cowlings off...

 

 

and installed.  They look lumpy and there are noticeable gaps between the panels, which I have noticed on other builds of this kit when the engine is detailed. If they were glued into place they would look just fine.   As a result I keep the cowlings off most of the time, since the Merlin engine is much better than the Mustang's.

 

 

Moral of the story?  Check other builds of the kit you're making to see if other modelers have been successful with the removable parts or not.  If they mostly haven't, skip that detail since you will likely have the same problems.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited June 9, 2020 by chuck540z3

[scvrobeson]

Only thing I leave movable is the prop, unless it's a really loose fit.  It is strange that Tamiya keeps including these movable features in their kits, must be popular in the home market.

 

 

 

Matt 

[1to1scale]

21 hours ago, MikeC said:

I'm just coming to the end of a Tamiya P-51D build (sorry I didn't do a WIP, but I'll try to do an RFI in due course), and I wondered how other people get on with the "working" features on the 1/32 Tamiya kits in general. 

 

I found on the Spitfire Mk IX that I had great trouble fitting the ailerons using the prescribed method, so I simply cemented them and the other control surfaces, as I did with the P-51D.  The flaps on the latter I left working, as it made for easier handling during building and painting.  I left the cowls removable, although the fit of the bottom one was not great, and it's very difficult to get off anyway, so that's staying in place.  As I'll never change from undercarriage down to up, I've fixed all the relevant bits, as I have the radiator flaps.

 

My next Mustang will have the cowlings fixed as well, as to leave them off may prove challenging for painting and decalling the nose - I'm planning a 356th FG bird for that one.  That will also save time as I can do a minimal build of the engine and its bay, just enough to ensure structural integrity.

 

So as you may have gathered, I'm really not that interested in having "working" features which in my grumpier moments I have been known to describe as "toy-like".  But am I alone in this, in the majority, or what?  What do those of you who have built one, or are contemplating it, think?  In fact, what's your take on working features on LSPs in general?

 

Annnd ..... Go.

 

 

Mike, I am also coming to the end of my first P-51 build, and i had so much pleasure, i now have 2 more planned. I had very similar issues you did, however I left all features working, I found the fit of all the moveable features working very well, and did not experience some alignment issues some had with a few pieces, but I also understand how tolerances stack, and I just got lucky. As I said, I built my first with ALL of the features working. However, I did have issues with removing the lower cowl and with the ailerons, unfortunately, they both droop down, I may see if I can put a little glue in the hinges to tighten them up. If I make the cowl removable again, I will slip the two bushings that hold it in. I added considerable detail to the cockpit, engine, and guns, so my next build will be the opposite.
 

But on my next two builds, I am definatetly gluing the cowl panels on, gear up, and flaps up on me f them, the other will be gear optional, so I can display it either in-flight or on the ground. I am making an in-flight model and will assemble things to the minimum extent externally. The other will only add landing gear detail, but both will have pilots. I am also itching to do a Korean War plane too, thankfully Tamiya accomidated me me as I was planning to do a conversion, now I don’t have to worry about that either.

  

[MikeC]

Thanks for your interest, everyone, there are some interesting points of view.  Seems I'm in the majority in that I wouldn't be bothered if these features were not present, but at least will pose the control surfaces and flaps - and I trust we all remember to put the controls in the appropriate positions.

 

10 hours ago, Phartycr0c said:

Sometime i think that the moveable stuff is similar to PE in that you can spend an age getting it to work properly only for it to sit for the remainder of eternity in one position.

 

Ain't that the truth?!!

 

@chuck540z3 you did better on your lower cowl than I did - I have a small but noticeable gap just behind the intake, other than that it fits fine.  I suspect that I didn't get the angle or location of the metal rods quite right, and that is probably key to a good cowling fit.  I also suspect that it's one of those errors that stand glringly out to me,  but which nobody else will notice until I point it out.  Your moral at the end is spot on.  The models look good too.

[MikeMaben]

On 6/7/2020 at 10:52 PM, MikeC said:

            - I'm planning a 356th FG bird for that one.

 

Diiiiamonds !! 

[discus]

Kits are not toys. Movable part are pretty much useless (unless for few exceptions), not to say and heresy. (Yes I am a bit radical)

Typically the moving landing gear on the zero.... hahaha what a joke. (Although I recognize I did a pict of the model with the gear retraced...)

 

I think it is far better to have positionnable options than movables.

 

It gives the moddeller the possibility to choose one position then it stays in this position. Typically what Tamyia did on the corsair and the mossie for the flaps and elevators.

(and yes, Mister Kitty Hawk I'm talking about you with your Mirage 2000 slats only represented in down position which is totally wrong for an A/C on ground  )

 

Movable cowls always were a source of headache for me. Typically on my spitfire, I ended up forced to show it without cowls because I never found a satisfacory way to put them in position. Everything is so tight on the spitfire nose. (This is very visible indeed on  Chuck's photos above).

Lesson learnt from the Spit: when I built the P51 and the Mossie, I anticipated right from the start to glue on the cowls to avoid any issue.

 

The only thing I keep movable, if it fits properly, is the prop. It avois braking blades and can be handy when you move the kit.

Also, I find having two sets of wing tips for the Zero quite usefull (folded and extended) Can help saving a bit of space on the display stand.

 

The only exception to this, in my opinion are the movable wings in the ZM Skyraiders. This is very smartly engineered and if built carefully  (with the additional instructions from their website) works quite well. Not like the Trumpy Corsairs wing that was a totaly mess..

It's not that I play with it but as I often re-organize my display stands to optimize space for new kits. Being able to fold the large spaned wings of the skyraider can be quite useful sometimes.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by discus

[Greif8]

Fixed for me. When I built the Zero the only things I found either off-putting or disappointing were the landing gear (off-putting) and the decals (disappointing).  The landing gear was a lot more difficult to get set correctly due to its movable engineering.

 

Ernest

[BarryWilliams]

I am, not a fan of movable parts, I wont play with them as they are not toys.  In addition I prefer to have my aircraft 'buttoned up' no open panels other than an open cockpit to display the interior (no pilot).  I do build the interior though just for the enjoyment of the build.  Consequently I always build them closed up with panels glued in place.

 

I see above reference to the fit of panels, particularly on the Spitfire, sorry but the old saying is true about these kits, if something does not fit then it is something that you did. 

 

I know this simply because I have built three of the Spitfires.  My first build, as expected having read a few reviews, needed a fair bit of filler around the engine panels (I did not bother with the magnets).  With the second build based on my experience of the first, I approached the panels differently and with this I needed to use very little filler.  I adjusted my approach for the third build and the fit was perfect.  They were not even looking 'bulged' as is shown in one photo on this thread, perhaps cementing them in place helped with that.

 

Please dont ask what apporach worked - it was years ago and I cannot possibly remember without getting a new kit and working through the build....

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by BarryWilliams

[Subodai]

I don't think most kits need to move after being finished, but please don't create less options for the average-joe modeller, having multi-posable, movable bits that can later be affixed gives far more range, diversity and dynamic options for modellers. And that's a great thing  it shouldn't be the de-facto that you need to be a master-builder with plasticard, 3D printers and custom-poured resin to attain something that could be achieved by adding a few extra bits to the box for the injection moulds. Yes, there is still room for the advanced and high-skilled modeller, but please don't take options off the table for we mere mortals. I agree gimmicky movey bits can be silly, but aint nothing a bit of Extra-Thin can't sort

[BarryWilliams]

23 minutes ago, Greif8 said:

Fixed for me. When I built the Zero the only things I found either off-putting or disappointing were the landing gear (off-putting) and the decals (disappointing).  The landing gear was a lot more difficult to get set correctly due to its movable engineering.

 

Ernest

Decals are always disappointing!!!  Masks are far superior and I would not dream of using decals on these kits, other than the small minor markings.

 

I built two of the Zeros and I did not even think to try to build a working landing gear, though I did it as per instructions and I was surprised after that it actually did work....  on one of them at least.

[MikeC]

1 hour ago, BarryWilliams said:

Please dont ask what apporach worked - it was years ago and I cannot possibly remember without getting a new kit and working through the build....

 

Are you sure you don't want us to ask if it means you have a reason to buy another Tamiya Spitfire?

[cbk57]

I am surprised how many on here don’t like the kit options in the Mustang and Spitfire, but at at the same time so many on this site constantly desire new LSP’S from Tamiya.  In their 1/32 range options are kind of their thing. They have done some sort of option I think in every 1/32 they have released.  I don’t even see a point for engine detailing for me if the panels cannot be put on when you re done or removed.  I don’t like building. Plane just to show of the engine.  If it is one or the other I would skip the engine detail and glue it all closed.  That is how the plane looks best to me.  But I love having the option of showing off the engine.  

 

Landing gear is a different story.  Take the mustang.  If you leave the landing gear possible, you have to make other compromises in that you cannot detail the wheel bay properly.  That did not seem an issue with the Spitfire though.  The mustang wheel bay though looks great with lines and such added in.  

 

For me there is no point in Tamiya doing LSP’s if the engine cowlings are not removable.  But I certainly see the point in fixing the landing gear as they did on the Corsair and mosquito.  If I were going to close up everything but the cockpit, I think Tamiya kits would be a waste of money and Revell or Hasegawa would be better options.

[boiss123]

On the 1/32 kits Tamiya has gone away from the moving parts to positional parts as in the Corsairs which I think is alot better than fiddling with those stupid hinges for the flaps and such.