seawinder

I say build it as an E-3. If the issue is the wing armament of MG vs. cannon, according to Wikipedia many E-1s were later upgraded to E-3 standard anyway.

Thanks, Jari. The photo appears to show the missiles the same hue as the pylon. For better or worse, I went with "pure" white (Mr. Color C1) for the missiles and Insignia White 37875 for the pylons (same as the rest of the airframe).

I wasn't overthinking, just asking a fairly simple question.

There's a discussion of this plane at ww2aircraft.net: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/corsair-mk-ii-leslie-durno-aircraft-of-the-aces-gb.30088/ Opinion seems to be that it wasn't red, but rather some locally mixed blue applied to reduce the diameter of the inner white (or pale blue) circle.

I'm getting to that stage of an F-14A build. I used Insignia White FS 17875 for the under- and control surfaces. It's really a very slightly off-white. Question: were the missiles painted in that color or in a pure white? We're talking 1970s. Thanks! Pip

Aeromaster 48-106 has markings for two planes with cannon armament, one British, one American. Probably very hard to find. If I read the online references correctly, the DK sheet wouldn't have any appropriate markings since AFAIK all A-36s had .50-cal armament. Apparently only 150 cannon-armed P-51s were built, all but 57 going to the British who called them Mustang Mk. IA. I believe all the P-51s retained by the USAAF served in Africa and the Mediterranean with pretty plain markings. INHO the kit decals are probably your best bet. In my experience they hold up pretty well, but you

It's probably the best of the four 1/48 offerings (Heller, Monogram and Kinetic being the other three). Basic shapes are okay, but there are issues. I suggest you check out Tom Cleaver's build review at Modeling Madness: https://modelingmadness.com/review/korean/cleaver/usaf/tc84f.htm Read the "The Kit" section for a pretty useful rundown. There are a lot of other reviews online.

Try Google? Furball, Afterburner and Caracal all have sheets that include at least one D. I'm sure there are others.

The plastic is Academy plus a bunch of Eduard PE and resin. Here's an in-box Hyperscale review: https://www.hyperscale.com/2013/reviews/kits/eduard1177reviewmd_1.htm Apparently the kit lacks the bulged gear doors to do a proper E, nor does it include appropriate air-to-ground armament. The article states it will build a good Israeli D.

That's pretty much R_C61's modus operandi.

That seems to me to be a large assumption. "Top in terms of accuracy" doesn't necessarily imply that Tamiya got the nose contours exactly correct. I'm not saying they didn't because I don't know, nor do I know what the two companies used for shape references. In any case, before scattering more accuracy accusations around at various web sites, I suggest you do due diligence and compare the two kits to reputable, documented references (drawings?) first.

I love the Tamiya kit (working on one as we speak), but isn't it a bit risky to base the accuracy of one model on the contours of another model?

Windscreen center section, horizontal width; the canopy is irrelevant. Check out his post on Monday at 5:19 p.m.

I believe he's trying to show that the Hasegawa windscreen is "much too wide." I might go along with "slightly too wide," but otherwise I'm not seeing it.

I think you have a tendency to use subjective phrases like "much too wide." How wide is much too wide? How about telling us how many mm too wide?