mawz

They did early and late G’s and an E/F in 1/32, I’d be shocked if they weren’t planning to do all 3 in 1/48 as well I’d also bet that the panel work will be the same as their 1/32 models

It's worth noting that while it's often recorded that the P-47 was built in greater numbers than the P-51, that's not actually correct. There were 15,636 P-47's built and NAA built 15,586 production Mustangs, 50 less, but CAC also built 200 Mustangs and in 1984 Piper built 2 new-build PA-48's (in addition to the two original conversion from 1971), for a slightly higher total production (80 of the 200 CAC builds may or may not be counted in the NAA built numbers as well, as they were built from NAA-supplied kits, 120 were built entirely by CAC). But the numbers are so close that the difference

Hopefully they fix the nose they got wrong in 1/32nd scale, or we’ll still be better off with the Revellogram kits for those unaware of it, the HK fuselage is cylindrical while the real thing is flattened on top. This affects the IP and windscreen as well as the forward upper nose section shape

The latter was a cause of the former, those foreign T-Bolt sales happened in the late 40’s

Just a note, I was talking about the hood (the sliding part of the canopy) where I have the same orange peel issue on my Spitfire IX as you mentioned yours has, not the cowling, which Eduard got right on the Spit. I have every intention of building the Eduard P-51D regardless, once I'm finished wrestling with the Airfix kit, which is not nearly as nice a build.

Looking great! A pity about the hoods, I have an initial release of their Spitfire IX in 1/48 with the same issue, I suspect it’s a minor manufacturing issue that they will resolve

The ICM B and D are clones of the Tamiya, their Allison is a butchery of their otherwise pretty decent B. You can't do Polar Bear from the ICM kit, as the core fuselage is an A, it's the wing is new, and a bunch of other bits are D parts.

The AM kit is decently shaped, but simple in detail and is really an A-36 fuselage with additional wings/nose bits to depict the other Allison variants. It however does not correctly depict the radiator intake for most of the other variants, particularly the early ones, does not offer a Mk1 wing and has some other minor issues (the nose intakes are simplified, the wheelwells are the usual inaccurate version that's on all but the recent Mustang kits). The cockpit is also pretty crude. Doing a proper Allison Mustang family requires tooling at least 4 different radiator setups as well as the nose

It’s actually a P-38L that’s been modified with early-style intakes

we need a good Allison engine family as well. but yes, I’d love to see a well done Twin Mustang kit

Remember that latest tooling and best kit of a subject are two very different things. A good example of this is The F4U-1, where Tamiya’s kit is certainly the best in 1/48 even though the Hobby Boss kit is over 15 years newer. Best just to ask what is the best kit of a given subject/variant

The canted pylons on the SH are brutal for drag, so they try and fly with as few pylons as they can get away with. I'd read that the SH isn't actually supersonic with a full stores load. It's one reason they want CFT's for them. All because the design team assumed the SH would have the same stores separation behaviour as the Legacy Hornet and had to come up with a quick fix well after they had any ability to significantly change the wing structure after separation testing identified some major issues

That's quite believable, although I suspect that when bombed up the drag equation might be the other way around. I know the F-101B actually had more range on one tank than two due to drag.

You'll see a new tool A-10A/C long before a Sabre Hog. While the A-10 has limited schemes and small numbers, it's seen a lot of combat and is reasonably iconic. The F-86H saw no combat and has all the downsides of having been a 1 operator aircraft produced in small numbers and very limited schemes, and is overshadowed by far better known variants of the same aircraft.

These were quite new aircraft at the time of these cruises. It's pretty clear that some units preferred to run a centreline tank and weapons on the wing, while others ran a centreline weapons fit and tanks on the wing. The two fits had fairly similar fuel capacities (either 600gal centreline or 740gal in 370gal x 2 wing tanks) and you were looking at 6 Mk82's on the weapons racks in question for either configuration in a standard strike configuration (plus up to another 6 on the inner wing pylons of course). So unless that mild increase in fuel was required for the tasking th

The Tamiya kit is really an F/G/H, as you can build all 3 variants out of the box. That said, if you can source an E canopy that fits, and delete the drop tank mounts cleanly, a reasonable facsimile of an E should be doable from the kit.

No, that was the Sabre 2, not the Sabre 4. Of Sabre 2 production, 60 went to the USAF as F-86E-6's, 3 to the RAF, 278 to the RCAF Sabre 4 construction started after Sabre 2 construction ended and the last Sabre 2's built were the 60 aircraft batch for the USAF. All Sabre 4 construction went to the RAF (428) or RCAF (10). The confusion mostly stems from the fact that the US funded Sabre 4 construction, and they went to the US after the RAF replaced them in 1956, and were passed on to Yugoslavia and Italy for the most part. These were designated F-86E(M)'s. They were close to an E

Can't leverage the tooling for any other variants as it's basically a new aircraft and zero combat service, relatively small numbers built, only served with the USAF. The F had 5 times as many airframes produced and served with many operators. 2500+ F's, 456 E's. E's also only served with the USAF, RCAF, Greek, Turkish and Yugoslav Air Force in any numbers (the RAF also had 3 and the Hondurans ended up with 10 ex-Yugoslav, ex-RCAF Sabre 2's, which were Canadair-built E's), F's served with pretty much everybody that flew non-Canadair or CAC built Sabres, and an F kit

I'd assume practice on the range? I'm not wedded to live ordnance, just a legit strike loadout rather than air to air.

There's about a billion sheets for a 109G-6 out there, of vastly varying quality. I think the only aircraft with more decal sheets out there is the P-51D, or maybe the F-4. It's probably easier to go looking for a profile or picture of an aircraft you want to build, then look for decals of it. I'm pretty sure that every G-6 with a good picture that's easily available has had decals printed by now by somebody. Otherwise I'd start with a top-quality decal maker like Eaglecals and see if they did something you want. Alternatively, ask around for leftover Eduard decals, they tend to

They'd previously mentioned a B model Mustang. The F4F is also great news. Hopefully they'll scale both down to 1/72 as well, as there's a desperate need for a decent P-51B/C and a good Wildcat would be great too as Airfix's recent effort underwhelms.

Bit of a thread resurrection, but I've got the same question for a different cruise. building the Academy J in VF-84 paint for the 1972 cruise on the FDR. Want to do a typical strike config, preferably with the in-box ordnance, although I'm open to acquiring ordnance if necessary. Can I assume that I'm looking a Centreline tank, TER's on the wing with MK82's, AIM-7's in the rear and 2-4 AIM-9's?

If you think this is bad, take a look at Airfix's MiG-15. It's horribly mishappen and doesn't even vaguely resemble an actual MiG-15. The MiG-17F is a beauty in comparison, ironic though that the one bit they got mostly right on the -15 (the wings) is what they got wrong on the -17

The Academy can be considered to be a weapons & update set for the Revell kit. The combination of the two is almost assuredly cheaper than the GWH and will produce a very accurate E. The Revell really only has two problems, it's an old kit, so it represents a mid-90's era E, and there's minimal weapons in most boxings. The Academy has a poorly shaped fuselage, but has all the detail bits necessary to produce a much later E and equip it with weapons.

13 total F-4D's were wired. 12 operational from 443rd TFS and the test bed, 66-7693 another Block 31 F-4D at ADTC. It was used in an asymmetric load, typically 2 tanks (centreline and starboard) with 2 paveways on stations 1 and 8 (Left outer and right inner pylons). The Pave Knife would be on station 2 (left inner pylon) The F-4E used Pave Spike and Pave Tack instead. Pave Tack would make for an interesting load as well, as like Pave knife, it was a bit of a monster. It was carried on the centreline pylon. Pave Spike was much smaller than the other two and would be carried on the