Jump to content

mawz

Members
  • Content Count

    1,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mawz

  1. 14 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

    I'll do one if I like the way they do the overlapping panels. Glad they went with an early G , but rather have seen an F

    Glt


    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

  2. 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 is academic, there were just shy of 16,000 of each type produced.

    Mustang production was also biased towards later in the war than Thunderbolt production, despite fairly similar production numbers the P-51's peak production was in 1945, while P-47 production peaked in the early bubbletop era a year or so before. The reality was that in 1946 when they started shifting Mustangs to the reserves, the USAAF was sitting on large unused stocks of the P-51D-25 and D-30, as well as 555 unused P-51H's. The stocks of P-47's were both smaller and split across the largely unused P-47N production and late P-47D production. In addition, the P-47 while more robust simply has a wildly more complicated engine installation that made it more costly to maintain.

    It's also worth noting that the USAAF didn't send the F-51H to Korea for largely the same reason as the P-47's, a lack of spares. Ironically by 1950 most of the F-51H's were fairly high time airframes while the F-51D's were being pulled out of storage and refurbished in 1949/1950 for other reasons (the RCAF Mustangs came from the same rebuild program that would later supply many F-51D's to units in Korea). This was because the F-51H's had been used by the reserves since 1946 while the last D models went to storage instead.

  3. 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

  4. 19 hours ago, mightymax said:

    Lack of spares seems about right. We can't guarantee we can keep the couple hundred Thunderbolts that we have online flying but we have thousands of spare Mustangs that we can just, as said above, throw into the meat grinder. I'm sure a lot of pilots and their families liked that mentality...

     

    Still we didn't have enough to send a couple hundred Thunderbolts over there for ground pounding duty but we had plenty of thunderbolts (plus spares) to sell to foreign governments. Hmmmmm

    interesting......

     

    Max Bryant


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

  5. On 9/15/2019 at 3:10 PM, Falconxlvi said:

     

    It’s a bummer, but with normal sanding along the join, you would probably have to deepen the fastener detail anyways.  I used my 1/32 Tamiya cowl as a reference and then used a beading tool create the missing fasteners- a 5 min job once marked out 👍🏻

     

    Don’t let it keep you from building this kit though!

     

    Steve


    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.

  6. 16 minutes ago, DDC said:

    Yikes, that's a whole lot variance! Fair call.

     

    Maybe I'm confusing ICMs D models for being clones of the Tamiya kits. I know I've held the fuselage half of an icm p51 to another manufacturers and they've lined up perfectly.

    I suppose, at very least, using the ICM kit you could make an accurate model of the restored N51Z "Polar Bear" (or whatever shes been renamed since the paint strip) 😂

     

    Thanks for the heads up!


    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. 

  7. 13 minutes ago, DDC said:

    Is there something wrong with the Accurate Miniatures (and then ICM cloned) A-model mustangs?

    I thought the A36 went together very well. 


    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 and wing variations. To do it right really needs 4 wings, 4 radiators, 2 noses, 2 nose intakes with 2 inlets each (which must be separate from the noses as the nose armament and nose intake variations do not always match up) and a single core fuselage. AM did 3 wings, 1 radiator, 2 noses and a single intake with 2 inlet styles. A good showing, but not anywhere near complete.

    The ICM is in NO WAY a clone of the AM kits. Rather it's a new Allison-style nose on their B model and does not depict an Allison Mustang at all. The fuselage is too tall (because it's a B model) and misses the smaller, sleeker look of the Allison variants vs the B/C and the wing is almost right for an A model only. 

  8. On 8/24/2019 at 10:36 PM, quark51 said:

    While almost everyone and their brother are releasing or has released a new P-51 kit in past twenty years, why don't one of them release a new kit of the one member of the Mustang family that sorely needs a new 1/48 kit done of it, The P/F-82 Twin Mustang. The Modelcraft kits are terrible.


    we need a good Allison engine family as well.

     

    but yes, I’d love to see a well done Twin Mustang kit

  9. 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

  10. 13 minutes ago, 11bee said:

    On this subject, I thought I read somewhere that Navy SH's are now flying training sorties with no external tanks and no, or at most 2, pylons.  Supposedly a SH gets better range stripped down than it does with 2 external tanks.   Given how draggy the external pylons and stores are on a SH (partially due to the horrible design that has them canted outwards a few degrees) I wonder if this is true?


    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

     

  11. 1 minute ago, 11bee said:

    WRT external tanks, I thought I read somewhere that when you factor in drag, the range of an F-4 with only centerline was close to or maybe even a bit superior to one with the two wing tanks mounted.    


    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.

  12. On 8/13/2019 at 7:34 AM, nachjager said:

    Oh Great Buddha heard me, heard me: why not a new tool 1/48 A-10A/C????????? Yeah, I know, only one operator, produced in small numbers, no glamour nor air to air kills and other Tom-Cruise-like shoot but its still cool, saved a lot of grunts their asses and still strike FEAR to anyone unfortunate enough to stand in their way.

     

    Just saying...


    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.

  13. 1 hour ago, Geoff M said:

    As far as the wing tank issue,  that may a have been a matter of the time period.  Probably as the planes got older and fatigue became more of an issue they decided not to use the wing tanks to save hours on the wings.  Maybe?

     

    Geoff M


    These were quite new aircraft at the time of these cruises.

     

    1 hour ago, habu2 said:

    The use of wing tanks on any aircraft is dictated by the mission profile, ordnance load and sortie time (duration) etc.  It is not up to the whims of the pilot or the squadron. It’s all in the tasking. 


    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 the squadron could go with either configuration for the same tasking and have the same capability.

  14. 11 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

    Actually the Sabre Mk.4 *was* an F-86E.  Canadair built a number for the USAF on the same assembly line that they were building Mk.4s for the RAF.

     

    Also, an updated E is essentially externally identical to an F.


    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, but not identical, although most changes were in the cockpit so you could potentially model one from an E.

    The Sabre 3 was a testbed for the Orenda Sabre, which would become the Sabre 5.
     

  15. 1 hour ago, jeffryfontaine said:

    Why no F-86H?  😞


    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.
     

     

    4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

    Frickin' heck.  Yet another F.  Why no E or A for Pete's sake?


    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 is a good starting point to produce a Canadair Sabre 5 or Sabre 6, the other two widely used variants. Same goes for the A, except even worse as only one A served outside the USAF.

    Note several supposed E operators actually operated Sabre 4's, as MAP-funded ex-RAF Sabre 4's were designated F-86E(M)'s by NAA and the USAF, but were really a separate model from a regular E.

  16. 3 hours ago, Joe Hegedus said:

    Just curious, but what exactly would a an F-4 squadron be striking in the Med in 1972?

     


    I'd assume practice on the range?

    I'm not wedded to live ordnance, just a legit strike loadout rather than air to air.

  17. 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 do 6-8 versions per boxing, are high quality and usually have a couple lesser known schemes in each boxing.

  18. 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.

  19. 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?

     

  20. 22 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

    Given the price of developing and tooling a kit these days, it amazes me that companies are satisfied with doing half-a**ed work like that.  It would cost little or nothing more to have done it right.


    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

     

  21. 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.
     

  22. 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 left forward Sparrow well.

×
×
  • Create New...