Curt B

I just wanted to add my thanks to soutthwestforests for posting this really great video! I think that too many of us don't give any thought into how our toys are made, or want to know and haven't gotten a good story of how it really happens.. Wonderful video, and thanks again!

Thank you sir…glad to see that this thread has been of some value to someone other than me 😌 I can say that it is great to know, at least, that this Miniart P-47D, CAN be built with no wing gaps AND using no filler, and STILL get the airplane’s basic shape correct! Happy P-47 building, everyone!!

Wow, great points, and thanks for the photo. Compared to the photograph you provided, I would say my wings have just the tiniest bit more dihedral, but not dramatically so. I actually tried a new method (to me) when attaching the wings. I did no trimming at all of the attachment areas on the wings or the fuselage, but when dry fitting the wings, I noted that there appeared to be pretty large seams remaining. So, to try to resolve that was to glue the bottom of the wings first. I used manual pressure to push and hold the wings such that there were no gaps at all at the glued joints. I use

Thanks for the tutorial…I meant to write dihedral. I am not sure how I used the wrong term. I have changed the topic title to the correct one, and also updated the text of all my posts, and identified what I did and why in the ‘reason for edit’ boxes so I don’t make those who replied sound incorrect. I appreciate the help!!!! I meant to say that this kit seems to have its wings at a MORE exaggerated upward angle than the real plane, or at least compared to line drawings of the aircraft or compared to the Tamiya kit. I know comparing kit to kit is not a good way to verify anything, but it w

Thanks for the info. I hadn’t recalled seeing any discussion about the wing dihedral either, which I find truly amazing with all the rivet counters on the ‘net. I am absolutely NOT one of those, hence my surprise at finding what appears to me to be a significant divergence from accuracy for this airplane. Other than that, the build and detail has been pretty much fine, though I must say that construction of the engine cowl was far more fiddly than I think a new mold plane should have.

Hi All, I’m sure this point must have come up well before now, but has anyone noticed a quite exaggerated dihedral to the subject wings? I’ve look at planform diagrams of P-47s, and compared this kit’s wings to my partially built Tamiya P-47D, and find the wings to have a quite noticeable dihedral tilt. I was particularly careful to prevent gaps at the wing/fuselage joints, so I know the wing ‘tilt’ is what Miniart designed into the kit. Am I the only one who has noted this??!

All of that makes sense! Greatly appreciate the response!!

Deleted

Hi All, Hoping to get a question answered here. I've noticed that on the new Miniart P-47, the port aileron has what appears to be a 'normal' trim tab, while the starboard aileron does NOT have a trim tab, but instead seems to have a small extra fixed control surface extending aft from the inboard side of the aileron. Why the difference and what is that starboard aileron 'extension'? Thanks for any help.

Cool, good for you, Mike. i've had so manny modeling 'irons in the fire' that I've not had a moment to actually consider building one or both P-51Bs. You'll probably finish yours along before me! 😊 if so, I hope you post photos of your planes!

Excellent point! 😊

I know this wasn't part of the OP's question, but because of the extremely limited amount of time given to implement these stripes, it's amazing that some of the stripes appear to have been masked off and spray painted (on the real aircraft). I don't know how many good, close-up photos of these stripes exist on the huge number of planes involved, but there are some that clearly show that the stripes were hand painted, and thus pretty ragged on the edges. While I'm a HUGE fan of the aircraft with these invasion stripes in place, I never know whether I should paint them perfectly, or with so

Chuck, good point! I had not considered that use for this stuff, but it would certainly work. Given the absolute crystal clear and high gloss nature of this material, use related to canopies certainly makes sense. Some time ago, I lost a wing leading edge landing light cover for a Stuka, and spent much time, trying to figure out a replacement, including a thread in a forum. While the original part had some detail molded into the periphery, the detail wasn't hugely significant. I'd ended up trying to use clear plastic from a food container cover, but I wasn't completely happy with that.

You can get it through greenstuffworld.com, or on EBay. Probably through Amazon as well, and Amazon has several similar UV cured resin products.

Hey All, I wanted to pass one some new (to me) product use, which probably everyone here already knows, but just in case... I've been working on a tank, an Italeri T-34/85, that has a single headlight. The kit comes without a clear lens for the headlight, and instead, they provide a colored styrene part that I guess they expect the modeler to paint as best as possible to look like clear glass. Some months back, i bought a product called Green Stuff World Transparent UV resin and an associated UV flashlight (which they call a 'torch), in preparation to use on an F-14 build. This