Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Robertson

Members
  • Content Count

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Robertson

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The Hasegawa is crap, as are all the other current ones
  2. I went for throwing in the Airfix PR XIX fuselage into the Airfix Mk XIV wings. Adapting the Mk XIV windscreen to the PR XIX fuselage, with the characteristic crisp base to be made from putty, is a lot of work. I also used the very clear, well-shaped Eduard Mk IX sliding hood (which does eventually fit the Airfix windscreen closed), but this is just a tiny bit narrow for the correct width Airfix opening (Eduard being too narrow by 0.5 mm, or one scale inch, from real aircraft measurements). After a bit of work, the Eduard hood finally works with the Airfix Mk XIV windscreen (matching rear arches after trimming the base of the Eduard hood), and the Airfix XIV windscreen is, incidently, correctly slightly more steeply raked for the changed Mk XIV windscreen in real life, making earlier marks windscreens a bit hard to use, as depicted in most models (except the very steeply raked Eduard part, which looks wrong from above due to the lack of side window "splaying", owing to its excessive cockpit opening narrowness) Absolutely superb work on the part of Airfix for the windscreen, demonstrating how far off is the too narrow Eduard in its too modest side window "splaying"... The meeting arches of both parts can still be joined, I suppose because I played around with the relative height of the two parts (maybe)... The fudge factor allows for it, but the Eduard windscreen part really looks odd from above, when you know how "splayed" the real thing is... The round access panels in front of the canopy still have to be done... The Airfix to Airfix wingroot fit was oddly mismatching, but not unsound in terms of sit "symmetry": Still not for the faint of heart, and there is a lot going on in the wingroots, as if the PR XIX and the Mk XIV were from two different companies... I preferred the PR XIX fuselage because of the moulded-on rocker cover bulges, and the apparent poor fit of the Mk XIV insert in front of the windscreen... But now. thanks to Paul, I realize the "shadow" line does need a bit of tape and putty (plus the gas caps added)... The PR XIX rear window will need to lose height through masking... I do have high hopes for mine. The video's solution does make sense, but is at least equally labour-intensive. Robertson
  3. A bit unrelated, but of interest: Ki-100 vs Ki-84 comparative test source: "Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including detailed coverage of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant) Quote : P. 76: "At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right. During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination. In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage. The results of the evaluations at the school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint. In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright. Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise" He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."
  4. Wingloading (Normal loaded weight per square foot) 1-Spitfire Mk V: 27 lbs 2-Spitfire Mk IX/Hurricane Mk II: 30 lbs (+11%) 3-Me-109G-6/FW-190A-4: 40 lbs (+33%) 4-P-51D: 43 lbs (+8%) 5-P-47D: 44 lbs (+2%) 6-FW-190A-8: 46 lbs (+4%) 1 to 6: (+58%) (Mk IX) to 6 (A-8): (+47%) 1-S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Spitfire Mk XIV vs FW-190A-8 ) I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height.-------The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water--------The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit, and my No. 2, being unable to overtake, broke away.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..." "The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This same pilot underlined: "It is crucial in combat to be objective as hell about what is going on" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944 (Spitfire Mk XII): "On looking behind I saw a FW-190 coming up unto me. I went into a terribly steep turn to the left, but the FW-190 seemed quite able to stay behind me. He was firing at 150 yards-I thought "this was it"-when all of a sudden I saw an explosion near the cockpit of the FW-190, upon which it turned on its back." (Stenborg was killed the next day in a head to head engagement with a FW-190 over Poix) Osprey Aces Series. "Griffon Spitfire Aces" ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..." (Jonhson escaped when he abandoned the turn fight, and dived near a Royal Navy ship that fired AAA at his pursuer) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote, "On special Missions,KG 200": (early captured Razorback without full power available, and with needle tip prop) "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" Bf-109G vs P-51B comment: "The P-51 has a dangerous stall which killed two of our pilots." Source: On Special Missions: The Luftwaffe's Research and Experimental Squadrons 1923 - 1945 (Air War Classics) ----------------------------------------------------------------- A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943. Quote: -The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. -They interact in the following manner: Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement." -Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, its pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. -A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. -Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. -In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45: P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt possessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight" P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Osprey, "P-47 Thunderbolt units of the 12th Air Force". P.32: 15th May 1944, 87th Fighter squadron operational report (Paddle-blade propellers only started to be delivered to the group in late May 44, and only with new aircrafts, so all these are needle-tip props, which does explain in part their turning performance). That afternoon, the 87th FS took off (16 aircrafts) with 32 X 1000 lbs bombs underwing to add to the destruction in Acquapedente. Target: Acquapedente bridges. "A flight of 15 Me-109s and 5 FW-190s was encountered. One section kept the fighters occupied while the remainder attacked the bridges. Three enemy fighters were destroyed for one of ours damaged. A gratifying result of this engagement was that a P-47, not considered a low-altitude aircraft, can maneuver advantageously with Me-109s almost on the deck, even though under the handicap of being on a bomb run." [Meaning 2 X 1000 lbs of bombs underwing...] ---------------------------------------------------- "The P-51 Mustangs of Major George Preddy" EC # 100, Eagles Editions limited. P.20: "Preddy spotted two 109s and got into a Lufbery with the first one. Neither was gaining much advantage when all of a sudden another 109 cut in front of him." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from an Oseau demise witness (Jagdwaffe, "Defence of the Reich 1944-45" Eric Forsyth, p.202): "Many times I told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109G........ Each turn became tighter and his Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) lost speed, more so than his (P-51D) adversaries." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Osprey, "RAF Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces", P.42: Sq. Lt. Hearner (No 19 Sq) commenting 11 April 1945 battle over Lister airfield (P-51 Mk IV vs late Me-109Gs or Ks ) "The 109s we encountered were obviously an experienced bunch of boys. Their turning circle is decidedly better than ours at low speed. The lowering of 20 degrees of flaps may just enable us to hold them in the turn, although I feel they could outclimb us." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40: Première citation : " Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical." [Translation: "The Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."] P. 40-41: " A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification." [Translation: To improve the Spitfire Mk VB's maneuverability and speed to the level of contemporary Soviet and German fighters, the four outer .303 machineguns were removed. This attempt at lightening the Spitfire was not conclusive, and the modification was not widely adopted.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1946 US evaluation of FW-190D-9: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" (pages 388 – 399): "The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reichlin assessment team report of Dec 10, 1941 (FW-190A-1 vs Me-109F): "In terms of maneuverability, it (FW-190A) completely outclassed the Me-109. The Focke-Wulf could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Dogfights" Episode 16 "Death of the Luftwaffe" dealing with the January 1st, 1945 "Operation Bodenplatte" airfield attacks: "FW-190As fought at lower altitude and engaged in turn fighting, while the Me-109Gs attacked in dives from a higher altitude." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Brown ("Duels in the Sky") p. 128: FW-190A: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 will be very slow and vulnerable." Stability and control committee, "S.C. 1718", 24 April 1944: P-47D vs FW-190A-6 at low altitude: "The FW-190 tended to black out the pilot." [Meaning: Abrupt deceleration from tail-down sinking, thus poor pull out angle yet still high Gs] "The P-47 had a much greater speed and a decidedly better angle of pull out (after 3000 ft. in a 65 degree dive)." Red Fleet, No. 37, November 4, 1943.: "When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire." [This is in the context of dive pull-outs] -"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Pulling out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). [Meaning after levelling out, continues sinking nose up] Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes" -Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers: Success may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote, 1989 SETP test: "Heading Change Time (180 deg at METO, 220 KIAS at 10,000 ft.) FG-1--8.5 sec / P-47--9.7 sec / F6F--9.9 sec / P-51--10.0 sec Quote 1989 SETP test: "AIR-TO-AIR TRACKING 210 KIAS at 10,000 ft. (straight & level into a 3g turn to the left building to 4g followed by a hard reversal into a 4g right turn.) FG-1 best, followed by P-47, F6F and, trailing badly, the P-51." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAE Tactical and technical trends, Nov. 5-11 1942: -"Maneuverability--Except at lower speeds-around 140 MPH(!)- The FW-190 is superior and will out-turn the P-38" (FW-190A-4) -1943 RAE test: "The P-38G and FW-190A-4 are roughly similar in turning ability" Combat of a P-38G against a Me-109G: Lt. Royal Madden from the 370th FG, 9th AF, July 31, 1944 “Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral. We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet. Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.” --------------------------------------------------- Spitfire Mk V vs Spitfire Mk IX, RAE (Royal Air Establishment) comparison: Manoeuvrability 20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircrafts, although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeuvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. -------------------------------------------------- [Note below very inferior FW-190A handling while being an "estimated 400 mph target", and pulling "streamers at the bottom of an elongated loop" after which the pilot behaves as if he is blacked out, despite the elongation of the loop: Again harsh tail-down high deceleration sinking...] http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20... --------------------------------------------------------- "Dogfight at 500 ft."--"Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch"--"Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings." http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/33... ------------------------------------------------------ "I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt." " When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed. (160 mph)" - Kyösti Karhila ------------------------------------------------ Gunther Rall: "They (Rechlin) told us this new FW-190A could out-turn our Me-109F (900 lbs lighter than G), HOWEVER, I could out-turn it" --------------------------------------------------- Rechlin assessment team report (1942): "In terms of maneuverability, the FW-190 completely outclasses the Me-109. With light positive controls making it easier to handle, the FW could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed. ----------------------------------------------------- Werner Seitz: "I liked the FW-190 very much. It was a much better airplane than the 109. You could curve it, you could fly fast... You could do everything with that aircraft. It was wonderful." https://youtu.be/R0YLLBvIBFk FW-190 vs BF-109 Werner Seitz ----------------------------------------------------------- P-47D vs Me-109G [probably gondola equipped]: "We got to the deck. After 3-4 climbing turns I managed to get in a position to fire a deflection shot... We continued in a climbing lufberry indicating 140 mph. We continued climbing for another full turn, when he suddenly snapped out and spun in." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-... ------------------------------- P-47D vs Me-109G [likely gondola equipped as well, given the turn-climbing]. "We had no difficulty turning or climbing with them." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-luckey-19m... --------------------------------------------------- (P-47Ds) "We started turning with several 109s and were having no difficulty doing it at 23 500 ft., with full tanks" "The E/A (109s)started to turn [12 000 ft.], and we out-turned them immediately." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19... ------------------------------------------------------- P-47D vs FW-190A-8 (December 1944): "We fought a running and turning fight Eastward during which I was out-turned several times which necessitated climbing and allowing the E/A to run [Eastward]." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-bonebrake-... ------------------------------------------------------- Stability and control committee, "S.C. 1718", 24 April 1944: P-47D versus FW-190A at Low Altitudes: Turning above 250 mph : "The P-47 easily out-turned the FW-190 at 10 000 ft., and had to throttle back to avoid overrunning the FW-190. The P-47's turning superiority increased with altitude. The FW-190 vibrated excessively (at higher power) and had a tendency to black out its pilot. [Again, pitch up tail-sinking deceleration] Turning below 250 mph : "The turns were made so rapidly it was impossible for the airplanes to accelerate, and the ability of the FW-190 to hang in its propeller and turn inside the P-47 was very evident." Eric Brown: "Duels in the Sky" P. 128: "The critical point at which the change in trim occurred was around 220 mph, and it could easily be gauged while turning: At lower speeds the FW-190A had a tendency to tighten up the turn, but backwards pressure was necessary above 220 mph" ------------------------------------------------------- P-51D vs 1945 late Me-109Gs or Ks: Sq. Lt. Hearner (No 19 Sq) commenting 11 April 1945 battle over Lister airfield (P-51 Mk IV vs late Me-109Gs or Ks): "The 109s we encountered were obviously an experienced bunch of boys. Their turning circle is decidedly better than ours at low speed. The lowering of 20 degrees of flaps may just enable us to hold them in the turn, although I feel they could outclimb us." ------------------------------------------------------------- Gunther Rall (274 kills) on the Me-109 and FW-190: "They complemented one another. The 109 was like a rapier, the 190 was like a saber." Rapier: Saber: Red Fleet, No. 37, November 4, 1943.: "-They (FW-190s and Me-109s) interact in the following manner: Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights." Free Advanced Air Force board game (taking into account the above relationships), is available here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/97...
  5. They are still unusual, and difficult to find with ready-made AM decal markings... I was looking for ready-made decals merely for a full silver unstaggered waist gun B-17G, no special turret, and even for that, I think the only one I found was for a famous one with the entire tail olive drab... Maybe I finally found a fully silver unstaggered decal option, but I am not even sure... Full silver unstaggered may have been common with paint striping, but that is of no help if the resulting markings are dull, so that no decals are made for them, which is often the case... By contrast, unstaggered offers endless options with full Olive drab schemes... Robertson
  6. Answer is no. Cheyenne turret usually combines poorly with non-offset waist guns anyway.... On the plus side, the crispness of the molds has not aged one minute in 44 years... Robertson
  7. The new Eduards 190s are a huge improvement, but still show a too cylindrical cowl influenced by the Fluegwerke newly built versions with Russian engines... This will likely be difficult to correct without using the excellent Hasegawa cowl, because the entire top half should taper. I still look forward to the new Eduard, because the very accurate Hasegawa has a right wingroot 1 inch thinner than the left, combining this with a one inch thicker wingtip, so that the right wing has a completely different taper to the left, making symmetry near impossible... Trimaster is very so-so, poor cowl, prop and truly awful bulged canopy, yet is way better than Eduard, which is the worst 190 in 30 + years for outlines (20% too wide canopy top, absurdly cylindrical cowl, thin tail, ect..)... Robertson
  8. Robertson

    Best 1:48 P-40?

    The only marginally correct later variants are the AMT: They are the only ones correct in windshield proportion, rear fuselage and canopy cross section, and, most important of all, very close in undernose radiator proportions, including their profile curvature and section. Early AMT boxings have excellent fit, and are worth seeking out, as the later ones can be awful around the nose pieces... Mauve has wrong undernose rad shape/proportions, wrong rear fuselage spine/canopy section (too sharp by a huge amount) but is otherwise nice-looking, if not actually good, with wingroot fairing tops correctly depicted as a straight line (wrongly curved on AMT), a major and prominent feature of the type... All of the late versions have godawful, absurdly skinny tapering prop blades (worst on Mauve, a bit closer on Hasegawa?), perhaps replaceable by Eduard late P-39 blades? The Hasegawa has a windscreen 50% wider than correct (yet will accept neatly an AMT windscreen!), and tailplanes with hugely prominent (and wrong) details that thicken their trailing edges to a 2X4 appearance (to put it mildly)... It also has some of the worst-designed inserts in modeldom, these spoiling minute details wherever they appear, especially up front where you can see them, in all their intricate horror... Robertson
  9. Hasegawa's Typhoon is one of the most accurate in all of quaterscale. R.
  10. You are right about the Eduard front. Too deep below the windscreen. Hasegawa is too shallow overall, and way wide in the canopy sill G..
  11. In a word outstanding, with the very best of 1:48. I could find no major outline flaw. R.
  12. 1/48th in aircrafts/armor and 1/350 in ships. The middle range seems to be the best balanced in both cases. R.
  13. Monogram far superior indeed. Nose cone sitting base should be trimmed backwards 2 mm on the fuselage side, and the fin's tip should be taller/pointier by about the same. Cowls need help. Squadron canopy will correct one badly misplaced canopy frame. Very, very hard to build generally, especially the belly windows, but it has a very good shape generally. Biggest peeve for me is that the left wing underside is kinked all the way to the inner leading edge, breaking severely alignment with the outboard wing (should be dead straight and continuous all the way: See Hasegawa kit in 1:72), while the right wing is shaped completely different, and has a mismatching chord, and even mismatching aileron/flap scribing!!! R.
  14. With the amounts of available markings, and the historical importance, this is exactly the kind of kit Tamiya should be doing. Zvezda was the only accurate one (better than the re-tooled Eduard), and yet it is a difficult build. This is great news. Great to see Tamiya back to the rate of 15 years ago, but with much better subjects than a Swordfish, Do-335 or J1N1... R.
  15. Hasegawa canopy is inaccurate, with almost straight upright sides because of a too big radius on top. By a huge margin go with the new Tamiya, but the Tamiya tail is inches too long (137 inches canopy rear edge to rudder hinge is actual, 139.8 inches on the Tamiya, all the extra length being in the chord of the fin, the fin leading edge being too raked by reaching 3" too forward at the base: Not that hard to fix). R.
×
×
  • Create New...