Robertson

Well Wyman, the edge of the kit is very clear, it could hardly be more given its rough silver overspray on a black background... But I'll concede it is a difficult issue to capture on clean plastic, given it is only 1-2 mm and the needed long focus at a strange angle: The eyes do way better than a lens... Hey, I noticed you don't mention instead the photo where the wingroots are the same 33.28 mm from the centerline join, and yet don't stick out anywhere near the same? You know the term "smoking gun"?: Oh no let's not move on! Perhaps a mention that the lower centerline join is ob

Listen to this, then watch this space how in the blink of an eye no one will back up their statements with photos... Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is what all B-29 builders have to deal with: Three things are visible in this photo, two of them related to heat-treating the steel mould, so before a single kit pressing was ever done: -Fin tilts to the right in the perfectly centered photo (joint centered to the lens), but beyond that the lower part of the fin is also offset to the right (bent fuselage). The important thing to remember is that both mould halves are in perfec

There are no accurate Hamiltons, or anything else, for the Monogram B-29s, except maybe the long OOP Paragon set. The kit's original Curtiss props have ridiculously narrow blades. The more newly moulded/issued in-box Hamilton props have a spinner size of about 1/32 scale, if not 1/24, and yes they are that absurd... The KMC-derived True Detail props have nice hubs but are one foot short in diameter. They are still the best available option. This kit's original fuselage metal mould was warped, bent and twisted by heat-treating the metal halves clamped together from the very first pr

The Academy nacelles are nearly identical to Hasegawa, and both severely lack a lot of cowling bulging roundness for the later P-38 models. None of the P-38s in any scale are equivalent to the current best standard, and are riddled with cross-section problems, even up to the pilot nacelle nose not being triangular enough in both, and not the least of which is poor boom-wing symmetry, also in both, but worse in Hasegawa! Accurate/symmetrical P-38s are badly needed, but the early variants have much better engine cowls and canopies, especially for Hasegawa at least. Robertson

Nose gear could occasionally be neutral gray. Robertson

Wow! Thanks for the info! I never imagined a symmetrical airfoil could be correct!: It goes to show the depth of research Monogram went to... My appreciation of this amazing kit has gone up quite a few notches thanks to you. Their B-24 and B-29 do have a cambered airfoils, but the B-29 appears not to be be cambered enough at the wingtips, which are much too thick in large part because of their bottoms being too symmetrical with the tops: On the real thing the bottom looks much flatter in comparison, and the tips are quite fine and sharp as a result, not rounded in a frontal view: I decided

First of all, warping of the wings in this case would be a mould exit cooling issue, so it has nothing to do with the age of the moulds... In another post, months ago, there was timc making similar claims, and yet all he could show to back it up was two identical shots where the difference in "mould wear" was entirely due to the plastic color...` http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=259788&st=100 I've bought two of the most recent B-17G issues, and one vintage box of the early 1980s at a show, and there is absolutely no discernible differences at all... I also n

Any chance those will make it to 1/48th?

It is not clear what you mean: Are you actually saying that hack from-the-box reviews, with little text (to bow to contemporary reading skills I suppose), are now the minority online and in magazines? Funny: I haven't got that impression at all for the past 5-8 years: It used to be that magazines, for decades up to the early-mid 2000s, would offer a lot of heavy mods builds, now this has almost completely disappeared... Oh, how I miss the old "Scale Aircraft Modelling"!... Or you agree that these reviews are now a minority? Personnally I find these heavy modifications reviews to be the o

I second that, and keep weathering to a minimun. This, like decals, can really ruin work right at the end. Robertson

:D/> :D/> :D/> Oh and Mikester, I just finished these two last week, but I guess your contentless post has to be consistent right?; Robertson

:D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/> All the Hasegawa 109s are imaginative fiction, and the length is among the smaller of their numerous troubles: The cockpit sill width is too wide over a much smaller dimension than the length, so the error there is a lot bigger than 2 mm over the whole length: On the 1/48th kit it is around 7% off in width while the 2 mm length error amounts to about 0.8%... The cockpit width error is similar or worse on the 1/32 kits... (Actual cockpit sill width 625 mm, canopy top width 360 mm, max fuselage depth 1288 mm at rear of tilt

Same feeling here exactly about canopies. The part I hate the most though is decalling, as getting a perfect alignment and symmetry is awkward and treacherous. Decal solvents also occasionally do damage to acrylic paints or the Future coat. Robertson

Here's a comparison with the actual aircraft, particularly instructive for the cross-section and details of the clear areas: Robertson

I obviously made an error, for which I apologize... I made an error in conflating the Airfix PR. XIX with their own MK XII. You are correct in that respect: I made a comparison to the Airfix MK XII (which is indeed wrong at 13.5 mm, and which you also defended quite strenuously) and somehow I confused that with the Airfix PR. XIX... I really don't know how this happened, as the difference between the two kits is hugely obvious... I fear I just made have made an assumption that they were the same in that area... I have electronic calipers too (though I don"t see the point of inside-to-i

Airfix's PR XIX cockpit opening is 13.5 mm wide instead of the correct 12.5 mm. The difference this makes with the correct Eduard kit is quite severe... So much so I initially thought the Eduard kit had to be wrong! Same mistake Hasegawa did with their 109s, 14 mm instead of the correct 13, except that there the shallow fuselage makes it look even worse... Those who don't think this is has an obvious effect, please move on... I also heard unconfirmed grumblings that the PR XIX'S cowl width and spinner is wrong, but I have yet to notice anything. R.

Correction to what I previously said: The Hellcat initially rolls faster to the right below 250 knots, then faster to the left past 250 knots. The reversal point I mentionned is thus around 300 mph, and I got the directions wrong, as obviously torque does not play the role I remembered... This correlates with the propeller spiral having some mild rolling effect, in the direction majortomski expects to see (but claims has never been measured), and thus that the propeller spiral does exist and does have a rolling effect, which is to the right, making for noticeably faster right rolls, until

Thanks for the clarification: That is exactly what I meant, and I did use the incorrect term. As for the existence of the aerodynamic spiral, a look at a detailed roll rate performance chart of the F6F Hellcat (available I think on Mike William's WWII aircraft Performance site) indicates something of its general kind does exist: The Hellcat rolls faster to left at low speed (below 200 mph approx), where the density of airflow around it is lower, but this is completely reversed at higher speeds, where it rolls progressively faster to the right as speed goes up... This is because at low sp

There is the airfoiled fin, which I knew about, the offset fin without airfoil, which is similar-looking and is often combined with an airfoil. I did not know about tilted fins... The Zero's tilted fin was what was under discussion in that thread, and it is far from universal: I would not be at all surprised if it was rare and unusual among WWII types... The Zero's fin also appears to have no airfoil or offset of any kind, given the symmetry of the fin base fairing... Interestingly enough, the FW-190A's fin appears to have neither airfoil, offset, nor any tilting... R.

If you think there is a lot wrong about the 1/48th Hasegawa FW-190A-5 and above, I suspect you probably don't know much about 190s... There is some problems with these kits: Let's hear you itemize them, since you claim to know something about them... Robertson

You can see here the 20% too wide Eduard armored windscreen: Actual windscreen width from a relic in Hungary: 245 mm or 5.1 mm: Eduard stands at 297 mm... Hasegawa, and the almost identical Hobby Boss windscreen, are roughly correct. The Eduard blown hood is probably the worst of all recent 190s, and Dragon's is not very good either, this carrying over to the Squadron hood intended for it. Flat hoods are more commonly ok in appearance... Only the Hasegawa and Hobby Boss, so far, have a correct blown hood in appearance, at least in quaterscale. Robertson

Sold my pair as soon as I looked at them, in the Spring of 2008... For a fairly high price too... But then I bought another one, much later, for the all-red captured decal option included. Did not use these great decals, but I did end up using one part of the kit: The Eduard kit has the best cooling fan of all: That part can be adapted to the (near flawless) Hasegawa kit by moving the Hasegawa engine backward... That is the ONE Eduard kit part used... The rest of the kit has long since been binned, except for the decals. For those who still think this is a worthwhile kit, just remembe

And a windshield/canopy that's 1/38th scale in width... (That's actual: 6.2 mm vs 5.1 mm) Little things like that... The Eduard FW-190D is a much better buy than the A series, as it is, canopy excepted, the most accurate of its kind made, which is a long, long way from what the Eduard A/Fs are: The A/Fs are actually dead last accuracy-wise: Hasegawa-Dragon- long gap-Tamiya-Long gap-Eduard... Robertson

I disagree their Tu-2 is a lot of model...: It is woeful in every clear parts, which for the main canopy is a fictional and misshapen mix of variants (to be charitable about it), if not outright fictional for the entire nose: These clear parts require totally scratchbuild replacements, and a fully reshaped nose, just to be in the ballpark... This is not to mention the terrible spinners... This Il-4 is obviously in another class entirely. The CADs looks superb and seem accurate (though I wish they were some square angle shots). I would gladly pay many times the price of the Tu-2 (which I wi

Much is often made of pilot training, but if you look at US combat reports of late 1944 in Western Europe, the late '44 and '45 German pilots pretty much have a lot more fight in them with the FW-190A (70% of Western Front strength by then) than the earlier better trained pilots with Me-109Gs... For some reason, training seems to matter much more at high altitudes, as well as the technical differences between fighters (notably the supercharger performance): The P-51 had a 20:1 air to air kill ratio in early 1944 as an escort fighter, and yet at low altitudes, all Allied fighters combined w