wdolson

I have both kits. They are pretty much the same. For some reason all 6 guns in the wings are .50 calibers and with the -3N your supposed to but a larger barrel on the inside one. I don't think the -3N comes with the standard instrument panel, but I think the -3N's instrument panel is too 2D compared to the real thing. I think the scope stuck out of the panel more than it does in the kit. If you wanted to fudge it, you could probably get away with the -3N instrument panel on a -3. The rivet counters would know the difference, but most others wouldn't. Bill

I would go for a 1/32 Texan if one existed. I'm more of a WW II modeler and don't usually go for post WW II kits. Bill

The old Hasegawa decals were for an -3. The Eagle Strike is probably the easiest to find at this point. Bill

One of the Hasegawa releases came with VF-27 decals. It was the Minicraft-Hasegawa boxing sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. That's the only version I know of. You might find someone willing to part with the decals. Bill

Hasegawa and Revell-Monogram have been swapping molds for a while. Most of the better Monogram kits have appeared under the Hasegawa label. But they were intended for the Japanese home market only. The Pro Modeler H-22 kit was re-released by Revell Germany, but has not been reissued by Revell-Monogram. Revell-Monogram has released the early war H quite a few times. They are phasing out the Monogram label, so everything appears under the Revell label now. Bill

The plane makers don't have a legal leg to stand on to begin with. Trademark regulations are very clear that you must actively defend your trademark whenever someone violates it. It's highly questionable that Lockheed and Boeing have trademarks on aircraft made for the military anyway since those projects were done to a government spec and paid for with public money. Even past that hurdle, a trademark has to be actively defended the first time and every time it is violated. Neither company did anything until just a couple of years ago. It can be argued that any rights they had were surren

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to an all new B-17 is Boeing. Boeing and Lockheed shake down new kit makers and threaten lawsuits if they don't pay them "licensing fees" (aka protection money) for new kits made of their aircraft. The legal basis for their claims is very weak and they would likely lose in court, but even the biggest kit makers in the world don't have the money to take them to court, so a few pay up and most avoid confrontation with the aircraft makers. I have read that licensing fees paid to Lockheed add $10-$12 to the price of the 1/32 F-16. They don't seem to be going

I would guess you mean Revell Germany? I take it this is recent? I've never seen it in Revell boxing before. Ah, I just saw it on Revell Germany's web page. I built one of those many years ago. It was one of the first kits I used an airbrush on. The camo looks great, but the fit along the wing root was terrible. I didn't have the patience to do all the cycles of sanding and filling necessary, so it's a little lumpy along there. I have another one (AMT boxing) in the closet I plan to build someday. I like the kit, even with it's problems. Bill

The Revell Mk I/II is the same kit as the Hasegawa Mk I/II. They retooled the wing with recessed panel lines and the 8 X .30 guns for that release. The Mk I/II is actually the Mk VI retooled. The high altitude Mk VI will never be released again. Bill

There are about 300 if I recall. Here is a site that tracks warbirds: http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51registry/p51registry.html Find a P-51 near you. Bill

That second shot doesn't look like a North American product. The landing gear rotated 90 degrees when it retracts. In any case, the picture of the B-25s on the production line look like they are coated with the same coating on modern airliners as they go down the production line. The modern coating is often a bit greener, but I have seen it that brown too. Up close, it almost looks like anodized aluminum. Fantastic pictures. I've never seen any of those before. Looking a little further on the site, these look like the work of Toyo Miyatake, who is a very famous Japanese American photo

I worked for Boeing for a while. Even though I didn't work directly on the aircraft (I was in a lab that tested the electronics). I was at the Renton plant and could go over to the factory. Modern airliners come down the production line with a green protective coating (that looks a lot like zinc chromate) over the aluminum. I've been told that it is treated in the paint hanger in some way to turn it into a kind of primer. This coating weighs much less than traditional primer, though its mre expensive. I don't know if they did a similar process during WW II, or even if I was told accu

Yes. My point was that the engineer mentioned deleting the windows. If there was no plexiglass in the opening, I would have suspected he would have used a different term. BTW, my last name isn't Dolson, D is my middle initial. I took to using the WD Olson in several places many years ago to distinguish from my father who is WH Olson. Easily made mistake though. Bill

Some wartime pitures of birdcage Corsairs: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/f...eets/30X60.html http://www.chuckhawks.com/f4u1nasa.jpg Additionally, if the area behind the cockpit was missing the plexiglass on the real thing, I think we would have heard a controversy about it by now. There are still a lot of veterans kicking around who worked on or flew birdcage Corsairs. You would think somebody would have come forward and pointed out that every single kit of the -1 is wrong if they were missing. I just looked at my Squadron F4U in Action book. Every picture of the birdcage Cor

Amazingly, there doesn't appear to be any actual -1s still around. Here is another picture of that Corsair: http://www.warbirdregistry.org/corsairregi.../f4u-17995.html It does have the rear windows, but according to the site, it's a rebuilt -1a. Here is a list of known existing Corsair airframes: http://www.warbirdregistry.org/corsairregi...irregistry.html I pretty sure the birdcage Corsair did have rear windows. That was a common feature on US fighters in the late 30s. If all that was there behind the cockpit was a recessed area, the cockpit would always be open to the elements and rai