Jump to content

Do such things exhist in 1/72 scale?


Recommended Posts

I didn't know how to word this right but I'll give it a shot. Are there really accurate kits of the P-40B/C, E and N kits out there in 1/72 scale? Same goes for the Early Mustangs such as the P-51, P-51A and P-51B in 72nd also. I always thought the Hasegawa P-40's were good until reading a review by a Gent named Igor that something wasn't right about the wing roots or wing to fuselage join? Left me scratching my head. Any input from anyone? It would be greatly appreciated and thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-40B/C is best served by the new Airfix kit. Sure, there are minor niggles here and there, but overall it's quite nice.

AZ and Sword are releasing new P-40s, but as they're just coming to market, no idea about accuracy.

Edited by mbittner
Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-40B/C is best served by the new Airfix kit. Sure, there are minor niggles here and there, but overall it's quite nice.

AZ and Sword are releasing new P-40s, but as they're just coming to market, no idea about accuracy.

Thank you for the Sword and AZ info. Guess I'll wait and see. It'll save me having to do a complete set of Masters and molds to build my new collection of Mustangs and Warhawks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Academy P-51 makes a good early Allison Mustang. With a little work you can modify it into a P-51A (carburator intake shape and guns) I think the Academy P-51 can be made into an A-36 as well. Most of the same modifications that apply to the P-51A. Possibly a prop with more chord on the blades giving more of a paddle-blade shape.

Or you can go with a Special Hobby P-51A, but it is rather short-run in fit.

For the P-51B/C, we are still waiting for the definitive kit in 1/72. I prefer the Hasegawa kit and can live with its limitations. I modify the wing leading edge near the fuselage/main gear join for a more accurate shape.

I don't like the wide mouth on the Academy P-51B/C kits. It just looks wrong to me. Your milage may vary.

cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input Hamm, much appreciated. A-36 and P-51A conversions for the Academy kits are already underway along with better B/C wings for others and a few other goodies. Since molding and casting will be involved in building a collection I might as well share the parts with everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm a blaspheming heretic for saying so, but despite the fact that it has a very good outline, I think the Airfix Hawk 81 (P-40B/C) is actually a pretty crude kit. The panel lines are a scale 4" wide and 6" deep. The panel lines on the vertical fin on the copy I bought are so deep that some of them go all the way through, making Swiss cheese of the tail fin. Certainly it could be made into a nice model, but it would take a *ton* of work to turn it into a truly scale replica of a real P-40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm a blaspheming heretic for saying so, but despite the fact that it has a very good outline, I think the Airfix Hawk 81 (P-40B/C) is actually a pretty crude kit. The panel lines are a scale 4" wide and 6" deep. The panel lines on the vertical fin on the copy I bought are so deep that some of them go all the way through, making Swiss cheese of the tail fin. Certainly it could be made into a nice model, but it would take a *ton* of work to turn it into a truly scale replica of a real P-40.

I wonder if you got a poorly-molded copy? Mine certainly doesn't have the problems with the tail that yours does, and the panel lines don't seem all that deep to me...just a tad deeper, but certainly not significantly different from other 1/72 kits I've built.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AZ's subsidiary Legato is doing new-tool kits of the later "big chin" P-40 variants. Sprue shots of the P-40E are >here<. Looks pretty good, but to me the molding isn't quite as crisp as the big name manufacturers, and the parts look like they'll need a fair bit of cleanup (of course those may be test shots..the molds may get "tweaked" a bit, making the production kits a little crisper.) The best molded and detailed later P-40s in 1/72 are the Academy kits, but they have a major shape issue that's a total deal-breaker for me..the canopy and fuselage aft of the cockpit is too tall, which throws off the entire "look" of the things and makes them look like characatures (the Hobby Boss 1/72 P-40s are knock-offs of the Academy kits, and share the same shape problems.) The Hasegawa P-40s, while simpler and devoid of any cockpit detail, are clean and crisply molded, and I've never heard of any shape problems. They've been in continuous production for almost 40 years, and you can usually find them dirt cheap on the secondary market (less than ten bucks, often less than five.) Throw in a five-dollar True Details resin cockpit and you've got a winner.

I built the new Airfix Hawk 81 (P-40B/C) last winter, and thought it was a very nice kit..certainly the best "pointy nose" P-40 in 1/72. The only problem I had was a bit of a gap at the wing roots that needed shimming (which may be more the fault of the builder than the kit.) Yes, the panel lines are a tad heavy, but once painted they look acceptable to me. Certainly they're better than Revell's new-tool 1/72 B-17s. Note: before anyone asks, the underside color showed up much more green in the photos than it really is.

100_2345.jpg

100_2342.jpg

100_2344.jpg

SN

Edited by Steve N
Link to post
Share on other sites

I may also be shouted down as a heretic, but, raised panel lines and all, the old Monogram 1/72nd scale P-51B/C is still a pretty good kit. Just don't be expecting Tamiya/Hasegawa interior details and you'll be ok. :deadhorse1:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monogram P-51B was certainly a great kit in its day, and still good in outline, but the crude hole under the nose and the flattened canopy rather spoil it by modern standards. Not just the cockpit interiors but also the wheel wells are lacking.

The Academy Allison P-51 is not just a good kit but a truly superb one, among the best ever 1/72 fighters. However, their P-40E has a canopy that is too wide and too large.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of food for thought here. Looks like I'll have to hold-off on the P-40 projects for a while and see what developes. By the way, excellent build on the early P-40 Steve, nice paint!

However, the Mustangs will be full speed ahead as soon as I get this resin venture up and running!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not wandered in the p-51 realm yet, but have built a lot of 40's in 1/72.

I can agree that the Airfix B/C seems the best choice, all things considered.

Among it's faults I could add the shape and size of the elevators and a poor canopy fit.

You can check my builds here :

http://www.cartula.ro/forum/topic/9102-p-40b/

For the E/N I like Hasegawa, but do not discard academy.

All the older Hasegawas I had (around 10) had badly warped wings. Care must be taken to correct those in hot water before glueing.

All had bad sink marks on the upper side of the flaps.

The panel lines are very soft, almost disappearing under the first coat of paint.

The wing has indeed a weird incidence angle. The leading edge of the wings ends up siting too high on the fuselage.

The nose seems too massive, because the chin has a wrong contour. Adding to this, the exhausts are positioned a little too high on the fuselage , also the windshield and entire cockpit is about 1.5 mm too advanced, making the nose look shorter even.

The N has no option of spoked wheels. (you can get them from academy or quickboost/aires.

The Academy kit has much nicer panel lines and at least some cockpit details.

The horrible canopy is not a big issue if you have a spare. With a good old file you can "lower" the fuselage contour and find that the hasegawa canopy will fit (or the Squadron vacu one, easily available @ 2-3 usd).

The propeller spinner is way to fat, but again can be changed with a hasegawa one.

Same massive nose as hasegawa.

Here are my builds, you can find some of the problems I encountered building the Hasegawa and Academy kits:

http://www.cartula.ro/forum/topic/7140-p-40-tomahawk/

I really hope that the new Legato kit will be good, also the new K from sword (which, at least will be cheap - sold at Hannants for about 12 pounds per set - two kits in one box).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some useful tips for the Academy P-40, but I don't have a spare spinner. I'll have to go digging in the spares box....but I don't think so.

I admit preferring the Hasegawa P-51B, it has the nicest fuselage but it's a shame they got the wing wrong. It's a common enough problem in earlier P-51 kits, almost all the early Allison engined variants were spoilt by that - Frog and Academy excepted. If you like the Monogram P-51B despite its problems, then you'll like the Frog P-51, if you can get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that the nose is too big, I said that it appears too massive ; that is because of the higher position of the exhausts , the wrong contour of the lower chin and the too far ahead position of the windshield. This makes it appear short and bulgy.

Another fault I might add is the wrong angle of the windshield. It's a bit too sharp.

Can the pictures be relied upon?

Compare the side picture of the FR241 with the pic of the model AK772

http://www.cartula.ro/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=73095

http://www.cartula.ro/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=71292

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pictures can't be relied upon for aircraft shapes, no, because the apparent shapes are affected by parallax, depending upon the position of the camera and its distance away. There is always distortion in transferring a 3D object onto a 2D flat surface. If the camera is at the midpoint of the plane, then the nose and tail are further away and thus will appear smaller in proportion to the canopy.

An awful lot of models have been created with errors when the manufacturer consulted poor plans. How do the Kagero ones compare with others of the same aircraft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...