Monogram 1/48 A-26 issues

[Ivy-5]

Hi, I'm thinking about building a JD-1 from the Monogram kit.

This kit has some dimensional issues: the fuselage is quite strange (I seem to remember reading 3 mm too wide and too deep, but can't find where i saw it), and it seems that the wings are not great either.

Would anybody have an opinion about what is to be corrected ?

This plane is most beautiful. It should look like something dangerous whereas the kit only looks like a medium bomber.

Thanks.

[Jennings]

Honestly, you couldn't correct it without scratch building about 90% of it.

[don f]

Would anybody have an opinion about what is to be corrected ?

Over the years, I have read many comments about how bad the Monogram A-26 Invader is. When built, especially as the glass nose A-26C, the kit certainly does not "look" right. And I have built a couple. Even the addition of the 6-gun or 8-gun nose does not improve the "look". Here's an example of a well finished Monogram 1/48 A-26B by Alexey Sulla. You view more here.

The OOP Cutting Edge A-26B 6-gun Nose CEC48029 set provides the only description of the inaccuracies that I have seen. Here's what the CE instruction sheet states:

"It's interesting to note that Monogram got the aircraft's length and wingspan dimensions pretty close, but many measurements in between are substantially off the mark. We used factory loft drawings and measurements from the real A-26B at Silver Hill as the basis for our statements.

Most of the dimensional inaccuracies can be lived with, but a few are worth noting (although not necessarily correcting!). By far the biggest problem is the area where the nose joins the fuselage, where the kit is too wide and the glass nose is too short; this makes the bombardier nose look too squat. Technically, the fuselage is six scale inches (1/8" or 3.2mm) too wide at Station 0, the bulkhead where the nose joins the fuselage. Neither of these inaccuracies can be adequately fixed."

Does anyone know of any other reviews or comments using actual measurements or manufacturer's dimensional (fabrication) drawings that describe the actual problem areas of the kit? And since I've cast Cutting Edge (Dave Klaus) in the mix, how about comments from Gaston Marty regarding this kit? I don't recall reading anything from him. Maybe he considers the kit to be such a mess that it does not warrant any comment. I'd really like to get more information about the exact problems with the Monogram 1/48 A-26B/C kits.

Thanks,

Don

[Raptor01]

Damn, I don't know why I waste my time building models since there are fatal flaws on just about every kit.:whistle:/>

John

[nerdling]

Damn, I don't know why I waste my time building models since there are fatal flaws on just about every kit.:whistle:/>/>

John

Is that an Invader? So flawed I can't tell :lol: Looks very nice to me. As far as getting an opinion out of Gaston. I really wouldn't even bother. He claims to be an expert but really isn't one.

[don f]

As far as getting an opinion out of Gaston. I really wouldn't even bother. He claims to be an expert but really isn't one.

No intent to steer this discussion away from the Monogram 1/48 A-26B/C kit, I happen to agree with some of Gaston's opinions. For example, based on my experience with these kits his comments about the Tamiya 1/48 F4U kit, the Monogram B-26 and the Eduard F6F kit are valid. This correction of the Hasegawa 1/48 Hellcat created oohs and aahs and used interpretation of photographs as the basis for much of the work. F6F-5 Hellcat (Hasegawa 1/48) part 1. I would be delighted to read Gaston's opinion of the Monogram A-26 kit. I'm sure that it would provoke some further looking on my part to prove him right or wrong. And, I will likely learn something new about the A-26.

Returning to the original question of Monogram 1/48 A-26B/C issues, does anyone know of any other reviews or comments describing the specific problem areas of the kit? I'd like to cut the Monogram kit up and try to fix it.

Don

P.S. - John's 7th Chadwick model is superb.

[dragonlance]

Don,

it appears he was also right on several other issues, most notable (to me) were Airfix Spitfire Mk.XII and Seafire XVII fuselages, but any discussion will always go downhill with arrival of the "I don't care, but..." crowd.

Thank you for the CE summary, I have one of their old catalogs, I remember I was impressed with the honest description of their F-104S conversion set - it started with "you can simply scribe the bigger aux intake doors and blank the cannon port and don't have to buy this set".

Vedran

[bugs3144]

John, maybe you build for the same reason I do. Fun and relaxation. Nothing man made will ever be perfect. Correct any flaws you can and go with the rest. That is what modeling is all about. Oh and by the way, modeling is also rewarding when grandsons stand and ooh and ahh and ask if Grandpa can help them do that.

Frank

ATL

[KSL]

Here drawings made by Alexey Matvienko (based on the dimensions from original manuals).

And here Monogram's fuselage against these drawings:

The heights is about 1 mm too high, tail is lifted up and pushed forward. Metal nose is way too long (should be 63 inches long or 33.3mm in 48-th, Monogram - 40mm). On width, there is only one figure, its maximum value, for model - 32.8 mm. This width has to fall on the bottom third of cross section around a cockpit/bomb-bay, Monogram's fuselage is about 34 mm in this place.The top and cutout of a cockpit has to be more narrow as boards have a slope inside. Diameter of a dome of the top turret is about 40 inches, i.e. 21 mm in 48-th, Monogram is about 23 mm. Fuselage width on top (distance between boards where the board starts to rounding off) about 48 inches that gives us 25.4 mm in 1/48. And model width in this place is 28 mm. The excess 1 mm of the general width, plus insufficient slope of the boards, plus surplus of height, plus too long nose and wrong tail in a complex spoils the look of this nice plane.

Sergey.

[caiotfjr]

Damn, I don't know why I waste my time building models since there are fatal flaws on just about every kit.:whistle:/>/>

John

As a model, it's so much better than anything I could ever do.

As a representation of a plane, I think it has a serious problem in the shape of its nose

[bugs3144]

One of these days, someone is going to make a model that has a perfect nose. Wonder what people will find to criticize then. LOL

Frank

ATL

[JohannO]

Thanks KSL for the input. Never knew the Monogram kit was off the mark by so much. :(/> Of course the model will never be mistaken for a Marauder, Mitchell or anything similar, so any further discussion on its accuracy should therefore be stopped. I mean, we should just be gratefull that there is a 1/48 model available and just build it, flaws and all. Otherwise we will be sucking the joy out of the hobby. Oh yes, and you should at least build models to be in a position to critique on their accuracy. ;)/>

[JohannO]

One of these days, someone is going to make a model that has a perfect nose. Wonder what people will find to criticize then. LOL

Frank

ATL

So maybe there are people who will critisise a kit, just for the sake of doing so or because it gives them a sense of superiority or importance. But when someone gives a SUBSTANTIATED opinion about the accuracy of a kit, is that wrong? Should he just keep quiet?

[JohannO]

Damn, I don't know why I waste my time building models since there are fatal flaws on just about every kit.:whistle:/>/>/>

Very nice model. The True Details tyres need a bit of air though.

Edited May 4, 2013 by JohannO

[bugs3144]

So maybe there are people who will critisise a kit, just for the sake of doing so or because it gives them a sense of superiority or importance. But when someone gives a SUBSTANTIATED opinion about the accuracy of a kit, is that wrong? Should he just keep quiet?

Actually I was poking fun at the fact that no matter what new kit comes along, people find fault in the nose. Too round or too pointed or too long or too short. I think constructive criticism is a good thing. I just don't think people need to nit pick every little thing. We use our modeling skills to correct what we can and just try to ignore what we can't. And I build enough models and have for 60 years to be able to voice my opinion on this matter. All I have to say on the subject.

Frank

ATL

[don f]

Here drawings made by Alexey Matvienko (based on the dimensions from original manuals).

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for the post. Did Alexey Matvienko produce a set of drawings for the rest of the aircraft? If there was an article, please provide the link.

Don

[Ivy-5]

Hi, thanks for all these informations.

KSL, these drawings are most helpful, do you know of up or down plan views ?

Some planes make me feel like I should do a little more than just build them out from the box, and the Invader is one of those.

Seems quite complicated to correct, but maybe not as much as it seems.

Razor saws are here for this...

Don, I asked Gaston Marty some days ago, but he confessed low interest in the Invader.

f.

[kentak]

Why are drawings regarded as the true depiction of a plane? Perhaps the original blueprints would be good references but aren't any other drawings a subjective interpretation of the proportions and shapes? Not trying to put down anyone's drawings; I'm just curious why the drawings are regarded as the standard.

Ken

[uscusn]

You know it is all we have for now on the A/B-26 Invader, as I mentioned before, when someone asked about building a Counter Invader and what kit was available, by building one using the Paragon set a few years ago what else is there? So it is off the mark if built out of the box, but modifying to my ability I was able to get what looks to me as a B-26K.

Built this well before the internet is what it is now. Of course I have no problem with some criticism of any kit as some have the eye to notice any discrepancies. I for one do not, I just don't look for them. Some can be obvious on one model while another can be easily missed.

I'm just happy there are Invaders available to build in 48th scale. I used the glass nose "C" to modify and build the B-26K. That 7th Chadwick is amazing by the way. Now try building Modelcrafts F-82 Twin Mustang, that is an undertaking I took one look and saved that for a really stormy day eeeesh!. It's one thing when someone asks what is wrong with Monograms Invader. Most likely wants an honest opinion, which was said here. It can be discouraging, but again he can tackle something that when finished it does look like an Invader, despite the dimensions being off. Thats the hobby, a replica of an A/B-26 Invader in whatever variant it represents, park it next to an A-20 Havoc, B-26B Marauder and a B-25. Though off a bit, it looks like an Invader to me. Anyway for me it was fun to create a unique version of a WWII plane that participated in the Vietnam air war. I'ts a model.

Chuck

Fly Navy

[bugs3144]

You know it is all we have for now on the A/B-26 Invader, as I mentioned before, when someone asked about building a Counter Invader and what kit was available, by building one using the Paragon set a few years ago what else is there? So it is off the mark if built out of the box, but modifying to my ability I was able to get what looks to me as a B-26K.

Built this well before the internet is what it is now. Of course I have no problem with some criticism of any kit as some have the eye to notice any discrepancies. I for one do not, I just don't look for them. Some can be obvious on one model while another can be easily missed.

I'm just happy there are Invaders available to build in 48th scale. I used the glass nose "C" to modify and build the B-26K. That 7th Chadwick is amazing by the way. Now try building Modelcrafts F-82 Twin Mustang, that is an undertaking I took one look and saved that for a really stormy day eeeesh!. It's one thing when someone asks what is wrong with Monograms Invader. Most likely wants an honest opinion, which was said here. It can be discouraging, but again he can tackle something that when finished it does look like an Invader, despite the dimensions being off. Thats the hobby, a replica of an A/B-26 Invader in whatever variant it represents, park it next to an A-20 Havoc, B-26B Marauder and a B-25. Though off a bit, it looks like an Invader to me. Anyway for me it was fun to create a unique version of a WWII plane that participated in the Vietnam air war. I'ts a model.

Chuck

Fly Navy

Nice work on the Invader. The ones we had at Eglin AFB in '65 were dark green with light gray undersides. Of course that was a couple years before the SEA camo became prevelant. Again nice job.

Frank

ATL

[a20havoc]

This is a good thread. My squadron a-26 book lists the B model length at 50'8" and the C model at 51'3". The length of the B- gun nose from the above drawings do not match 50'8". The drawing would be 49.9ft Perhaps there is a typo on the nose pack length. I know it may not be the best to compare against other kits, but how do the italeri or airfix kits look if you traced outlines and scaled them to 1/48th scale. I think such comparisons help when trying to spot shape issues. I don't have either of the 72nd scale kits.

[Andre]

The ones we had at Eglin AFB in '65 were dark green with light gray undersides.

This scheme?:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/On-Mark-A-26A/1634378/L/

Cheers,

Andre

[don f]

This is a good thread. My squadron a-26 book lists the B model length at 50'8" and the C model at 51'3". The length of the B- gun nose from the above drawings do not match 50'8". The drawing would be 49.9ft Perhaps there is a typo on the nose pack length.

Here's how I justify the various dimensions. The published overall length of the fuselage, less cannon, is 49' - 11" or 599 inches. The all purpose nose spans the distance from Sta 0 to Sta -63 or 63 inches. The last Sta. is then Sta. 536 as shown in the drawing. The overall length of the B-26C is 51' - 3" or 615". If the fuselage spans Sta. 0 to Sta. 536, the bombardier nose extends from Sta. 0 to Sta. -79.

Some of the Stations Diagrams do not include structures in the tail cone. The Stations Diagram in the 1958 issue of the Technical Manual stops at Sta. 532 in the tail cone, but not the tip of the tail cone. The 1945 issue of the "Dash 2" stops at Sta. 472. When I can, I'll dig up the Structural Repair Manual and see what I learn. And I agree, a good thread regarding what's wrong with the Monogram kit.

By the way, I did a quick check of the Monogram kit using the published alignment diagram. The placement of the wings and horizontal stabilizers appears to be okay. The check does indicate that the vertical stabilizer leans forward. Exactly how much will require a more careful measurement.

Don

[a20havoc]

That is good info Don, Thanks. Here is a link I found to some dimensions on the K model. http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id404.html B-26K maint manual 1 page 18 has a station drawing that mostly agrees with the above drawings. Differences would be the extended tail cone and rudder. Maybe the monogram length error was introduced as Don mentioned in the cannon/ gun length. Can anyone confirm the overall width number?

James

Edited May 9, 2013 by a20havoc

[don f]

Can anyone confirm the overall width number?

Hi James,

The E&M has 5' - 2.04" for the maximum fuselage width. No indication of where this maximum occurs. From photographs, the maximum appears to occur as Sergey stated, in the lower bottom third of the fuselage profile. This site has some very useful photos of a A-26C being dismantled for restoration. Link to Invader restoration..

Don