Jump to content

P-40B/C Academy, Monogram, Trumpeter


Recommended Posts

The discussions over there (term used loosely) tend to take it to a special level...to the point where if you dare to just build it as it without worrying about correcting something you can be deemed one of those guys from ARC or LSP...

Yep. I've lurked there for a decade and have not posted once, because of the issue you describe.

Mike

Edited by mlicari
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's set the story straight here, as I am being accused of alleging someone committed a fraud, which I did not do. I also did not say both restorations were inaccurate. I said the camouflaged #284 had a inaccurate belly profile, while the NMF one at Duxford was correct. Both apparently done by the same shop though I am not really sure, but I do know what I see. Well, they are clearly different, and only the NMF one matches wartime photos. For this I was accused seeing things in my mind (apparently lots of others see the the same thing - I guess it is in their heads too) and here in this thread I am accused of making some sort of false accusation of fraud. I did no such thing. Jennings needs to review the legalities of defamation, and falsely accusing someone, as I can make a clear legal case out here, and I know lots of lawyers. BTW, Curtiss made the P-40, not Bell. I was perfectly cordial and polite in my e-mails to Jennings, and got back nothing but biting, snarky attitude. Here is the text. You decide. And just to show there are two sides of the coin, I got an e-mail from a friend on the P-51 SIG, who fully agrees with me, as many in the thread at HS also did. I removed his name to protect him from wild accusations, but his text and photo comparison are immediately below the links to the two closeup shots, followed by e-mail string with Jennings:

Close up of belly of restoration P-40B #284:

(https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d708b3127cceea6e084c131c00000030O00EaOWjFsycMQe3nw0/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00108261409420150929235751254.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/)

Actual wartime P-40B/C belly profile:

(https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d708b3127cceea6f7ef333d400000030O00EaOWjFsycMQe3nw0/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00108261409420150929235751216.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/)

_________________________________________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airing your private correspondence is in bad taste.

Getting so worked up about plastic model airplanes that you're threatening to involve lawyers is also in bad taste.

Oh. And the way you refer to other members of the modeling community as 'screeching nitwits' and 'loudmouth idiots' and 'sensitive nancy girls'. That's in bad taste too.

Edited by KOG7777
Link to post
Share on other sites

Airing your private correspondence is in bad taste.

Getting so worked up about plastic model airplanes that you're threatening to involve lawyers is also in bad taste.

Oh. And the way you refer to other members of the modeling community as 'screeching nitwits' and 'loudmouth idiots'. That's in bad taste too.

I did not start it. My private e-mails were brought up here and I was falsely accused, publicly in this thread, of saying something in those e-mails I actually never said. Falsely accusing me is bad taste. It may also be legally actionable. The attacks made on me were beyond bad taste, fully justifying my general characterization of the typical HS poster. (Many others were gentlemen and both defended me and agreed with me). Especially when my basic premise was correct. I will not have my good name disparaged.

Edited by Michael Vorrasi
Link to post
Share on other sites

YES please stop it. Please let's talk about the models. Otherwise, since I started this thread, I will ask the moderators to lock or delete it if we can't get back on track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much difference between:

1379858.jpg

and

432215as.jpg

I mean... it's the same angle and everything. If there's a difference, it must be so minor that I can't see it.

You have conveniently selected an angle where the landing gear fairing hides the problem area. Nice try though. The silver one has a very different bottom fairing than the camo one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple case of not knowing exactly which area you were complaining about. I was under the impression you were complaining about the curve of the 'chin' area.

Now that I know which part is a bone of contention for you, I do see a difference between these 2 shots:

Curtiss_P-40B_Tomahawk_284_18P_(G-CDWH)_(6992545959).jpg

curtiss_p40c3684.jpg

On the '284' example, the belly curves up gradually as it nears the cowling flaps. On the silver P-40C, the belly is flatter and then turns in/upwards more abruptly as it approaches the flaps.

So you're saying the P-40C example is more accurate in this area? Fair enough... In looking at the Airfix CAD images, the shapes seem to more closely match those of the P-40C than those of the '284'.

So if the P-40C is the more accurate one, and the Airfix design looks more like that one... what's the problem? Or are you contending that the Airfix design looks more like '284'???

To me, this Airfix shot looks a lot more like the P-40C than the '284':

ImageF5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

So If you don't like the Airfix than build yourself the Monogram and stop Bellyaching. If you don't like the shape of the belly close the cowl-flaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple case of not knowing exactly which area you were complaining about. I was under the impression you were complaining about the curve of the 'chin' area.

Now that I know which part is a bone of contention for you, I do see a difference between these 2 shots:

Curtiss_P-40B_Tomahawk_284_18P_(G-CDWH)_(6992545959).jpg

curtiss_p40c3684.jpg

On the '284' example, the belly curves up gradually as it nears the cowling flaps. On the silver P-40C, the belly is flatter and then turns in/upwards more abruptly as it approaches the flaps.

So you're saying the P-40C example is more accurate in this area? Fair enough... In looking at the Airfix CAD images, the shapes seem to more closely match those of the P-40C than those of the '284'.

So if the P-40C is the more accurate one, and the Airfix design looks more like that one... what's the problem? Or are you contending that the Airfix design looks more like '284'???

To me, this Airfix shot looks a lot more like the P-40C than the '284':

ImageF5.jpg

Yes, thank you. That is exactly the area I am pointing out. The NMF plane's belly fairing matches the wartime photo linked to in my post #27 above. Don't know where the rest of the post and additional photo links went. Someone tampered with the others. The CAD looks to me and several others to be closer to the #284 plane. More properly the CAD looks very Trumpeter like. The 284 plane's belly fairing looks a lot more like the Academy kit, which in addition to a tiny fairing had the added problem of an incorrect wing angle of incidence. Trumpy had a double error, the belly fairing was too small and the radiator was too big and puffy. I find the CAD drawing of the nose to be closer to #284 than the silver one. The radiator cowl lower profile line should match up with the profile line of the fairing. Try putting a straight edge along the bottom of the radiator in that nice photo of the silver one, and it mates up with the front of the fairing, at that sharp shoulder. On #284,no such luck. In the CAD, the fairing should be bigger and line up with the profile of the radiator housing, not sit well above it like a later model P-40. I have been told that Airfix used the silver plane as their resource, and that is a very very good thing, because it is perfect. It is just that their CAD isn't a good match. Several people have asked Airfix to pay particular attention to this area as it is the trouble spot that has ruined two previous kits. The CAD should look perfect, because that is what the molds will be cut from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you. That is exactly the area I am pointing out. The NMF plane's belly fairing matches the wartime photo linked to in my post #27 above. Don't know where the rest of the post and additional photo links went. Someone tampered with the others. The CAD looks to me and several others to be closer to the #284 plane. More properly the CAD looks very Trumpeter like. The 284 plane's belly fairing looks a lot more like the Academy kit, which in addition to a tiny fairing had the added problem of an incorrect wing angle of incidence. Trumpy had a double error, the belly fairing was too small and the radiator was too big and puffy. I find the CAD drawing of the nose to be closer to #284 than the silver one. The radiator cowl lower profile line should match up with the profile line of the fairing. Try putting a straight edge along the bottom of the radiator in that nice photo of the silver one, and it mates up with the front of the fairing, at that sharp shoulder. On #284,no such luck. In the CAD, the fairing should be bigger and line up with the profile of the radiator housing, not sit well above it like a later model P-40. I have been told that Airfix used the silver plane as their resource, and that is a very very good thing, because it is perfect. It is just that their CAD isn't a good match. Several people have asked Airfix to pay particular attention to this area as it is the trouble spot that has ruined two previous kits. The CAD should look perfect, because that is what the molds will be cut from.

Take a look at this P-40E. The belly fairing is very similar to the one used on P-40B #284. It does not match the one used on the P-40C and the wartime P-40B/C planes. If you have Dana Bell's book on early P-40's, see the photo on page 12 of the P-40 on jack stands. You can put a ruler on the radiator cowling and it ties straight into the fairing. Look directly above the port side main gear leg for the P-40E fairing shape. Matches shape on P-40B #284:

53663.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheesus, people! Just build and enjoy! Is this a model-building hobby or an "I know better than you" beeotch session?

And that's exactly what these people do NOT do i.e. building plastic model kits.

Mario

in NYC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading the discussion on Hyperscale but gave up when I could not work out what on earth everyone was debating about. The volume of traffic on the subject was patently irrational, especially considering that it was all based on some preliminary CAD images, and that the projected release date is around 12 months into the future!

As a result of this ARC thread (and especially the images attached), I can confidently say I now understand what all the to & fro was about... but I still think it is borderline absurdity to be complaining about such a minor shape discrepancy on a model kit that does not yet exist, and to be suggesting that such early data from Airfix may be indicative of the final product. Worse still, fretting about such a trivial matter is merely a waste of good modelling time!

The title of William Shakespeare's comedic play sums it up perfectly: Much ado about nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or why bother. Unfortunately these forums are full of people that don't seen to want accurate kits so they are obviously happy with the Trumpeter kit.

Manufactures should just not bother releasing early CAD renders, after all that worked out well for Eduard and their 109G.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it's not P-40E ;)/>/>/>.

Sergey.

Yes, long tail. It came up on a P-40E search.I was focused on the cowling and belly, did not look at the tail! It is a P-40M, based on the filtered air intake. The cowling and fairing are all the same though, on Kittyhawks with Allisons. And the Kittyhawk belly fairing shape is what appears on P-40B #284, for which I was accused of heresy for pointing out.

Edited by Michael Vorrasi
Link to post
Share on other sites

No NO No you missed the wheel hub cover and the carburetor scoop and the tail wheel door. Until the next idiot chimes in about a kit that is almost a year away. OH MG I forgot the Pitot tube, you missed that too, Oh and the upper canopy glass. And the insignia is in the wrong place and it's the wrong color. Damn it the whole plane is the wrong color, it should be a shade of PINK.BANGHEAD2.jpgdeadhorse1.gifcrying.gif377.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

OH NO Airfix put station ribs in the aft fuselage and they are definitely in the wrong place. And look at the outboard wing traling edge. Look at the oversized Rib Stitching pinking tape height, It must be a foot tall.

Edited by Otto
Link to post
Share on other sites

No NO No you missed the wheel hub cover and the carburetor scoop and the tail wheel door. Until the next idiot chimes in about a kit that is almost a year away. OH MG I forgot the Pitot tube, you missed that too, Oh and the upper canopy glass. And the insignia is in the wrong place and it's the wrong color. Damn it the whole plane is the wrong color, it should be a shade of PINK.BANGHEAD2.jpgdeadhorse1.gifcrying.gif377.gif

Now we are resulting to personal insults?

So don't you think its worth letting a manufacturers know if you see what could be a fault, no matter how early on things are? There's no harm in it, if we get a more accurate kit at the end, and if you're wrong it doesn't matter.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are resulting to personal insults?

So don't you think its worth letting a manufacturers know if you see what could be a fault, no matter how early on things are? There's no harm in it, if we get a more accurate kit at the end, and if you're wrong it doesn't matter.

That's the darn thing about forum language -- it can be difficult to know if someone is being humorous (not to mention ironic or sarcastic) or serious. Thus, I can't tell with certainty if your quoted response to Otto's post is humorous or serious. Assuming it's serious, please take another look at Jennings's post above -- the one with all the red lines. Hopefully it'll become clear to you that Otto's response was humorous as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the darn thing about forum language -- it can be difficult to know if someone is being humorous (not to mention ironic or sarcastic) or serious. Thus, I can't tell with certainty if your quoted response to Otto's post is humorous or serious. Assuming it's serious, please take another look at Jennings's post above -- the one with all the red lines. Hopefully it'll become clear to you that Otto's response was humorous as well.

Thank You. You are half right I was being humerus to the post, but attempting to be insulting to the Schmucks that are really like that. After all it is only a CAD representation and most likely just a preliminary one. After all the kit is a year away. I think that the CAD model is nowhere close to being finished. That takes the longest. To burn the tool will only take a couple of weeks. I have been in that business for about ten years now.

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...