Giorgio N

With the fuselage closed, it was then time to glue the wings in place, followed by taiplanes and the windscreen. Fit of the wings was perfect, the windscreen however for some reason gave me some trouble and I had to resort to clear UV curing resin to fill some gaps. With the windscreen sorted, I applied Eduard masks on this and then masked the whole moving part of the canopy. Stuck this in place with tape and it was time to prime with black Mr. Surfacer: I'm pretty happy with the primer, dried quite smooth and covered well. I have now made it even smoother with abrasive pads, let's hope that the Vallejo Metal Color paints I'll use will stick properly to this primer...

Finally made a start on the kit ! I know, it's a full month since I first posted in the thread, unfortunately other things got precedence in the meantime... Only airbrushed the cockpit and wheel wells to date, so not much to show yet (but the cockpit should be finished by tomorrow). In the meantime let me talk about the kit... Surface detail is represented by recessed panel lines of course. These are not as fine as other companies can do but at the same time they are no trenches either. Now Italeri themselves managed to do better in the past so I don't know why they are doing worse today but I'll live with them. The kit also features rivets. Not many, only in some areas and again pretty heavy. Modellers all have their own ideas about rivets, mine is that if they are fine I don't mind them. Here they are not and I'd have probably preferred not to have them. However this is not the real problem I have with this kit surface detail, the real problem can be seen in the picture below: See the panels on the back of the intake trunking ? They are recessed and have rivets, however both panel lines and rivets disappear at some point. And this is a problem because it means I have to rescribe the hatches and redo the rivets. This happens in various areas of the kit, the rivet on the intakes (that are separate parts) are even worse. Now I know that there are limitations to the plastic injection process and this above is the result of such limitations. However in 2024 a company should be able to design the kit to circumvent these limitations, that is what many others do. Why can't Italeri do the same ? I mentioned before how the kits does not allow to build the aircraft withh flaps and slats down, that is IMHO a pity as the AMX on the ground always has these open. Now the same could be said for many other kits (most F-18s for example) so Italeri can be excused. Having these parts as separate would have also likely increased the price of what is already not a cheap kit (RRP in italy is €28.90). However while I can accept that separate flaps and slats are not included I'm not sure I can accept this: See the wing upper part? It correctly features the flaps in the closed position. Now look at the lower surface..... where is the representation of the outer flaps line? Looks like someone at Italeri forgot a couple of recessed lines... I know some will say that in the end it's no big deal, just take a scriber and a ruler and add them. Of course this what I'll do (actually I already did) but this is the kind of things that smells of sloppiness. There will be a few other things like this during this build, small things that when added make this kit a bit disappointing. One is immediately visible here: there's no difference between panel lines and moving surfaces, they all have the same depth and width. This is something not only Italeri does as a number of Airfix kits share this choice, however it's something other companies already got right in the '80s. Again, not a big issue (I can deepen the moving surfaces with a scriber of course) but another sign that this kit was designed without much care. And again not a big issue but something I'd prefer not to see on a €28.90 kit...

With the cockpit completed it was almost time to close the fuselage halves. Almost as before doing this I had to insert the radiator rear element At that point I could finally close the fuselage, Being Tamiya I had no fit issue at all here And a view of the cockpit in the closed fuselage In the meantime I also glued together the wing parts. Again nothing to report here, usual Tamiya fit. The configuration of the Mustang radiator however means that it's useful to prime the wing lower surfaces before joining the wing to the fuselage as otherwise it would be impossible to reach certain areas after the model is built. Or better, it would be possible with an airbrush but I've decided to prime the model using spray cans, something I often do because of how easy and quick to use they are for this kind of job. My favourite primer is Mr. Finishing Surfacer and I generally use the 1500 grade grey one. For this model however I decided to experiment with a black primer as the finish will be in natural metal. As the local hobby shop had the 1500 in black, I immediately bought this. Should it work it will become my go-to primer for any finish that may benefit from a black undercoat. Here's the wing being primed on its lower surfaces: The finish is very matt but also very smooth. I feel I can make it even smoother with the use of fine grade abrasive pads, looks promising !

I know, I'm very bad at group builds ! The truth is that I've been building the kit and taking pictures but for some reason never posted them... so let's catch up with this one ! For a starter I've modified the title as I don't know yet the subject I'll represent, I'm now waiting for the end of a couple Ebay auctions, hopefully I'll have decals to apply on the model in a few days, all Italy based USAAF Mustangs of course. Then let's see some pictures, starting as usual with the cockpit that was painted according to the information I have gathered over the years from various sources. First a coat of interior green, ZYC yellow and some black: Followed by some more work in various areas, including a wash and the addition of Eduard's generic USAAF WW2 belts to the seat: The instrument panel was finished using the decal from the kit that gave a good effect over the raised detail Tamiya offers. As usual with this kind of pictures, keep in mind that the actual parts are several times smaller than the picture here....

Tanks were not seen very often in the early service years. Grumman had designed tanks of course but the first type, recognizable by the presence of side fins at the rear end, had problems (the fins induced cracks in the tank). The solution was simply to remove the rear section with the fins and this was done on existing tanks while a new type was put into production. This meant that for a while there was a relative shortage of tanks, reason why these were not seen as often as in later years. Tanks were in any case available for operation Frequent Wind and there are pictures showing aircraft from that deployment with tanks. Of course whenever tanks were not needed they were not used... during filming of The Final Countdown all aircraft operate close to base so there was no need for tanks. In later years however the pylons were often in place even when tanks were not used, something much rarer to see on early Tomcats

No, picture 2 in that page is the improved beavertail used on most aircraft. See how this lacks the position light or its base and how the side panel are slimmer than the central section. Picture 3 is the same as picture 2 with the addition of the antenna fairing. There's no picture of the early tail without side panels in that page

The second type from the top in that page was introduced during the production of Block 75, first aircraft was Bu.No, 159421 The Tomcats in service with VF-1 and VF-2 during operation Frequent Wind were all earlier production aircraft with the original tail (first from top in the picture). By then the dielectric panels on the side of the tail had been removed and all pictures I've seen of aircraft during that deployment confirm this.

Any additional info on this one ? I was going to order the Hobby 2000 MTO rebox but if Eduard box has MTO based Marauders included in their decal sheet I'd be happy to wait for this one

I remember their early resin kits and had the FW.159. I never built it because I was not sure about being able to do a good job with the wing struts so I sold it but I remember this as quite a nice kit considering its nature and age.

There was some logic in Fiat's numbering system: the 127 was given a lower number because it was smaller than the 128, even if the latter appeared a couple years earlier. Same for the later 126, given a smaller model number because was smaller than the other two. The actual project codes of the various cars on the other hand are chronological: the 128 had the internal code X1/1, the 127 had X1/4 The 130 was the largest so had a higher number... but then the smaller 131 arrived, higher number but was supposed to be seen as the first of a new generation. The 132, was larger than the 131 so this was supposed to make sense again. The 133 was an anomaly, not being a proper Fiat but a Seat design that was sold under the Fiat brand in some markets. Of course there's a big difference here: the commercial name of a car, even if it's a number, has to follow certain marketing logics. Military aircraft do not generally have to follow such logics so they are more likely to follow a chronological order. I'll see if I can find something on SIAI's project numbers, there have been a couple of books devoted to the history of the company and they may have some information on the number system. Just have to find someone with the books... PS: I said that military aircraft designations do not generally have to follow marketing logics but this has happened several times before. Latest example is the F-35 that should have really been the F-24.

I've measured the width of a number of 1/72 Spitfire canopies and the range varied by over 2 mm... and if anyone is thinking that 2 mm isn't much, we're talking about a part that is roughly 8 mm wide !

I don't want to go into the various aspects that each modeller may prefer or not, my view here is simply that everyone should do what they like, possibly without at the same time berating others because they like to do things differently. What I'd like to add is that I can't understand why people complain about the kits available today ! Really just browse through the pages of any large model kit retailer, let's say Hannants for the mostly British audience here. Have a look through the many articles listed and you'll find every possible kind of kit. EVERY ! Want a cheap no-thrill build ? Check things like the Hobbyboss and Zvezda easy build kits plus the recent ones from Airfix. Want something reminding you from the "good old days"? There's plenty of kits from the '70s still on the market under their original brand or in SMER boxes. And that even without going into the pre-owned market where plenty of older kits can be bought, be it from online sources or at model shows. Want a challenging build ? There are several short-run manufacturers that will offer plenty of challenge and in return give some unusual subjects too Want a relaxing build without having to use PE parts ? Just get a Tamigawajimi or Academy kit, most of them will give you exactly that Want a sophisticated kit with hundreds of parts ? Try a Fine Mold or GWH kit or some recent large scale kits from China Want to add resin and PE parts ? There's a huge choice (although not for all subjects). Don't like resin and PE parts ? Simple, just don't buy them ! Really, there's something fot everyone at every possible price level, from as low as £5-6 to as much as several hundred or more. And I'm only mentioning aircraft kits because these are the ones I know, I'm sure that if other kind of kits were included the variety would be even wider. That's the beauty of our hobby today, we have choices ! We can choose what we want like more than we could in those famous good old days. And I can't understand why for some this is a bad thing... P.S. actually there is one thing that I'd like to say on the tastes of others: please don't say you hate this or that if you haven't tried it! Try every possible kit type as soon as you feel your skills allow it. You may find you actually like it... Personally I've built kits at every end of the spectrum, from the Matchbox kits of my youth (that revisited today are not as good as they felt 45 years ago) to the modern easy-assembly kits to the Japanese shake and bake tamigawas to the modern and not-so-modern short runs to the multimedia, including resin and vacform kits, with or without resin and PE parts. I enjoyed some and hated others even within the same "cathegory". After over 40 years building kits I know what I like most and tend to buy accordingly... and yet I sometime buy something that does not fit in the what I generally like at all...

I have one of the early Lightning series from RS (the F-4A) and the sprues don't look too bad in the box. I have of course read the many horror stories about the fit of this kit and a first dry-fit showed that they are most likely true... not that other P-38 kits were all easy to build, the Dragon one for example is a well known nightmare too. Other RS kits on the other hand were much better. I found their Re.2005 a very easy build, better fitting than several Airfix or Italeri kits of the same era (and it's a very nice kit in many other aspects). The P-39 is also not bad and with some care builds up nicely (not as nice as the Reggiane though)Their D.520 looks pretty good in the box while the P-51H looks a bit less refined. Guess that as with all companies RS have simply improved over time. I'm very tempted by the F-5B, the Academy kit is a good base with the exception of the radiators and having the base kit plus the conversion parts and decals all in one box is better than having to hunt around for the various bits. The kit also seems to sell for what I'd consider an acceptable price

I believe that the AMX never was a very well known aircraft outside Italy, a fate common with other types not flying with the "main" air forces. The language barrier also doesn't help those interested in researching the AMX history as most information appeared on the Italian press only. Fortunately things are in general better since the Internet has made everything more accessible. Unfortunately the AMX in Italy also made the mainstream news thanks to a number of accidents. Reliability was not great in the early years, partly due to the lack of spares. Things improved dramatically in later years but at that point the AMX was something everybody knew existed but few cared about. Even the retirement seems to have passed under the radar without much publicity. Part of this is due to how the Aeronautica Militare is generally quite shy in regard to the operational use of their aircraft so the contribution to the operations in Afghanistan was not advertised outside the enthusiasts community. Maybe the fact that the type was OOP and therefore didn't need to be promoted to potential customers was a factor. The M.345 in the same years had much more publicity. Speaking of the potential foreign sales, Argentina for a while showed some interest. The sale di tdn't go through for a number of reasons, one of them quite ironic: one of the points that pushed the selection of the Spey was the fact that a UK made engine would have been easier to export than a corresponding American engine. When Argentina expressed interest the problem of re-exporting a British engine to a country that was not London's friend at the moment was a problem! Mind, the decision to use the Spey was highly controversial. IMHO the base engine itself was fine in several aspects, first of all reliability. It was the decision to use a variant designed specifically that increased costs and in the end caused problems. Still the type entered service in 1988 and was retired in 2024, makes 36 years. Not as long a career as other types but not too bad overall, particularly for a type built in small numbers.