John Thompson

While it's in 1/48 scale, this new article by Jumpei Temma describing his build of the Accurate Miniatures P-51A may provide some inspiration (or discouragement, depending on how seriously you take your modelbuilding...): http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51ae-1.html That;s part one; part two is linked as "Next" at the bottom of the page. Read 'em and weep! John

Oops - that raises another point of controversy - I seem to recall that the Allison Mustangs had inner main gear bay doors which did not drop down while the aircraft was parked because the doors were either electrically operated (instead of hydraulic) and/or they had latching devices which held them closed. If I was building an Allison P-51, I think I'd close the doors anyway - it looks neater and helps emphasize the really sleek appearance of these aircraft! John

Thank you for that, Mike! The comment here and in the other thread regarding the goodness of the Monogram P-51B wing has me curious about whether the old Hawkeye resin replacement wing that was intended for the Hasegawa P-51B is correct WRT the droop of the leading edge extension. John

Now that sounds like an excellent idea - please carry on! John

So much information is being presented, quoted, requoted, and disputed here that I think confusion is setting in. I see nothing in this thread which says the Academy P-51 (kit #12401) has a P-51D wing. Direct comparison shows that the wing matches exactly the Allison P-51 drawings prepared by Jumpei Temma, and that's pretty damn good, in my book. FYI: http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51a-1.html John

All wartime Russian fighter aircraft used significant amounts of laminated or otherwise processed wood in their wing and fuselage construction, in the forms detailed by Ed Russell. And don't forget the DeHavilland Mosquito! John

Well, I had the same reaction when I saw Mock's post on 72nd Scale - just basic modelling skills - but since there seemed to be some consternation locally, I thought I'd post the link. Better to have too much information than not enough. Those of us who enjoy totally crazy kitbashes to try to get what we want that's not otherwise available will certainly not be put off by a bit of trimming to get that engine nacelle to fit. John

Doesn't sound like a showstopper to me - in fact, if you check out the 72nd Aircraft forum, Jonathan Mock shows you very simply how to fix it: http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/index.php?showtopic=9469&st=15&#last ...and scroll down a bit. John

Oh lighten up... John

Eminently sensible - as I've mentioned before, there was even one used as a personal hack flown by RAF Wing Commander J. E. Storrar in the early post-war years, so there's a British connection. At least one preserved VK-105 Yak-9 still exists, so a genuine example is available for LIDAR scanning. Airfix have reissued their existing sort-of-looks-like-a-Yak-9 many times over the decades since it was originally released (1963, per Scalemates), so it must be making them some money, even though calling it a Yak-9 by today's standards of detail and accuracy is almost fraudulent. Rework potential? As was done by ICM and Dakoplast in the past, all that's needed to cover all of the several VK-105-powered versions is a second pair of fuselage halves to represent types with the relocated cockpit (Yak-9T, -9K, -9DD, -9M). Variety of paint/markings schemes? Tons of those in VVS usage. Variety of users? Besides Russia and Great Britain, how about Bulgaria, Poland, and Yugoslavia? John

Do you want to sell that to me?! Ha ha - just joking - enjoy, Roman! A bit off-topic, but I fail to understand why there's a complete absence of decent 1/72 kits of the VK-105-powered versions of the Yak-9. Again and again I see announcements of new kits of obscure types which I've never even heard of (okay, there's a lot that I've never heard of) and everyone goes wild (yes, yes - good for them - well done), and yet the most significant Russian fighter aircraft of WWII, the Soviet equivalent of the Spitfire and Mustang, is completely ignored. I just don't get it!!! Anyway, I'm sorry for that digression; at least, thanks to Fly, we have this quite decent new Il-10 to look forward to! John

Thank you, Libor! I was hoping it might be a few days sooner, to coincide with my birthday, but that won't spoil the enjoyment of my cake! John

I haven't given up - after all, I've been living in hope of a new 1/72 Yak-9 and/or Yak-1b for years, decades even, so I've got an infinite stockpile of hope. Hope, and filler putty. That said, I will admit that I'm currently attempting to buy up every available Dakoplast/EE/Modelist Yak-9 in the whole world, so maybe an element of despair is starting to creep in, but however - back to the Fly Il-10 - it appears from Michael's images that the slot for the exhausts is simply too wide, but can be corrected by narrowing it with a strip of plastic inserted at the bottom edge of the opening and blended in. This isn't too difficult, although of course it is disappointing, and why should it be necessary with a brand-new kit? More concerning is the possible too-flat curvature of the upper cowling which Michael identified as well... I really want to get my hands on this kit - does anyone know how close the release date is now? John

Thank you, V.P. - the images are much appreciated! John

Certainly - see here: John