Jump to content

1/72nd P-51 Mustangs


Al Keller

Recommended Posts

While on the thread of Mustang accuracy, can anyone confirm that the leading edge extension on the D was to accommodate a greater forward rake of the undercarriage to compensate for the heavier (Merlin) engine vs Allison?

Well the B/C had a Merlin engine and it didn't have the same extension. Perhaps, but I don't have enough ref's to answer to the positive.

Cheers, Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the B/C had a Merlin engine and it didn't have the same extension. Perhaps, but I don't have enough ref's to answer to the positive.

Cheers, Tony

I think you've missed the point. The heavier Merlin on the B/C showed that a greater forward undercarriage rake was needed, this in turn requiring the enhanced wing extension. Likewise improved Perspex formation techniques enabled a full bubble canopy to be produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While on the thread of Mustang accuracy, can anyone confirm that the leading edge extension on the D was to accommodate a greater forward rake of the undercarriage to compensate for the heavier (Merlin) engine vs Allison?

No. Nor was it because of larger wheels, which is something else people occasionally suggest. It was to accommodate changes in the retraction and uplock mechanisms, probably connected to the rash of uplock failures that were experienced on the B under high G manoeuvres.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most accurate P-51A is the High Planes, for example it is the only one that depicts the drooping inner portions of the leading edges towards the fuselage (seen from the front) correctly.

Is a bit difficult to build tho ...

The bit that scares me the most about these is the fuselage stripes for the No 1 Air Commando scheme, compared to that a bit of filling & fettling scares me not at all. :D Good to know about the accuracy though Martin, thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Nor was it because of larger wheels, which is something else people occasionally suggest. It was to accommodate changes in the retraction and uplock mechanisms, probably connected to the rash of uplock failures that were experienced on the B under high G manoeuvres.

If there were uplock failures, why not revert to the original design on Allison engined aircraft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno. Speculatively it may have been to do with finding a cheaper way of doing things. NAA was very good at aggressively taking manufacturing cost out of the P-51. Can't remember where now but I've certainly read that by late war the cost of making a P-51 was only around half that of a P-47.

Edited to say: These are not from primary sources but hoofing around the internet suggests that late war prices to to US govt were:

P-38 $97,000

P-47 $85,000

P-51 $51,000.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the verdict on the KP B/C models? They look pretty good to me but I'm no expert. I'm more interested in shape than surface detail, so any tips welcome. Justin

To supplement Chuck1945's comments, there's an extended review of the KP Mustang III (P-51B) by Brian Derbyshire in the Nov 2015 Scale Aircraft Modelling (pp 12-13). On the basis of comparison with the Arthur Bentley drawings in the back of Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 7: Mustangs Aces of the 9th and 15th Air Forces and the RAF he identifies 2 major flaws: insufficiently drooped leading edge root extensions (in common with all other P-51B kits) and cockpit about 1mm too far back (in comon with the Revell kit). Lesser flaws are a very slightly short canopy centre section, aileron/flap split a shade too far inboard, dud ammunition case ports and no stores or racks. He then describes how to correct the 2 major flaws: in the case of the wing roots it's a 9-stage process illustrated with 6 photos. Read the article and then decide whether you care that much! His overall verdic,t though, is "best yet on an out of the box basis" and "Buy some ... and start catching up with all those mid-period Mustangs that are no longer just too difficult."

Meanwhile, in the Jan 2016 Scale Aviation Modeller International Brian has a 4-page article (pp 72-75), presumably written before the KP kit was available, on how to make the Academy P-51B/C acceptably accurate, with work on the rear fuselage length, chin intake, root chord and taper, leading edge root extensions (drooping again) and canopy. Read the article and weep that you didn't wait for the KP kit,

Edited by Seahawk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were uplock failures, why not revert to the original design on Allison engined aircraft?

Because the original change was necessary to allow access to the gun/strike camera, which had been relocated to the wheel well in the A, and that led to field removal of the secondary lock to allow access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To supplement Chuck1945's comments, there's an extended review of the KP Mustang III (P-51B) by Brian Derbyshire in the Nov 2015 Scale Aircraft Modelling (pp 12-13). On the basis of comparison with the Arthur Bentley drawings in the back of Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 7: Mustangs Aces of the 9th and 15th Air Forces and the RAF he identifies 2 major flaws: insufficiently drooped leading edge root extensions (in common with all other P-51B kits) and cockpit about 1mm too far back (in comon with the Revell kit). Lesser flaws are a very slightly short canopy centre section, aileron/flap split a shade too far inboard, dud ammunition case ports and no stores or racks. He then describes how to correct the 2 major flaws: in the case of the wing roots it's a 9-stage process illustrated with 6 photos. Read the article and then decide whether you care that much! His overall verdic,t though, is "best yet on an out of the box basis" and "Buy some ... and start catching up with all those mid-period Mustangs that are no longer just too difficult."

Actually, I don't see how he could miss the worstest, most hideousness portion of the KP kit- the malformed cowling. The KP has it so the chin intake and the spinner form 2 separate cylinders that intersect for a fair distance back along the cowling, creating a highly uncharacteristic "double bubble", or crease if you will- a figure 8 cross section. The sides and top of the Mustang's cowing are relatively flat, and no crease exists on the prototype. All the other flaws in the KP kit are relatively benign and I'd live with them(and there are others beyond what was mentioned in the article) but the shadow created by that crease just screams "wrong". from any distance, at any angle,and the poor Merlin inside the KP's front end should be spilling out all over, like Jayne Mansfield in the famous photo with Sophia Loren . I did post this earlier, but I think the Jayne Mansfield example will strike more to heart that a set of dentures.

The Hasegawa kit is far better in the nose area and the shortness in the tail isn't obvious, at least to me. I'm trying to figure out the most expedient way to crosskit the 2. The wings of the KP are nice, though the outer gun is too far out but the panel lines, bay openings and leading edge extensions are correct, and it has dropped flaps as most P-51s showed on the ground.Personally, I hope Airfix LIDARs a B soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely correct- I'm not certain it is possible to remove it in one piece. I ended up just using the base boot and scratch building the rest of the column from wire and bits of plastic. Airfix should have included about 10 spares in the kit.

Not sure if this is too late, but easy way to remove these type of fragile parts is to cut way up the sprue with sprue cutters and actually use a hot knife blade to get really close. Works every time. Learned this on Sword and other limited run kits where the plastic is fragile and connected with thick gates.

Edited by RayB24
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is too late, but easy way to remove these type of fragile parts is to cut way up the sprue with sprue cutters and actually use a hot knife blade to get really close. Works every time. Learned this on Sword and other limited run kits where the plastic is fragile and connected with thick gates.

Thank you for the good tip; I'll have to try that next time. I did cut the sprues away from the part but hadn't thought about using the hot knife blade.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooooo, I guess the upshot is that we are still waiting for Tamiya to downscale their 1/48 P-51B/C to 1/72 in order to have a relatively 'shake-n'-bake' version that is reasonably accurate. How disappointing, since at the rate that Tamiya actually downscales their 1/48 line, I'll probably be dead, or at least close enough to it that modeling will no longer be a viable option for me. Oh well....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I am no "Mustang expert," but based on some recent building experience and the kits I have on hand:

Allison-engined

I have none of the interesting lim-run kits mentioned, but the mainstream Academy kit is pretty accurate and nicely detailed. Perhaps its biggest limitation is that it represents the cannon-armed P-51 (no suffix letter), aka Mustang Mk IA, which was relatively rare. Significant onversion work is needed to get to a Mustang I, A-36, or P-51A. The Italeri kit is IMHO terrible, completely missing the fact that the Allison-engined fuselage was 3 inches shallower than the Merlin one, so the nose geometry is pretty fictitious. The kit also has some molding flaws such as missing canopy framing.

P-51B/C

Can't add much to what has already been said. I feel the Hasegawa kit, in spite of its infamous wing geometry, has the most accurate fuselage. In particular it's the only kit to correctly portray the wide, flat upper cowl shape characteristic of the Merlin Mustangs. The KPM kit does indeed have a quite odd-looking nose, but I have to say the overall detail and finesse of the kit is really outstanding, and those count for something in a model's appearance. Some feel the most accurate overall kit is actually the ancient Monogram one. A friend of mine recently did an outstanding model based on this kit, but of course you're on your own as far as detailing.

Cross-kitting seems a favorite exercise of B fans! Fitting the Academy wing to the Hasegawa fuselage is not too difficult, and I find myself wondering if a KPM kit with a Hasegawa nose is worth a look.

P-51D

Again I think Hasegawa has the most accurate fuselage shape, especially the upper cowl, and has the most delicate panel line detailing. Since the wing is basically accurate too, it's worth considering. The Tamiya kit is certainly the consensus pick of the experts, but my personal choice at the moment is Airfix. The shape seems very similar to Tamiya, the surface detail is only slightly less refined, and the droppable flaps and full wheel wells are outstanding features.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would one need to do to the Academy kit to get to a Mustang II? Deletion of the cannon and replace with MGs but anything else?

Pat

Not only :( The ventral radiator intake has totally different section and it's fixed in A-36/P-51A, while in Mk.I and Mk.IA (P-51) it was openable. Also the wing leading edge landing lights are different - in P-51 (Mk.IA) they're some 40 ins closer to the fuselage (just outboard the cannon) than in Mk.I and P-51A (Mk.II). Moreover the A-36 had two landing lights in port wing only :)

Cheers

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would one need to do to the Academy kit to get to a Mustang II? Deletion of the cannon and replace with MGs but anything else?

Pat

The High plane models P-51A,then it's just a matter of sourcing decals.

Edited by Gwart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P-51B/C

Can't add much to what has already been said. I feel the Hasegawa kit, in spite of its infamous wing geometry, has the most accurate fuselage. In particular it's the only kit to correctly portray the wide, flat upper cowl shape characteristic of the Merlin Mustangs. The KPM kit does indeed have a quite odd-looking nose, but I have to say the overall detail and finesse of the kit is really outstanding, and those count for something in a model's appearance. Some feel the most accurate overall kit is actually the ancient Monogram one. A friend of mine recently did an outstanding model based on this kit, but of course you're on your own as far as detailing.

The Hasegawa P-51 (B, C or D) has other faults too.

- The radiator intake has quite pronouncedly square 'leading edges' .

- Like the KP kit the elevator hinge line is straight, and ignores the mass balance forward of it.

- The rudder hinge line is no more pronounced than the fabric lines on the rudder its self.

- The exhausts can only be fitted prior to joining the two fuselage halves. My current build had one come adrift (as I tried to mask it) and now loose in the fuselage with no easy way to catch and re-fix it!

Don't get too hung up on the Monogram P-51B/C either. The tool-work of the surface may look quite dainty (at least for a 60's kit) but it has a number of shortcomings most noticeably the profile of the upper forward engine cowling. The intake duct behind the propeller has no 'roof' to it so to speak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the biggest fault with the KP kit is the nose. Its far too rounded and pinched behind the spinner and has an entirely fictitious double curve accommodating the spinner and chin intake where it should be more slab sided. Imagine your grandfather with, than without, his false teeth in, and that's the look of the KP to the real thing.

I was curious that the Revell P-51B had not been mentioned in this thread. As I was comparing kits in my stash yesterday, I noticed that it shares precisely the same "double bubble" intake as the KPM kit, also the same slightly "off" cockpit position. I recall when the KPM appeared, there were some who thought it a Revell copy...true or not, it would be easy to come to that conclusion!

I still feel the Hasegawa B and D kits are the only ones to accurately capture the pronounced "shoulder"and flattened top cowl characteristic of the Merlin Mustang, though.

4F8607F3-ED30-4884-8B2C-F151A5F9CCB3_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...