Which 1:72 Mosquito Mk IV kit?

[Hutch]

As the title implies, which is the best 1:72 Mossie Mk IV kit? I've been given a piece of a crashed Mossie Mk IV and have a plan to incorporate it into a display with a model of the actual airframe but am looking outside of my usual scale to do so. I know there is the Tamiya boxing and the Hasegawa one but which is the best to go with. I'm not looking to super-detail it or add too much etch etc but would like it to be right....

many thanks in advance

Hutch

[PhantomBigStu]

Tamiya

[Seahawk]

Tamiya

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Tamiya, although I've not built the Hasegawa kit but I have made the Hasegawa VI and XVIII, which I had no issues with.

thanks

Mike

[Graham Boak]

Tamiya has a different shape to all other Mosquito kits. The tail is the wrong size, the rear fuselage is slightly fatter, the wing span/taper is odd and the radiators stick out further. The forward fuselage section of both is somewhat unconvincing, but Tamiya is better. Hasegawa lacks the cross-braces on the undercarriage.

That said, both make up into nice models and it's a matter of personal taste which you'd prefer.

[Hutch]

Thank you all for that. It will be the Tamiya one that seems to tick all of the boxes.

One question on this kit; can it be displayed with the bomb bay open with all of its wares showing? The Mossie I'm hoping to do (139 sqn) was lost on a bombing mission so it feels appropriate to have this part open.

Many thanks again in advance

Hutch

[mhaselden]

Tamiya has a different shape to all other Mosquito kits. The tail is the wrong size, the rear fuselage is slightly fatter, the wing span/taper is odd and the radiators stick out further. The forward fuselage section of both is somewhat unconvincing, but Tamiya is better. Hasegawa lacks the cross-braces on the undercarriage.

That said, both make up into nice models and it's a matter of personal taste which you'd prefer.

Graham,

Sorry for the thread drift but does the Tamiya 1/48 Mosquito B Mk IV share the same shape issues with it's smaller-scaled relative?

Many thanks,

Mark

[Graham Boak]

No idea I'm afraid. It would seem reasonable to assume so but this doesn't always hold true. For example, the Hasegawa Hurricane Mk.I has faults in 1/72 that don't appear on the (slightly later) 1/48 kit.

[mhaselden]

Thanks for the speedy response Graham. Given the issues with the short undercarriage legs on the Revell kit, I'm leaning towards Tamiya. Unfortunately, there seem to be no on-line articles discussing corrections to the kit...so I thought I'd ask here. Maybe I'll start a "Best 1/48 Mosquito B Mk IV" thread and see if anything emerges.

[Graham Boak]

Good luck, but don't expect negative comments on Tamiya kits. They seem to be blindly worshipped whereas other manufacturers are lambasted for the most minor errors. I've been banging on for a while about what I saw (and still see) as oddities about the Tamiya Mossie, without any apparent effect or even response.

The best plans available are supposedly those in the Modelling Data File, and I was glad to find corroboration of my comments. After all, it is by no means impossible that all the other kits were wrong! Previous to the MDF publication (second edition, anyway) I have seen comment that all (then-current) Mosquito plans were wrong, which would certainly imply all the earlier kits were. However this doesn't seem to have had any justification, or none made that I've seen, and the MDF plans have been strongly defended.

To be honest, I have both Hasegawa and Tamiya kits and find it difficult to say one is better, as a model, than the other, beyond the comments above. Both will make nice models, but neither are ideal, and both are less accurate than the Airfix. Which is not a Mk.IV, of course.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Graham, I remember Mosquito kits debate on, I believe AWF (RIP), years ago. IIRC the main question then had been about the shape of the fuselage just aft of wings. I think that Tamiya kit had been criticised for being too square in this area. I would imagine that at least this problem could be solved fairly quickly just by examining actual planes in museums. Has this question been answered yet and what is the verdict? Cheers

Jure

[mhaselden]

Tend to agree. I do like the old Airfix kit. I attempted a kitbashed MkIV using the Airfix kit as the base with the nose from the old Matchbox kit. It was starting to look quite good...until I realised my home-made bomb bay details bore no relation to the real thing, at which point I gave it up as a bad idea.

[Graham Boak]

Jure; This hinges upon the required width of the bombbay and the narrowing of the fuselage lines at the rear. I don't think that either the Tamiya or the Hasegawa one are excessively flat in this area, but this is from memory and not from checking the kit(s). I do have objections to the section at the front of the bombbay on both kits not being round enough, and this can be seen from pictures. I think that this is perhaps the most visible flaw, apart from the missing undercarriage cross-piece on the Hasegawa.

Yes, I'd have thought that most of these criticisms could be answered by investigating the real thing, although this would be a rather complex procedure. However, my understanding is that the MDF plans did come from a close study of the real thing and available DH plans - but then the same thing has been claimed for the Tamiya kit and they don't agree with each other.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Graham Boak

[PhantomBigStu]

so there is a need for airfix to retool it after all then.....

[Jacarre]

I let my self introduce a study made here in Chile, my country, of my friend Esteban Cornejo and fellow modeler Sergio Sánchez in his blog, comparing four Mosquito kits: Airfix, Hasegawa, Tamiya and Matchbox.

Here's the link: http://modelismo-historia.blogspot.cl/search?updated-max=2015-06-14T12:10:00-07:00&max-results=1

Here's the translate spanish - english (about the models section of the article, thanks to google):

The four were chosen Airfix kits Series 3 (Ref.03019) representing 3 variations (NF.2, FB.6 and MK.18), Matchbox (PK-116, then when Revell 40116 bought the molds) that offers 2 versions (BMK.9 and NF.30), the Hasegawa (HM83) which is a FB.6 and Tamiya (Ref.60753) that lets you choose between a BMK.4 and PR.4. they represent a range of before and now on the twin-engine De Havilland models.

The oldest of the four is the Airfix, first released in 1972 (see photo above) although planned for 1971, has since been almost permanently catalog until today, ergo has been -probably- kit Mosquito Top sellers of all times. In 1999 he added pieces to embody one NF19 RAF or Swedish J-30 (ref.03062) and has since gone into account special commemorative box or can imagine: Medium Starter Set, 100 Years of Flight (ref.93019 in 2003 ), RAF Diorama Set (ref.93302), D-Day Anniversary Gift Set 60 (ref.08601 in 2004), VE-Day Anniversary Set (ref.10301 in 2005) and since 2009, when Hornby relaunched boxes' Dogfight Doubles 'she replaced the 02001 kit already mentioned before (ref.A50068, although the I-262 is still the same old mold). Of course this mold was also edited in parallel by the brands associated with in the '70s Airfix, MPC' Profile series' (Ref.2-1516, from 72 to 76) and the 'Bonus' series (Ref.2-0211, 76 to 78), also it left by USAirfix (Ref.30040) in the '80s and in Brazil by Kiko (Ref.3019) mark during the same period.

In his capacity as "workhorse" of Airfix and given the age of the mold, it is logical and expected to see some deterioration or faults in the injection of any of the 97 parts of the kit A03019 in current or recent editions, so we took the precaution make us a 'classic' box (thanks Anselmo!) and so analyze it in original condition. It still can say that was the first serious kit DH-98 in 1/72 and the time it came outside and detail ways they were the best; as though the instructions start with the armed classic interior, this in itself was not the most relevant of those days, in fact manufacturers privileging as detailed 'top' putting a good pilot figure, but apart from once prized figurines brought a reasonable (and much improved) detail basic cabin, not in the wells of the train where it is below current standards. The decals are well printed, but lack the stencils needed for the Mosquito, an alternative extra for the perfect finishing touch is required, as Hornby has not optimized the original specifications and follow the same shortcomings.

ABOVE: The first two photos reveal molding old Airfix kit since 2 semi-fuselages and wings are filled so 'loose' and not a tree integrdas pieces like the rest of the model. DOWN: Both the circle and the arrow mark the altenativas pieces for making a Mk.18 "Tse-tse" veneer barrel has bulb gun fairing far ahead, it is necessary

to leave sanding smooth and put another bulb more back in the ventral area of ​​the front gates (see below FB.18 Hasegawa kit)

The rest of either injected and detailed, even by today's standards very good kit.

The downside however is in the area of ​​the bow and cockpit. Now, Airfix gives us the alternative of building a MK.18 "Tse-Tse" anti-ship equipped with 57 mm cannon Mollins (derived from anti-tank 6 pounds), but for this we must replace the entire bow cutting it, because the nose serves to make the FB.6 comes NF.2 and solidarity with the rest of the fuselage. And although the cutting section is well marked, kept a steady hand and patience to separate good thick and firm nose hunting is required and then make the MK.18 the optimal fit, which reveals how outdated engineering it. The other thing it shows both the eye and against planes (and other models) is along the base seems nose kit from the windshield forward the bow: about 2 mm, a detail that does not result in a without embargo armed catastrophe or general appearance.
The 1999 edition, the kit 03062, representing both an NF.19 'early' Group No. 100 as a pair of postwar J.30 of the Swedish Air Force. In the lower image, the extra tree with the parts needed for the J.30 and plan for NF.19 paintings and rubbings (even the invasion stripes came in calca).

Edits present: new box, same content and in 'Dogfight Double Gift-set' with the I-262A more glue and paints included.
Turning to the canopy, the front profile plane is a little low and noticed that the windshield lack the small central box housing the wipers, additionally frames the cabin are all molded in over-emphasized and this is only really valid for the part front of it, because in the back third only the central bolt of the piece of plexiglass goes on internal frames, so here are 2 ways: either straight buy a vacu cabin replacement of the original (Squadron has a very good and economical) or put to work carefully sanding and polishing those outstanding frames incorrect. However, the Airfix kit 3 series is still a valid alternative grata and even after 43 years of editing.
The second kit is another classic model, the Matchbox (PK-116) mold. Since this is a brand eternally linked Die-cast metal toy cars and invaluable to childhood memories, ergo its products line construction scale models were focused on the same market: children. Thus the kit is less commitment to the fine detail of the 4 analyzed, although as usual in the Matchbox models and contour lines are very precise and correct; first released in 1976, originally it came in plastic 3 colors (gray, green and black) to save your child paint target audience; then in the final editions until 1992 (through Revell-Germany) kit came only in gray polystyrene.
Its main shortcomings are: very low windshield 2 cabins and supplemented like the Airfix in on relief, the propeller blades are as thick as out of shape, the spinners are short and stocky. The interior cabin is merely testimonial and if you. Dear reader is fond positions well detailed cockpit, and at this point has a lot of work to do, besides the known issue of the large paneleado low relief (the "trenches Matchbox") present only in some of its parts. However, within the 61 pieces that make up the kit, there are alternative parts according to the two very different versions offered: 2 cabins, 2 types of engine exhaust, 2 different prows (glass or bulging with radar), and pumps or underwing tanks. The rest, as already indicamos- fine detail is minimal and needs a lot of work to leave the level of current models.
The second generation box we got through another colleague (thanks Rafael!) Still retains traditional trees 3 direntes colors.
The 2 main buts Matchbox kit. A) propellers with contour too straight and too thick the windshield of both versions is very low. The rest of the model is more than acceptable.
But on the other hand, its simplicity of construction gives attractiveness to take quick 12-step a finished model; reinforced this philosophy has been taken up successfully by current brands as HobbyBoss and Zvezda, being (from our point of view as modellers) alive the legacy of Matchbox part. Construction versions are: A BMk.9 RAF Squadron 105 in 1943 and 85 Squadron RAF NF.30 in late 1944, clear that the decals are basic and lack any stencil. In addition, after almost 40 years after its first edition, it remains the ONLY Mosquito injected in 1/72 comes standard with dual-stage Merlin engines (ranging in mosquitoes late last series 2GM and postwar). It is now discontinued, but it is not hard to find (and expensive) on websites selling online.
The third kit which came from the cellar were ready Sergio, a fighter-bomber FB.6 Hasegawa, a consecutive its various editions and versions with different decorations. This brand had launched a series of excellent editions of Japanese twin-engine 2GM during the 90s, which varied to take a family of Bristol Beaufighter (to compete with contemporary family Tamiya Beaufighter in 1/48) and then began his Mosquito DH own family in 1999, again in response to Tamiya had already launched his remarkable Mosquito on 1/48.
All the different editions (mostly rubbings change except FB.18) Hasegawa kit.
However, the Mosquito is in mockup, unlike the Beaufighter- a major challenge, because it is a plane with multiple configurations of cabs, engines, noses and arms, so that it is clear Hasegawa was faced with the dilemma classic cost-utility and having to design a modular kit covering both the bombers and fighter versions without having to change too many pieces, so that -forzosamente- the result was less happy with his Beaufighter achieved. This tendency to modular kits is common to all current major manufacturers.
In the absence of the initial mold Hasegawa 1999 (CP17 or # 51217 representing an Mk.IV) for this multiple comparison, we turn HM83 kit (No. 00750) which mainly embodies FB.6 418 RCAF fighter squadron. Batante time after this initial analysis, another friend and colleague (Blackhawk) gave us the initial kit with the bomber version, but this re-packaged by Revell and found that except for the nose and canopy assembly, the rest is identical.
Apart from the huge box provided by Revell-Germany, the kit is exactly the same as the initial Hasegawa, a bomber Mk.4, with the curious transparency cabin divided into two (to paste a mess and it is good).
As usual, and injection molding are excellent and surface detail comes in fine low relief, typical Hasegawa. The kit consists of 14 pieces trees (including transparencies and duplicate pieces) totaling 113 parts (12 alternatives), which generally have very good fit. Along with the tree where come the 2 half fuselages is a special piece of rib-shaped 'H', which goes inside on both sides of the plane body and helps sustain firm and easily both wings, a nice and useful touch from Hasegawa.
Not only Hasegawa decided to use this practical solution, Tamiya already had built from their kits 1/48.
Said stiffener is located next to the semi-fuselages.
The entire nose section (where the biggest differences between a type of mosquito and other presents) comes separately, which already makes work easier and simpler version one prefers this legendary Briton twin engine. Hasegawa plus point! The cabin comes with frames in subtle bas-relief, which facilitates differentiate different colored paint only the front frames the rear third, easier than with previous 2 models. But the contour shape of the canopy in both plan and profile we raised doubts about its actual accuracy, which will review below. The interior detail, without being brilliant, is much better than the newly revised previous models.
The instructions are clear and precise, although the color theme Hasegawa continues his habit of only giving colors with the key to Gunze Sangyo (normal if we consider that in Japan are readily available), but a little research on-line equivalencies paint brands solve them easily and once this minor inconvenience. The decals are another story: as is almost always something thick and slightly yellowed (still new) and although the record is very good and the stencils are correct, achieved a better alternative. The versions offered are the box-art, 418 TH-M Sqdn of the RCAF in 1944, a curious FB.6 equipped with radar and black belly, plus the UP-E 4th Sqdn RAF in 1949 with the simple livery Medium Sea Grey on Black satin postwar.
Separate issue, in 10 different made editions of DH-98 by this famous Japanese home until today, if you. Dear reader is interested in any of them, you should know that apart from the classic first edition 1999 (with 2 versions for Mk.IV, HS-F with dark green and gray livery ocean with belly in black opaque squad in January '43 109 or 105 GB-E squadron, first RAF unit to use the DH-98), there were also versions SEAC, RAAF and commemorative D-Day and the Mosquito particularly developed for the Coastal Command, the Mk.18 or "Tse-Tse". Attention, this version really only 18 copies were built and another 27 more were converted from standard FB.6 to combat surface ships and U-boats ubiquitous rocket 27 and 60 pounds plus the aforementioned (and cash) of barrel Mollins 57 mm.
Three views of the installation of anti-tank gun of 6 pounds (57 mm), such as conta effective adaptation terrifying the German naval units.


Box-art view of the FB.18 discontinued Hasegawa kit (still available via Internet shops) and down the special resin and metal parts included to get this anti-ship version.

Hasegawa included pieces to curdle special resin version, which qualifies it as 'limited edition', namely solidarity cap that replaces the gates of the bomb bay (which do not apply to anything in the Mk.18) comes in a single integral piece which includes the fairing CORRECT bulbous head of the canyon, in addition to the part that supports the cane gun, which comes in bronze, and full nose with only 2 machine guns of 7.7 mm. The decals include 2 versions, the 248 Sq. (With invasion stripes and a simple letter "O" as an identifier code) and the same apparatus 254 Sq. And visited by Airfix, the QM-D, both of 1944.

However, currently the only Mosquito Hasegawa sale comes paired with a Spitfire Mk.7 in a commemorative box of "Operation Overlord" (kit # 02096), which does nothing cheap, however any of the other issues and above they are easy to find in online retail sites with highly variable prices.
The fourth and final kit which we were fortunate to have was the now discontinued Mk.4 Tamiya (# 60753), difficult step of obtaining (I got it for management and kindness of my dear sister who lives and works in USA) and is grooved excellent precedent kit in 1/48, but simplified (he has several pieces less than its big brother) for many represents the best available mold to build a Mosquito in 1/72. In fact when examining the 102 pieces of the model is easy to see the beautiful and clean injection of the same experience rapid and inevitable feeling of fascination and enthusiasm (like when you see a beautiful girl).
But beyond the high quality, typical of Tamiya, you may notice the strange omission of a couple of pieces that are not lacking in any of the 3 kits and analyzed: the protective grille air intakes of the Merlin engines, which -of course- if contained in Mosquito 1/48 Tamiya, subsanable detail does not undermine the overall high quality of Japanese kit. The other thing that stands out immediately is the wing tips coming separately, is that as shares components with versions of hunting necessarily these pieces must be separate (fighters carry one sidelight per wing, bombers and photographic lead 2). Furthermore, just as the Hasegawa kit, this also includes a piece in "H" to better withstand internal wings.
Trees divided in 6 parts, the instructions given start armed by the engine nacelles and only in step 7 the start of construction of the cabin is covered, which extends to step 10. At this point the Mosquito Tamiya and clearly surpasses by far all already reviewed kits, in fact so good inside that made us wonder why the authors are kits improvements in resin for the cabin of this model in particular. Transparency weapon (the side windows with blisters come apart) and installed at the end of the process, and stuck represents grace and fidelity canopy windshield biwatching pointed bomber versions and recognition of the DH-98. However, when measured against and make plans, we were surprised to find that its flow section is cut into 1.9 mm. Emphasising that is just cut the back as the front and middle sections are perfect in length, width and height, is a defect no doubt, but again does not affect the good overall look of the model or the graceful capture forms "Mossie "by Tamiya. For one example:
ABOVE: The third option Mk.4 Tamiya recognition apparatus 540 Sqdn. DOWN: the rest of the family molds 1/72 Japanese house if available, the FB.6 + night fighter NF.2 hunting and NF.13 and NF.17 box, which is practically the same but with alternative parts for night hunting with a bulbous nose.

These are the trees that define both parts as the NF.13 FB.6. A) the arrows mark the access door and the hole in the alternative nose for any of the 2 editions, a detail that no other 1/72 Mosquito owns and that brings life for a diorama or vignette the bulbous nose the NF.13 / 17 brings the camera-machine gun in place and accurate manner. C) Another fine detail of luxury is the radar screen AI.Mk.8 that goes inside the cabin NF.13.
ABOVE: The decals for the FB.6, which include, once again, the famous T-EG of Operation Jericho 1944, which also comes in the 1/32 Tamiya kit. DOWN: Specifications of Mk.4 and the last page of the instructions of the model with the version of PR.4 in PRU Blue.
Finally there are the decals, printed and thin much better than those usually provided Tamiya kits in their 80s and 90s. Alternatives decor kit we are three: the legendary J-GB Sqdn 105, F-109 HS Sqdn (liveried night) and a photo-recognition Pr.Mk.IV without identification code (sn. DZ383 ) 540 Sqdn completely painted in PRU Blue. The stencil is complete and correct. Finally consign that although this particular mold is discontinued for some years is not difficult to find in online retail sites, but very high for a 1/72 scale model prices, no matter how good it is.
Odious (but necessary) comparisons
As we said when we started this multiple analysis we realized that no plane available Mosquito in various publications or the Internet was equal or close to another. The differences in size and proportion ranged from the subtle to the grotesque, so that without being able to know which of all was the most successful, we were obliged to dive tables British historical publications and here was where they went to rescue our Felipe Billault friend, who as a good importer delicatessen maqueteras provided us with an excellent and 100% reliable book on the Mosquito FB.6 with 1/48 scale plans made very accurately.
accurate and correct (SAM Publications) we needed as a means of reference and comparison publication.
So we do the math was simple and reductions of the case and establish convincingly and beyond doubt, the actual dimensions of the DH-98 in its different versions 1/72 Armed with this knowledge are we launched into the task of comparing 4 kits available to us, here are the results both from a photographic perspective as a visual comparison as against levels:
We left! We jump to life, draw from the molds 4 fuselages and magic tape 3M # 810 (low adhesion) the present and begin to assemble the visual comparison. 1) Tamiya 2) Airfix 3) Matchbox 4) Hasegawa. Immediately highlights the contour differently Hasegawa cabin.
Which led us to verify the maximum width of each fuselage under the measures referred us to the plans, but all gave rather similar measures.
So we rearrange the 4 kits FB.6 leaving the two together in the center, already noticeable at first glance differences in the proportions of both molds, both fuselages and their cabins.
Using good literature and Notebook PC with various historical and current photographs of museums in detail, we begin to look at the 4 airframes from different angles to see which best captures the lines and 'personality twin-engine De Havilland Mosquito.
To achieve better overall comparison add them immediately booths and the differences are more noticeable. A) Tamiya Airfix, the fkecha marks its longest mariz C) Hasegawa, the arrow indicates a bulkier than other Group D) matchbox cabin.
A semi side view rained strengthens us these same impressions, highlighting the different contour of the rear cabin kit Hasegawa and clear the longest nose Airfix mold .
We started with the views in various perspectives to see which best embodies the general appearance of Mossie, from this perspective both Tamiya and the Airfix seemed more convincing than the Hasegawa and Matchbox.
But just a little visual change to a semi-lateral angle and things change! The Tamiya kit still looks just as good, but not the Airfix, but Hasegawa looks much better from this point of view, even the humble Matchbox looks more convincing than the Airfix !
This illustrates another take changing nose and cabin Matchbox kit to curdle NF.30 night version, which compared to any of the other 3 models looks very low windshield.
But aside seen things change! The matchbox kit NF.30 looks very balanced configuration, however the kit Hasegawa highlights the protruding shape of the cab. In both Airfix and Tamiya molds maintain the same pros and cons as reviewed above.
For this view rained seek to make a comparative trick: to fit the position of the tails of four fuselages and thus see how as the position of the booths of each is compared. As can be appreciated all well except the kit Hasegawa, which is visibly shorter.
Viewed from the side the four fuselages look correct in general terms, being notorious as the two modern kits (Hasegawa and Tamiya) bring open bays unlike his two counterparts of the 70 pumps. However this impression of fairness would be broken by putting fuselages against planes in 1/72.

This emphasizes the question of which of the two prows of FB.6 is closer to reality does Airfix or Hasegawa ?, at the bottom takes both kits in discord shoe by the tail show marked differences in the nose area.
What is not shown on the drawings kits nuestran seen from the front even more different look! First is the shape of the fuselage, in the depressed looks Airfix sides (without losing roundness), while the Hasegawa is more rounded and smooth. The vertical reinforcing rib fuselage is best achieved in the Airfix in both the Hasegawa is one exaggerated and bulbous rest. The nose of both kits is the most distinct and dissimilar feature dimensions, but also windshields cabin both molds are quite different beyond if you are raised or incised, being Hasegawa best achieved in shape and the dimensions Airfix.
At this point the comparison against planes favors -in general terms favoring the Airfix kit on Hasegawa being both a representation of the same version FB.6. Let's see what happens to the fuselages of the other two remaining molds.

If we look at the four fuselages mold Tamiya clearly stands out as the best and most accurate of the four. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, but the Japanese kit is the best achieved so far. We turn now to the analysis of the respective booths and some more in 1/48 as a comparison of shapes and dimensions.
We start by comparing profile booths Airfix and Hasegawa clearly show differences in shape. As for dimensions now we know that of Hasefawa is short.
The set of four cabins profile views and rained view. A) Airfix matchbox C) Hasegawa D) Tamiya. Quality and lower their intrinsically distorisión transparencies are evident in the 2 most modern cabins.
Now the three versions hunting cabins, E) Airfix F) and G matchbox) Hasegawa compared against transparency FB.6 kit Airfix 1/48 (ranging OK against planes) to see similarities in form and first instance the most similar (Boundary) is the Hasegawa. DOWN: For the same dossier (the lower contour of transparency) we hcimos a first test of fit using the Matchbox cabin on the fuselage Hasegawa, good overall result, but was a little short on the back end.
As against sample and control element we use the Airfix 1/48 kit that performed very well against the plans.
ABOVE: As comes from an original edition of a FB.6 Hunting, said Airfix kit that brings the cab version and also their new versions of Bomber and Reconnaissance . DOWN: The canopies Airfix 1/48 compared against its peers in 1/72, the bombers / recce A) versus D) versions Tamiya, very well both. Only in the game (both Airfix B and C) is the 1/72 edition looks in detail and forms lower against its wide 1/48.
Canopies that no planes were compared against the Mk.4 Tamiya and Mk.9 similar to Matchbox, both divided windshield, due to not having a reliable hand plane. But we made the following quiz to transparency bow of both kits:

Like any good twin engine (P-38, Bf-110, B-25, Ki-46, A-20, JU.88, etc.) one of the aspects that reviews and evaluates all modeler is the shape, size and proportions of the engine nacelles, as a significant part of the "personality" of the finished model is that of the plane that is correct, if not it will sozo or indefinite and without that essential touch that makes our favorite. The DH-98 does not escape this logic and, as already mentioned were misguided before- the dimensions of their nacelles which left out the Mosquito Frog / Novo of this comparative review, see for nacelles faced:
Nacelles faced. This item was less difference in size and proportions. A) Tamiya *) Hi-Tech Resin Matchbox C) and Airfix D) Hasegawa. Each with their canopies.
In this view the lower section add wing Hasegawa (A) for better comparison with the rest of the nacelle. Tamiya, which is a bit short back. C) Matchbox D) Airfix and E) Hi-Tech French resin set designed for Airfix kit in the '90s.

Very detailed (and discontinued) nacelle Hi-Tech (*) compared against that aims to replace of Matchbox is the engine Merlin 66 (double stage) onwards and the Merlin 25 © represented by Airfix .
Looking at the kits back into contention, the nacelle of Hasegawa looks less robust and rounded than Airfix bit. Also the total length of the air intake is less in the Japanese kit. The canopies are only as a means of comparison presciendiendo of fuselages 1) forms Airfix 2) Hasegawa · 3) Matchbox NF.30 4) Tamiya.

At this particular point the old beats the new: the dimensions of the Airfix necela are better against planes that Tamiya, although we must recognize that is something minor and not serious for the Japanese mold.
Molding separately from the front section of the nacelle has made me think and speculate that Hasegawa venture with engine versions Merlin dual stage as Kit Matchbox (see nacelle above), but so far nothing like that has happened.


And wings? The shape and dimensions of the wing surfaces are half the equation in any model airplane, no matter what scale is being edited. So of course we took on the task of comparing them with each other and against planes where we find new surprises and details to consider when choosing a kit or other of the DH-98.


Seen all the main elements of each detail and quality, the end result is quite predictable: the best DH Mosquitoes available in 1/72 are those published by Tamiya. Just fix that little omission of the (very simple to make with or without after-market products) and will have a 99.9% Mosquito perfect! Protective grills air intakes Only its high price and relative unavailability in nearby shops can be regarded as real defects. BUT second place was a real surprise, because ultimately the Hasegawa kit is contemporary in edition to Tamiya, however, as we have seen-beyond the prestige of Hasegawa- is a mold with multiple errors and inaccuracies of shape, proportion and dimensions, which ultimately put the mold more than 40 years of Airfix in a justiciera 2nd position, above its modern rival.

Even third place is problematic to define, because although the Matchbox kit is very simple and even coarse details regarding the Hasegawa was so disappointing that we should more carefully weigh the decision.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Jacarre

[Jure Miljevic]

Thank you for that information, Graham. With Modelling Data File you mentioned I take you meant The Havilland Mosquito book from SAM Pubications? I have Tamiya, Hasegawa, Matchbox and Airfix kits of Mosquito in 1/72 scale and so far I had only built an Airfix kit in a Mk.II night fighter guise some time ago. Apart from fuselage issues I was inquiring about I believe that rudder ribs on either Tamyia, either Hasegawa, or perhaps both are too prominent. The same could also be said for Matchbox kit and both Airfix and Matchbox kits suffer from lack of detail and other issues one would expect on thirty to forty years old kits. Nevertheless, I quite like Airfix kit as it is quite appealing, once assembled, and I would not part from Matchbox kit because of its two-stage compressor Merlins. Cheers
Jure

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Jacarre

What a review! Never mind the Google translate, there is plenty of photos which one can examine to clarify potential ambiguities. I glanced through review once and I think I got the general idea. Of course, to understand all the details more thorough examination is needed which I will leave for tomorrow. Thanks and cheers

Jure

[Graham Boak]

Jure: I found the Matchbox representation of those 2-stage Merlins unacceptably crude, as indeed was most of the rest of the model. I bought two when they came out, but rapidly sold them. Some years later I saw an offer for a wide range of Matchbox kits available cheaply, and bought two more - well, I could have been wrong, perhaps they weren't as bad as I remembered. When I saw them, my opinion was confirmed rather than reversed, so I got rid of those rapidly too. I have Paragon 2-stage Merlins, which are far superior.

Jacarre's comments are thorough and fascinating, but I can only say that I disagree about the accuracy of the Tamiya wing. I had considered that the taper was wrong, but it isn't as simple as that. My impression is that the wing overall was designed like the Airfix, to fit into a fuselage recess, but ended up being attached to the outside of the fuselage. To correct the wing you need to cut a section from the root - but (and it is a very large but) this would bring the engines too close to the fuselage. I still say that the radiators extend further forward of the leading edge than on the other models, and that I considered that the other model wings (Hasegawa and Airfix) better represent this area. I will also say that Airfix has a more convincing look to the lower fuselage from the nose to the bombbay, being more rounded than either other kit. I don't think that this feature will show up on a 3-view comparison, but requires looking at photos. (Or a good cross-section of this area, of course, did such a thing exist!) I entirely agree that the Tamiya kit is beautifully tooled and looks superb in the box, with excellent internal detail, but personally I pay more attention to the externals than internals.

Not mentioned before: I also believe that the Airfix canopy is too long, having apparently positioned the windscreen at the forward point of the bomber screen rather than slightly more aft. But if you were doing a Mk.IV from the Airfix kit you'd need a new canopy anyway.

[tempestfan]

However, my understanding is that the MDF plans did come from a close study of the real thing and available DH plans - but then the same thing has been claimed for the Tamiya kit and they don't agree with each other.

Graham, for clarification: Were the drawings in the 2nd Edition of the MDF replaced ? In the first, they were by Mr Caruana. For the same publisher's Aviation Guide on the Mossie VI, there were fresh drawings by Mark Gauntlett aka Stephen MG who explained in a thread here ca. 2 years ago why he considered his as the most accurate, as he was working from original plotting points (at least for the fuselage). Regrettably the latter set did not feature fuselage sections IIRC.

[Tbolt]

Graham, for clarification: Were the drawings in the 2nd Edition of the MDF replaced ? In the first, they were by Mr Caruana. For the same publisher's Aviation Guide on the Mossie VI, there were fresh drawings by Mark Gauntlett aka Stephen MG who explained in a thread here ca. 2 years ago why he considered his as the most accurate, as he was working from original plotting points (at least for the fuselage). Regrettably the latter set did not feature fuselage sections IIRC.

No- the drawings in the 2nd edition, MDF 20, are by Caruana and have the date 1998 on them.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Tbolt

[JasonC]

It doesn't appear so - the drawings in the 2nd edition, MDF 20, are by Caruana and have the date 1998 on them.

That set of drawings doesn't inspire confidence. For example, they show the 5-stack exhaust arrangement on two-stage nacelles. Not a good start.

The new Valiant Wings Airframe & Miniature No.8 (Bomber & PR Mosquitoes) has a set of drawings in 1/48, though I haven't yet had a good look at them.

regards,

Jason

[Tbolt]

That set of drawings doesn't inspire confidence. For example, they show the 5-stack exhaust arrangement on two-stage nacelles. Not a good start.

The new Valiant Wings Airframe & Miniature No.8 (Bomber & PR Mosquitoes) has a set of drawings in 1/48, though I haven't yet had a good look at them.

regards,

Jason

Yes it's a bit disappointing they only seems to have added kit review and didn't review/update anything that was incorrect after 15 years.

I don't have the Valiant Wings book but I see the drawings are also by Curuana, hopefully they are not the same ones.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Tbolt

[Graham Boak]

Graham, for clarification: Were the drawings in the 2nd Edition of the MDF replaced ? In the first, they were by Mr Caruana. For the same publisher's Aviation Guide on the Mossie VI, there were fresh drawings by Mark Gauntlett aka Stephen MG who explained in a thread here ca. 2 years ago why he considered his as the most accurate, as he was working from original plotting points (at least for the fuselage). Regrettably the latter set did not feature fuselage sections IIRC.

I bought the MDF 20 on the understanding that these had revised and more accurate drawings. It seems not. My apologies for stating otherwise and making comparisons based on these drawings. I don't have the Aviation Guide, but most of my quibbles are about the wing, and Stephen MG only claimed using DH drawings for the fuselage. So I have the questions: just what are the differences in the wings between these drawings; If any, do they reflect the differences between the Tamiya kit and the others; and most importantly, which does best match the real aircraft?

[Denford]

For what it's worth, the Mosquito Museum told me that Tamiya spend day\weeks (can't recall) 'climbing all over' their Mosquitoes. I would therefore expect them to get it basically correct.

If anyone from MM can amplify this, please do so!

[Tbolt]

For what it's worth, the Mosquito Museum told me that Tamiya spend day\weeks (can't recall) 'climbing all over' their Mosquitoes. I would therefore expect them to get it basically correct.

If anyone from MM can amplify this, please do so!

When was that? Before they tooled the 1/72nd & 1/48th scale kits, or before the 1/32nd kit?