Airfix's Reboxed 1/72 P-51

[John]

Airfix's 4th(?) foray into blue-nosed Mustangs. I'm sure we're all familiar with the plastic, so here's the new bits:

 

Box art:

 

Painting guide:

 

Cartograf decal sheet:

 

 

[Meatbox8]

Thanks for posting.  Looks pretty tasty and great box art.  I take it The Kelly Kid 2 and Rose Marie are one and the same. 

[John]

Seems so.

 

J

[Potato Pete]

They are indeed. A bunch of pics here

 

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery.php?Group=352&Style=item&origStyle=list&Item=38&Temp=1051&searchString=

 

Pete

[Meatbox8]

9 minutes ago, Potato Pete said:

They are indeed. A bunch of pics here

 

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery.php?Group=352&Style=item&origStyle=list&Item=38&Temp=1051&searchString=

 

Pete

Nice one.  Thanks.  That website is a great resource.

[LotusArenco]

I’d buy that for the box art alone.

In fact, I will buy that and replicate the box art as a mini diorama.

 

Mart

[Seahawk]

With the publicity that surrounded the film Tuskegee Airmen dying down, a rebox of the P-51D in 8th AF markings was entirely predictable - and welcome.  At least this is one of Airfix's better new mouldings, that can hold its head up against anything else in the marketplace.

 

And stunning artwork.

[stever219]

LotusArenko beat me to it: very inspiring artwork.  I have a couple of these already, and the Xtradecal RAF Mustangs sheet.....

[Pete in Lincs]

I too love the artwork.

 

I see that your post on hyperscale

has degenerated into the usual

whining about inaccuracies though.

Shame.

[dogsbody]

1 hour ago, Pete in Lincs said:

I too love the artwork.

 

I see that your post on hyperscale

has degenerated into the usual

whining about inaccuracies though.

Shame.

 

I've come to expect nothing less over there. That's why I visit there once a day but here several times. Retirement has it's little pleasures.

 

 

Chris

[mhaselden]

Yeah...I saw that thread, too.  Seemed to be a major conflagration over the apparently "massive" flaw in the Airfix kit that it doesn't depict the elevator mass balances.  That's, ooh, a 30 min job tops to scribe and fill to correct it?  Hardly "massive" in my book. 

 

I'm with you, Chris...come here several times a day but only visit "that place" once daily...which is a shame because, on the whole, Brett does a great job keeping it going.  I just get tired of the constant sniping at kits and at each other. 

[noelh]

Actually surprised that the P51 wasn't 8th Air force before. I  have a few stashed with the intention of getting decals for the 8th and 9th airforce. Might just do that now. No point in waiting for Airfix.

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, dogsbody said:

 

I've come to expect nothing less over there. That's why I visit there once a day but here several times. Retirement has it's little pleasures.

 

 

Chris

 

Depends on the forum, Sir.

 

I post over there a lot, but mostly in the 1/72 theme forum. We have a more relaxed attitude there, and concentrate on building and sharing tips and information.

 

I have mixed feelings about the 'this kit's fatally flawed' types. Sometimes there is useful information in their complaints, that can point to a reasonable repair, or a warning off worth heeding to an enthusiast of a particular type or era. It can get pretty hard to take, though, when it just goes on and on and on and on and on. At that point, reading the thread becomes a chore or comedy gold, depending on one's mood or personality.

 

I would suggest that  the 'looks like a XXXXX to me' and the 'how can you even call that a model of a XXXX' attitudes can exist in the same modeler. I, for example, have little interest in the Mustang. If someone were to give me the Airfix kit, I would probably fix the hinge-line, because now I know about it, and it would be very little trouble to do, but if I saw a model where that was not done, it would certainly look like a Mustang to me, and if its assembly and finish were well executed, I would consider it a good model of a Mustang. On the other hand, I care a great deal about Great War and Inter-War types, and have some favorites among them. I once spent a great deal of time performing major surgery on an old Airfix R.E. 8 to make it match drawings and photographs. It pains me to see one assembled as it comes, as such a model, no matter how well finished and assembled, really does not look to me much like a miniature of the actual aeroplane. I very much like the old Monogram interwar kits, but I always replace the corrugate surfaces with something more to scale on the F4B-4 kit, and always replace the exhausts on the P6E kit, because their ends should maintain a straight line, not follow the curve of the cowling at the nose. I do not call them fatally flawed kits, though, and do not expect people with a casual interest in the period or subject to make such corrections.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Old Man

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

Depends on the forum, Sir.

 

I post over there a lot, but mostly in the 1/72 theme forum. We have a more relaxed attitude there, and concentrate on building and sharing tips and information.

 

I have mixed feelings about the 'this kit's fatally flawed' types. Sometimes there is useful information in their complaints, that can point to a reasonable repair, or a warning off worth heeding to an enthusiast of a particular type or era. It can get pretty hard to take, though, when it just goes on and on and on and on and on. At that point, reading the thread becomes a chore or comedy gold, depending on one's mood or personality.

 

I would suggest that  the 'looks like a XXXXX to me' and the 'how can you even call that a model of a XXXX' attitudes can exist in the same modeler. I, for example, have little interest in the Mustang. If someone were to give me the Airfix kit, I would probably fix the hinge-line, because now I know about it, and it would be very little trouble to do, but if I saw a model where that was not done, it would certainly look like a Mustang to me, and if its assembly and finish were well executed, I would consider it a good model of a Mustang. On the other hand, I care a great deal about Great War and Inter-War types, and have some favorites among them. I once spent a great deal of time performing major surgery on an old Airfix R.E. 8 to make it match drawings and photographs. It pains me to see one assembled as it comes, as such a model, no matter how well finished and assembled, really does not look to me much like a miniature of the actual aeroplane. I very much like the old Monogram interwar kits, but I always replace the corrugate surfaces with something more to scale on the F4B-4 kit, and always replace the exhausts on the P6E kit, because their ends should maintain a straight line, not follow the curve of the cowling at the nose. I do not call them fatally flawed kits, though, and do not expect people with a casual interest in the period or subject to make such corrections.

Well said, Sir!

[Admiral Puff]

5 hours ago, Old Man said:

I have mixed feelings about the 'this kit's fatally flawed' types. Sometimes there is useful information in their complaints, that can point to a reasonable repair, or a warning off worth heeding to an enthusiast of a particular type or era. It can get pretty hard to take, though, when it just goes on and on and on and on and on. At that point, reading the thread becomes a chore or comedy gold, depending on one's mood or personality.

 

I would suggest that  the 'looks like a XXXXX to me' and the 'how can you even call that a model of a XXXX' attitudes can exist in the same modeler. I, for example, have little interest in the Mustang. If someone were to give me the Airfix kit, I would probably fix the hinge-line, because now I know about it, and it would be very little trouble to do, but if I saw a model where that was not done, it would certainly look like a Mustang to me, and if its assembly and finish were well executed, I would consider it a good model of a Mustang. On the other hand, I care a great deal about Great War and Inter-War types, and have some favorites among them. I once spent a great deal of time performing major surgery on an old Airfix R.E. 8 to make it match drawings and photographs. It pains me to see one assembled as it comes, as such a model, no matter how well finished and assembled, really does not look to me much like a miniature of the actual aeroplane. I very much like the old Monogram interwar kits, but I always replace the corrugate surfaces with something more to scale on the F4B-4 kit, and always replace the exhausts on the P6E kit, because their ends should maintain a straight line, not follow the curve of the cowling at the nose. I do not call them fatally flawed kits, though, and do not expect people with a casual interest in the period or subject to make such corrections.

 

Couldn't agree more. It's very sad that so often on "the other place" the discussion degenerates into a "handbags at three paces" farce.

 

My particular interest is in things that fly and float. I have waxed lyrical elsewhere on this site about the engines and nacelles on the Academy Catalina, which are undersized (the o/d is about what the i/d should be). It's not world-shattering, and I've built a couple of Academy Cats using the kit cowls/nacelles without the sky falling in - they look reasonably respectable. However, something prompted me to run a pair of calipers over the Academy cowls, and the problem became apparent immediately. Since then I've looked at ways to deal with the problem (hopefully in a way that will get someone in the aftermarket game interested in making a correction set). I won't finish another Academy Cat until this has been done - no biggie, but I won't carry on knowing that things are not right. The Academy series has other problems - the framing on the PBY5/5As' observers' bubbles is wrong, and the position of the observers' hatches on the earlier variants is also off - again, no biggies, but  things that do need to be addressed if I'm going to get it right. Others may not care to, but this is an area where I feel the need to be correct. Modern military aircraft, on the other hand, leave me cold - fifty shades of grey? No thanks!

[Bedders]

This is more good news from Airfix, and I'm really pleased with the company's progress. I have just got back into Mustangs and have a couple of these kits on the go. The elevator mass balance point can be easily corrected, but for the rest I would agree this is the best kit in the scale. The wheel wells are correct and the flaps are great. And the quality of Airfix decals these days is very good.

 

Hyperscale: What is it about the tone of the debate over there? 2 minutes per (rare) visit is about all I can take.

 

Justin

Edited January 8, 2017 by Bedders

[John]

I assume the plastic is the same in this release as it was previously.

 

You can clearly see where the balance tabs on the elevators should be. They seem to have been represented as a indentations into the elevator rather than onto the fixed surface:

 

 

John 

[Seahawk]

4 hours ago, John said:

You can clearly see where the balance tabs on the elevators should be. They seem to have been represented as a indentations into the elevator rather than onto the fixed surface:

 

So not even a need to fill part of the elevator joint line then?  A silly mistake, of which Airfix make more than a few (Fw 190 fin inspection panel?), but hardly the end of civilisation.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I would suggest the biggest 'inaccuracy' on this one is the colour Airfix suggest for the Blue. French Blue is fine for the earlier Blue on the P-51B/C but it's too light for the D's, especially by the time they had the coloured rudders. I'm using this kit to make Moonbeam McSwine so I've been doing some googling, as well as noting the info on the Superscale decal sheet and there is info out there to suggest the Dark Blue on the D models was RAF Deep Sky, so I got myself the Vallejo Deep Sky colour and that works fine for me. The main problems with the plastic parts for me is the bendy wobbly landing gear, the way the bubble canopy fits on and the thick sprue gates, I snapped the control column and ariel mast trying to snip them off the sprue.

 

thanks

Mike

[Troy Smith]

8 hours ago, John said:

I assume the plastic is the same in this release as it was previously.

 

You can clearly see where the balance tabs on the elevators should be. They seem to have been represented as a indentations into the elevator rather than onto the fixed surface:

 

 

John 

                   

it's not just the missing mass balances, what's really weird is the curved edge to the rear of the tailplane, but a hard edge to the front of the elevator (this was pointed out on the Hyperscale thread BTW) which is an inversion of what it should be.   Very odd mistake!

 

 

[TEMPESTMK5]

Good afternoon

 A very welcome rebox the box art is fantastic tough I would have appreciated 2 decals options in the box ..

For the elevators I recommend this https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/RESIM7211

And I do hope that Airfix will produce a B/C Model one day as the recent AZModel / Kp one is somehow frustrating ..

 

And by the way did anyone ever tried to mate the Airifx wings to the Tamiya fuselage ? 

 

Patrice

Edited January 10, 2017 by TEMPESTMK5

[MalX]

On 07/01/2017 at 12:56, LotusArenco said:

I’d buy that for the box art alone.

In fact, I will buy that and replicate the box art as a mini diorama.

 

Mart

that Mustang is flying really low ..........it looks about 7ft off the ground

[Admiral Puff]

Could I ask that someone - ANYONE! - give us a kit with RAAF markings as an option, please? We did use one or two, both here and in the desert and Korea, and we made 200 as well. There's also a rather good reference book around ...

 

There's nothing wrong with the new Airfix kit that a modicum of modelling experience can't cure. I have several awaiting attention, all to be in RAAF markings. I will be picking up some of those RES-IM tailplanes; thanks, TempestMk5!

[MalX]

1 hour ago, Admiral Puff said:

Could I ask that someone - ANYONE! - give us a kit with RAAF markings as an option, please? We did use one or two, both here and in the desert and Korea, and we made 200 as well. There's also a rather good reference book around ...

 

There's nothing wrong with the new Airfix kit that a modicum of modelling experience can't cure. I have several awaiting attention, all to be in RAAF markings. I will be picking up some of those RES-IM tailplanes; thanks, TempestMk5!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Xtradecal-1-72-X72131-Mustang-Mk-IV-P-51D-RAF-RCAF-RAAF-decals-/381784667193?hash=item58e423b439:m:mAGQmnKt5bRX_Sapyq331lg

 

there's not many on ebay other than this, it's a case of finding the decals you want first and then finding a suitable model, because decals for Mustangs are 95% American.

 

 

[Admiral Puff]

24 minutes ago, MalX said:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Xtradecal-1-72-X72131-Mustang-Mk-IV-P-51D-RAF-RCAF-RAAF-decals-/381784667193?hash=item58e423b439:m:mAGQmnKt5bRX_Sapyq331lg

 

there's not many on ebay other than this, it's a case of finding the decals you want first and then finding a suitable model, because decals for Mustangs are 95% American.

 

 

 

Thanks for that. Red Roo is doing a sterling job keeping the Australian flag flying, and I know that Gary has more RAAF Mustang stuff on the way. Xtradecals only has (yet another!) version of Murray Nash's KH677/CV.P, which has been done to death - and not always very well. For that matter, in general the non-USAAF operators of the Mustang don't get as much attention as they deserve.