1/72 - North American A-36 Apache/Invader Brengun - released

[occa]

Still has the wrong fuselage

 

Dunno why these guys are not capable of reading reactions on forums and fix the errors

[John Thompson]

While it's not a direct swap (some fitting required), it appears that the wings (including the apparently better-detailed wheel wells) could be used to convert the Academy 1/72 Allison P-51 "North Africa" kit to an A-36. Also use the stabilizers and rudder, since the Academy parts have rather odd-looking rib detail. Small consolation, I suppose, but Brengun kits are relatively inexpensive, so if you don't like the fuselage, consider the kit to be an A-36 conversion package - I know I'll buy at least one for just that purpose.

 

(When you've spent as many years as I have trying to fumble the existing meagre VVS offerings into some semblance of accuracy, you learn to drink gratefully from the half-full cup whenever it's set before you... )

 

John

Edited June 11, 2017 by John Thompson

[meisnerr]

About the photos.
This is only special offer for Model Brno contest.
Regular sale = autumn.

 

[Gwart]

Measure twice cut once.

[occa]

3 hours ago, Gwart said:

Measure twice cut once.

 

Shortened three times already and it is still too short - as we use to say here

[Truro Model Builder]

On 6/11/2017 at 11:34 AM, occa said:

Still has the wrong fuselage

 

Dunno why these guys are not capable of reading reactions on forums and fix the errors

 

Perhaps because every kit that has pre-production images posted, be they CAD, prototype sprues or even box art, receives a kicking from a certain percentage of the membership, so the companies can't be bothered because they know that there will ALWAYS be criticism.

 

Or maybe you just overestimate the importance of BM and other forums.

 

[dragonlanceHR]

19 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

 

Perhaps because every kit that has pre-production images posted, be they CAD, prototype sprues or even box art, receives a kicking from a certain percentage of the membership, so the companies can't be bothered because they know that there will ALWAYS be criticism.

 

 

So we're to blame, not the manufacturer? 

They messed up and for whatever their reason is, it was not the criticsm from modelers.

 

Vedran

 

[BS_w]

On 07/02/2017 at 5:05 PM, Work In Progress said:

Hard to say. Perhaps the apparent depth of the fuselage, in terms of canopy line distance to wing upper surface, is just the angle of that shot, and the eye-tricking diagonal stripes on the other. But it does look deep.

the depth of the fuselage at the cockpit are same on A36/P51A and P51B according their firewall
lenght (under reference line fuselage) 17"5/16(A36) and 17"13/16 P51B) for a total length 39"1/32 and 39" 1/16

for the heigth, remember that firewalls are inclined 13°6' 20".

Edited June 13, 2017 by BS_w

[Work In Progress]

Not sure exactly what you mean there, but there is no way the Allison Mustang fuselage is as deep as the Merlin Mustang fuselage in the cockpit area (with the exception of the few Roll-Royce Merlin proof-of-concept conversions)

[occa]

The wing of the A was mounted  higher than on the B and later marks, by 4 inches if I am correct. That's why the fuselage of the A marks appear significantly more slender compared to the B series on when seen from the side 

This is independent from the bigger oil cooler intake later marks had.

 

Brengun took the AZ/KP B/C fuselage as a basis and didn't adapt it correctly.

[Truro Model Builder]

10 hours ago, dragonlanceHR said:

 

So we're to blame, not the manufacturer? 

They messed up and for whatever their reason is, it was not the criticsm from modelers.

 

Vedran

 

 

Saying they messed up on the evidence of one photograph of a set of sprues that cannot even be looked at in any detail reminds me of Beppo Schmidt. He was the Luftwaffe head of intelligence in August 1940 who decided that the RAF was knocked out based on some photographs of a handful of damaged airfields.

 

That didn't work out too well for him.

 

Other comments in this thread suggest that perhaps Bren Gun are not as inaccurate as some would like to think. But then, what do they know?

 

[BS_w]

7 hours ago, occa said:

The wing of the A was mounted  higher than on the B and later marks, by 4 inches if I am correct. That's why the fuselage of the A marks appear significantly more slender compared to the B series on when seen from the side 

 

you're right, I found these drawings in NAA manuals, the wing of P51BC is 3" lower than A36 & P51A
The firewall height were not a good reference for the cockpit depth.

[dragonlanceHR]

10 hours ago, T7 Models said:

 

Saying they messed up on the evidence of one photograph of a set of sprues that cannot even be looked at in any detail reminds me of Beppo Schmidt. He was the Luftwaffe head of intelligence in August 1940 who decided that the RAF was knocked out based on some photographs of a handful of damaged airfields.

 

That didn't work out too well for him.

 

Other comments in this thread suggest that perhaps Bren Gun are not as inaccurate as some would like to think. But then, what do they know?

 

 

If Waroff's post above isn't enough, browse through this.

 

http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51a-1.html

 

I don't do 1/72, but I would double check the Brengun Yak-1 nose before committing my money.

 

Vedran

Edited June 14, 2017 by dragonlanceHR
spelling error

[Truro Model Builder]

So I guess we'll just right it off as unbuildable rubbish then.

Edited June 14, 2017 by T7 Models

[charlie_c67]

8 hours ago, BS_w said:

you're right, I found these drawings in NAA manuals, the wing of P51BC is 3" lower than A36 & P51A
The firewall height were not a good reference for the cockpit depth.

 

So a difference of of 1.06mm on the model....

[dragonlanceHR]

1 hour ago, T7 Models said:

So I guess we'll just right it off as unbuildable rubbish then.

 

Now where did I state that?

Manufacturers sadly make mistakes, be it bad research or no research or whatever their reason is.

You can buy kits blindly or make an informed choice, it's up to you.

 

Vedran

 

[Truro Model Builder]

1 hour ago, charlie_c67 said:

 

So a difference of of 1.06mm on the model....

 

Well that's worth getting uptight about.

[Graham Boak]

But of what is that a proportion?  What is it as a percentage?  15%  25?  Do you really think that kind of difference cannot be seen?  What is important is that it looks wrong.  You want to build a model that looks wrong, go ahead and enjoy your modelling, but don't expect others not to care.  There's no uncertainty about this difference: just what is so wonderful about being wrong?

 

This is a difference that was known about in the 1960s - Frog got it right.  The error has been introduced by laziness: lack of research, lack of observation,  coupled with mindless copying of what went before.  Pointing it out isn't new: it has been done several times before.  

 

 

 

[charlie_c67]

On 07/02/2017 at 23:06, charlie_c67 said:

Best to contact them with the corrections quick!

 

That's why I said this back in February John! 

Not sure if anyone did though? 

[tangerine_sedge]

7 hours ago, charlie_c67 said:

 

So a difference of of 1.06mm on the model....

 

 

Can't you see that on the blurry pre-production images?  its unbuildable rubbish I tell you!  The internet has spoken!

[occa]

Not everyone has the senses that are necessary to detect proportion and shape errors.

And obviously not everyone can tolerate those who care for correct proportions and shapes ...

 

A mm compared to a length of 10 mms IS certainly visible, compared to a kilometer it is not of course.

[Homebee]

Czech in-box review - ref. BRP72025

Source: http://www.ipmsnymburk.com/forum/viewtema.php?ID_tema=39803

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V.P.

[Madoc]

This looks good!

 

But, I'm gonna wait until a Mustang experten gets his hands on an actual example before making a purchase decision.  Looking at online pictures can only get you so far in determining things about a kit.  We need someone with lotsa subject matter expertise to be fondling the plastic for a more definitive definition.

[Gwart]

As always Jumpei Temma to the rescue with his meticulous research and drawings.   http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51a-1.html

 

The Academy Allison hold sup well to his drawings.

 

 

 

[Dave Fleming]

The fuselage depth difference was the reason NA were able to fit a wooden cockpit floor on the P-51B - the earlier marks used the wing upper surface. there is also a change in fuselage after the wing - the change in the shape of the wing root fairing is the pointer. can't recall the details just now.