B-34 Lexington

[JPuente54]

Does anyone know anything about this particular kit? It is in 1/72nd scale and from Minicraft. I found it at the same store where I found the Airfix Ju88 and A-4(different threads).  The cover shows it in an RAF type scheme(nominal DG/DE over a grey/sky/etc. underside; not going into that matter in this thread!). I do have a little information on the aircraft; that it was an RAF/USAAF version of the Lockheed PV Ventura; intended for an RAF contract(thus the green and brown uppers depicted on the box cover). Mostly, I'm looking more about the kit itself. But, comments on the aircraft will be welcome, too.

TIA

Joe

[Graham Boak]

It's now a fairly old kit, and basic compared with more recent tooling, but reasonably accurate.  The glass-nosed Ventura was used by the RAF, initially as a light/medium day bomber but was not considered as a success in Europe.  It saw somewhat more success in the Mediterranean, but was never more than a minor type.  If we're lucky Tony O'Toole will come in with more on the subject.  The USAF had it as the RB-34, but kept it Stateside in training roles, and gave some to the New Zealanders who did use it operationally.  It's one of those interesting questions: why was the Ventura considered such a pig by every one except one user who loved it?  (Though I don't think the RNZAF were that unkind about it.)

Edited March 3, 2017 by Graham Boak

[stevehnz]

The RNZAF didn't operate many Lexingtons & those they did were supplied second hand from USAAF stocks & were apparently in pretty grotty condition. RNZAF ground crews rectified the worst faults, canniblising some airframes to right others as necessary but afaik, the B-34s were only used to do local patrolling around the New Zealand coastline & training. A little later on they received PV-1s from USN stock & went on to use these in the Islands, by all accounts to pretty decent effect. I've all these kits but haven't begun any yet, as Graham says, Tony O'toole is the guru on them here on BM.

Steve.

Edited March 3, 2017 by stevehnz

[dalea]

Sounds like you've got the latest iteration of this kit which I don't have (too expensive for what you get). However, you can replace the nacelles (recommended) , there is some etch (Eduard 72 202). Pavla does 2 add-ons:- a full interior (expensive) and a new tailplane (don't know if it's necessary).

As regards the "Pig" aspect I have a suspicion that the tactical use made of it may have something to do with it. Low-level formation flying vs. single operation ?

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Joe

I have this kit in RAF Ventura II guise, although personaly have a slight preference for SAAF machines. I have never put parts on drawings nor checked the kit's scale accuracy, so I cannot comment on these. This kit is very basic, although dry fit of major parts seems to be very good. Otherwise ... wheels are very basic, undercarriage bays are about 5 mm deep, flat and without any details whatsoever. Cockpit is basic with only passing resemblence to the real one. Similar story is with a Boulton-Paul top turret, which has reasonably good transparency, a part resembling gun barrels and hardly anything else. One has to say the same for a ventral gun position. Engines consist of a star and a half each, somewhat undernurrished propellers and much too shallow engraved cowl flaps. Transparencies in general are good, but somewhat on a thick side. Panel lines are engraved and very thin, although slats in front of ailerons do not look very convincing. Bomb bay doors are given in one piece, which can be separated without too much trouble, however bomb bay's interior is non-existent.

I got this kit decades ago and it can probably be build into something presentable with some AM parts added or through considerable scratchbuilding effort. On the other hand, there is not many other kits of B-34 available in 1/72 scale or at least I have no knowledge about any other. Not much, but I hope it helps. Cheers

Jure

[JPuente54]

Graham, I had a hunch that it was from some years ago; I have the Minicraft/Academy PV Ventura(IIRC there were 2 sub-types made(kits); but, maybe I am wrong?) that I bought in '90-'91 in Calif. while I was stationed at Ft. Ord. It is in the USN 3-color scheme with a green octopus centered around the dorsal turret. That it(B-34) is from that same time does make sense; use the molds for other versions, etc.. I do remember okay interior detail; basic, but, not bad, but, not great either.

Steve, thanks for your comments on its use by the RNZAF; my reference does not say much other than that it was used by them(the book is "American Warplanes of World War II" from Aerospace Pub. Ltd.. I may have more in one of the boxes in the garage; but, this is the one handy to me.).

dalea, I had a vague memory that Eduard may have made a detail set for it; thank you for confirming that it wasn't a vague thing. There is also a mask set for it, too. And, yes, the Pavla set is expensive; it is $43.50USD here. The kit is about $27.00USD.

Jure, thanks for your comments on the kit; I shall find them useful when I finally build the PV Ventura as well.

Jure's remarks about the B-34 do remind me that this is the best kit of the B-34 available(also the only one available). Whether the kit is worth what the store priced it; well, that is something else.

Still.... Thanks for your comments everyone; I must admit that this is my "go-to" place for info on new(to me), or old kits. If the information can't be found among the members here; it doesn't exist(or is "Top Secret").

[nuuumannn]

Quote

As regards the "Pig" aspect I have a suspicion that the tactical use made of it may have something to do with it.

That pretty well sums it up, but like Steve said, the RNZAF had lots of problems with them to begin with and they had a high accident rate. On operations in the Pacific, the PV-1 proved itself a good low level strike aircraft, though.

Edited March 4, 2017 by nuuumannn

[Work In Progress]

Speculating on the reputation, while I've never had my hands on any of the classic Lockheed 10/12/14/18 family, everyone I know who has, absolutely adores them. BUT, and in the context of WW2 it's quite a big but, they require very precise operation and significant handling skills, and have a reputation for requiring the utmost respect and attention from the handling pilot.

 

They are not aeroplanes one can just jump into and fly easily. What they do is provide real performance and load-carrying for their power. The Lodestar / Ventura / Lexington / Harpoon, as the biggest and most fully developed expressions of the basic line, have many of the stereotypical characteristics of other basic piston engined designs developed to their limits by incremental change and bolting on bigger engines. Undoubtedly they can bite. Any basic conventional piston twin will become more difficult if you add power and then use that power to carry ever heavier miitary loads.

 

I can easily believe that low-time squadron pilots coming on to them from something like an Oxford (even though the Oxford was itself a good and fairly demanding trainer), would find a Lexington a pretty daunting prospect. The very few who are lucky enough to have experience of the absolute ultimate in the line, the Howard 500, seem to regard it as a true highlight of their flying careers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_500

Good summary of what it's like to fly here:

http://aviationweek.com/nbaa-2015/howard-500-makes-nbaa-debut

 

Personally I have the greatest respect for those who flew Hudsons on SOE missions into occupied territories. It's one thing to muck about with a Lysander into a little barely-lit field on the wrong side of the lines, another thing altogether in a fundamentally more delicate, more complicated and more heavily-loaded Lockheed twin.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Work In Progress

[Seahawk]

12 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

 This kit is very basic, although dry fit of major parts seems to be very good. Otherwise ... wheels are very basic, undercarriage bays are about 5 mm deep, flat and without any details whatsoever. Cockpit is basic with only passing resemblence to the real one. Similar story is with a Boulton-Paul top turret, which has reasonably good transparency, a part resembling gun barrels and hardly anything else. One has to say the same for a ventral gun position. Engines consist of a star and a half each, somewhat undernurrished propellers and much too shallow engraved cowl flaps. Transparencies in general are good, but somewhat on a thick side. Panel lines are engraved and very thin, although slats in front of ailerons do not look very convincing. Bomb bay doors are given in one piece, which can be separated without too much trouble, however bomb bay's interior is non-existent.

 

When Academy were first getting off the ground, they issued a number of moulds "heavily influenced by" Frog kits but tarted up with engraved panel lines and, where relevant, detail parts "heavily influenced by" equivalent Hasegawa kits.  The Ventura is one, the F4F and P-40 are two others.  So, whereas the Academy/Minicraft kit is no longer in the first flush of youth, it's important to realise that its roots go back even further than that. 

 

It does have nice smooth surface finish with finely engraved panel lines.  Agree also that the completely flush cowl flaps are a very obvious shortcoming but would disagree about the B-P turret transparency in the Ventura boxing: IIRC, it's symmetrical, which the real thing isn't (a tighter radius on the front than the back).  Needs an Aeroclub replacement - if you can find one.  Not a problem for a PV-1 or Ventura V: the Martin dorsal turret canopy is fine for shape. 

[Graham Boak]

Whereas the Frog influence on the P-40, Avenger and F4F was plain (and unargued) the comparative sprue layouts for the two Venturas were published (long before the internet, remember) to illustrate the differences.  "Inspired by" may be fairer.  You can also get a BP Type C turret in the Revell Halifax Mk.I/II which, as it is only an option in the kit, may be easier to find than an Aeroclub one.

 

One reason for the difficulty in flying the big Lockheeds were the (comparatively) pointy wingtips, which would lead to unpredictable stall behaviour including wingdrop.  The 1930s DH twins suffered from the same problem - except the Dragon, of course.

[KRK4m]

1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

Speculating on the reputation, while I've never had my hands on any of the classic Lockheed 10/12/14/18 family...

 

Whereas the Hudson was just a militarized L-14 Super Electra, three Lodestar prototypes (s/n 1954, 1956 and 1957) were just more or less heavily modified Hudson Mk.IVs (Lockheed Type 314, 1940 RAAF batch of 55 a/c featuring s/ns 1903...1957, A16-50...A16-100), Ventura was a re-engined bomber variant of Lodestar and Harpoon was a Ventura with new wings and broader cockpit / forward fuselage roof, there's nothing (except for the genral layout) common between the L-14/L-18 family and the smaller L-10/L-12 Electras. Just try to find any common part (except for the tailwheel tyre, the steering yoke or several instruments) for the L-10 and L-14. I have tried, but with no success at all

Thus calling them one "family" is an exaggeration - as long as we don't include the P-38, P-80 and L-049 within it.

Cheers

Michael

[Work In Progress]

Yes, I am quite aware of the relationships between the Lockheed cabin twins. That's why I described them as "family" rather than being all basically the same aeroplane, i.e. with major airframe components in common like a Spitfire 24 does with a Spitfire I.

 

They have far more than general layout in common, they are clearly a family of related designs, with much shared design DNA flowing through them.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Sorry, I did not pay attention to Boulton-Paul turret shape. While I had been aware of heavy influence, as Seahawk put it, or inspiration, as Graham said, on Academy/Minicraft kits, it is new to me that Ventura/Lodestar/Lexington kit in 1/72 had been produced earlier by other manufacturer.

Also, I had no idea about wing drop on this aircraft and would think fixed wingtip slats, designed to improve low-speed aileron response, would cure such shortcoming. Live and learn. Cheers

Jure

[Seahawk]

Not sure whether the FROG Ventura did actually ever get issued but when FROG went bust it had already been tooled up and had even had its transfer sheets printed (Australian and French options, IIRC): I have several somewhere, acquired in a job lot of FROG transfers.

[dogsbody]

My Academy/Minicraft Ventura collection:

 

 

Chris

[dogsbody]

And my FROG Ventura decal sheet.

 

 

 

Chris

[Jure Miljevic]

Chris, is there any kit you do not have? Seahawk, did you by any chance acquire these decals some twenty-five years ago as a part of twenty FROG decals set for a ridiculously low price of 1 pound? IIRC I bought three or four sets at that occasion. Cheers

Jure

Edited March 4, 2017 by Jure Miljevic
edited for spelling

[dogsbody]

9 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Chris, is there any kit you do not have? Seahawk, did you by any chance acquire these decals some twenty-five years ago as a part of twenty FROG decals set for a ridiculously low price of 1 pound? IIRC I bought three or four sets at that occasion. Cheers

Jure

 

I got a pack of FROG decals from Lead Sled, Back in the late 80's. I still have them all except the Marauder set. I gave those away a number of years ago.

 

Martin B-26 Marauder
Mitsubishi Zero-san
Messerschmitt Me262
Heinkel He219
Lockheed Ventura
Dornier Do17
Boeing B-17

 

 

Chris

[Jure Miljevic]

In my case it was Hannants in the early 90's. I do not remember Zero decals, although sets I bought also included Lancaster, Boston, Mosquito, Avenger, Do 335 (captured post-war birds), Ta 152 (I think) and other decals. I was a bit wary at first but decals turned out to be quite good. Cheers

Jure

[Ed Russell]

It doesn't look like there's a replacement on the horizon so it's good that there are some after market parts like the excellent nacelles.

Some decals are on the way with a bit of resin to make them usable.

Are there any comments on whether a replacement tailplane as mentioned above is really necessary?

[Steve N]

I've built the kit in its PV-1 Ventura guise.  Don't have a lot to add to what the others have said, although on mine the cockpit canopy was very thick with very poor fit (and this was the first boxing from the late 80s, so the molds were brand-new.)  Squadron/Falcon make excellent vacuform replacements.   

 

Also, the engine intakes need attention: the carburetor intakes on the top of the cowls are too tall..they need to be reduced by about half.  And the oil cooler intakes under the nacelles are just terrible..the shape is not even close to the real thing, and there's no "ceiling" inside the intake, just an open void into the wing.  There's a resin set that addresses these issues, but if you don't want to spend the cash the issues can be fixed with a bit of elbow grease and plasticard.

 

SN

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Seahawk, did you by any chance acquire these decals some twenty-five years ago as a part of twenty FROG decals set for a ridiculously low price of 1 pound? 

 

Yes, they tended to pop up from time to time for many years after FROG went under.  In addition to Dogsbody's list, mine included:

 

- Sea Vixen

- Do 335

- Beaufort

- Barracuda

- Wessex

- Wyvern

- Ar 234

- Fw 190

- Ta 152

- Do 17Z

- Ju 88

- Blenheim

- Meteor F.4

- Maryland

- Typhoon

- Lancaster (another one that I don't think was issued)

and no doubt others I've forgotten.

 

People might decry FROG kits nowadays but FROG transfers in their latter days, as designed by Dick Ward, were imaginative, well-researched and accurate and hold their own today.  Some of the first to include stencil markings. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Seahawk

[dogsbody]

Just remembered I also have the Lancaster decals.

 

 

Chris

[Don McIntyre]

I had a pack of those Frog decals as well. IIRC, I picked them up at an IPMS event in New England sometime in the late 70s or early 80s.

Not a great build, but this is my Academy PV-1 with the Frog RNZAF decals (after incurring so e damage in a move):

 

 

 

[stevehnz]

Much as I'd like to claim RNZAF for that nicely made old girl, they're RAAF markings Don, A59-75, definitely an RAAF serial no.

Steve.