B-34 Lexington

[Ed Russell]

SF-Q That's 13 Sqn RAAF, Appropriate decals are still available. Photos show they were outlined on one side only.

https://www.redroomodels.com/172-scale/lockheed-pv-1-ventura-13-sqn-raaf-172-scale/

or if you are in UK

http://www.blackbirdmodels.co.uk/pv-1-ventura---13-sqn-raaf-72-2021-p.asp

 

[Gmat]

To fill in a blank, Sunny Hobby Models in Tokyo released the same 1/72 kit in Japan in the eighties. Note that it was labeled Venture. 

 

 

http://galaxykits.com/instructions/instruction/1013/lockheedpv-1_ventura

 

Academy and Minicraft has repopped this kit. The Minicraft version has RCAF markings.

[KevinK]

14 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

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.

 

Not really a cure - trying to pick up a wing with aileron near the stall would be a bad end to your day. The only real fix is to reduce the tip loading: washout would help a bit but there's no substitute for area, so increase the chord and things get better.

[KevinK]

8 hours ago, Seahawk said:

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

 

Oh yes it was!

 

[Work In Progress]

The Frog Lancaster is interesting because it was released before the tooling was properly finished, obviously rushed out in a burst of last-minute cost-cutting and revenue generation. Consequetly parts of it were very good and other parts under-detailed. What we liked best about it back in those days was the Tallboy bomb, which you couldn't get elsewhere back then.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Yes, Seahawk, reading your list sounds much like decals I got. Kevin, what I meant was that slats would improve airflow over wingtips in general with ailerons at neutral, thus delaying wingtip stall. Otherwise I agree with you, picking up wing with aileron just above minimal speed is a good way to aileron reversal and other unpleasant consequences that follow. Cheers

Jure

[Killingholme]

Worth mentioning that the kit has a door engraved on both sides of the rear fuselage- the one to starboard shouldn't be there!

 

I think the Pavla tailplane is less a 'correction', but designed to allow deflected rudders- the way the Minicraft kit is moulded means that separating the rudders without wastage would be very difficult. Could be wrong there, but I can't tell the difference between the shape of the parts!

 

As others have said, it's a good simple kit with decent fit. It could benefit enormously from re-worked carb intakes, some plasticard cockpit bulkheads that more reflect the original, some new resin engines and wheels. It is in my opinion very expensive for what it is if you buy one at RRP in 2017!

 

Will

[Don McIntyre]

13 hours ago, stevehnz said:

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.

Doh! I should have caught that myself. Thanks for the correction. In my defense, I built that decades ago, when the kit first came out.  And thank you for the kind comments.

[tempestfan]

On ‎05‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 5:44 AM, Gmat said:

To fill in a blank, Sunny Hobby Models in Tokyo released the same 1/72 kit in Japan in the eighties. Note that it was labeled Venture. 

 

http://galaxykits.com/instructions/instruction/1013/lockheedpv-1_ventura

 

Academy and Minicraft has repopped this kit. The Minicraft version has RCAF markings.

Sunny appears to have been Academy's Distributor in Japan. Super Etendard and Tu-22M were also released as Sunny, though so far no one seems to know whether the moulds came from Sunny or Academy - Sunny seems more likely at least for the Super Et, IMHO -, but back on topic. The Ventura is with 99 % probability an Academy-originated tool, as it is a rather faithful reproduction of the Frog, just with recessed Panel lines. I bought a ZTS boxing of the Frog kit last year, and I had a strong sense of déjà vu. The Frog kit is said to have been produced in a pre-prod Batch of ca. 500 in 1976 or thereabouts, but never went on sale as Frog.

[Hornet133]

The FROG kit WAS sold in small numbers in Export markets, but not released in the UK before FROG went under. One of the local shops in Sydney Australia had 24 of them (sold out in 2 days) and I have heard of it being released in some other countries.

 

The Ventura and Super Etendard are reportedly moulds originated by Sunny. I have one Sunny boxing and the sides of the box show that they were planning the whole Lockheed 10, 12, 14, 18 family for eventual release (only the Venturas were ever issued), no-one has ever said as far as I know that Academy were planning such.

 

And the FROG and Sunny/Academy etc kits have absolutely no relationship to each other, that theory was thoroughly debunked about 30 years ago by comparison of the kits in a Forum.

[Graham Boak]

I've never had a Sunny boxing, but did have (long ago) a set of instructions for a Ventura (or more likely some other Academy kit)  showing that the "plans" for Ventura "variants" went beyond Lockheed's own Harpoon to the Japanese Thalia.  I don't think it showed earlier design variants.

[tempestfan]

3 hours ago, Hornet133 said:

And the FROG and Sunny/Academy etc kits have absolutely no relationship to each other, that theory was thoroughly debunked about 30 years ago by comparison of the kits in a Forum.

Apart from that there were no modelling fora 30 years ago, here are pics of the Academy and Frog kits. Apart from the different layout of the wing trailing edges, there's a lot in common. Just look at the engines, turret, aux tanks, thick integral tailpane tip on the fins, etc. Not what I'd call "completely debunked"...

[Graham Boak]

There were no modelling fora in 1997?  Well, not that I know of, but only just.  I came on the net in 1998 and found places then.  However there were modelling magazines, and magazines with modelling sections.  One of those showed photos of the two sprues showing that the kits were not identical, as had been claimed.  Never having had the Frog one I can't make my own direct comparison, but Frog were not (always) trailing behind the state of the art.  Other manufacturers could make rather clumsy simplified tools too.

[Hornet133]

Forums, Bulletin Boards whatever you want, the comparison was out there many years ago (the Magazine info must have been repeated in such later). And the only similarity is caused by both being scale miniatures of a Ventura.

 

Clearly there will be things in common with some shapes (and I don't agree that things like the engines, turret etc are the same which they would be if copies) but the details differ a lot more than just the panel lines.

 

If that was a NOVO one on the auction linked (rather than the FROG original) it is interesting as I never saw that one amongst the NOVO releases which were commonly available out here.

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

There were no modelling fora in 1997?  Well, not that I know of, but only just.  I came on the net in 1998 and found places then. 

 

There were quite a few UK modellers already on rec.models.scale on Usenet from about 1995, when I started on there... the year before the first Blair election victory. Seems a very long time ago now. I know back then people told me the Academy kit was a re-worked Frog clone, same for the the Wildcat and  Avenger, but I never saw visual proof.

[Graham Boak]

I saw and was convinced by the photo, but having since seen an East European Bf109G that was simply Hasegawa kit shapes laid out differently, perhaps I'd be somewhat more cynical now.  However this was with, I suspect, rather less rework than Academy were prone to do.

[Steve N]

There was an article in the old Scale Modeler magazine comparing the kits back when the Academy/Minicraft Ventura first came out in the late 80s.  I think one of the earlier comments "inspired by" the Frog kit might be the most accurate.  The article compared the parts of the kits side-by-side, and there were significant shape differences.  Academy may have used the Frog kit as a starting point for the engineering breakdown, but the kit itself appears to be a completely new, independent design. 

 

SN

[JPuente54]

Wow, ask about a kit, get a load of information about the type's use in several air forces. Chris, I know that I have Kit No. 1678(the green octopus is memorable); I might also have either No. FA050, or, 1677. Like many others, it is in a box in the garage attic(or loft for my UK friends); so, not available now. Oh, a bit more about the kit(it is still at the store mentioned), the price is $29.99, not $27.00 as originally written(still pricey for its size, though). The box states that it has a "highly detailed cockpit(we all know that their idea of a 'highly detailed cockpit', my idea..., and, your idea.... can be very different things.)"; as this is about the only part of the A/C interior that can really be seen; the rest isn't that necessary by their thinking. It also states that the decals are by Cartograf; this is a re-boxing as mentioned earlier. Well, at least the decals are first-rate. The store also has the MiniCraft Martin P5M Mariner kit at $60USD. Again, don't know if it is really worth the price(B-34, not the P5M). OTH, it is the only such kit of this particular aircraft. Thanks to all for your comments.

                                                                                           Joe

[David H]

I built the PV-1 many years ago and i thought it was a rather basic, but buildable model.

 

The issues from the cowling/ nacelle shape seem to stem from the use by Academy (and later Revell) of the Paul R. Matt drawings, which exactly mimic the nacelle contours on both models. There was a 72nd scale resin correction set for the nacelles and cowlings offered a few years back, and i remember reading the write up in the IPMS USA website. IIRC, it went a long way in correcting the most obvious shape issue with the model. Everything else on the model looks okay to me, shape-wise. Yeah, the canopy is thick, the turret simplified and the wheel wells are shallow but i don't consider those deal-breakers.

 

A much -recommended reference to have on hand is the Steve Ginter volume on the Ventura. It can answer almost every technical or detailing question one can think of.

 

From what i read about the unforgiving nature of the Ventura, it may have stemmed partly from mis-loading of the plane and being out of the CG envelope, and the small vertical fins provided inadequate directional control in event of an engine failure at low speeds. The high wing loading and directional control issues led directly to the PV-2 Harpoon, which was regarded as easier to fly although considerably slower.

 

Venturas are very hard to find nowadays, mainly due to so many being converted into executive airliners. Harpoons, on the other hand had a valuable second life as fire bombers, and there are some beautiful restored examples.

 

-d-

Edited June 6, 2017 by David H
Typos, Baby!!

[Ed Russell]

On 24/05/2017 at 3:04 AM, JPuente54 said:

Wow, ask about a kit, get a load of information

Not only that, here's some pictures of a new conversion for the kit, which enables a 459 Sqn Ventura with exhaust dampers to be built and provides a little bit of detail for the cockpit and turret.

 

 

 

Excuse the crappy phone pictures but it's so new it's not yet on the web site.

 

We also have the same conversion for the 1/48 Revell kit.

[Biggles81]

I have to get one of those in 1/48 scale. Another interesting conversion from Red Roo.

[Seahawk]

Okay, someone had to ask: what are parts 7-12?  And is there a UK distributor?

[Ed Russell]

7. Turret Ring, 8. Instrument Panel, 9. Radio Operator Seat, 10.Navigator Seat, 11. Pilot Seat, 12. Decal Sheet (2 options)

UK Distributor is Blackbird Models - feel free to contact Glenn and ask for him to get some of them - however they aren't even released in Australia yet, so be patient.

The 1/48 kit doesn't need the interior detail as Revell have done a pretty good job.

We received lots of help from Tony O'Toole on colours and markings.

[roginoz]

Ed, will there be any available at this weekends Melbourne Model Expo ?

 

 

[Ed Russell]

Indeed there will - that's its "Official" release date. This is an exclusive Britmodeller preview...... (:>)