tempestfan

Some versions of the E had a straight fin leading edge, some the extension - like the EA. Apparently the Italeri kit only includes the straight version on the dedicated E sprue, at least the boxing I just looked at.

A differing sprue layout and/or parts breakdown does not make a copy a "non-copy" - indeed, the area with the slots and the ailerons on the wings has been treated differently by Academy, but if you look closely at most other parts, they are straight copies of the Frog parts - engine, "Frogmen", wheel parts including that peculiar "retracted mains" moulding, FAA style observation blisters (not at all used by the USN) etc, even extending to the stand they reinstated, which Frog blocked in the mould for that final Type H boxing. The same applies to the Wildcat, and it has been said the P-40B is a Frog copy with some Hase P-40 cockpit parts.

Looking at the cockpit furniture, turret, engines, wheel well box-in etc. suggests otherwise. A possibly slightly amended parts breakdown here and there would still fit in with "inspired by". Sunny was third or fourth-generation successor to Marusan, and acted as Japanese distributor for Academy/Minicraft during the 80s and 90s (and the emphasis here may well be on Minicraft), there are also e.g. boxings of one of the 1/48 F-111 and the ex-Hubley 1/24 RR Silver Cloud with Sunny stickers - but also dedicated Sunny boxings of the Super Étendard and Tu-22M. I'd bet a Starfix Zero however that the Super Et was tooled by Japanese company Suntek, who did a lot of the best Esci moulds, as it just looks like an Esci kit. But I do not want to lead this thread astray The Lockheed 12 may well have been an unrealised Academy project, their 1988 catalogue was full of projects of which some were not released (e.g. SBD) and some only years later (F6F, SB2C, if I'm not mistaken). ------------------------------- BTW, I wouldn't refer to the Ventura as a Frog kit but only as Frog moulds as Hornet does, as only a pre-production batch was moulded by Frog which IIRC was not put on sale but was intended as review kits etc.

The pronounced contrast between the top colours could well mean it was not 70/71.

Markus, contact Axel Urbanke. This may be something for Luftwaffe im Focus. I can give you his email address, but he should be easy enough to find via Google.

I am fairly certain the ca. 1977 Heller 1/72 kit gave an option for the intakes; and this should also apply to at least some of the boxings for the Trimaster/Dragon/Revell/Italeri kit, possibly A-5/6.

I assume you mean the G-5/6/14 style wheel "donuts" Tamiya blesses us with? I'd stick my neck out and claim the Airfix 1/24 kit has an excellent representation of this area - a very slight bulge hardly noticeable if I'm not mistaken. TBH, I don't like Tamiya's representation of the fabric ailerons much. They look a bit like from a Lindberg late 50s kit. But the Airfix ailerons don't convince me either - the panel line depicted exactly follows the separation of fabric and metal leading edge for the fabric ailerons if I'm not mistaken. Why would there be a panel line in this position on an all-metal aileron?

The Airfix looks to be fractionally longer in the fin, in other words having the rudder post further aft. What I find more interesting is the - from the pic - rather massive difference in cowling length. Not sure about actual measurements but this looks like 2 scale feet. Was it really that much? Standing to be taught things right, of course.

I have all of them except (I think) the AeroDetail, but IIRC those drawings were blamed for the Hase 1/48 Spits from the 90s having a short rear fuselage. But I be mixing things so will not blame anyone. I think you mistook planebuilder62 - he meant Airfix 01065/01071, the 1978 Airfix kit with AZ*H "Dirty Dick" as the markings.

Cliffhanger time! While you're at it, you could also assess the quality of I/II scale drawings versus Monforton's measurements. An early set (but drawn very well) was from the Aeromodeller range and printed in SM (I think it had not yet acquired the "I" and was still in the smaller format), possibly reprinted later (BoB series? Aircraft Archive?), the next one by Alf Granger from the Aerodata series (reprinted in Wingspan); AvNews had a set by Mark Rolfe ca. 1992 (of which I have reservations, as his drawing of the DB605-engined V had hardly a resemblance to the real thing), and then there are AeroDetail and Modellers' Datafile. Have fun

That one is a Lindberg original. You will find a more or less completely different "world" with Lindberg originals a s compared to the Inpact. Inpact is a scale model, I think it's fair to say that Lindberg kits were always intended as technical toys for boys. Which does not mean I do not like them. I have one of their 'tween the wars kits, it should be the Goshawk. No idea about accuracy, but it's one of their better kits I think - Here is one built from the box. I also have a soft spot for their 1/48 XF8U-1 and 1/64 B-58. If you want old school, then I guess original Lindberg's will be your thing

Not sure if that one would fill your bill, but the late 70s Airfix kits included very nice (at least for their time) figures. I'd have to check but IIRC they were not generic (in contrast to their "one size fits all" 1/72 figures) but tailored to the type - so the Mosquito pilot may be suitable (admittedly not much can be seen on the pic), and I'd imagine quite a number of them lead a prisoner's life in spares boxes around the membership.

How could I forget the Hunter and F-84G...!? Somehow I felt there were a dozen and stopped thinking. Indeed, the Hunter was also available by Novo, so the tool survived. The book you mention was by Lines/Hellström - Frog Model Aircraft and indeed still is the best one stop source on all things Frog (apart from Peter van Lune's Penguin book, but that only covers Penguin). Regarding the Meteor, I am convinced I saw one in a Pedigree box (posibly NZ production) in my first-ever visit at TeeJay/Comet, which would have been mid 60s I guess.

Those Frog kits from their first series - 1955 or 56? - in their original boxes are rare because they are old in the first place. A number of the kits have never been re-released in any later box style by Frog I think - Westland WS 55 Whirlwind, Venom FB.1 (or was it a 4?), Scimitar, not quite sure for the Meteor 8 and Canberra 3, -, while others have had limited reissues in the 60s - EE P.1 I think, Javelin 1(original mould), Sabre 4 and DH.110, for example. The moulds of some or all of those reportedly were lost ca. 1968 when being shipped to (or possibly from) Lincoln in New Zealand, together with some of the 1/96 airliners. Gannet, Sea Hawk and Attacker in contrast had a fairly long life, and their moulds (also the Fairey Delta 2) survived to be sold to the USSR in 1976 and probably still exist. In general, the kits overall are surprisingly accurate shapewise considering their age (I can attest for the Sea Hawk and the Gannet), but have hardly any details, solid wheel wells and cockpits etc. The Sea Hawk would make a graceful model on a stand, undercarriage retracted, and is much more accurate than the slightly later Airfix. In general, all of the kits whose mould have not gone to the USSR will fetch a collector's price regardless of the boxing. Surprisingly, for some of them there are (or were until recently) no modern alternatives, which probably contributes to their scarcity. If you want to try your hand at an old Frog, get the Sea Hawk, Gannet or FD.2 in a later boxing (Gannet e.g. Revell from the mid 90s), but otherwise you may be disappointed at the (lack of) bang you get for your buck.

Apologies to both of you (and anyone else if necessary) - I absolutely didn't want to step on anyone's toes (or criticise anyone), and obviously my attempt to denote the "selfish" as humorous by the smiley failed miserably. My only point really was to say that early Crusaders are a totally neglected subject in any scale (as regards modern kits), with the most recent one that I am aware of being the 1/70 Fujimi kit that must be some 55 years old now.

Why so selfish? The earth is not exactly covered with 48th early Crusaders if I haven't missed anything, with I think the best being Lindberg's XF-1, which is almost as old as my father... @ReccePhreak, there was a conversion article on an RF in SAM (first 8 volumes I'd guess), but I don't recall whether it used the Airmodel set. This may (or not...) be of help in assessing whether the AM set is worth holding on to. @theplasticsurgeon, she looks really nice - the Esci kit regrettably is from the period when they were past their prime, and I am of the opinion it's basically a slightly modified recessed-panel Hase clone, just like the Ace/Kangnam/Revell kit (which is however from a different mould).

World Air Power Journal - long gone but contained a range of quite good in-depth articles, with lots of colour.

Aeroguide 3 should have what you are looking for (or alternatively 32 which also covers the FA.2, but is hard to get at the mo). I am pretty certain WAPJ had some relevant content - # 41 has a 2 on the cover but dim memory says it contains a SHar article.

VERY senior moment...

Supported by a pilot in typical Mono style and the (raised) surface detail visible in the linked pics.

The Gnat had a Folland lightweight seat which IIRC was a development of a SAAB design. I have a dim recollection the Douglas and Vought lightweight seats as fitted to very early Skyhawks and Crusaders are also related to some extent. I guess there's enough material in that firing ring to drill and file it to any desired shape, even Tour Eiffel ;-). I have a couple of different Aeroclub seats, and I don't think @John Aero cast firing rings onto any of them. The Mk 2 (?) I just looked at that crews my Sea Hawk (or rather only the backrest of it) was cast in 2 parts, as all the others I can think of were.

I just had a look into my venerable FAA in Focus booklet, and the pics suggest that the upper lags as well as all cover door interiors are Sky. I am fairly certain the Marineflieger ones were like that, too. I don't think I have any contemporary pic in my references giving a clear view of any of the bays, as they are invariably in the shadow, and the inner main doors - small as they are - invariably being closed doesn't help. The only semi-clear pic of the main gear I am aware of of what I think is an in-service machine is in the old F40 booklet, again of a Mk 100, and that one suggests Sky as well for the bay. That's what I painted my ex-Frog in 25 years ago anyway (wait - you'll say the ex-Frog doesn't have u/c bays, which is true. After some heart (hard?) surgery it did).

While possibly a bit dated (1987?) now, there also was an Aerofax.

To make your choice easy: Revell (90s boxing) and Chematic are from the ex-Frog mould, as very likely are the East European ones (possibly including ZYS/Plastyk). The recent Revell is a reboxed Cyberhobby I think. Apart from that, IIRC there was also one from Hannant’s kit brand ( whose name I am having a very senior moment on right now) which comes from the Czech Republic. I haven’t followed the discussion in detail but apparently many people consider the CH the worst - unless I am mixing it with their Sea Venom.

I have a Revell K-4 boxing in front of me as I type, and the bulges on both sides come up to the same point (front edge of movable canopy), and appear to have the same curve at the bottom of the rear fairing. The port side is slightly different between the exhaust deflectors and the rear edge of the engine hood, but it's very hard to see whether the "volume" is different between sides. @Werdna, I have a couple of 1991 K-4 boxings "inherited" from a deceased magazine editor (and I agree with Troy that the kit was a "Revellation" at its time), but I guess you won't be wanting to take any customs hassle for exploring kit history