Jacarre

I have some doubts in respect of the accuracy of the AZ offering. The russian forum has a great analysis in the Aadvark's link: The fuselage appears to much long and a little wide and the vertical surfaces are more larger than this drawing The wings are more larger, but this is workable in my humble opinion. The Dragon offering fuselage is more shorter tha drawing and the fuselage is a little too narrow Yeah, is another version (without afterburner, Dragon makes two versions) but is a good reference. Anyone has more info about dimensions of the kit and the real deal? Regards, Javier

Post error

Yeah Giorgio, my friend Fernando has the Pavla one but it's not a real progress on the Airfix one. Is better the Sword effort. I would like to have it...

Hi all, with my friends of IPMS Chile compared the Airfix F-80C and Sword P-80A. The last one has a very good representation of the wing upper airfoil, but the Airfix one is very good in shape. The intakes or the Airfix one are a little big: we compard them with the real deal (FACh F-80C) in our aviation museum. The canopy is, as was said, somewhat flat and a little too wide. The canopy of the Sword P-80A is better in profile, but as Tommy points out in his blog , is better for P-80B version. Despite this, i want to make a vacuformed one based in the sword one. Regards, Javier

Thanks for the responses, with my friends of IPMS-Chile analyzed the Academy kit and we find also that the wings upper surface hasn't the enough "break" of the diedral. And the union between the rear upper fuselage and tail fin its not great. My friend has the Hasegawa one and its better in shape and dimensions. About Cyber Hobby, we dont' have one here in my club, its not very cheap... Regards, Javier

Interesting, which is the misshap? the 're too wide, too narrow? And the Hasegawa one, has some shape or dimensions issues? Another thing, I've heard some bad rumours in my club about that the wingspan is the only fault of the Eduard one... Regards., Javier

Yeah Giorgio, the best wings are from PJ and Heller... and RV. But here in Chile we have serious doubts about some accuracy items of the last one. The RV offering has a doubtful nose shape, and we have some doubts about the cabin position in the forward fuselage. And the incredible and horrific error of bad scribing of the rudder... A shame, the RV kits here are not precisely cheap... Regards., Javier

A little question... What are the shape or dimensions fault of the 1/72 Academy kit? Looks good at first glance. Regards., Javier

Very interesting, it's the canopy the fault on the Revell Kit or the upper fuselage width (spine)? The Heller offering suffers of a too pronounced "area ruling" fuselage, that causes that the rear fuselage near the end is very bulged in width. The Revell one wings, meanwhile, are too much flat in the upper surface. The first High Planes edition wings are divided in upper an lower halfs but when you put together the two pieces, the wing thickness is unnaceptable, for my eyes. The newer PJ ones are the best IIIE and V of all the offerings, pero here in Chile they're not so cheap... I'm building the Revell fuselage and a resin set of wings of a chilean model builder, Unyelfe, that corrects the problem of Revell wings. Regards., Javier Javier

Hi all! with my friends of IPMS - Chile were analyzing RV/KP and Art Model MIG-23. Although they are different versions, most of the fuselage must be the same width and depth, according to our references. We take two points of measurement and 4+ book drawings. The two points are: the point of atachment of the nose and center and rear fuselage and rear fuselage before afterburner petals in both kits. There are the measurements: Center Fuselage: RV/KP 20 mm Art Model : 21.5mm 4+ 21 mm Rear fuselage before afterburner: Art 18 mm Rv 17 mm 4+ 18.5 mm I included a pic of both rear fuselages to ilustrate the differences: Have you any informations about the real deal measurements? Thanks to all in advance. Regards., Javier

Hi Tailspin, at last i can send my response, we are here all very busy with the chilean national holiday. Fernando made a table with our measurements, and compared with your measurements: We added two more points to measure, acording to your recomendations. "D" is the split line between the forward and aft fuselage sections. I made a mistake and point "E" isn't the tail cone diameter, but the fuselage width inmediately BEFORE the tail cone. This is the cause for the larger difference in the measurement of your drawing in this point. This is the summary of width measurements: First line is "Plano en mm." This is our measurements of your drawing printed by us: Second line is "Thomason". This is your measurements of your original drawing. Third line is "Diferencia". This is the difference between ours and your measurements of the drawing. And now then, four to last line, the kits. Thanks for all! We hope in our next meeting take measures of your side view. Regards., Javier

You are right Tailspin Turtle. Our measurements had an error. First, let me show you our print of your drawing: We have now a ruler with two measurement systems, and this side of the drawing has the 5 inches. Sould be correct. But, let's see the wingspan: We have here 11.7 mm, one more than your measurement. I dont' knows what's going on in the printing process! Let's see the error: our caliper: Caliper shows wrong measurement of line A. I think that we need to make again the measurements. But, after seeing the tail pic of all four kits, i still think that Fujimi has the rear area not so accurate. Thanks Tailspin! Regards., Javier

I It's strange, because we scaled the drawing in photoshop in inches as originally appears in your blog. And we have another drawing that appeared in Aeroguide nº 14 that matches almost exactly with our printing of your drawing. They only omited the bulged intakes on A-4M: At last, the Aeroguide one and our printing matches the fuselage length of long noses Skyhawks. And in the comparative picture, the fuselage shape differences between Fujimi and new Airfix fuselages are notorius... Regards., Javier

Hi, after a crash on my cell phone, Fernando Diaz, my friend of IPMS-Chile was able to take accurate measures on different A-4 Kits. Thanks to Tailspin Turtle, we have an accurate top view to wich we added three lines: A), middle fuselage counting the intakes; B ), rear fuselage before airbrakes; C) middle fuselage without counting the airbrakes. This is the scheme: My friend Fernando put the masures in mm in the drawings, but for more easy view i'm going to put it here: Line A: Drawing: 20 mm Old Airfix A-4A: 20,3 mm New Airfix A-4B: 19 mm Esci A-4E: 21 mm Italeri A-4F: 20 mm (spot on) Fujimi A-4E: 21mm Line B: Drawing: 12,5 mm Old Airfix A-4A: 12,8 mm New Airfix A-4B: 13 mm Esci A-4E: 12 mm Italeri A-4F: 11,8 mm Fujimi A-4E: 14,8 mm Line C Drawing 12,8 mm Old Airfix A-4A: 12,5 mm New Airfix A-4B: 12 mm Esci A-4E: 13,2 mm Italeri A-4F: 13,2 mm Fujimi A-4E: 13 mm I 'll put an interesting rear view of (left to right): Esci, Italeri, Fujimi and New Airfix fuselages. The Fujimi one seems to be "fat" in the tailpipe zone: We are printing the side view of Tailspin Turtle to take measures of fuselage shape and height. Any comments? Regards., Javier

The subject of my modelling is the "Movie" Memphis Belle of Liberty Foundation, B-17G Serial No 44-8354, with one of their particularities being the small lateral nose windows. In all other aspects is very similar to the original one, because was retroffited with F model bits - as said, unstaggered waist guns positions, earlier tail turret, no nose turret. Only the Academy E has the little nose windows, but the nose glazing is very different. Regards., Javier

Sadly, the nose glazing it's very different between E anf F model.The lateral nose windows are correct, but that's all.

Thanks a lot Tailspin! We take measurements of different 1/72 kits with your plain view, but sadly my cell phone with notes and pics brokened today. I'm trying to recover it. Regards, Javier

Mmm not at all... Russian aviation works with metrical system. But photoshop permit us easy conversions! Regards., Javier

Thanks Tailspin Turltle again. Martin, our worries about Fujimi A-4s fuselage width are in the nozzle area. Do you have the real measures of this area? The rear fuselage and the height of the front fuselage seemed wrong. But, we have now the 1/72 scale plain view of Tailhook topics. In our weekly meeting we're going to measure Fujimi, Esci, Italeri and Airfix kits with the drawing. Thanks to all! Regards., Javier

Umm very interesting, 'cause i would like to build the "movie" Memphis Belle B-17, this is a "G" model retrofitted with F bits - unstaggered rear windows, earlier tail turrret, no astrodome in the nose, and little windows in the nose. I think that the only options are Hasegawa and Revell Fs Academy requieres some work in the nose windows... New Airfix is a late "G". What do you guys think? Regards, Javier

Thank you again Tailspin, we're working with your blog's excelent drawing. But, do you have the dimensions that you indicate to scale print the drawing in milimeters? We have some problems with measurement conversions. And -another question - do you have a side view drawing based in the outline that you drew in Airfix A-4 outline? Thanks a lot in advance. Javier

Thanks to all of the posts, it's becoming a very interesting topic... I must reconsider my latest statement and i think that i'll wait for the new airfix kit... Or to live with the inaccurate wing of the revell one... Regards., Javier

Thanks a lot Tailspin Turtle! My last question (sorry for all the previous ones) is: A-4M rear fuselage is identical to the all other versions? With my IPMS-Chile friends we are working with Aeroguide drawings, and according to that, the Airfix fuselage is too narrow, the Italeri one is almost spot on, Esci one is a little bit wide at the intake area, and the Fujimi front and rear fuselaje have far too much height and width.In our opinion, and - we insist in this point - in according to Aeroguide drawings and some pics, the Fujimi fuselage shape and dimensions are seriously flawed. And comparing fuselage length, the Fujimi A-4C fuselage iths almost the same length compared to Italeri A-4M one, with the last one length ok with the drawings... Regards., Javier

Thanks to all for the comments! I think - after seeing a lot of pics - that the new Revell kit is buildable, and if the Hasegawa one has a better shape, in some areas, Revell has strong points, like the interior detail and the shape of windshield and cabin windows. Panel line "trenches" can be smoothed. Also, is more available and cheaper than the japanese one. Oh, and according to Phil Marchese, the Hasegawa fuselage is too short between the cockpit and the ball turret... Definitely, no one is perfect... Regards Javier

Hi all, i've read some comments here and in other forums about some shape issues about the wings and top fuselage area of 1/72 Revell B-17s. Have any of you guys know more about these problems, or have a good set of drawings and kits to compare? Thanks a lot in advance Javier