RelativeBrit

Jennings is 100% correct, a little education is needed. Rubber molds for plastic were never used. That is usually for resin. The limited run molds were in a form of resin. Problem is that after so many kits, the mold usually cracked. The early ones also lost the ability to retain detail. While I do not believe Eduard is using beryllium-copper like the Chinese or Japanese, it is just about there. They may be using aluminum or a steel. For the limited run kit a master is made. For the more advanced mold, it is CAD and machining that creates the mold design.

This is actually an old kit. About 12 years old, if the copyright date on my box is correct. Over the years it has been subject to extensive criticism because of the shape of the nose. There have also been a couple of after market correction sets for it. One was from DACO Products of Belgium. Now out of production. There are two schools of thought that have evolved: (1) The nose is bloody bollixed up and piddle poor. New nose required. (2) Not bad and looks like a Spitfire when built. I have the the FR. Mk. XIVe and the Mk. XIVc, but only one DACO set. Guess I'll swing both ways.

Test shot. Bull puppies. What you see is what you'll get. That test shot business is a bunch of crap. Only a major, major error will send it back

Mr. M. Guru, if I may; I believe there is a slight flaw in your argument. How can you positively say it looks like a Hellcat, so we should leave well enough alone? The only way one could do that is by being around one or by looking at pictures of a Hellcat. So, if all you have done is looked at pictures of Hellcats and say it looks like one, then you are the greatest advocate of the flawed concept. If the only arbiter of quality or accuracy is one who says that it looks like a Hellcat, then in 1/48 we would have not progressed beyond the old Monogram kit. To say it looks like a Hellcat begs the question of precisely what does a Hellcat look like. It may look like a Hellcat in the broadest of senses, but to one who tries to look closely at all available evidence, it may not be what one considers to be a Hellcat under the best of circumstance. As to Eduard's making sure it would not make a mistake on the cowling, Eduard is not without error in previous kits it produced. It was criticized for the cowling of the I-16s. After much fussing on Eduard's part, they re-engineered the cowling. The point of all this is you seem to say that it looks like a Hellcat to you, so it is a representation of a Hellcat and we should be quiet about any misgivings we have. The arrogance is not in criticizing the kit, but in saying it should be accepted as is and without comment, because it looks like a Hellcat to you.

I have heard rumors that this kit actually originated with Eduard as a sub-contracted deal. It is good that there are some extras with it, as the interior is about as basic and primitive as it can be. Even though it has inappropriate panel lines down the side, it does build into a decent model. The price does seem to be inline with recent limited run releases, especially as it does have the Eduard photo-etch and expanded decal markings.

Thank you Graham for a large dollop of good common sense. It is also so very condescending and demeaning to assume that the we cannot evaluate and think on our own. It does hurt to run out and spend precious Pounds or Dollars only to find out that one needs a new resin cowl if one wants it "accurate" or make do, as the case may be. From where I sit, many of the pictures posted showed a very valid comparison. As for FAA Hellcats, I'd love to do a Mk. II aboard Empress or Speaker in GSB with the big blast plates and rocket rails. Now where did I put those spare parts from the old Monogram Hurricane?

That is a magnificent build,and who would have imagined that the Tamiya kit could be improved to such an extent. But, I'm a bit confused. Was not the metal on the Swordfish painted a Cirrex (did I get that correct) Grey (Light Grey)? Was there a time when the entire aircraft was in silver/aluminium dope and silver/aluminium lacquer?

Regardless of the subject, the Tamiya Fi 156 is a bloody beautiful model kit. It is also nicely packaged. Perhaps might even appeal to those for whom modeling is only a marginal hobby. Sometimes a kit transcends the subject; this is one. As for the rather have three cheap kits than one expensive kit. That is the mentality of "I'll eat crap, just put a whole lot on my plate". Seen that mentality on cruise ships. I'd rather one Tamiya Swordfish than any number of SMER Swordfish kits, even if they were £1 each. Same with the CA Do 17 and the Hobbycrap kits.

Notes on Zinc Chromate and P-47s. 1. ZC in its normal state, as used during WW-2, was a greenish yellow. A sickly looking colour. Not bright yellow. The Tamiya Yellow-Green is pretty damn close. 2. The "green" shade of ZC was used only when a second coat of primer was requires, on USN aircraft for example. It was made green to allow inspectors to verify that a second coat had been applied. It was made by the addition of Aluminium powder to ZC, but when Aluminium became scarce it was done by adding black pigment, black enamel or lamp-black. Since it was made at the work site, the actual colour could vary. Adding a bit more black gave one Cockpit Green. 3. ZC was not the final coat on the gear legs. Early on the the P-47 C it was aluminium lacquer. When Aluminium was in short supply, they used Olive Drab, then down the road, near the end, back to Aluminium. 4. ZC, tinted green, was not used on the internal surfaces of a P-47. The cockpit was Dull Dark Green and the inside of the cowling was either ZC or near the end, dull aluminium unpainted.

I wonder if we could go back to the old system of waiting for a kit to appear before saying it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, sex, pubs you could still smoke in, the internet, Margaret Thatcher, Airfix, Princess Diana, and so on and so forth. England swings like a pendulum do, and so do observations on new kits.

You got that right Graham. Bloody awful nacelles, cowl and engine. And what is with the intakes? Cannot remember it extending on to the cowl. About that added piping. Russian influence? Not going to be able to do a WW-2 bird. Looks like they did copy a later model C-47. Probably something the Chi-Coms bagged in Viet Nam. Then there are the little pits all over the model. On the C-47 they are just wrong. Should look more like the 1/48 Tamiya Wildcat All things considered the Monogram is still a great kit. You even get, or use to get, paratroopers. But it is from Trumpeter and so we will sing its praises regardless of cost or general appearance.

Seeing that this thread has made the rounds (your site don't rate unless this is discussed), there is not one reasoned answer as to why RoG would even think of doing this. How can they trump Tamiya? Price? Detail? How many Mk. IVs does one need in one's collection? Perhaps they'll put swastikas on it as a marketing ploy. After the crappy, yes it was crappy, Airfix two-stage Merlin effort, why not at least trump Airfix and give us a proper one.

In 1/48, the Tamiya -1A for the first 410 Mk. IVs and the Tamiya -1D for the remaining Mk. IVs 857 Corsair IV serialed KD161-KE117. Goodyear Built. USN BuNos indicate that the first 410 were FG-1s or FG-1As (there is no clear distinction made in the USN records) and the final 447 were FG-1Ds. All but the first 400 aircraft had blown canopies. All the RN FG-1Ds seem to have had the smaller propeller and the final 125 also were fitted to carry 5 inch rockets under the wings but there is no evidence they served operationally. There were a further 120 FG-1Ds slated for transfer to the RN as KE310-KE429 but this order was canceled. FG-1A KD161-255 BuAer 14592-14685 FG-1D KD255-560 BuAer 14686-14991 FG-1 KD561-570 BuAer 76139-76148 FG-1D KD571-867 BuAer 76149-76445 FG-1D KD868-999 BuAer 87949-87998, 88134-88158, 88269-88293, 88404-88428, 92171-92177 FG-1D KE100-117 BuAer 92178-92195 (Source: Air Arsenal North America; Phil Butler & Dane Hagedorn)

It is all true. I read it on the internet. There is even a site devoted to this very subject http://greyfalcon.us/German%20UFOs.htm As to being Nazi, if it was under the auspices of the government, then a Nazi government would produce a Nazi flying saucer. While not all Germans were not Nazis, nearly all were in the service of the Reich.

Ah yes, the yellow leading edge. Pictures are quite few of factory fresh Thunderbolts. Most clearly show the RAF national markings and the sky fuselage band. But I have never been able to determine if the yellow leading edge is there or not. There is a most unusually marked P-47 on page 3 of Geoff Thomas' RAF Thunderbolt publication. It appears to have a yellow leading edge. But then again it was photographed in India with India Command markings, a Sky fuselage band, white cowl ring and appears to be in Olive Drab / Sea Grey/ Light Grey. But a somewhat poor photograph on page 4 seems not to show a yellow leading edge. The aircraft is at Boscombe Down.

Interestingly, RAF Sky became ANA 610. The Dave Klaus/IPMS Color Guide gives FS. (X)4424 as an exact match. My chip shows it as a distinctly Greyish Green.

"worth getting" is a very value laden question. But if you want a 1/48 Fulmar in your collection, then it is "worth getting". It is a bit primitive and the overdone panel lines should not be there, but it does build into a reasonably good representation of the aircraft. Be careful about the clear parts, as they will snap and crack with the slightest pressure. Eduard is re-issuing the kit under its label with extra phot-etch, perhaps. As for the Barracuda, similar in nature to the Fulmar, including "worth getting". But the basic kit (They did produce a Hi-tech version, didn't they?) screams for getting the Griffon Model Accessories detail set. I believe this is now Out Of Production. (www.griffon.cz).

From what appears on HS, it is the old Grand Phoenix kit. It has some problems in the fit of the clear parts, but typical Czech limited run. The Euro price would make it about $75 for us Yanks. http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/mess...enix+Firefly%21 http://www.rollmodels.net/nreviews/airplan...fly/firefly.php

The Corsair I included both the -1 and -1A, which includes the early birdcage. The Corsair II includes the -1A and -1D all made by Vought. You quickly tell the difference by serial number. See my post above. If it is a -1A and is a Corsair II, it would have clipped wings. You can make you Arii kit as a Corsair II. As for markings, there are FAA Corsair decals from Sky and Techmod. Aeromaster had some, but most are out of print. http://www.flightdecs.ca/A_techmod_48.htm

If you were doing a birdcage, it would most likely not be clipped. Same with some early 1A's that were used in State-side training. These would be the Mk, I. If you doing a Corsair II, then it would look like the tips on the color picture that I posted above. Most likely subcontracted parts, but not likely applied elsewhere. The wings were painted as a piece.

Except perhaps for this Corsair II (Color) and the fresh out of the plant Corsair III (Photographed at Brewster's PA plant)

Various, including the work of Bruce Archer, Paul Fortenoy of the defunct FAA SIG, Butler&Hagedorn, and numerous others over time.

The FAA received the following Corsairs: 95 Corsair I serialed JT100-JT194. Vought Built. USN BuNos indicated that the first 45 aircraft were F4U-1s and the final 50 F4U-1As. Photos of some of these later aircraft show them fitted with the birdcage canopy. Many of these aircraft had full-span wings (un-clipped) 510 Corsair II serialed JT195-JT704. Vought Built. USN BuNos indicated that the first 360 aircraft were F4U-1As and the final 150 were F4U-1Ds, all with the framed canopy. All these aircraft used the larger propeller. 430 Corsair III serialed JS469-JS888 and JT963-972. Brewster Built. USN BuNos indicate that the first 335 aircraft were F3A-1s and the final 95 F3A-1Ds, all with the framed canopy. All these aircraft used the larger propeller. It is believed that none saw frontline service. 857 Corsair IV serialed KD161-KE117. Goodyear Built. USN BuNos indicate that the first 410 were FG-1s or FG-1As (there is no clear distinction made in the USN records) and the final 447 were FG-1Ds. All but the first 400 aircraft had blown canopies. All the RN FG-1Ds seem to have had the smaller propeller and the final 125 also were fitted to carry 5 inch rockets under the wings but there is no evidence they served operationally. There were a further 120 FG-1Ds slated for transfer to the RN as KE310-KE429 but this order was canceled. FG-1A KD161-255 BuAer 14592-14685 FG-1D KD255-560 BuAer 14686-14991 FG-1 KD561-570 BuAer 76139-76148 FG-1D KD571-867 BuAer 76149-76445 FG-1D KD868-999 BuAer 87949-87998, 88134-88158, 88269-88293, 88404-88428, 92171-92177 FG-1D KE100-117 BuAer 92178-92195 (Source: Air Arsenal North America; Phil Butler & Dane Hagedorn) No Corsair I's were deployed to the Pacific, and none were in front line service in the Atlantic either, as far as the records go. They were primarily used in the training role in Maine and Rhode Island. Corsair II's served in the Atlantic and Pacific, but all Corsair IV's seem to have served in the Pacific exclusively. Corsair III did not serve in front-line duty as they were unreliable. Corsair I JT100-JT194, Vought built Corsair II JT195-JT704, Vought built Corsair III JS469-JS888 and JT963-972 Brewster built Corsair IV KD161-KE117 Goodyear built Colors: Corsair I and II factory painted Olive Drab ANA613, ANA 603 Sea Gray and the underside was 602 Light Gray. Corsair III, either in USN Tricolor scheme (Non-spec Sea Blue, Intermediate Blue and White) or the same scheme as the Corsair I and II Corsair IV GSB Of course some Corsair I, II, and III were repainted in FAA colors in service overhauls by the FAA.

Nope. All P-47 Thunderbolts that entered combat were built by Republic. They used ZC (un-tinted, which means the yellowish color) through out. Green meant that two coats were applied. The ZC was tinted to allow for inspection to assure a second coat had been applied.

Oh for crap's sake, how can anything requiring that much work be an improvement on the old and ill fitting CA kit. Looks like it has the same shitty fit where the lower, rear center of the wing insert meets the rear fuselage. Vac canopy takes it right into mid-century modeling. Make that Mid 20th Century modeling. Retro-modeling LIVES! Next thing you know they'll come out with a balsa and tissue paper MS 406 and call it state of the art. Another aircraft that deserves better. Thank goodness Tamiya San had a thing for the D. 520.