feddawg

My opinions on some of the things mentioned. To compare the AZ Mk IX to the Hasegawa kit is a disservice. The AZ kit is less than a MM shorter than the Sword Mk IX and nowhere near as anorexic as the Hasegawa kit. The plastic is the same in the Sword Mk IXe and highback Mk XVI kits, so yes it could be built either way. Comparing the Hasegawa and Sword Ki-84's side by side they are practically identical. The Sword kit is not "chunkier" but is scribed. Quality kit, buy it with confidence. Don't know if anyone mention the FM Me-109's or Hasegawa Fw-190's, both are very nice If a little light on cockpit detail.

I agree with Graham, I just don't see the questions come up about those colors on the forums that often. A set for AVG Hawk H81 A-2's seems like it would do well as the question comes up frequently. And to "go there" a reformation of the VVS range would I think be well received in light of revelations about the source material for your current formulas.

Think it refers to the tooling used, Short run, new short run, and high quality tooling.

I currently have the AZ Mk VIII and Sword Mk.IXe on the bench. I would say most if not all of the parts are interchangeable. Last night last night I had the wings from the opposing kits mounted on the other and they fit with no problems. I also taped fuselage halves from the 2 kits together and the are identical in length and major panel ine locaiton. The AZ plastic is a little thinner and the finish on the plastic is a little rougher.

All boxings of the Hasegawa kit had both HS and Aeroproducts props in them so if you have a Hasegawa kit in your stash simply use the spare prop from it. The Quickboost prop looks a little odd in their photo like they could have confuse the cuffless HS and Aeroproducts as it seems to have features of both. I'd like to see one in person though as it's hard to pass judgement on one photo.

I know Bert, wwIi nut, and myself are building A-20's for a mini groupbuild on the 72nd Scale Aircraft site. Bert is suppose to be building the A-20B so you might ask him. I have dry fitted the A-20G and haven't had any issues, but it is a different kit.

Thank you for checking on that Jan, I understand that markings guides are often made from different drawings than the kit. I just thought it was worth bringing to your attention.

One comment as it applies to the Aircobra, if the kit shares the drawings used to illustrate the schemes the shape of the wing tips are incorrect. Its hard to tell the shape of the elevators, they look better but still not the correct shape. 72nd scale has been poorly served for the last 30 years with clone and copies of the Heller kit, your color scheme drawings contain some of those same errors.

Don't have the kit but according to this review it does contain both types of nose glazing: http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?op=...ent&id=5221

Nothing beats measuring the real thing. I can remember 15 years ago getting a press pass and attending the setup day for an airshow at which with a 12' ladder, plumb bobs, a tape measure, and the aircrews blessing I took accurate measurements from a B-52H engine nacelle. Do what you want with photos and line drawings the real thing trumps them all!

For the last 2 1/2 months I have been following this and various other threads on this kit. The main thing that can be said for all of this is that nothing can replace taking actual measurements when such a complicated shape is involved. The first conclusions seemed to be that the Matchbox kit was a better representation of the nacelles with the radiator opennings needing replacing, it seems after further research (thanks John) the truth lies somewhere in between the Revell and Matchbox kits and nothing short of replacing the cowls, spinners,and props and modifying the nacelles will produce something accurate. Thanks John for your dilligence in getting to something that will produce an accurate replica.

In 1979 and 1980 I built box art, catalogue art, and trade show models for US Airfix. More often than not if it was a new kit the photos on the box were some other manufacturers kit hopefully disguised in some way so it's true identity could not be determined. If the actual kit could be built it was usually an early test shot that lacked the refinements that a mold goes through before it goes into production. It was a thankless job, didn't pay much and the deadlines were usually ridiculuos and near to a major hobby show the workload made my home look like a production line. It also accounts for why many times the markings on a box photo will differ slightly from the kit decals as the modeler has to source his own to represent what will be provided with the kit.

They actally are still in business although I don't know if it is still the original owner. There is a web site and most all of the range is available. I built the Kikka well over 15 years ago and it is a very good kit but I seem to remember needing to add landing gear. Vacform kits seem to have become a thing of the past with the improvement of sort run and resin kits.

The kit was announced last year I believe at tha Nuremberg show. There was a photo of the box art also, I think it was listed as a P-400 but can't be sure. Given the nature of AZ it would probably be better to mount a letter writng campaign to Eduard to scale downtheir excallent 48th kit before they lose intereste in 72nd scale again.

This shows some of the problems with the Academy kit: http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/...p?showtopic=318