Steve N

I believe that is a re-pop of the old 1970s vintage AMT Tempest. ESCI also released the AMT P-36 and B-26 Marauder. All are definitely products of their era. I don't know enough about the Tempest to judge the kit, but the AMT/ESCI Marauder has some major issues. While it has a more detailed interior than the Monogram kit, the Monogram is much more accurate. As I mentioned, I know next to nothing about the Tempest..would it be possible to "cross kit" the fuselage from the Monogram Typhoon? It's still widely available and I'm sure cand be found fairly cheap..although I don't know if it's any more accurate. SN

e-mail inbound! Steve

Cool! I've got all the WWII eggplanes, although I'd like to find another TBF Avenger..I have this wierd idea of converting it to an F4F Wildcat. SN

I see the F style waist gun windows on the clear sprue..good omen there. HOWEVER..I don't expect to see all those parts in the final kit. I saw the test-shot sprues for the Fw-200 at the IPMS USA Nationals back in 2004, and they included the "iron" bombs and correct underside gondola parts for the C-3 commerce raider. I snapped up the kit when it was released, and was most disappointed to discover that the sprues had been "gated off" to exclude the C-3 parts, allowing only the relatively obscure C-8 missile carrier to be built. The kit has been out for five years, and still no C-3 commerce raider..the most widely used Condor variant. What this means is that I suspect that when the B-17 is released, Revell will only include the necessary parts to build the G. Any non-G-specific parts will likely be excluded from the kit, and hopefully we may see an F in five or ten years. That's not to say that I'm not looking forward to this one..I'll probably end up with at least two or three in The Stash. Now I'm glad I never got around to starting that Academy G. SN

I considered going the other direction with Hasegawa's 1/72 G4M2. It's been a few years, but as I recall some of the main issues are: - Completely different nose window layout..the G4M2 had much more glass than the earlier Bettys. You'd probably have to vacu-form clear replacements for the fuselage sides forward of the cockpit. Also, the nose itself has a large, flat panel as opposed to the G4M1's uninterrupted curve. - Upper turret in place of the handheld gun. You'd have to remove the gunner's cupola behind the cockpit, and scratbuild a turret further aft. - Large, flat, square windows for the side guns, in place of the earlier teardrop blisters. - Completely different exhausts (individual stacks in place of the pipes) and four-blade props. - Reshaped tips on all flying surfaces (I seem to recall the later Bettys had a different airfoil section as well.) Those are just some of the highlights..the early and late Betty's were very different animals. SN

I've always thought it was a beautiful kit. Just a couple of little nitpicks.. The biggest gaffe is that the prominent cooling gills for the turbosuperchargers are completely missing from the engine nacelles. The massive Eduard PE set includes them, but it costs almost as much as the original kit. Also, no gunsights are included for the side blisters (a non-issue if you're building the Enola Gay or another "Silverplate" B-29.) There few other little issues to be aware of..there are some panel lines above the cockpit outlining a wedge-shaped area. These should be removed, as they represent where the inflight refeuling receptacle was installed on the later B-29s and B-50 (Academy recycled the same fuselage for both.) Also, mating the nacelles to the wings can be a bit tricky, as there are just some rather indistinct lines scribed on the wings to indicate their location (again, because Academy used the same wings for the B-50 kit, which has completely different nacelles.) Cheers! Steve

That was my biggest disappointment with the kit as well. The canopy is a multi-piece affair, but it was thick and cloudy, and the fit was atrocious. Of course, If I remember correctly the interior was limited to the usual seats and pilots glued to pegs sticking out of the fuselage. SN

I was simply comparing the Airfix kit to the Fujimi. Back in the early 80s (before the Fujimi Val was released) Derek Brown used the Airfix kit as the basis for an incredible model..of course, he scratchbuilt the interior and engine, vacuformed his own canopy, and completely rescribed it. SN

Great work on a golden oldie! I remember a friend had one of those back in the late '70. He left it the bulk of the model in the molded sky blue, and painted the canopy frames gray, and added some gray squiggles on the top surfaces. Surprisingly accurate, considering how little we knew about Luftwaffe markings at the time. I recently won the kit in a raffle..thought about building it just for fun, but discovered several parts missing. Oh well... Right now I'm working on another Revell kit from the late Pliestocene..the Memphis Belle. I'm not sure, but I believe it may have been the first B-17 plastic kit in 1/72 (predating the Airfix G by a few years.) Ironic that now Revell (albeit Revell AG) is bringing out what looks like will be the ultimate 1/72 B-17! SN

Even if you're somewhat inexperienced, I can still recommend the Fujimi Vals and Hasegawa Kate with no hesitation. Both are nice kits, and go together with minimal fuss. The Kate has a very complete interior, especially for 1/72. The only real downfall of either kits are the canopies, which are quite thick, with rather heavy framing. As others have mentioned, don't bother with the Airfix Val..I built one some 30 years ago, and even as a teenager I thought it was a disappointingly crude relic. The Fujimi Vals can be a bit tricky. In order to use much of the same mold for both the early and late versions, Fujimi designed the fuselage in modular sections. The forward fuselage is a separate piece, as is the upper deck containing the cockpit opening. The fuselage parts are also rather thin. Careful parts preparation and assembly are required, but the result is very nice. The Kate is relatively easy to find, having been in more or less continuous production for the past 30 years. Second-hand examples can often be found fairly cheap. The Vals can be a bit more of a challenge. I'm not sure what the availability of Fujimi kits is like on your side of the pond, but here in The States they tend to be thin on the ground, and unfortunately rather expensive when they do turn up. Of course, in these days of internet retailers, kits that were almost impossible to find in hobby shops are now often just a mouse click away. In general, nobody does Japanese subjects better than..well..the Japanese. Hasegawa and Fujimi have covered most of the Japan's major WWII types in 1/72 (with some notable exceptions..I still don't know why Hasegawa didn't do a Ki-21 Sally when they released new-tools of virtually every other Japanese WWII twin back in the 90s..but I digress..) One caution about Hasegawa's Zero series. They first released a line of Zekes back in the late '60s or early 70s. These were somewhat crude and covered with rivets. Hasegawa released a completely new-tool series of Zeroes in the 90s that are very nice. Unfortunately, they also kept the old ones in production as "bargain" kits. I don't know the specific kit numbers, but if you get a Hasegawa Zero, make sure it's the newer tooling. Banzai! Steve

I think the Swoose is closer to ten years away from being finished..I saw her in the shop a year and a half ago, and they've got a long way to go. Even so, she'll probably still be finished before the Fortress I I've been tinkering with for the past several years! SN

Looks pretty nice to me! This kit appears to rectify all the shortcomings of both the Academy and Hasegawa kits, and goes significantly past them in terms of detail. The only minor quibble I have looking at the test shot is the clunky, oversimplified detail on the inside of the bombay doors..certainly not a deal-breaker. Jennings over on ARC has a test shot in hand. Apparently the actual kit will include both the standard and "Cheyenne" tail guns, and also includes the navigator's astrodome. The fact that the build-up shows a flat panel over the nose and separate inserts for the cheek guns is a good indication that Revell is planning an F down the road. I'll be interested to see what the interior looks like..hopefully a full radio room is included. SN

The old Monogram (now Revell) kit is quite nice. The cockpit is a bit spartan by today's standards, and of course it's got raised panel lines, but they're not terribly out of scale (no more than the trenches on Airfix's latest efforts.) It also gives you a nice gun bay (and the cover fits nicely if you want to button it up.) There's a rather large slot behind the canopies so they can be opened and closed, and Monogram did the same thing as Tamiya on there 1/72 Mustangs..molded the glass separate from the canopy rail. I don't have the Hobbycraft kit, but I've heard it's a rather poor quality copy of the Monogram. Here's a Monogram F-82 I build a few years back. Unfortunately, the acrylic clearcoat I used came out with a "milky" finish, and the camera flash exaggerates it even more. Cheers! Steve

Very nice! I especially like the weathering..very realistic. I don't mean to be critical, but did you intentionally leave off the upper wing insignia? SN

Sounds like a good plan to me. One tip..the pushrods on a WWII P&W engine should be black. Restored warbirds sometimes feature bare metal or even chrome-plated ones. Also, if you're adding spart plug wires, they should be a dull brass or copper color (the real ones have a braided metal sheath)..not bright red as I've seen on some models. Greatgonzo's photos pretty much nail the correct colors. SN

I have the kit..well, most of it anyway..some parts have gotten lost over the years due to moves and the fact that it was in one of Frog's later flimsy "hinge top" boxes. Anyway, it's one of Frog's better efforts..the shape looks reasonably accurate, and it features thin raised panel lines. Detail is sparse, and the interior non-existent. That's not much of a problem though, as the clear parts are rather thick anyway. The engines and props are actually quite nice, although you'd need to scribe the cowl flaps to make them look decent. I believe the kit gives you optional open bomb bay doors, but again not much in the way of an interior. It does come with a very nice decal sheet, although since they would be at least 30 years old by now I'm not sure if they'd still be usable. Mind you, I never actually built it, so I can't comment as to the fit. All in all, it should build up into a credible representation of a B-17. If you can find one cheap, go for it! The only other option for an E in 1/72 is the Academy offering (Revell released their 1/72 B-17F with an alternate clear nose as an E, but it's been OOP for decades, and the kit is basically a toy anyway.) Cheers! Steve

Neat pics..thanks for posting! I visited Trenton in '07. The Halifax hangar still had a dirt floor, but the aircraft was magnificent. I didn't realize just how big the Halifax is until I saw her in person! We also spent a day at the Canada Aviation Museum in Ottawa, but didn't go the the War Museum. Looks like I need to schedule another trip to the Great White North (although Trenton is actually about straight east of me!) SN

The Hobby Boss P-40B/C is quite nice, except for a non-existent cockpit and missing landing gear doors. I actually like it better than the Trumpeter kit, as the Hobby Boss surface detail is much more subtle. Now Hobby Boss's later P-40s are another story..all are simplified knock-offs of the Academy kits, with the same dimensional errors. Specifically, much-too-tall canopies and too-bulged prop spinners. The Hobby Boss AT-6 is also a simplified knock-off of the excellent Academy kit, which is more detailed and can be found for about the same price. SN

Great job on one of my favorite obscure WWII subjects. The Vengeance had a really wierd wing planform. The inner section had a swept-back leading edge and straight trailing edge, while the outer section had a straight leading edge, but swept-forward trailing edge. I've always thought it looked really cool..I've got one of the Special Hobby kits..have to get around to building it one of these years. SN

Although they're getting better, the National Musuem of the United States Air Force (NMUSAF) has made some major gaffes in painte and markings accuracy. Some aircraft are painted as different, more well-known variants. For example the B-26G Marauder is painted as a B-26B, and the P-61C (a post-war variant) is painted as a wartime P-61B. The B-17G "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" carries accurate nose art and unit markings, but should be natural metal rather than camouflaged (the restorers decided to paint her, because they had to replace so many skin panels they felt it would look too "patchy" if left unpainted.) The Marauder is also inaccurately painted Interior Green throughout, a color never used on B-26s, which were mostly bare metal inside. Also at some point, well-intentioned restorers went through the B-24, indescriminately blasting everything with Interior Green, covering up not only the correct original colors, but all the placards, wiring, and accessory equipment. As a rule, I never use a museum aircraft as a paint or markings reference, unless it's never been restored and is still in its original finish, like the Smithsonian's B-26 Marauder "Flak Bait." SN

Probably a Stateside training or test aircraft. These often had the serial number painted under the wing to discourage "buzzing" and make the aircraft easier to identify from the ground. The prototype Curtiss XP-55 had the serial painted underneath the right wing was well..I noticed it when the plane arrived at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo for restoration. SN

I think it's most likely a new-tool, based on Revell's description. According to a kit review on Modeling Madness, the old Matchbox kit has mostly raised panel lines, with a few of the infamous Matchbox trenches (and as mentioned above, no bomb bay.) As for the possibility of it being the Academy kit, I highly doubt it, as that kit has been reboxed by Airfix, and I've never seen anything from Academy reboxed by Revell. While the Academy and Hasegawa B-17s are quite nice, both have some nagging "issues" (particularly the Academy.) I'm hoping Revell will give us a "definitive" Flying Fortress in 1/72. SN

But then the flaps would be down as well. Since you didn't drop the flaps, then having the doors up as well is correct. I think the early Allison-engine Mustangs were the only ones that had the capability to lock the center doors in the "up" position. I'm working on the Academy P-51C right now, and I cut the flaps out. I simply couldn't bring myself to depict a parked 'Stang with the flaps up! Stunning work, BTW! Esepcially in 1/72. I like the subtle weathering. I've got some Alclad, but haven't tried it yet..I may use it on my current project. My "default" for natural metal schemes has always been Floquil Bright Silver. SN

Somewhere I've got a pic I took of the wheelwell of the MC-200 at the USAF museum. I'm at work right now, but I'll dig through my old pics when I get home and post a scan. SN

Can you get replacement parts if you lose one, and will Airfix ship them to this side of The Pond? I picked up the new Mk.IX over the weekend, and have already managed to misplace an upper wing. I was staying with a friend, and couldn't resist indulging in a bit of dry-fitting..I'm hoping the part is just lurking in the cushions of his couch. SN