Radleigh Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 As title...?Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Considering the only competition is Airfix's old rivetfest: Italeri, also reboxed by RoG. HTH, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Yup......Here's a couple of reviews of various iterations of the kit: http://www.hyperscale.com/2008/reviews/kits/italeri1274reviewgp_1.htm http://www.hyperscale.com/2014/reviews/kits/italeri1358reviewbf_1.htm http://www.hyperscale.com/2007/reviews/kits/revell046310reviewgp_1.htm http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/it/kit_it_1249.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfqweofekwpeweiop4 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Not built my Italeri A-26 but it doesn't look too bad on the sprues! thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B. Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Hi, The Italeri/Revell boxings. They are not an easy build though. Cheers Eric B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowen250 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 The italeri kit is my nemesis model! I've tried to make one twice and been defeated each time! May just be me of course though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Thanks everyone Will get the Italeri kit then, I always thought their kits were alright..? Edited July 8, 2015 by Radleigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sroubos Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 This kit has been near the top of my build pile for a while, what's the matter with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I seem to recall the engine fronts are a bit shonky, but mine's still in the stash too, so I'd be interested to know what the problems are.....Hopefully it can't be worse than the glazing of the SH 1/72 Boston, of which I have so many! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I read a long list of shape and detail errors when the Vietnam-era kit was released, but many of them were specific to that variant, so it may be that you need to consider which variant/release you are making. It is still superior to the much older Airfix kit - let alone the 1/67th Monogram. It was said to have been tooled by the MPM people, so if you've got one of their Bostons you are likely to find the two kits similar. I don't recall any problems with the fit of the canopy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowen250 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 For me I just couldn't get it to fit! The entire interior appeared to be too big to fit inside, same for the engine nacelles. But as I said, more accomplished builders may be fine. And for some reason I still recently added another to the pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) I'm not to bothered by the odd rivet etc being out of place... being built as a fire bomber, so it'll need modding in one way or another. Will most likely do what I have done to my Mach2 Savage and smooth it all over. So long as it resembles a Invader, I'm happy. Edited July 8, 2015 by Radleigh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 A bit of a contradiction, mate: "So long as it resembles a Invader, I'm happy." You had asked for the best Invader in 1/72 (which is the Revell), indicating you wanted accuracy etc..... I'm confused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) A bit of a contradiction, mate: "So long as it resembles a Invader, I'm happy." You had asked for the best Invader in 1/72 (which is the Revell), indicating you wanted accuracy etc..... I'm confused! Sorry, I should of said, the best fit kit, best detail and something that is best looking like an Invader... I don't mind if kits are 2mm out, wrong panels etc.. they can be corrected if it's too bad. Edited July 8, 2015 by Radleigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Neu- Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Of the options, Italeri is the best. I've built two... Its not a bad kit, its just a disappointment when you compare it to Hasegawa's excellent line of twin engine bombers. Fit isn't great, and the wings seem a bit thick for a plane that used thin laminar flow wings. You can see my build of the A-26B here:http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=255833Here's some pictures. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjames68 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 laminar flow arent necessarily thin, its the thickest part of the aerofoil thats in a different place, approx 60% chord instead of 25ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Neu- Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 laminar flow arent necessarily thin, its the thickest part of the aerofoil thats in a different place, approx 60% chord instead of 25ish Sure, so let me rephrase that... the profile is off. The leading edge is very blunt and too thick, which doesn't look right on the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I read a long list of shape and detail errors when the Vietnam-era kit was released, but many of them were specific to that variant, so it may be that you need to consider which variant/release you are making. It is still superior to the much older Airfix kit - let alone the 1/67th Monogram. It was said to have been tooled by the MPM people, so if you've got one of their Bostons you are likely to find the two kits similar. I don't recall any problems with the fit of the canopy. Yes, the A-26K Counter Invader came out first (usual marketing ploy of keeping 'em waiting by issuing the minority interest variant first) and, since the kit was, reasonably enough, optimised for the mass-market B-26B/C variants, people quickly lit upon a large number of inaccuracies for the A-26K variant. I don't know who said it had been tooled by MPM (though the Wellington that came out at around the same time defintely was) but I don't think I agree with them. It's a while since I looked at my versions but I recall the generous draw angles and heavy detail (eg major undercarriage struts represented as solid triangles rather than true struts) as pure Italeri. Anyone expecting tooling like that of the MPM A-20/Boston is likely to be disappointed. The MPM A-20/Boston kits are nicely tooled: swines to build (esp getting nose transparency to fit) but nicely tooled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 In terms of work needed, there isn't a lot of difference to the Airfix kit..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I don't know who said it had been tooled by MPM (though the Wellington that came out at around the same time defintely was) but I don't think I agree with them. It's a while since I looked at my versions but I recall the generous draw angles and heavy detail (eg major undercarriage struts represented as solid triangles rather than true struts) as pure Italeri. As far as I can see, the cooperative kits (e.g. Wellington, Hudson) have appeared as both MPM and Italeri, while the Invader hasn't. Italeri evidently has used a variety of different mouldmakers over the past 40 years, with very different styles and quality, so I am hesitant of calling what you describe as "pure Italeri". Take a look at some of their chopper kits from the late 80s onwards, they used to excel in them and they were pieces of finesse, and compare e.g. to the contemporary A-4s and Kfir, with recessed panels and pebbly surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Italeri evidently has used a variety of different mouldmakers over the past 40 years, with very different styles and quality, so I am hesitant of calling what you describe as "pure Italeri". Take a look at some of their chopper kits from the late 80s onwards, they used to excel in them and they were pieces of finesse, and compare e.g. to the contemporary A-4s and Kfir, with recessed panels and pebbly surfaces. See your point. And the CR.42 is a little beauty, to my eyes at least. And early Italeri, like the He 111 have stood the test of time quite well. By "typical Italeri" I meant from the period in the eighties/nineties when they brought a lot of kits in a short time, favouring quantity over quality. The Spitfire IX from that period is so unspeakably vile I haven;t found someone I hate enough to give it to as a gift. Not that the Invader is anything like that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The Spitfire IX from that period is so unspeakably vile I haven;t found someone I hate enough to give it to as a gift. That's a phrase I'll have to burn into my brains I absolutely see your point re that Spit, and I think it applies to the 109s and 110s as well, and likely a number of other kits from the mid 90s. I have most of their 70s and 80s stuff as I love'em, basically because they were so superb value for money that I could afford large® kits like their B-58 and C-119 as a schoolboy. The value for money thing has changed somewhat, though...Not quite sure about the exact release date, but I'd have put the A-26 somewhere around 2006 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I had the Revell B-26B release Xmas 2006. I have to admit to the heresy that the Italaeri 109 and 110s simply aren't as bad as claimed - even the Spitfire has its good points although the narrow cowling is probably damning. No they are not the best kits around of their subjects, but brush up nicely with a little work and maybe a touch of aftermarket - and there are a lot of kits around that require the same but receive much less criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sroubos Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 For a long time the 110 was the only available kit at a decent price point. I've not built mine and I doubt I ever will with two Eduard kits in the stash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve N Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The Italeri/Revell A/B-26 is definitely the best Invader in 1/72..but I still found it a bit of a pig to build. The fit was rather mediocre..a fair amount of filler was needed, especially where the nacelles join the wing. As mentioned above, the interior was a bit too wide for the fuselage. That's easily rectified with a bit of sanding, but the real problem was that the clear parts were also a bit too wide. I ended up inserting some shims along the join line for the fuselage halves, and it solved the problem. Getting a bit more nit-picky, the nosewheel looks oversize to me, and has the wrong style hub for the Korean and Vietnam versions. Decals also weren't that great. I built the Italeri B-26C release, and the insignias were wrong..they should have had just the white star and bar and red stripe, with no blue background. I cribbed some from an Aeromaster sheet. Also, the nose art decal was about 30% too large, and there was only one tail letter (should have been two..one for each side.) The instrument pane decal isn't even close to accurate..I made a new one on my computer, using a photo of the real thing as a guide. The engine faces are OK, especially since they sit far enough back in the cowl to be next to impossible to see..still, there are no cooling fins on the cylinders (a few judicious swipes with a scalpel rectified that.) The landing gear is rather simplified, with large solid plates where there should be strutwork..probably done to make the gear stronger. The propeller hubs are also missing the prominent retaining bolts. I can't really comment as to shape accuracy, as I didn't bother making any measurements or check it against any plans..I'll just go with the tired old mantra "looks like an Invader to me." In short, it's not up to the level of Tamiya or Hasegawa, but it's still a quantum leap beyond the old Airfix kit. Mind you, that one was pretty good in its day, but it has the standard features of the era: lots of raised rivets, movable control surfaces with huge gaps (I think the bomb doors may have been moveable as well) no detail in the wheel wells and some dodgy shapes here and there. One tip: getting the wing dihedral correctly aligned is a pain. There are no spars, and the fit is rather sloppy. I ended up taping the whole thing down to a wooden board to keep everything "true" while the glue dried. Here's my finished Invader..it was built for a kit review, although I ended up making a fair number of "tweaks" to get the result up to my satisfaction. Cheers! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now