Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Jon Kunac-Tabinor

Airfix P-40B Tomahawk 1/48th - It's Arrived!!!!!

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Raven Morpheus said:

Me give it a rest?  I'm not the one deriding and mocking people for having an opinion.

 

I made 1 single comment, and then a reply expanding on my point, initially, trying to make a perfectly reasonable point, and all of a sudden, you and your buddies here have jumped on my opinion and attacked it.

 

Was there any need to mock my point - considering you've all had your scale drawings out to find fault with the kit also?  And don't tell me that's not what you've all been doing.


Why is my concern over a lack of a few separate key detail parts less valid than your concern over the shape of x y and z parts?

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I can see it now, it explicitly says I think it's worse.  After all I've used those exact words haven't I...

 

If I wanted to say it's worse I would have.  I haven't.

 

Please do keep arguing with me to the contrary though.

You really are having a bad day son.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not all.  I made my point 5 hours ago and I'm perfectly happy.  I could have left it at that.  It seems to me though that perhaps I hit on a raw nerve, because I dared to criticise the kit for not having certain parts it should have had.  Certainly caused gingerbob, Plasto and yourself to go on and on criticising, deriding and mocking my point each time I have tried to make it clearer to you.  Didn't it?  And I will stand up for myself in such circumstances.

 

At the end of the day we both want the most accurate kit we can get, do we not?  That's why you've all been checking it against drawings.  That's why I was expecting positionable flaps/ailerons to be included.

Edited by Raven Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

facile, and ultimately unedifying, twaddle.

 

Ah, bless you- I think I've found the name for my new modelling website, the place all the people who have given up on Hyperscale and Britmodeller can hang out, until I ban them for being annoying.

 

Quote

 

 

Ha, finally, Jon is rendered speechless!  (No, just a hiccup on the road to understanding the new improved bells and whistles.)

 

For the record, I do consider myself one of Jonners' buddies, though I've never met him in person.  Or maybe I'm a Fanboy, because I do enjoy watching him work.  I'm also an Airfix fanboy, of sorts, though some of the more jingoistic around here wouldn't recognize it.

 

I do rather like the idea of a Tomahawk taking off- I'd have to motorize it so the prop spun.  And I doubt they used flap on takeoff.  BTW, Jon, the later P-38s (not sure when it started) had a combat flap setting.

 

I think it's about time for the penguin on top of my television set to explode...

 

OK this is ridiculous- I thought I'd posted, but it said "submit reply", so I did it again- and it doubled everything.  And now I can't delete the quote boxes.  Good thing I'm not trying to build a model or something!

42 minutes ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

.

 

Quote

 

 

Edited by gingerbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely wanted the aileron's to be separate ...but it not that hard to remove..I just do scribe and break

 

The  P40 aileron's  are slotted and have a quite distinctive gap on the underside  you can see  through

 

Fyi on the kit left aileron there's an inset trim tab and right and external ground set tab That mostly applies just to US P40bc.

 

RAF Tomahawk did not have..then had external ground set tabs on both  aileron's....

 

AVG Tomahawks seem to be a mix of some with two external tab and some with the right external ground set and right inset

Tomahawk%20Belly%202_zpsawof8lec.jpg

Edited by HBBates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raven Morpheus said:

No not all.  I made my point 5 hours ago and I'm perfectly happy.  I could have left it at that.  It seems to me though that perhaps I hit on a raw nerve, because I dared to criticise the kit for not having certain parts it should have had.  Certainly caused gingerbob, Plasto and yourself to go on and on criticising, deriding and mocking my point.  Didn't it?  And I will stand up for myself in such circumstances.

 

At the end of the day we both want the most accurate kit we can get, do we not?  That's why you've all been checking it against drawings.  That why I was expecting positionable flaps/ailerons to be included.

No what you did was make a reasonable point,  received reasonable answers, and because we didnt fall into step with your argument - you decided to call us all fanboys, and basically accused us of mocking you. I believe, as they say, it was you who raised the ante with the "I see the fanboys are out" type comment. No one was being a "fanboy", in fact points were being made critically and examined and accepted

I'm not mocking you, I just think you are slap bang wrong in your assertion that because this kit lacks separate ailerons and flaps its not as good as the Trumpeter kit.  But, as with a lot of keyboard warriors, once you started, and the swing of things didn't go your way - you had to result to derogatory comments about fanboys. So, yes, now I AM  mocking you. Sue me.

 

"No not all.  I made my point 5 hours ago and I'm perfectly happy.  I could have left it at that"  You should - it was a fine comment.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever.  To be fair you initially did make a reasonable point.

 

Can't say that for the others, 3 posts talking about yoghurt, starfix and silly companies, before I made the fanboy comment.

 

And again - I haven't said explicitly that it's not as good a kit as the Trumpeter kit.  That's wasn't what I said initially and that's not what I've been trying to say.

 

But like the fact that I've repeatedly stated I don't build ground parked aircraft, and you've all carried on talking about ground parked aircraft, you've all continued to read what you wanted to into my comments about the fact that Trumpeter gave us flaps/ailerons that were separate whilst Airfix have not.  I am simply highlighting the point that a company 12 years ago managed to do it, whilst Airfix haven't, when actually they probably could have.

 

And I'm sorry but you have personally attacked me.  I made a generalisation directed at no one person in particular.

 

Like I said, I want the most accurate/detailed/feature packed (again insert your own term) kit I can get, like I'm sure we all do, and for me that means having options like positionable flaps/ailerons.  I don't believe Airfix have quite given us that kit.

 

End of, unless you or anyone else want to carry on arguing about my opinion.

Edited by Raven Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really people are upset because the aileron are not separate??!!

 

That's almost like a man dying of thirst bitching cuz he didn't get ice in his drink... hey I wanted it too but hardly a deal-breaker it a 5 minute job to seperate.. in fact its separate from the top wings so it's only the bottom 

 

The Hasegawa P-40 does not separate ailerons either and it got rib detail error in it ailerons to boot... hell most the modern Japanese kits still don't have all separate controls

 

Trumpeters separate surface is because it scaled down from their 1/32 kit

I'll take a correct wing shape over separate control  surfaces any day

 

Trumpeters wing and aileron shape is a mess along with the all the other control services elevators, stabilizers, and rudder being a shape mess 

Edited by HBBates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to go away and cool off - there's some harping on about things going on, and it's now getting personal.  Any more of this will end badly. :fraidnot:

 

Raven Morpheus.  Chill.  Flaps can be added using the (probable) Eduard set or modelling skills,  and telling us once of your concerns is enough.  Jonners.  Don't rise to the bait.

 

I'm closing this til the morning to give everyone time to relax and contemplate their navels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to it, and please keep it civil and on topic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Boss.

 

Ok lets recap so far with what we have found:

 

The firewall panel line and gun cover panel line run straight - the gun cover should be slightly ahead of it.

The trim tab on the rudder is only scribed on 1 side

There are hinges on both sides of the rudder - when in fact it should only be on the port(?) side ( and I dont mean a town in Egypt - especially if its meant to be on the starboard....)

There are ejector pin marks in some  annoying places - like the bottom of the wheel well inserts

It looks like some people's kits have a moulding stress mark in one of the clear quarter lights

The trim tabs on the ailerons will need to be checked as there are variations between British Tomahawks and US P-40 versions

The fit of the forward under nose part to the radiator intake is a bit tricky ( from my experience), as it the fit of the "kneecaps" at the front of the undercarriage fairings ( again from my experience)

The Nuns Hat may be OK,  so you can raise your hats with a Huzzar!, or if it turns out to be wrong remove your hats out of condolences.... though again from my experience you need to watch the fit of the rear radiator part to make sure it aligns with the underside properly - if you aren't careful you end up with a "step"

 

DuPont Sky Grey is a tricky johnny to mix. Its defo not a grey per se either.

 

 

Jonners

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have posted this earlier but for obvious reasons couldn't. ..

Maybe we should all be aware that,  as with so many things in life, what makes a kit "good" or even "great" (or fatal ) is a matter of personal taste. The objectively perfect kit probably doesn't exist, and likEly never will,  even if not a single corner has been cut. Someone somewhere will have an issue with something,  and that's OK, I guess .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

 

DuPont Sky Grey is a tricky johnny to mix. Its defo not a grey per se either.

 

Hallelujah . . . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I have a question too.

 

RAF Tomahawks - gunsights. Were these fitted? or was the ring & bead all they had. And, If they were, how did they attach inside? Later P-40 variants have what I can only describe as a whacking big mount sticking out from the top of the instrument panel back into the 'pit

 

I know something was puzzling me

 

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

 

Wasn't it mounted in an curved crossbeam like the Hawk 75?

 

Fernando

 

(PD: May I be a member of your fan club -if such a thing exists?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

Cheers Boss.

 

Ok lets recap so far with what we have found:

 

The firewall panel line and gun cover panel line run straight - the gun cover should be slightly ahead of it.

The trim tab on the rudder is only scribed on 1 side

There are hinges on both sides of the rudder - when in fact it should only be on the port(?) side ( and I dont mean a town in Egypt - especially if its meant to be on the starboard....)

There are ejector pin marks in some  annoying places - like the bottom of the wheel well inserts

It looks like some people's kits have a moulding stress mark in one of the clear quarter lights

The trim tabs on the ailerons will need to be checked as there are variations between British Tomahawks and US P-40 versions

The fit of the forward under nose part to the radiator intake is a bit tricky ( from my experience), as it the fit of the "kneecaps" at the front of the undercarriage fairings ( again from my experience)

The Nuns Hat may be OK,  so you can raise your hats with a Huzzar!, or if it turns out to be wrong remove your hats out of condolences.... though again from my experience you need to watch the fit of the rear radiator part to make sure it aligns with the underside properly - if you aren't careful you end up with a "step"

 

DuPont Sky Grey is a tricky johnny to mix. Its defo not a grey per se either.

 

 

Jonners

 

 

 

 

Don't forget the missing armour behind the seat and the extra panel lines on the fuselage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tbolt said:

 

Don't forget the missing armour behind the seat and the extra panel lines on the fuselage.

 

The former I get, the latter?  More info and pictures required please?

 

Just got my kit today, it WILL become the Spitfire Bridge "Spitfire", nice kit, I like what I see and can work with it, it's miles ahead of the Monogram and Hobbycraft kits (never bothered with the Trumpy one nor the Bronco effort either).

 

As for those pesky ailerons, some judicious sawing should see that right should I feel so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wez said:

 

The former I get, the latter?  More info and pictures required please?

 

Just got my kit today, it WILL become the Spitfire Bridge "Spitfire", nice kit, I like what I see and can work with it, it's miles ahead of the Monogram and Hobbycraft kits (never bothered with the Trumpy one nor the Bronco effort either).

 

As for those pesky ailerons, some judicious sawing should see that right should I feel so inclined.

 

Hume posted a picture of the extra panel lines in the Rumourmonger, I hope he won't mind me posting it here. The red highlighted lines are lines of rivet's on the real thing, but some how Airfix interpreted them as panel joins.

 

P40%20side_zpsv9gwgrse.jpg

Edited by Tbolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tbolt said:

 

Hume posted a picture of the extra panel lines in the Rumourmonger, I'm sure he won't mind me posting it here. The red highlighted lines are lines of rivet's on the real thing, but some how Airfix interpreted them as panel joins.

 

 

 

Aaah yes!  I remember now, thanks for the reminder!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one I haven't worked out is the panel line which has part of it extra wide lthat sits above the wing fairing - from picture I've seen of the real thing this is just a lap join with two rows of rivets, so not sure what Airfix were doing there. I'll probably fill and rescribe this to match the rest of the line.

 

P40erik.JPG

 

Edited by Tbolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmmmm..........well this has been an interesting read :P

 

I do feel that some of the errors by Airfix are hard to understand, given the availability of full-scale examples and drawings but "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".   Still, a great kit and a huge leap forward (faults not withstanding).  Not a huge P-40 fan but this should build into a nice replica, regardless of how far people are going to take it.  Can't wait to see the builds coming in the next few months!  Kudos to Airfix!!!

Edited by Jerry V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fernando said:

(PD: May I be a member of your fan club -if such a thing exists?)

 

You can send your dues to me, the newly self-appointed leader of the Demi-Official Jon K-T fan club.

 

Didn't some versions have a projecting gunsight, where the little gubbins sat low and beamed onto the flat-plate glass?  Or something like that?

 

Some of these odd little (?) errors ARE surprising on this kit- perhaps they were so worried about getting the bottom "right" (accepted) that they forgot about some other areas.  Still, looking forward to getting one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do i get a say in my own Demi/semi/quasi official fan club then?  I have some cool ideas for a uniform :)

 

gunsight idea is interesting. It's amazing I'd never thought about it till this afternoon. 

 

Jonners®   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me thinking about gunsights so I had a look at some of the stuff I have squirrelled away which includes an interesting essay in pdf format by one H Bates...

 

...anyway there are a couple of pictures, one looking directly at a windscreen with a rear view mirror in the top RH  corner, in front of the screen is a ring of a ring and bead sight however, through the screen can be seen the circular collimator glass of a reflector gunsight similar to a Mk.II.  The reflector gunsight is on the centre-line whilst the ring is offset to starboard (in the gap between the reflector sight and the windscreen RH pillar).

 

There's also another photo which shows what looks like external armoured glass and a reflector sight seen from the side, again, it looks like a Mk.II.

 

The two photos could be the same aircraft with the ring cropped from the photo in the 2nd one.

 

So at some point they had ring and bead sights and ring and bead plus reflector sights, logic says the ring and bead was dispensed with at some point and the reflector sight became standard.

 

Hopefully HB will be along with some details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tbolt said:

The one I haven't worked out is the panel line which has part of it extra wide lthat sits above the wing fairing - from picture I've seen of the real thing this is just a lap join with two rows of rivets, so not sure what Airfix were doing there. I'll probably fill and rescribe this to match the rest of the line.

 

P40erik.JPG

 

Tbolt what are you looking for? this seam between the upper and lower fuselage  its common to H75,81 &87 (P36 & early late P40)?

 

6b152ab6413c3e6d_large

58184c7c944112ee_large

141dfeae7fa5797b_large

4e4a22972338d88c_large

Edited by HBBates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb info and work on this thread.

 

It's just occurred to me that what I thought was the first of the P-40 variants in RAF is this kitted Tomahawk II, what was the Tomahawk I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...