Jump to content

B-26B-50 Invader (48281) 1:48


Recommended Posts

So if the armour's fitted, it should be flush at the upper edge of the fairing? Effectively you have a set of raised scabbed-on armor panels highlighted by the blue areas on the diagram above, protecting the cockpit and other key areas, that are 0.2mm/8 thou thick in 1/48 with a fairing blending them back to the regular skin surface?

best,

M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the fairings are flush at the armor. That's what I have been trying to say. Look at the photos I posted. The fairing is supposed to be angled. Not how they did it. They also left off the added armor all together. I don't think they had an actual example to study.
Again look at the Monogram kit. It is correct.

 

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 11/8/2019 at 11:10 PM, sinistervampire319 said:

Yes the fairings are flush at the armor. That's what I have been trying to say. Look at the photos I posted. The fairing is supposed to be angled. Not how they did it. They also left off the added armor all together. I don't think they had an actual example to study.
Again look at the Monogram kit. It is correct.

 

 

Alan

Hello Alan,

 

i took a look at the monogram kit and you are right about those details..

I have both kits and when you compare them the fuselage of the Monogram is a little more on the fat side compared to the ICM one but i still have to measure both to see wich is correct!

the engine nacelles on the other hand are a little more fatter on the ICM than on the Monogram....the shape of the nose on the ICM is at least correct in shape but is shorter than the Monogram.

As i said i have to look into it which i am going to do ...though i surely think that both kits wil look fine when build!

 

 

 

cheers, Jan

 

 

did some further research on the nacelles and those from ICM look more correct in shape as those from monogram as these are a little to shallow at the rear...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/30/2019 at 12:55 PM, janneman36 said:

Hello Alan,

 

i took a look at the monogram kit and you are right about those details..

I have both kits and when you compare them the fuselage of the Monogram is a little more on the fat side compared to the ICM one but i still have to measure both to see wich is correct!

the engine nacelles on the other hand are a little more fatter on the ICM than on the Monogram....the shape of the nose on the ICM is at least correct in shape but is shorter than the Monogram.

As i said i have to look into it which i am going to do ...though i surely think that both kits wil look fine when build!

 

 

 

cheers, Jan

 

 

did some further research on the nacelles and those from ICM look more correct in shape as those from monogram as these are a little to shallow at the rear...

Yes it is (fat) among other things. Quickboost makes corrected nacelles for the Monogram kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it looks like the MG kits props are better than ICM's. ICM's are too pointy.
Mind you. I am not bashing ICM's. Their faults are minor. 
Also I should have mentioned earlier that there is/ has been 3 A-26's at my local airport.
One belongs to the air museum, that I have taken part with helping in it's restoration off and on since 1992. The other 2 are owned by local owners or at least were. One went away years ago and the 3rd was a very recent restoration and was in last January's Air Classics magazine. I just found out it too was sold recently.
I went out there recently and got photos of the museum's Invader. A lot of the armor is missing. But I heard they have sourced some from somewhere for it.

Alan 

 

City of Santa Rosa was a Korean war A-26. This one is just painted up as it.
mwJkJ7f.jpg

 

You can see the step of the remaining armor from the windscreen forward.
mxa8QPu.jpg


In this shot, you can see the difference in the nose to fuselage step because of the missing armor.

2FkEY0m.jpg

 

Right front forward. Armor missing closest to camera. See the remaining armor.
7G0iVLn.jpg

 

This is how it should be on the ICM kit. The right side armor steps up to the lower front of the wing fairing. Not all the way to the rear of the wing like on the port side.
5TbBsAI.jpg

 

Lower right front. Beveled edge no wood strip where armor ends.
RdDeUqa.jpg

 

mnU2jnJ.jpg

 

Right front. The cutout is where the round cover would be. 

0b5k9yU.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@sinistervampire319 they both have their faults  though i think at the moment that the ICM is more correct..

I do find it a pitty that they had made these mistakes with the armor on the sides, this is the biggest issue to overcome as this is for a pretty prominent feature!

Great pics Alan thanks.

 

Cheers, Jan

  • Like 1
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...