Jump to content

A good mitchell


Dansk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really want to build a mitchell.

1/72 I feel is too small, eliminating hasegawa and airfix.

 

so I’m looking at the 1/48 academy/acc miniatures/revell kit

(or the 1/32 variant which i fear may be too big and expensive.)

 

However will pattisons build videos on youtube have put me off - the seriously misaligning fuselage and crooked glazing and to a lesser degree the ill fitting nacelles.
 

 


 

 

I’m not in the same league as will and if he finds it tough it’ll be a nightmare for me.

 

the currently available kit i’m looking at is the revell boxing - D variant.

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-04977-b-25d-mitchell--1276022

 

is it still this bad or did will get an early bad version? Has anyone else built the 1/48 mitchell and is it enjoyable/possible/easy?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dansk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a perfect kit (what is?), but I've certainly not heard consistent complaints about it being difficult to build.  I'm afraid that I haven't attempted it myself... yet.

 

The old Monogram/Revell 1/48 kit (not the OLDE Revell) is also good, but is of the classic Monogram era, not what we expect from a "modern" kit these days.  It is also the later J (or H if you find one), so you might ask yourself which Mitchell you actually want, if you haven't already done so.

 

bob

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, gingerbob said:

It isn't a perfect kit (what is?), but I've certainly not heard consistent complaints about it being difficult to build.  I'm afraid that I haven't attempted it myself... yet.

 

The old Monogram/Revell 1/48 kit (not the OLDE Revell) is also good, but is of the classic Monogram era, not what we expect from a "modern" kit these days.  It is also the later J (or H if you find one), so you might ask yourself which Mitchell you actually want, if you haven't already done so.

 

bob

Thanks for chiming in Bob.

I want to build one with a long nose and uncovered glazing at the front (so that’s pretty much everything except a G and H as I understand it.)

I can’t face building a classic kit, I need as ‘shake and bake’ish and new as possible.
And Pretty much rescribing an entire airframe as the panel lines don ‘t line up on fuselage halves is what I’m looking to avoid, but seems to be what Will had happen. (But still unsure if it’s an early bad example of the tooling)
 

 

Edited by Dansk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dansk said:

 

However will pattisons build videos on youtube have put me of

I have heard complaints about the AM kit about the odd accuracy problem, but not about assembly/fit issues.  Builder may have had a poor kit, or just didn't pay attention, and then blames the kit (I've not watched the videos)

I'd have a further search of builds, and see what comes up.

2 hours ago, Dansk said:

I can’t face building a classic kit, I need as ‘shake and bake’ish and new as possible.

then that's the 1/32nd kit.

 

 From what I understand the old Monogram is decent, and may older kits just need a bit of care attention,  but, as do many new kits, which have CAD type very fine tolerances. 

 

The old Monogram/Revell rebox is also likely to be available reasonably cheaply in Europe,  so maybe worth picking one up, and doing some dryfitting of it to see how fits.

Again, search up some builds,  I have a part done one I got really cheap and it seems to fit OK when I dry fitted parts. 

2 minutes ago, noelh said:

What about the Accurate Miniatures B25? I  seem to remember it was well received. Assuming of course you can find one.

this is what the OP is asking about, Academy ended up with the moulds,  and they supplied bagged kits to Italeri, and  it has been recently been reboxed by Revell. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Troy Smith said:

This is what the OP is asking about, Academy ended up with the moulds,  and they supplied bagged kits to Italeri, and  it has been recently been reboxed by Revell. 

 

 

Ah! that explains it. Missed that bit. It's certainly a very well travelled kit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've built two of the AM kits, one in the Italeri box and the second from Academy.

Both were quite easy to build, the only ill fitting parts were the engine nacelles to the wing and that was a simple fix.

The cowling openings are undersize so you can either open them up or use aftermarket (Avoid quickboost, they are undersize in diameter)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Steve - the Accurate Miniatures items are easy to build.  They also have marvellous fine surface detail that is as good as anything coming out today from e.g., Eduard/Tamiya). The engine cowling openings can be fixed in five minutes with a sanding stick. Minor fit problems with the main canopy clear parts and engine cowlings - some careful adjustment before applying cement is all that's needed on that.

 

ilj

 

B-25D_slug_09.jpg

 

B-25D_slug_01.jpg

 

B-25D_slug_07.jpg

 

http://aleutianplanes.com/B-25C_slug.html

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok thanks guys 

I ‘think’ you have put my worries to some rest but am not sure actually…

If you check our Will’s builds this particularly gave me nightmares…

Go to 13 mins 20 secs onwards… (fore/aft/port/starboard/upper/lower all are misaligned!)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NAVY870 said:

I've built two of the AM kits, one in the Italeri box and the second from Academy.

Both were quite easy to build, the only ill fitting parts were the engine nacelles to the wing and that was a simple fix.

The cowling openings are undersize so you can either open them up or use aftermarket (Avoid quickboost, they are undersize in diameter)

 

2 hours ago, ilj said:

I agree with Steve - the Accurate Miniatures items are easy to build.  They also have marvellous fine surface detail that is as good as anything coming out today from e.g., Eduard/Tamiya). The engine cowling openings can be fixed in five minutes with a sanding stick. Minor fit problems with the main canopy clear parts and engine cowlings - some careful adjustment before applying cement is all that's needed on that.

 

ilj

 

B-25D_slug_09.jpg

 

B-25D_slug_01.jpg

 

B-25D_slug_07.jpg

 

http://aleutianplanes.com/B-25C_slug.html

 

 

 

 

Thanks you guys this sounds good. No warped canopy glazing or misaligning panel lines right?

cowlings sounds easily manageable. Thanks.

any aftermarket recommendations?

did you see wills video at 13.20 onwards? - Wtf

 

Edited by Dansk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 10:06 AM, Dansk said:

 

Thanks you guys this sounds good. No warped canopy glazing or misaligning panel lines right?

cowlings sounds easily manageable. Thanks.

any aftermarket recommendations?

did you see wills video at 13.20 onwards? - Wtf

 

Had a look at my pair, panel lines on both are fine. The canopy was a drop fit.

I have another in the stash to do as a USN anti sub bird, I'll have a look see how it lines up.

There has been an evil thought of mine of combining the wings n bits from one of these with a Monogram J to make a decent RAAF bird.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 8:27 AM, Dansk said:

Oh p.s. @ilj @NAVY 840 guys

did you use aftermarket metal gear legs to support the noseweight?

Why does this misconception keep popping up? If the kit is tail-heavy, it requires weight ahead of the center of gravity to bring the nose down. However, the bulk of the model's weight is not carried by the nose gear (which presumably ends up with just enough weight to sit), but rather on the main gear.

 

To boot, most of the aftermarket metal gear legs with which I'm familiar are soft metal, which won't give much more strength than the original kit parts.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different kit and scale but I bought a white metal gear and cockpit floor set for Airfix’s 1/72 B-25 thinking that would provide weight towards the nose and discovered  a)it really didn’t add enough weight over what the plastic parts would contribute to make a difference, and, b) the parts were rather poor copies of the plastic parts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Seawinder said:

Why does this misconception keep popping up? If the kit is tail-heavy, it requires weight ahead of the center of gravity to bring the nose down. However, the bulk of the model's weight is not carried by the nose gear (which presumably ends up with just enough weight to sit), but rather on the main gear.

 

To boot, most of the aftermarket metal gear legs with which I'm familiar are soft metal, which won't give much more strength than the original kit parts.

Thank God! At last someone agrees with me. A small point in the Great Scheme of Things, but drives me mad anyway. Also agree about the utility of metal legs. Brass is usually good, although being tougher is harder to clean up. White metal or pewter, less so, and below a certain thickness (as in WW1 models) worse than plastic. IMHO.

 

Anyway, back to being tempted to build a 1/48th Mitchell.....................

 

 

Paul.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support, Paul.

 

I built a Monogram B-25J back in the late 1980s. Its kit landing gear parts are still supporting the model quite well, but the main landing gear, which was inclined to splay outward somewhat (engineering issue, I think), has splayed out more over the years. If/when I build the Monogram H in my stash, I will probably try to do something to get the main gear more vertical and therefore, hopefully, more stable.

Edited by Seawinder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different modellers seem to have different experiences.  The very fragile and spindly styrene nose gear on my Monogram B-25J broke off before the model was even finished, so I extracted it.  I replaced it with the white metal part.  Subsequently, I used the cast white metal nose gear parts on my two AM B-25s, D&G and I am glad I did.  These are working very well with no sagging or snapping off.  The styrene main gear legs seem to work just fine for me so they were not replaced with metal.  P-38s (Hasegawa and Tamiya) are another example of models I think benefit from metal nose gear.

 

ilj

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not that the nose weight is causing excessive pressure on the nose gear when the kit is sitting by itself normally.  It is when the model is handled and placed un-carefully on a surface on its main gear and swings down onto the nose gear - the momentum (added by the nose weight) then breaks off that very slender styrene part close to the nose wheel.  In my experience, being somewhat clumsy, the metal nose gear solves this issue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for chiming in guys. 👍 Really interesting discussion with the legs.

 

Back to the original premise, sounds like Will got a friday afternoon produced model from all your experiences.

However, After all that and a bit of digging and personal debating, despite the size I’ve actually pulled the trigger on a big boy HK 1/32 that was at a really good price (comparitively speaking). Where on earth am I gonna put this thing? And the biggest scariest expensive kit i’ve ever tried Eek 😳 but very exciting indeed 🤗 it’s recieved well from the builds and reviews I’ve digested.

The metal or not legs debate i guess still ‘stands’ (see what I did there?) 😆

 

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...