1/72 Arma Hobby P-51B/C

[zigster]

steh2o, you may not share KFS'es opinion, but it is a very fair description of the kit he received.

He's got parts with sink marks, and you can see photos of it. Like it, or not.

Everybody can make his/her mind re spending money on this kit.

And if that scuff plate on mainwheel cover is the worst shortcoming...?....🤣

Z

[steh2o]

Hello Zigster, I' m just saying that the sink marks seem very light and could disappear with just a little sandpaper. My P-51B is on it's way, when I receive it  I will be more certain about their entity. 

[viscount806x]

A little birdy told me that maximum sales of existing and imminent kits is needed to allow the ongoing financing of the 1/48 Hurricane IIC project. So if like me you are champing at the bit for that, get buying what you can that is available now.  There isn't a bad kit in the range from what I've seen. I have no connection with Arma by the way, simply another customer.

[steh2o]

Anyway, I understand that ever single modeller has his own focal points in appreciating (or not) a model. For my parameters this P-51B is just great so I think I will contribute to that 1/48 Hurri project after all

[John Thompson]

To be honest, at first I thought the sink marks in question, which I believe are on the underside of the wing centre section, were just part of the stressed skin detail! My feeling was that a layer of Mr Surfacer 1000 blended in with rubbing alcohol on a cotton swab after the filler dries would make short work of them.

 

John

[zigster]

Apparently, those sink marks are not on every kit. Maybe KFS received bad copy, something like short - shots in Airfix kits.

Shame about wheels though, extra mulla on resin from whoever is doing those things.

Zig 

[top turret toddler]

Why isn`t anyone talking about the wing shape? I am thinking about the Hasegawa kit controversy between the -D and -B kits where HSG used the same wing for both these kits...but they should be different?!

So is the -B wing perfect finally or do we still need to look for that elusive Hawkeye resin wing on ebay if we want to build the old Hasegawa -B kit?

Edited December 20, 2021 by top turret toddler

[John Thompson]

On 12/20/2021 at 12:24 AM, zigster said:

Shame about wheels though, extra mulla on resin from whoever is doing those things.

Zig 

I haven't seen any comment about the wheels, but maybe I just didn't read closely enough. What's wrong with them? FWIW, getting an accurate shape to the openings between the spokes on the Mustang's wheels seems to have been challenging for kit manufacturers in the past.

 

On 12/20/2021 at 7:50 AM, top turret toddler said:

Why isn`t anyone talking about the wing shape? I am thinking about the Hasegawa kit controversy between the -D and -B kits where HSG used the same wing for both these kits...but they should be different?!

So is the -B wing perfect finally or do we still need to look for that elusive Hawkeye resin wing on ebay if we want to build the old Hasegawa -B kit?

Without a kit in hand, it's difficult to be certain; however, since Arma haven't already released a P-51D, I'd be pretty confident they got the shape right. That said, other manufacturers have done a P-51B/C with a bad shape without ever attempting a P-51D, so I suppose a mistake is possible; still, my money is on Arma to get it right. They seem pretty savvy, so I believe they'd be aware of the Hasegawa error.

 

John

[FinnAndersen]

2 hours ago, top turret toddler said:

Why isn`t anyone talking about the wing shape? I am thinking about the Hasegawa kit controversy between the -D and -B kits where HSG used the same wing for both these kits...but they should be different?!

So is the -B wing perfect finally or do we still need to look for that elusive Hawkeye resin wing on ebay if we want to build the old Hasegawa -B kit?

Open this link and scroll down a bit; you'l see a planview picture of a build by Arma. I'd say it's OK

 

http://armahobbynews.pl/en/blog/2021/12/15/p-51-b-c-mustang-expert-set-first-build-gallery/

 

/Finn

 

 

 

[72modeler]

2 hours ago, top turret toddler said:

So is the -B wing perfect finally or do we still need to look for that elusive Hawkeye resin wing on ebay if we want to build the old Hasegawa -B kit?

From what I have seen on the sprue and CAD images, they got the wing right; the leading edge extension and the very elusive droop of the leading edge from the extension to the wing root, of which  on 1/72 kits, only Monogram got it right. I have two pre-ordered kits on the way, and will report back. BTW, the Hawkeye wing, while correct in most respects, made the mistake as almost all other Mustang kit makers, in that they molded the wing spar/rear wall of the wheel bay to follow the outline of the wheel bay opening, instead of going straight across.

Mike

 

I wouldn't pitch the Hasegawa B/C kit, as the D wing leading edged crank can be corrected, and since the wheel bays as molded are 'way too shallow and the wrong  outline, if you can find one of the correct aftermarket resin  wheel bays, say from Aries or Neomega, then you will have a very nice Merlin highback. IIRC, you also need to correct the position of the gunports, as the openings on the kit follow the dihedral of the wing, rather than being horizontal- see photos for what I'm talking about. The Hasegawa kit also was one of the few that got the broad-shouldered look of the upper nose correct. unlike almost every other kit.  Looks like Arma got all of these features right.

[steh2o]

The wheels have been criticized because:

- the tread is not etched all the way around (true)

But also because:

- there is just one of the possibile tread patterns

- the writing on the tyre is correct on one of the two and specular on the other

.... 

 

[fishplanebeer]

Judging by the sprue shots etc. this kit will be a major, major advance on what has gone before, akin to the SH range of Emils in this scale, so I'm really looking forward to receiving it when Hannants fulfil their back orders.

 

As we all know no kit will ever meet a 100% accuracy criterion regardless of scale and the over whelming majority of people who buy it will not be remotely aware of the very minor issue surrounding the u/c doors, or care particularly for that matter. I fully appreciate that we all have our own approach to modelling and some of us are very, very particular and demanding about such small details but at the end of the day we are talking about a model that is only some 150mm/6 inches long so there will always have to be scale limitations in terms of what is possible to mold.

 

What we are are now being offered in this scale is quite mind blowing and Arma and others should be congratulated on achieving such remarkable levels of detail which hitherto were only possible in 48th and larger, and if a bit of sanding or 'fiddling' is required then for me that's part of the appeal of modelling.

 

Just my take on it, which I know others will not agree with, but we do this for fun and all are welcome.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

 

[alt-92]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:22 PM, steh2o said:

- the tread is not etched all the way around (true)

So it has worn threads OoB? cool

[steh2o]

Just now, alt-92 said:

So it has worn threads OoB? cool

😄 😄

[PLC1966]

On 12/22/2021 at 10:28 PM, fishplanebeer said:

 

As we all know no kit will ever meet a 100% accuracy criterion regardless of scale and the over whelming majority of people who buy it will not be remotely aware of the very minor issue surrounding the u/c doors, or care particularly for that matter. I fully appreciate that we all have our own approach to modelling and some of us are very, very particular and demanding about such small details but at the end of the day we are talking about a model that is only some 150mm/6 inches long so there will always have to be scale limitations in terms of what is possible to mold.

 

 

Good shout Sir,

 

This x 1000.

 

In fact, with a little change of words removing specific u/c door mention, it should be a sticky on the Front Page of BM.

[clumsy]

Unfortunately the kit contains some subtle sink marks on the right fuselage and main landing gear covers. In my humble opinion they are easy to handle with since, as I said, they are not deep. But what appears as sink mark too at the bottom of the wing and on the flaps also do appear to have a kind of pattern on them ie. all those sinks appear between the rivets. If they are real sinks should they not also appear over the rivets?

My eyes see them as if they moulded there intentionally.

Arkut

[72modeler]

On the subject of sink marks mentioned regarding the new Arma P-51B/C, I offer this link that has excellent closeups of the sprues. I know the photos aren't conclusive, so will wait until I have the two I have on pre-order in my hot little hands! Some observations, and they are not confirmed are:

https://www.hyperscale.com/2021/reviews/kits/arma70038reviewbg_1.htm

• guessing the sink marks mentioned on the inner gear doors are on the outside surface, and if they are present, then more than likely caused by the detailing/depressions on the inner surface. IIRC, the Hasegawa and Monogram 1/72 Mustang kits had the same sink marks and were easily corrected with some light sanding.
• on some sprue shot photos, you can see some very slight sink marks  that run spanwise, but in others there are no visible sinkmarks. You can see oil canning of the flaps in many period photos and on restored warbirds, so that might not be an issue.

Bottom line, when my kits arrive, I will check them both and report back; even if these are issues on the kit, it is so far ahead of any other 1/72 P-51B kit and so easily dealt with, that it's not a deal breaker!

Mike

[steh2o]

 Oil canning (or stressed skin) effect of the flaps and fuel tank cover panels is a design feature of the kit, and is done with incredibile finesse. These elements were un painted on the real NMF a/c and the effect was very evident on still new and polished skin elements. 

[zigster]

@alt-92, try not to be so dismissive every now and then.

This was not about "worn tyres". It was enough to check some pix in KFS inbox.

Let me help you:

Yes, they do look used and worn, even that tape showing slippage moved different on left and right side of the wheel.

Have nice day.

Zig

[alt-92]

@zigster : I have a kit here. The tires are fine. No slippage.

No idea where you got the dismissive bit from, it was clear to others that it was a bit tongue-in-cheek. 

[steh2o]

Interesting , I must check my kit and verify if the sculpting is salvageable.

As for the sink marks, my kit has only a very very slight mark on the fuselage side in correspondance wit the map case all the rest is perfectly fine.

 

[John Thompson]

That's puzzling - shouldn't the diagonal tread grooves as shown in the image in @zigster's post be continuous across the centre line of the tire?* I'm struggling to believe Arma made such a mistake (cognitive dissonance, anyone?) so maybe it's time to hunt for some photos of real P-51 tires of this type. I have a variety of resin (or even white metal!) P-51 wheels/tires, but I don't know if any of them is worthy of Arma's fine kit. Looks like this could be a job for Res/Kit!

 

*I meant continuous from one side to the other, ignoring any "tread wear" effect. What I see in the photo can't be explained by slippage, unless it was intended to represent misalignment of one full-sized mold half relative to the other. Imagine trying to continue the tread grooves across the "wear" area - you can't.

 

John

Edited January 10, 2022 by John Thompson
Clarification (I hope)

[steh2o]

Reskit has them!

[FinnAndersen]

On 10/01/2022 at 18:54, John Thompson said:

That's puzzling - shouldn't the diagonal tread grooves as shown in the image in @zigster's post be continuous across the centre line of the tire?* I'm struggling to believe Arma made such a mistake (cognitive dissonance, anyone?) ...

ARMA produces very high quality kits, but this time they slipped, so you found another hair in the soup.

 

On the other hand, being one who started modelling in somewhere around 1960-65, I ask: Where have all the modelling skills gone?

 

Do we really request a kit, where we open the box end, insert a tube of glue, shake it hard and expect a perfect model to come out?

 

Some of the joy comes from overcoming errors and omissions from the manufactores. 

 

/Finn

 

Edit: Seems that I was mistaken. The wheels cannot be easily corrected, as I assumed above.

[John Thompson]

5 hours ago, FinnAndersen said:

ARMA produces very high quality kits, but this time they slipped, so you found another hair in the soup.

 

On the other hand, being one who started modelling in somewhere around 1960-65, I ask: Where have all the modelling skills gone?

 

Do we really request a kit, where we open the box end, insert a tube of glue, shake it hard and expect a perfect model to come out?

 

Some of the joy comes from overcoming errors and omissions from the manufactores. 

 

/Finn

 

Thanks for that (I think...) But please enlighten me - how exactly do you intend to correct the tread alignment error without remolding at least half of the tread area of the tire? You can't do it just by filing grooves across the centre line of the tire - the two halves don't line up. Maybe by sawing the wheel into inner and outer halves, aligning the tread grooves, and gluing the halves back together?

 

Please, no condescension about how long you've been building models - I've been at it even longer than you, And no, I do not expect to shake a box and have a perfect model come out. The "joy" of correcting errors? Maybe some day I'll let you in on what I've done (more than once, with no box-shaking involved) to correct, for example, the ICM 1/72 I-16. Hint: it involves the fuselage from the Amodel UTI-4. My "modelling skills" are just fine, thank you.

 

Have a really nice day...

 

John