Jump to content

1/72 P-51B/C comparison


Rick Tsujimura
 Share

Recommended Posts

IIRC, the AZ and KP P-51B/C kits had some fairly significant issues- the P-51 SIG also had a pretty comprehensive review of the pros and cons of both kits way before Arma announced theirs- at least enough that I passed on the AZ kit- I already had the KP kit by that time. Having finally got my hands on the Arma kit, I would say it is the best detailed and most accurate one in 1/72 scale, with detail and fit that rivals an Eduard/tTamiya kit,  if they did one in that scale. I would say it's the best in class, and Arma have announced they will be selling overtrees and a second boxing, as the first run has  already sold out, so I would jump on them! You won't be disappointed! (Wish now I had pre-odered more than two, but I guess @tonyot had already snapped them up! ('Fess up. T- you know you're sitting on a case of those puppies! ):giggle:

Mike

 

2nd boxing will have No. 301 squadron  PK-coded Malcoilm hooded Mustang III's! 👍

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

7 hours ago, Rick Tsujimura said:

I have been searching for a comparison of the AZ/KP P-51B/C variants and the new Arma P-51B.  I have found individual reviews but nothing comparing the two. Any comments appreciated.

There is no comparison.  AZ's kit is a fubared copy of the Revell kit with some modifications.  Arma Hobby's kit is new and for all intensive purposes, the most correct P-51B kit available now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

The Arma kit is probably the best Mustang kit in any scale.

 

It's certainly the best-in-any-scale P-51B/C kit yet released.

 

WRT the AZ/KP kit I think the relatively good wings and interior bits could be mated to the superior Hasegawa fuselage.  It'd be reasonably accurate but not state of the art.  I was in the process of doing such a mash-up when Arma announced their P-51B.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:23 PM, 72modeler said:

IIRC, the AZ and KP P-51B/C kits had some fairly significant issues- the P-51 SIG also had a pretty comprehensive review of the pros and cons of both kits way before Arma announced theirs- at least enough that I passed on the AZ kit- I already had the KP kit by that time. Having finally got my hands on the Arma kit, I would say it is the best detailed and most accurate one in 1/72 scale, with detail and fit that rivals an Eduard/tTamiya kit,  if they did one in that scale. I would say it's the best in class, and Arma have announced they will be selling overtrees and a second boxing, as the first run has  already sold out, so I would jump on them! You won't be disappointed! (Wish now I had pre-odered more than two, but I guess @tonyot had already snapped them up! ('Fess up. T- you know you're sitting on a case of those puppies! ):giggle:

Mike

 

2nd boxing will have No. 301 squadron  PK-coded Malcoilm hooded Mustang III's! 👍

LOL,.... Mike,... mate I`ve only had the one and built it mate,......... although I am looking forward to the cheaper boxing and may buy a few of these,..... I do have some nice decal options lined up to build after all. I did send pics of my model to Arma,..... but they chose not to use them,..... ah well! 

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

20 hours ago, Jackson Duvalier said:

 

It's certainly the best-in-any-scale P-51B/C kit yet released.

 

WRT the AZ/KP kit I think the relatively good wings and interior bits could be mated to the superior Hasegawa fuselage.  It'd be reasonably accurate but not state of the art.  I was in the process of doing such a mash-up when Arma announced their P-51B.

 

True the wings are good as they are a slightly more detailed version of the Revell wings.  I am doing the same thing as you described (mating the wings with the Hasegawa kit fuselage) except I will be using the Revell kit's wings.  I completely agree, while this method may not be "state of the art" like the new Arma Hobby kit, it will still give one a pretty decent kit.  I had picked up Eduard's latest photoetch set for the Hasegawa P-51B kit, so toss that in plus a few of the resin sets that I have on hand, I believe that I will have something that will look pretty good on the shelf. 

Edited by Wm Blecky
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wm Blecky said:

True the wings are good as they are a slightly more detailed version of the Revell wings.  I am doing the same thing as you described (mating the wings with the Hasegawa kit fuselage) except I will be using the Revell kit's wings.  I completely agree, while this method may not be "state of the art" like the new Arma Hobby kit, it will still give one a pretty descent kit.  I had picked up Eduard's latest photoetch set for the Hasegawa P-51B kit, so toss that in plus a few of the resin sets that I have on hand, I believe that I will have something that will look pretty good on the shelf. 

Good call! That very combination was mentioned in the P-51 SIG review of the KP kit, as the KP wings were very close to being right spot-on- plus they had much deeper and more correct wheel bays than the Hasegawa kit, which were correct for a D; the Hasegawa P-51B/C had by far the best fuselage, as the nose contours were spot-on; the fin just needed some work to get the correct profile/ height. That was what I was planning to try- perhaps using the Academy P-51A wings, with some modifications.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

- perhaps using the Academy P-51A wings, with some modifications.

Mike

Good god no! 🙀 The Academy P-51 (it isn’t an A since there are cannon) is the best Allison engine Mustang so far, save the kit for an Allison version 😎

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

Good god no! 🙀 The Academy P-51 (it isn’t an A since there are cannon) is the best Allison engine Mustang so far, save the kit for an Allison version 😎

Oops- what I meant was  the Academy P-51A kit has wings that were correct in dimension and shape for an Allison or B/C Mustang; of course the wings would have to be modified to reflect the proper 4 .50cal armament, Of course, if Arma wants to really make a ton of Euros, they would do some clever engineering and sprue management and give us some Allison Mustangs  that are as detailed and accurate as their P-51B/C's!

Mike

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, @72modeler, Allison Mustang would be nice from Arma. Maybe one day?

"2nd boxing will have No. 301 squadron  PK-coded Malcolm hooded Mustang III's!

301 was a (Polish) bomber squadron, PK was a 315 code.

You need some rest, too much hovering on modelling forums 😀

Zig

 

 

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

7 hours ago, 72modeler said:

plus they had much deeper and more correct wheel bays than the Hasegawa kit

 

 

... And still AZ/KP missed a perfect chance to make a proper wheel bay.  They made the wells a separate part from the underside wing, so the opportunity was there for the taking, but failed to extend them back to the main spar.  Why?  Just, why?  It's the same sort of frustrating and easily avoidable, utterly obvious errors Academy are known for. 

 

I corrected one of the AZ well castings using plastic card with the idea of making resin copies, but happily it looks like that course of action is now unnecessary.

 

If I were Arma, I'd release the A-36 first.  Considering the available 1/72 Allison Mustang kits, it's the toughest nut to crack.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jackson Duvalier said:

If I were Arma, I'd release the A-36 first.  Considering the available 1/72 Allison Mustang kits, it's the toughest nut to crack.

I'm also for an Allison Mustang, but one of the biggest problems seems to be references. Almost all Allison kits so far has a fuselage that is identical to the -B/C version. Unfortunately the wing on these Allison versions were mounted higher on the fuselage than the later versions. I sincerely hope this is spottet.

 

/Finn

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An odd way of putting it.  Most people would say that the central fuselage was deepened, with the rear fuselage raised to match.    The two-stage supercharger Merlin required greater cooling than the single stage Allison, and hence greater cooling air intake.  Having the updraught carburettor rather than the downdraught may have been a contributory factor. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't got my hands on the Arma kit yet, but am very much ooking forward to doing so. The KP kit has the flaws of the Revell fuselage: Nose a bit narrow and 'pert', with the exhausts located too high, and a rudder post that leans forward from the vertical. The fuselage might be too short overall too, and I seem to recall that the cockpit is also too far forward. The wings are better, with dropped flaps available and a better wheel bay (though still not fully correct i.e. the spar not being visible.) But the wings also suffer from having a main spar line that is perpendicular to the fuselage when it should lean forward a touch (the Airfix D nails this). Not a huge drama if you're going to fill the wing panel lines, though the ammo bays are slightly off-shape as a result, but not noticeably. And there were no drop tanks in the boxing I bought. Maybe no racks either, can't remember now but many modellers complained about that. Finally (for this hatchet job at least) the lights above and below the wingtips are too far inboard. I missed that detail when I used the KP wings with a Hasegawa fuselage to make this effort a couple of years ago: Click on the little icons that the links take you to, and the pics do pop up.

 

Anyway, looking forward to the Arma kit (though not necessarily the price...).

 

Justin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rick Tsujimura said:

I was unaware of the P-51 SIG; could you provide a link?

 

http://p51sig.com

 

I don't know what you'll see when you go there- it is a "members only" site (at least to post?), and this computer automatically recognized me.  But hopefully there'll be some guidance to join.  It has been very quiet, so we could use some new energy.

 

bob

 

Edit: OK, checked on my other computer.  There's only one thing open to visit, so follow that to the actual post and it has instructions.

Edited by gingerbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jackson Duvalier said:

 

 

... And still AZ/KP missed a perfect chance to make a proper wheel bay.  They made the wells a separate part from the underside wing, so the opportunity was there for the taking, but failed to extend them back to the main spar.  Why?  Just, why?  It's the same sort of frustrating and easily avoidable, utterly obvious errors Academy are known for. 

I think there was some such correspondence when the kit was first issued.  The answer (and we have to take their word for it, not what we would like to see) was it would have required a larger mold than they would have been able to handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

An odd way of putting it.  Most people would say that the central fuselage was deepened, with the rear fuselage raised to match.    The two-stage supercharger Merlin required greater cooling than the single stage Allison, and hence greater cooling air intake.  Having the updraught carburettor rather than the downdraught may have been a contributory factor. 

Is 2+3 not the same as 3+2? Just joking and I do believe that it was you that provided that particular information while I was toying with then new Academy offering.

 

Now, do you remember how much the fuselage was deepened? (I'm toying with the idea of moving the wing up, having grafted a Spiteful wing onto a Spitfire XIV fuselage to produce the NN660 Spitfire/Spiteful hybrid)

 

/Finn 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but as it was the fuselage that was altered, then it just seems better talking about it that way.    It's true on ground axes that the fuselage was raised rather than the wing lowered.  I thought that the increase in height was 4 inches, but as Bob thinks differently I'm not committing to it!  I can't think offhand where I'm rapidly able to lay my hands on the number.

 

Moving the wing up?  I'm not sure what you want to do to what. 

 

Did you see the drawing  demonstrating that the Spiteful fuselage was that of a high-back Spitfire with the canopy raised to the top line of the fuselage?  In side profile, anyway.  Maybe the Merlin Mustang should have done that with the Allison?  Slightly more than 3-4 inches, however.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2022 at 10:07 AM, gingerbob said:

I think it was 3 inches, but I'd want to double-check before you started cutting!

IIRC It was 3.0 inches deeper, due to the wing being mounted lower; this allowed a proper floor to the cockpit, with space below for the oil and coolant lines; also provided space for the larger radiator/oil cooler matrix required by the Merlin; the lower cowling line was also deeper to allow for the  intake and ducting for the updraft carburetor of the Merlin, as opposed to the downdraft unit of the Allison. Looking at the distance between the lower canopy sill and the top of the wing on whichever kit you are looking is the  tell. IIRC, I measured the fuselage height of almost all the 1/72 Allison engine kits compared to the Monogram kit in a forum topic discussion, which was  I think titled The best 1/72 Allison kit; I took the facts from discussion on same topic on the P-51SIG website, of which I am a member. If I can beat the BM search engine into submission, I will re-post it here! (Was this what you were referring to, @Graham Boak?

Mike

 

 

Edited by 72modeler
added text, corrected spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Moving the wing up?  I'm not sure what you want to do to what. 

Well something has to give.

 

I missed the Spitfire/Spiteful drawings, but made my own from the AZ and Sword kit and you're right. This is what made my NN660 possible.

 

I need to reduce the height of the fuselage of the P-51A in some manner so could off course leave the wing as it were and lower the top of the fuselage the required 1.2-1.4 mm. Might even be easier.

 

My photo host (Village photo) is down with a defunct security certificate, so cannot post pictures right now.

 

But perhaps we should take this into another post, there is some thread drifting going on.

 

/Finn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, you are talking about one of the false P-51A kits.  If you tried that you would find that the engine cowling remained too bulky and the radiator the wrong size (probably).  Better to scrap it and work with an an Academy (or even a Frog). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2022 at 12:34 AM, Jackson Duvalier said:

 

 

... And still AZ/KP missed a perfect chance to make a proper wheel bay.  They made the wells a separate part from the underside wing, so the opportunity was there for the taking, but failed to extend them back to the main spar.  Why?  Just, why?  It's the same sort of frustrating and easily avoidable, utterly obvious errors Academy are known for. 

 

I corrected one of the AZ well castings using plastic card with the idea of making resin copies, but happily it looks like that course of action is now unnecessary.

 

If I were Arma, I'd release the A-36 first.  Considering the available 1/72 Allison Mustang kits, it's the toughest nut to crack.

 

Why?  Well, that's what happens when you copy other people's work.  Had AZ been more like Arma Hobby and started from scratch, doing their own research, maybe then they would have gotten it right.

  • Like 1
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...