Jump to content

1/72 P-51B/C comparison


Rick Tsujimura

Recommended Posts

On 2/6/2022 at 4:53 AM, Bedders said:

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

Could you post some pics of your work?  I am curious as to how you addressed the differences when mating the B wing to the Hasegawa fuselage.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another possibility for making a fairly accurate P-51B, before the release of the Arma kit,  would be to use the Academy P-51B/C wings mated to the Hasegawa P-51B fuselage; this gives you a fuselage with the correct broad shouldered cowling contours mated to the Academy wings, which have the correct leading edge kink, although without the leading edge 'droop' but that's pretty minor as far as appearance goes. You have to cut back the LE root fairing on the Hasegawa fuselage to match the Academy leading edge, as the Hasegawa kit kit comes with P-51D wings. The Academy wings fit the Hasegawa fuselage almost perfectly after you cut/sand/file  back the front of the wings at the center section. You also would need to round the LE of the wingtips on the Academy kit. The outline of the wheel bays at the front needs to be filed back so the front edge of the opening is more parallel to the LE  of the wing, as on the Academy wings, the outline is angled back- this also means you have to enlarge the inner wheel bay outline at the front.  (The landing gear geometry was changed slightly from the B to the D, which is why the inner fairing doors and that part of the wheel bay are not the same shape between the two. ) These changes are hard to describe, but if you have both kits, I think it will be easy to see what to do.  Then there is the issue of the incorrect rear spar/outline at the rear of the wheel bay, which is correctable, but a PITA. Also, the Hasegawa fin is about  a scale 3" too short in height, and slightly too short in chord at the tip, but you could use the fin/rudder from the Academy kit, which is much better. All of this is doable, but requires two kits, which if you already have them, is a viable choice and within the ability of most modelers, but with the pending release by Arma of over trees and the "junior" boxing, it seems like a lot of work and a larger expense. This was the way I was going to go until Arma released their little jewel! Once you get your hands on the Arma kit, you will see what all the fuss has been about. (That being said, I bet a ton of Academy and Hasegawa P-51B's are going to be flooding the action sites in the near future!) At one time, I was  also contemplating taking  the  wing of the Monogram P-51B from the fuel tank covers up  to the LE on each side at the  beginning of the LE extension, and building a correct wheel bay that incorporated the main spar, and then use that as a master to make a resin piece that could be put in place of the same section of the Hasegawa lower wing- this would correct the LE extension, LE droop, and incorrect wheel bays of the Hasegawa kit, so just the Hasegawa kit would be  needed. Stopped short, as I had never made a resin mold/casting before,, and the Academy kit had just been released, which offered a much easier solution.

Mike

 

What am I going to do with my two Academy and two Hasegawa P-51B kits? Hmmm... 🥴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too has a ton of Hasegawa B/C's and a single Academy, but having just received my first  two Arma kits, I'm afraid that all the started ones go into the bin and the rest given away.

 

The Arma kit has some amazing features. I certainly look forward to cutting parts out and unscrewing the glue bottle.

 

I'm slightly apprehensive with the multitude of small parts, but having made a fair number of Eduard Spitfires, I should be OK. In many ways these two kits can be compared.

 

As soon as I get started, I'll post my learnings...

 

/Finn

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

Could you post some pics of your work?  I am curious as to how you addressed the differences when mating the B wing to the Hasegawa fuselage.  Thanks.

There are a couple in the WIP thread which is embedded in the RFI. It took a bit of work but not too much (the photos don't really show it I'm afraid). But my advice - which I haven't yet taken due to having too many projects on the go - is to get the Arma kit.

 

J

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

On 2/7/2022 at 5:57 AM, Wm Blecky said:

Could you post some pics of your work?  I am curious as to how you addressed the differences when mating the B wing to the Hasegawa fuselage.  Thanks.

 

 

Bedders posted a useful and inspirational WIP and an RFI for his AZ/Hasegawa mash-up.

 

 

On 2/7/2022 at 1:01 PM, 72modeler said:

Another possibility for making a fairly accurate P-51B, before the release of the Arma kit,  would be to use the Academy P-51B/C wings mated to the Hasegawa P-51B fuselage; this gives you a fuselage with the correct broad shouldered cowling contours mated to the Academy wings, which have the correct leading edge kink, although without the leading edge 'droop' but that's pretty minor as far as appearance goes

 

 

This was the tack I took to build my own kitbashed P-51B.  As I recall all it took to fit the Academy wing to the Hasegawa fuselage was a little trimming in the scallop where the center of the lower wing trailing edge fits against the radiator scoop; a five-minute process unless you decide to be a show-off and drop the flaps while you're down there.  The precision of inter-kit fitment surprised me until I reflected upon Academy's rather open perspective regarding other manufacturers' intellectual property.

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

6 hours ago, zigster said:

And I hope, they would acknowledge "slab" sided engine part of the fuselage.

Zig

 

 Absolutely - I agree 100%! Good observation, Zig! :thumbsup:

 

This feature is clearly visible in many photos of the Allison Mustangs, and yet no kit designer seems to have noticed it.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

 Absolutely - I agree 100%! Good observation, Zig! :thumbsup:

 

This feature is clearly visible in many photos of the Allison Mustangs, and yet no kit designer seems to have noticed it.

 

John

Roger that!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Frog?

I clearly remember making an example of the Frog model in the late sixties. At that time nobody had accurate plans or anything, so I and others simply built the kits as they came. I seem to remember that it did have had the slab sided cowling, but I'm not certain. I do remember clearly, however, that the transparencies (correct word?) was barely translucent, ill fitting and immensely thick. Compared to the then standard P-51B, the Monogram, it certainly lacked finesse og lived up to the reputation of Frog: "Another blob of plastic from Frog".

I also remember that it was noted that I had taken pains to reproduce the double curve under the nose from spinner to wing, something the kit barely showed.

 

Ah, the memories...

 

/Finn

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think your memories are under-rating the kit in general.  It was the most accurate (if not the most finely-detailed) kit of the Allison Mustang until the Academy, and lacked anything like the hole under the spinner that the (superior) Monogram P-51B offered for a nose intake.  The canopy I had was (from distant memory) as OK as that of any kit at the time, and not as flattened as that of - yes - the Monogram.  I did lack the lovely Malcolm canopy though.  But then so did the last (second) Monogram P-51 I bought.  However I dread to think what the production runs looked like after the tooling went to Novo.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm underrating the kit, it's because of what I'm expecting nowadays. With the Frog kit one could produce an Allison engined Mustang and some of the more discerning modeller did and were happy.

 

I do remember the chock of finding out that my beloved Monogram Mustangs did not have the correct air intake. It started my quest for a decent B/C model, which has ended with the ARMA kit, completing the circle.

 

/Finn

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Frog?

No, I'm afraid the Frog 1/72 P-51A has slightly-bulged cowling sides, just like the rest, including Academy. The side panels can be sanded to create the correct cross-section, but removing some plastic makes the nose seem too thin in plan view (maybe just because you know you did it?), and the panel lines will need to be replaced. Maybe Arma will, some day, do Allison versions. I've got plenty to do in the meantime!

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2022 at 12:44 PM, FinnAndersen said:

With the Frog kit one could produce an Allison engined Mustang and some of the more discerning modeller did and were happy.

It would take a lot of work....ask me how I know! The lower nose contours are off; the carb intake on the upper cowling is undersized, the LE wing extension is not right,  the wingtips are too angular, the radiator fairing is too shallow, the canopy sits too low, and the wings are more like the P-51D than an Allison Mustang's. I built one for the old Replica in Scale magazine many years ago, and  was ignorant of all the other changes that should have been made, as pointed out in a reply editorial by John Beaman, who certainly knew a LOT more than I did at that time! My next effort was to remove the reworked nose from my Frog model to graft onto the old Monogram P-51B, but gave up when I saw what I would have needed to do to backdate that kit to an Allison Mustang; not to mention at that time I was unaware that the P-51B fuselage was deeper than that of the Allison Mustang! (If only I  knew then what I know now!)

Mike

 

That being said, it could be done, but I'm getting too old for that kind of styrene surgery!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2022 at 2:14 AM, zigster said:

I hope, they would acknowledge "slab" sided engine part of the fuselage.

 

On 2/14/2022 at 8:57 AM, John Thompson said:

This feature is clearly visible in many photos of the Allison Mustangs, and yet no kit designer seems to have noticed it.

 

 

 

The P-51A kit from High Planes Models captures this a little better than the Academy P-51NA but not quite as slabby flat as the Frog kit (I just went and compared them all).

 

HPM's Allison Mustang always seems to get forgotten as an option.  I presume this is because either a) nobody knows it exists; or b) High Planes kits are inconvenient to obtain and worse to construct.  I really need to build the thing so as to have a more informed opinion.  Now that I think about it, HPM also offer a "correct" (in the sense that it extends back to the wing spar) resin wheel well for the early Mustang.

 

As I was rummaging in the stash, I also came across a forgotten Italeri P-51/Mustang I kit which is nice in some areas but the wing roots are wrong and it appears to have the usual over-deep fuselage.  These don't seem to be mentioned often in "1/72 Early Mustang" comparison discussions, maybe because the wings and fuselage are wrong?  🤔

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 72modeler said:

It would take a lot of work....ask me how I know! The lower nose contours are off; the carb intake on the upper cowling is undersized, the LE wing extension is not right,  the wingtips are too angular, the radiator fairing is too shallow, the canopy sits too low, and the wings are more like the P-51D than an Allison Mustang's. I built one for the old Replica in Scale magazine many years ago, and  was ignorant of all the other changes that should have been made, as pointed out in a reply editorial by John Beaman, who certainly knew a LOT more than I did at that time! My next effort was to remove the reworked nose from my Frog model to graft onto the old Monogram P-51B, but gave up when I saw what I would have needed to do to backdate that kit to an Allison Mustang; not to mention at that time I was unaware that the P-51B fuselage was deeper than that of the Allison Mustang! (If only I  knew then what I know now!)

Mike

 

That being said, it could be done, but I'm getting too old for that kind of styrene surgery!

I don't think that all of this was realised at the time. You bought a kit that claimed to be a P-51A and, voila, at the next IPMS meeting you could present a P-51A model. 

 

It was much easier than now, wasn't it? Do a kit nobody in the club had made, so the others could not prove you wrong. You could and was judged by the quality of your build, but not on accuracy. Rings a bell, don't it?

 

/Finn

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was realised by Frog, and anyone who cared to look and ask "Why"?  The comment was made about every .new "not Allison" kit that came out, but the message took a long time to get across to other manufacturers., and has still not reached all.   It is an object lesson in the sad truth that most people in the modelling hobby do not look at what they are modelling, but at what has been done before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jackson Duvalier said:

The P-51A kit from High Planes Models captures this a little better than the Academy P-51NA but not quite as slabby flat as the Frog kit (I just went and compared them all).

 

Check 'em again - the Frog P-51A is nothing like "slabby flat". It might not be bulged as much as a Spitfire in that area, but it's certainly not dead flat, like a real P-51A!

 

Here's an example, one of many which show this detail:

Cowling-side.webp

 

Note the flat area, with a clearly-visible perimeter. The Frog cowling sides have a curve of varying radius from top to bottom, with no definition of the central area, flat or otherwise.

 

John

Edited by John Thompson
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, John Thompson said:

 

Check 'em again - the Frog P-51A is nothing like "slabby flat". It might not be bulged as much as a Spitfire in that area, but it's certainly not dead flat, like a real P-51A!

 

Here's an example, one of many which show this detail:

Cowling-side.webp

 

Note the flat area, with a clearly-visible perimeter. The Frog cowling sides have a curve of varying radius from top to bottom, with no definition of the central area, flat or otherwise.

 

John

That's the best photo I have seen, John, that shows the contours of the cowling- both the flattened side and the 'hump' of the lower cowl! Thanks for posting this! Wish I had seen this before I started my Frog kit! First company to the starting gate with an accurate 1/72 Mustang/Invader is going to make LOTS of money! In my estimation, Arma, Special Hobby, or Flyhawk would be my choice as a kit maker!

Mike

 

Edited by 72modeler
removed redundant text
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, what I think is (sort of) funny in all this!

All those expectations of the "good kit" turned towards kit makers in East Europe.

Sorry, guys from UK always ask for Airfix to do X,Y or Z.

Regardless if it is already in the market from company "B" 😀

But that's OK!

zig

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a British modeller I have to admit to answering some "Why don't Airfix do..." questions with "Why not try the kit from..." but in fairness to my fellow citizens the term "in the market" only holds for two years.  Many kits have been made available in the UK in small numbers, poorly distributed, highly priced and not always as good as they might be.  There's little real point in pointing at these.  Further, many Airfix kits have quite clearly not had any competitors at the time of planning.  Where were the competitors to the Beaufort, Blenheim, Valiant, Shackleton, TSR 2, Kate, Whitley, Wellington, Mk.II Lancaster, 2-stage Mosquito - the list goes on.  There's not a lot of point in saying "why not try the MPM Wellington" when the kits hasn't been seen for years, except in the second-hand market from modellers offloading them in dissatisfaction.  British modellers were not exactly begging for new kits of Bf.109, P-51 or Zero, but these are types that manufacturers have to have in their ranges.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked up the Arma Hobby P-51B the other day. Really nicely moulded kit. One thing that I found strange with it was the rivet treatment. On the wings we have the fuel tank panels, ailerons and flaps all with very fine rivets an then when we get to the fuselage no rivets. Beautiful kit anyway.

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
×
×
  • Create New...