Arma 1/48 announcement at Babaryba

[cmatthewbacon]

40 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Arma Hobby however is in Poland and they claim in the blog article linked above that their new tooling shop is also in Poland...

Fair enough. Apologies. But still, it’s a bit of filling and sanding, and flipping an intake around. Not worth a whole lot of angst, especially if you want a 1/48 P-39 — the alternatives probably require at least as much work and probably rather more if you buy a 70s Monogram kit…

best,

M.

[Piotr Mikolajski]

2 hours ago, FlatlandFox said:

It remains to be seen if the flaw detected is an isolated case or a widespread issue.

 

Modellers in Poland, who were probably the first to receive the models they bought, have without exception defective sprues. There is also talk of other problems on the forums, but until they are confirmed by photos, I don't see the point of writing about them.

I think the models will soon be delivered to the hands of the people who have commented in this thread, so there will be confirmation of both the injection errors and the reportedly existing design errors.

[JFM148]

I am positively surprised reading such generous, understanding and patient comments regarding ARMA quality control issues from the very same people that trash Italeri, Revell, Airfix and Academy for every small quality control issues in other chats.   Hopefully they've learned the lesson to be more positive towards this small (and getting smaller) aircraft modelling industry.

 

I'm going to bed thinking the community is not as biased towards certain companies as I thought. 

 

Best

 

 

[Tokyo Raider]

On 7/12/2024 at 9:53 AM, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

A few photos were published on one of the groups on FB. I think everyone will have to judge the quality according to their own criteria anyway.

 

I'm a premadonna...  after paying for a new kit over my eduard stash.  I like Arma...  just these sinks are horrible.  I'm not buying till it's sorted out and fixed...

[Tourist]

On 7/15/2024 at 4:54 AM, JFM148 said:

I am positively surprised reading such generous, understanding and patient comments regarding ARMA quality control issues from the very same people that trash Italeri, Revell, Airfix and Academy for every small quality control issues in other chats.   Hopefully they've learned the lesson to be more positive towards this small (and getting smaller) aircraft modelling industry.

 

I'm going to bed thinking the community is not as biased towards certain companies as I thought. 

 

Best

 

 

Arma is a relative newcomer when compared to the companies you mentioned, they have released really impressive kits and have adopted a proactive communication.

Maybe we're cutting them some slack because of it.

That being said, their 1/48 Hurricane is miles ahead of anything Italeri, Revell, Airfix or Academy have done and these guys are no strangers to sink marks, flash, ejector pin marks etc...

 

[Piotr Mikolajski]

On 7/15/2024 at 9:14 AM, Tokyo Raider said:

I'm a premadonna...

 

It seems to me that a better term is: a person who spends their money mindfully. 

 

On 7/15/2024 at 9:14 AM, Tokyo Raider said:

just these sinks are horrible.  I'm not buying till it's sorted out and fixed...

 

I asked a friend how bad it really is. He said that the defect is not as big as some people complain, but it is visible. The Surfacer 500 should be able to do the job, but above all, a kit with such defects should not go into distribution at all.

[JFM148]

7 hours ago, Tourist said:

Arma is a relative newcomer when compared to the companies you mentioned, they have released really impressive kits and have adopted a proactive communication.

Maybe we're cutting them some slack because of it.

 

Add ARMA to the sink issues companies if you want to be fair and consistent.

[Tourist]

1 hour ago, JFM148 said:

Add ARMA to the sink issues companies if you want to be fair and consistent.

That was implied since that's what started this conversation.

[Piotr Mikolajski]

Source: https://armahobbynews.pl/en/blog/2024/07/16/40010-airacobra-first-cobra-assembled/

 

Unfortunately, this list of notes and tips for assembling the kit also confirms the spinner-propeller fit issues mentioned on the Polish forum.

 

Cockpit

• Thoroughly clean the joining surfaces of the fuselage halves, avoiding paint contamination.
• The cockpit and front landing gear bay assembly is heavy after the balls are glued.
• Attach the bulkhead behind the pilot’s seat (A32) to both fuselage halves to maintain proper geometry for attaching the cockpit.
• If you are building the version with the armour plate above the pilot’s head (B67) and using the 3D seat, trim the top part of the pilot’s harness to fit the attachment on the plate.
• Divide decals into smaller sections to fit the panel’s contours more easily when applying decals to the instrument panel.

Fuselage Front

• Remove unnecessary panels on the side of the armament bay and a small air outlet at the front.
• The small air outlets from the included 3D print attach surprisingly easily. Clean the glueing area and apply Tamiya Thin liquid cement. Grab the 3D detail with tweezers, detach it from the frame, and press it to the glued surface. It holds excellently after painting.
• Assembling the gun port cover (B59), you should ensure it fits well; you may add braces to its base.

Wing

• Be careful not to cut off the small tabs on the centre part of the upper wing halves (C68).
• The walls in the landing gear bay should not touch the upper part of the wing.
• The joint between the top of the wing (C68) and the fuselage surface (B37/38) is overlapped, and the step is natural.
• The semicircular surface next to the main landing gear cover (B54/55) should have a natural gap around the arc glued to the wing (C89).
• Fill the sink marks on the wing’s upper surface (C68) with superglue; after it dries, sand it with flat sandpaper. After 24 hours, superglue will be too hard. I additionally protected the surrounding panel lines with masking tape to avoid sanding them off.

Landing Gear

• The main landing gear wheels from the 3D print require drilling a larger hole, as they compress during printing.
• The nose landing gear (A13/B66) fits into place after cleaning the joint areas and does not require glueing.

Tailplane

• It assembles nicely, but cleaning the joint between the fin (B56) and the left fuselage (B37) and reducing the protrusion connecting the vertical stabilizer to the horizontal stabilizer are required.

Cabin Doors (T1/2)

• For glueing in the open position, I suggest cutting a groove at the hinge point or drilling a small hole at the joint for better hold.

Propeller Spinner

• Unfortunately, the fix for the sink mark on the spinner (B53) made by the tooling workshop is too large. Drill a hole in the propeller (C74) from the back or reduce the pin on the spinner (B53) with a larger drill bit, and the propeller will fit into place.

Decals

• Cartograf decals fit very well on the model’s details. However, they are soft, and care should be taken not to stretch them.
• The end of the star stripe on the machine gun pod represents a mirrored reflection. Cut off the red end of the decal and apply it in reverse. Then attach the end from the other side.

[viscount806x]

On 7/16/2024 at 9:30 PM, Piotr Mikolajski said:

Source: https://armahobbynews.pl/en/blog/2024/07/16/40010-airacobra-first-cobra-assembled/

 

Unfortunately, this list of notes and tips for assembling the kit also confirms the spinner-propeller fit issues mentioned on the Polish forum.

 

Cockpit

• Thoroughly clean the joining surfaces of the fuselage halves, avoiding paint contamination.
• The cockpit and front landing gear bay assembly is heavy after the balls are glued.
• Attach the bulkhead behind the pilot’s seat (A32) to both fuselage halves to maintain proper geometry for attaching the cockpit.
• If you are building the version with the armour plate above the pilot’s head (B67) and using the 3D seat, trim the top part of the pilot’s harness to fit the attachment on the plate.
• Divide decals into smaller sections to fit the panel’s contours more easily when applying decals to the instrument panel.

Fuselage Front

• Remove unnecessary panels on the side of the armament bay and a small air outlet at the front.
• The small air outlets from the included 3D print attach surprisingly easily. Clean the glueing area and apply Tamiya Thin liquid cement. Grab the 3D detail with tweezers, detach it from the frame, and press it to the glued surface. It holds excellently after painting.
• Assembling the gun port cover (B59), you should ensure it fits well; you may add braces to its base.

Wing

• Be careful not to cut off the small tabs on the centre part of the upper wing halves (C68).
• The walls in the landing gear bay should not touch the upper part of the wing.
• The joint between the top of the wing (C68) and the fuselage surface (B37/38) is overlapped, and the step is natural.
• The semicircular surface next to the main landing gear cover (B54/55) should have a natural gap around the arc glued to the wing (C89).
• Fill the sink marks on the wing’s upper surface (C68) with superglue; after it dries, sand it with flat sandpaper. After 24 hours, superglue will be too hard. I additionally protected the surrounding panel lines with masking tape to avoid sanding them off.

Landing Gear

• The main landing gear wheels from the 3D print require drilling a larger hole, as they compress during printing.
• The nose landing gear (A13/B66) fits into place after cleaning the joint areas and does not require glueing.

Tailplane

• It assembles nicely, but cleaning the joint between the fin (B56) and the left fuselage (B37) and reducing the protrusion connecting the vertical stabilizer to the horizontal stabilizer are required.

Cabin Doors (T1/2)

• For glueing in the open position, I suggest cutting a groove at the hinge point or drilling a small hole at the joint for better hold.

Propeller Spinner

• Unfortunately, the fix for the sink mark on the spinner (B53) made by the tooling workshop is too large. Drill a hole in the propeller (C74) from the back or reduce the pin on the spinner (B53) with a larger drill bit, and the propeller will fit into place.

Decals

• Cartograf decals fit very well on the model’s details. However, they are soft, and care should be taken not to stretch them.
• The end of the star stripe on the machine gun pod represents a mirrored reflection. Cut off the red end of the decal and apply it in reverse. Then attach the end from the other side.

Definitely required reading here. Coincidentally my kit arrived today and after having a good look at it, it seems pretty good in most respects. Accuracy I cannot comment on, not having the necessary depth of knowledge on the P39. In particular, I would just like to record that Those Sink Marks on the upper wings wouldn't be out of place when looking out over the wings on say, a Viscount when in flight. The wings under normal loading (of 1g) could visibly exhibit just such a phenomena as the upper skins compressed spanwise during wing bending. This was called by airframe engineers ('Heavies') 'panting'. At rest, they would disappear. I guess they could become permanent if overstressing had taken place with too much 'g'. Might not want to fly the aircraft until somebody had a look. Perhaps put the Arma P39 up on jacks when built to simulate a dire overstressing. Just wondering if we are getting a bit overfocussed  on the kit's errors on the forums, not for me really to suggest that, grew up on 1950s Frog & Airfix  kits. I will now slap my own wrists before someone else does it for me. Be kind.

 

[SleeperService]

In between heavy slash and burn sessions on my current project I have been casting my beady eye over my copies of this kit and I'm pretty impressed TBH. Frankly no matter how you see it the Eduard kit is not a good one - the wing is certainly too thick with the chord line in the wrong place and the relationship to the fuselage is off as well. This is based on carefully selected photographs as, with a few exceptions, the drawings on offer seem to have errors in detail and outline. I'm not sure how this has happened but it is hardly unknown in our hobby/obsession.

WINGS: Using @Tailspin Turtle's wing drawing posted HERE the Arma wings are identical in outline with the correct tip shape and leading edge angle. The wing profile also seems to be pretty damn close but I withhold a final verdict while I await further reference material. Much has been stated about the sink marks which align with the nicely moulded ribs in the wheelbay. This fatal flaw took all of five minutes to rectify including a tiny amount of rescribing to clean out adjacent panel detail. Being a complete nit-picker there is a gap in the internal rib detail this is not an error as it is actually there on the real aircraft. Turning to the undersides the radiator openings are in the right place and the centre section has a much better shape than the Eduard. 

FUSELAGE: Very much a tale of two halves; From the rear end of the exhaust back both Eduard and Arma match pretty well although the Arma has a better representation of the air intake behind the cockpit canopy. Forward of here the Arma kit is streets ahead with everything lining up to match photos very well the undernose profile is very nicely done. The nose wheel leg is also much better than the Eduard item but note that the length changed dramatically depending on fuel and ammo load and whether the cockpit was occupied. The leg had more travel than normal with the Eduard kit being on the short end of the range of movement, Arma have gone for the longer end of travel.

THE PROBLEM: If you see something that looks 'off' then it often is ask anybody who works on accident damaged vehicles, however over time many see the 'incorrect' example as being right and then react badly when a better shaped offering appears. The Eduard kit is pretty good for it's time and the interior sub-assemblies are virtual drop fits both ways with the Arma except forward of the wing trailing edge. Bluntly Arma got the wing profile and position correct and Eduard didn't. The knock on is that the Eduard belly profile is incorrect, the gap below the cockpit doors and the top surface is narrow, and this means the under nose has to be altered to get the nose circular for the spinner.

 

Verdict: If you want to build a 1/48 P-39 that really looks like one then Arma is the best way. The surface detail is realistic to the original, the flaws @Piotr Mikolajski lists are relatively minor albeit annoying and the parts for most P-39 versions are in the box. The inclusion of nose weights in this kit will make life easy for most as this can be a problem, early Eduard kits had a cast weight included I'm told but none of my kits have this. Cartograf decals, in my experience, always need careful handling as do most premium quality brands but are quite adequate with a good number of stencils included, while not in the F-4 Phantom class the P-39 was smothered in stencils.

 

[Piotr Mikolajski]

1 hour ago, SleeperService said:

the flaws @Piotr Mikolajski lists are relatively minor albeit annoying

 

This is a list of only those flaws that have been mentioned by the manufacturer. And which I have copied on BM to be archived in this thread.

 

I have examined the kit, there are more technical and design shortcomings, including mistakes in the stencils. For some, all these errors, regardless of their total number, will be insignificant, for others they will be disqualifying. Fortunately I don't have to worry about it, it's not my scale.

Maybe the people who pointed out the fit errors will post again in this thread and say more details about it. For now they have gone silent and it is hard to say whether these errors are an assembly error or whether it is the fault of the model after all.

[JFM148]

Thank you @SleeperService for the review.  I think it is useful to have other views on the ARMA P-39.  Just two comments...

 

1. Frankly no matter how you see it the Eduard kit is not a good one.  

 

As far as a fair and balanced analysis you do, I'm going to say the VERY SAME important issue many modellers miss regarding comments on old kits (Anyone reading Revell, Italeri, Academy?) - Context.  It is NOT fair to compare and/or criticize a 2024 newly released kit to the now old Eduard P-39 (2000).  Eduard was just as small as ARMA is today. Technology is not even comparable.  It is like comparing the back then 2000 Eduard newly released kit to Monogram's P-39 (1969).  IMHO it is not fair at all and could be confusing.  The correct and fair way to do it is to compare it to pictures and/or blueprints (of course, the reliable ones).  Please, I am not saying you are doing it. Not at all, but is really important to make a disclaimer before doing a side-by-side. That is missing in your review.

 

2. Much has been stated about the sink marks which align with the nicely moulded ribs in the wheelbay. This fatal flaw took all of five minutes to rectify including a tiny amount of rescribing to clean out adjacent panel detail.

 

In this part, I totally agree.  ARMA P-39 is a welcome addition, but I am pretty sure it will have issues as any other kit. This is fixable just as in many older kits.  It is sad reading comments here saying they "should avoid" buying the ARMA kit because is not as perfect as Tamiya or Eduard.  Totally nonsense.  Since I like old kits, I am used to fix many issues and have the pleasure/luxury of nice outcomes.  Nowadays small issues are totally fixable and those unable to fix them should avoid commenting on a kit's quality before learning how to fix issues, that is why this hobby is always challenging...Now, let's be clear, ARMA is not at the same quality level as Tamiya or Eduard just yet, But I am pretty sure they will be in 15-20 years from now.

Edited August 2, 2024 by JFM148

[SleeperService]

On 8/2/2024 at 7:27 PM, JFM148 said:

1. Frankly no matter how you see it the Eduard kit is not a good one.  

 

As far as a fair and balanced analysis you do, I'm going to say the VERY SAME important issue many modellers miss regarding comments on old kits (Anyone reading Revell, Italeri, Academy?) - Context.  It is NOT fair to compare and/or criticize a 2024 newly released kit to the now old Eduard P-39 (2000).  Eduard was just as small as ARMA is today. Technology is not even comparable.  It is like comparing the back then 2000 Eduard newly released kit to Monogram's P-39 (1969).  IMHO it is not fair at all and could be confusing.  The correct and fair way to do it is to compare it to pictures and/or blueprints (of course, the reliable ones).  Please, I am not saying you are doing it. Not at all, but is really important to make a disclaimer before doing a side-by-side. That is missing in your review.

 

You have no idea how many edits I did on this post on how to keep on topic with Arma, compare with Eduard, and avoid another warning from the mods about scope creep. With hindsight perhaps I should have added such a disclaimer. Most of the references I used are either in recent books or stuff I don't have copyright to use hence I was unable to share them.

I feel we will have to agree to disagree on one aspect; both kits are currently available and therefore in direct competition for sales, some of the on-line invective may be a result of this as individuals defend their 'champion'. However I will incorporate your suggestions in future.

[Rui Silva]

New version to be released at the end of August and available for pre-order: P-39N

[Tbolt]

N boxing markings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tbolt]

Landing gear doors and the sink marks fixed ( well "largely improved" ) for the P-39N boxing.

 

https://armahobbynews.pl/en/blog/2024/08/22/airacobra-p-39n-1-48-40011-is-here/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE0V6VleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXoviFbKj8EwNdreZ2H6L5Gv-hP5pQfvkv1EuZwZzqOJ5LFuFTc55MLXtQ_aem_ALfZSl0lvScQS6pT2jQtDQ

[SprueMan]

Kudos to them for both owning up and working to fixing the problems.

It could not have been easy but any step in the right direction is a good and welcome one.

[Karearea]

Agreed- I’ve been really impressed by their clear communication and ownership of the problems from the start.

 

I was already considering the new boxing as all three marking options are appealing, it’s great to hear of the refinements. 

[trickydicky210]

Arma Hobby to release a new version of the Airacobra:

 

"At the beginning of November, we will be launching another 1/48 kit for pre-order - a reconnaissance version of the Airacobra with 3D accessories."

 

From an Arma email:

Lots of kits for the end of the year

The launch of the Ki-43 pre-order is the first stage of our Christmas programme for you. At the beginning of November, we will be launching another 1/48 kit for pre-order - a reconnaissance version of the Airacobra with 3D accessories. At the same time, we will announce the next 1/72 kit, which, who knows, might make it before Christmas! Its pre-order will probably start in December and shipping as soon as it is ready. Christmas highlights will be rounded off by a beefed-up 1/72 scale reconnaissance Hurricane IIb/c double kit, available in December.

 

 

[2996 Victor]

1 hour ago, trickydicky210 said:

"At the beginning of November, we will be launching another 1/48 kit for pre-order - a reconnaissance version of the Airacobra with 3D accessories."

Oh, man! My wallet hasn't recovered from the 1/48 PR Hurricanes yet.....  Seriously, though, I like the sound of this as I wasn't aware of recce Airacobras  

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, 2996 Victor said:

Oh, man! My wallet hasn't recovered from the 1/48 PR Hurricanes yet.....  Seriously, though, I like the sound of this as I wasn't aware of recce Airacobras  

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

There's a couple of photos of the camera installation and the control panel in the cockpit in the Detail & Scale book but I haven't seen any pictures overall of these aircraft, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I wasn't going to buy an Arma P-39 but I might be persuaded...

[Mycapt65]

I'll be disappointed if a recce Airacobra is their upcoming big new 1/48 release. I thought there was something said about an upcoming new aircraft series in 1/48? There's no version of the Airacobra that would get my money. To me it's a weird failure of a fighter. I'd prefer something else more prolific or historically important that needs updated molds.I wouldn't mind a new 48th Ki-43. 

[Mike]

In case y'all missed it, here's our review of the latest boxing:

 

 

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Mycapt65 said:

To me it's a weird failure of a fighter.

Except  on the Eastern front, where it came into its own as an air superiority fighter, note the 2nd and 3rd high scoring VVS aces, Pokryshin and Rechalov got most of their kills flying the P-39,  and there were plenty of other P-39 aces.

One reason being most Air combat took place under 10,000 feet, where the lack of supercharger was nor a problem.

It also served an important role post war as a trainer, the tricycle undercarriage was ideal for transition to jets. Same for the P-63.

 

US opinion maybe influenced by pacific use,  where poorly equipped units with inexperienced pilots faced very experienced Japanese forces. 

RAF use was curtailed by lack of supercharger,  but by then Fighter Command was wasting its resources on the mostly pointless "Leaning into France" policy where it was taken so seriously by the Luftwaffe they just left two fighter Geschwader to deal with incursions....   I digress but the P-39 is an important WW2 type... just not much in the west.

 

There some neat VVS markings too

HTH