1/72 WB-57F questions...

[cvrle]

So, the Rumourmonger thread on the AMP Canberras has got me thinking. I know of the MACH 2 kits. Having seen some MACH 2 kits IRL, I am... worried... that my patience will fall short of the amount needed to finish the kit.

 

The Mach 2 kits I've seen have trouble with small parts and transparencies. Would another kit (like an Italeri B-57) be a suitable donor for these (especially the canopy), while using the main airframe components of the MACH 2 one? Or is that just a pipe dream...?

 

Has perhaps some brave soul tired something along those lines...?

[Rob de Bie]

I'm pretty sure that the old Italeri B-57 was copied for the fuselage. But that kit has a problem with the rear fuselage, so it added another problem.

 

What I found most irritating on the Mach 2 kit is that the wing roots are different left and right -  they are at different heights when viewed from the front. The right wing root matches the left wing root at the leading and trailing edges, but it is 1 mm higher at the wing's thickest point. This is matched by the wing itself, of which the right top side is about 1 mm thicker than the left top side.

 

Also, the wings are very fat over the last third of the chord, it looks strange. NACA 64 series is all that the Aerophile article mentions.

 

Rob

[Paul Thompson]

There was a vac kit by Airmodel in the dim and distant past. You were pointed at Frog or old Airfix kits for detail bits. There used to be a conversion set by RB productions consisting of vacform wings and resin engine fronts. I've got one for the 57D but they also did one for the WB-57F, for what it's worth. Meant for one of the Italeri efforts. So, if you're worried about patience, dig up one of these and try it first. The Mach kit will probably seem like a breeze afterwards.

 

Paul.

 

P.S. I know they've a long history, but it doesn't really qualify as modern, unless you're serioulsly into denying getting old.

Edited January 8 by Paul Thompson
P.S.

[TheyJammedKenny!]

3 hours ago, Paul Thompson said:

doesn't really qualify as modern

NASA is still flying 'em!

[tempestfan]

18 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

NASA is still flying 'em!

There are loads of T-38s around still flying, but I'd still wouldn't call them "modern".

[Paul Thompson]

With pedants hat firmly on, perhaps it depends on which specific airframe you want to build. I'm all confused now. So, no change there, then. But I have to say, every time I see a question about e.g. Hawker Hunters posted in Modern it feels........subtly wrong, even though until recently there were still plenty flying around.

 

Paul.