P-51B/Mustang III in 1/72 - suggsetions?

[Andre B]

People usually comment the strange engine that the  early Academy P-51D had (caunting the exhaust pipes).

 

Airfix P-51B had an strange engine as well. It doesn't need air. All the usually openings are closed!

 

Concerning the Revell kit it is an nice kit except for the clear parts. The canopy is as bad as it can be. It makes one wonder what Revell where thinking? Did they try to build the kit? The clear parts completely spoils the kit wich is sad...

 

/André

[72modeler]

Run for your lives, chaps- it's a worm stampede! 😱 Andre- see the  comprehensive and lengthy discussion on this very topic on BM.  My personal opinion, for what it's worth, after a lot of study and measurement of the existing kits, is that the Hasegawa P-51B fuselage mated to the Academy P-51B/C wing gets pretty darned close, as the Hasegawa kit is one of the very few that gets the very distinctive flattened broad shoulders of the upper cowling contours correct. Still hoping one day for somebody to come out with a state of the art kit....Eduard might, but not holding my breath. Whoever gets one out that's correct is going to make a TON of money, though!

Mike

[Seahawk]

No discussion of the KP kit?  ISTR Brian Derbyshire's review was very enthusiastic though he found something wrong with it that called for some surgery.

[oz rb fan]

i  rather like the two Revell  B,s i have built...they look the part in my mind

29313085_731971430331565_7512650450590162070_n by paul sabin, on Flickr

29313204_731971406998234_1731147831255649384_n (1) by paul sabin, on Flickr

36087978_778989455629762_2417457380896800768_o by paul sabin, on Flickr

36086981_778989348963106_4034106195215122432_o by paul sabin, on Flickr

[Andre B]

4 hours ago, oz rb fan said:

i  rather like the two Revell  B,s i have built...they look the part in my mind

29313085_731971430331565_7512650450590162070_n by paul sabin, on Flickr

29313204_731971406998234_1731147831255649384_n (1) by paul sabin, on Flickr

36087978_778989455629762_2417457380896800768_o by paul sabin, on Flickr

36086981_778989348963106_4034106195215122432_o by paul sabin, on Flickr

I think the Revell kit is ok except for the clear parts. I had to get three canopy's to find one that fits to the fuselage. And even the best One was badly moulded. In the end I had to cut two canopy's to get one...

 

/André

[MDriskill]

As noted Hasegawa has the best forward fuselage shape - the only one whose cowl could actually contain a scale Merlin, LOL. But alas, that infamous wing issue.

 

I don’t like the Academy kit. IMHO the wing taper is noticeably off, making the whole thing look odd, with the chord at the root much too wide. That’s why the wing root fits so nicely on the Hasegawa wing fillets, which of course were made for that kit’s over-extended leading edge. It also has an overly large carb intake “smile,” and some other minor glitches.

 

The KP (AZ) kit appears very similar to the Revell one as far as basic shapes go, but with a much higher level of detail inside and out. It would be my choice for an out-of-the-box build amongst the current crop of 1/72 kits.

 

For a “serious” build, I’d be tempted to see if the KP wing could be coaxed onto a Hasegawa fuselage.

Edited August 18, 2018 by MDriskill

[Wm Blecky]

After much thought, consideration and talking with few other members, taking in to all what is currently available, I have decided on mating the Hasegawa fuselage to the Revell wings.  I feel that will give me satisfactory results.

[Graham Boak]

To repeat someone else's comments, why not the KP?  When it appeared, it was heavily criticised for lacking drop tanks, which suggests to me that had there been any more significant faults then more would have been made of them.

[Wm Blecky]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

To repeat someone else's comments, why not the KP?  When it appeared, it was heavily criticised for lacking drop tanks, which suggests to me that had there been any more significant faults then more would have been made of them.

KP's kit is pretty much an identical copy of the Revell kit (right down to mold flaws that are found on the kit).  This has been quite heavily covered back when they released their kit.  Where KP did improve some of the external detail and I believe even gave a better detailed wheel well than the Revell kit, they also botched their tail section.  It does not sit correctly.

 

I have a difficult time supporting a company who copies other company's products (their 109G kit also comes to mind here).  Granted KP made improvements some areas while botching others, still it does not change the facts.

 

Revell's wing can be adapted to the Hasegawa kit and the external level of detail matches, so even though KP enhanced the external appearance of the wing and fuselage, for my use, it would not be a good match when using the Hasegawa fuselage.  As far as a detailed wheel well goes, I really couldn't care one way or the other as that is detail that is generally not seen unless you display your kit on a mirror (something I do not do). 

[Andre B]

15 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

KP's kit is pretty much an identical copy of the Revell kit (right down to mold flaws that are found on the kit).  This has been quite heavily covered back when they released their kit.  Where KP did improve some of the external detail and I believe even gave a better detailed wheel well than the Revell kit, they also botched their tail section.  It does not sit correctly.

 

I have a difficult time supporting a company who copies other company's products (their 109G kit also comes to mind here).  Granted KP made improvements some areas while botching others, still it does not change the facts.

 

Revell's wing can be adapted to the Hasegawa kit and the external level of detail matches, so even though KP enhanced the external appearance of the wing and fuselage, for my use, it would not be a good match when using the Hasegawa fuselage.  As far as a detailed wheel well goes, I really couldn't care one way or the other as that is detail that is generally not seen unless you display your kit on a mirror (something I do not do). 

I have an unbuilt Revell kit. I probably go the same way and try to fit the Revell wing to the Hasegawa fuselage. 

 

Cheers / André

[Dave Fleming]

Why use the Revell wing? Why fit a wing that is as inaccurate as the original?

 

The Best was the old Hawkeye conversion, next best would be the Academy (almost identical fuselage to the Hasegawa, but the correct wing plan shape). 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[Jan Polc]

On 8/4/2018 at 11:05 PM, Wm Blecky said:

KP's kit is pretty much an identical copy of the Revell kit (right down to mold flaws that are found on the kit).  This has been quite heavily covered back when they released their kit.  Where KP did improve some of the external detail and I believe even gave a better detailed wheel well than the Revell kit, they also botched their tail section.  It does not sit correctly.

Have you seen our kit that you are writing this? Check various parts of KP against Revell please. What about the wings sir? The same story is with our 109G, it is not a copy of Fine Molds etc..., check the cross sections of the fuselage for instance. 

[Graham Boak]

I can back Jan that the KP Bf 109G is not a copy of another company's kit.  The fuselage cross-section at the leading edge is unique.

[Stein Meum]

And then we have the Kovozavody Prostejov kits released just a few years ago. Malcolm and standard hoods. How do they compare to the previously mentioned kits?

 

Stein M 

 

[MDriskill]

10 hours ago, Stein Meum said:

And then we have the Kovozavody Prostejov kits released just a few years ago. Malcolm and standard hoods. How do they compare to the previously mentioned kits?

 

Stein M 

 

Hello Stein - the “KP” kit mentioned in the posts above, is referring to Kovozavody Prostejov.

Edited August 6, 2018 by MDriskill

[72modeler]

I have listed some observations below, but have confined them to a few of the  most important, as this is a discussion that has been going on pretty  much since the 1/72 Monogram P-51B was released, on almost every modeling forum, including the P-51 Special Interest Group, of which I am a member. Not wishing to unleash the worms from their can, here are some thoughts, in no order.

 

The Monogram kit is still regarded to have the best outline and dimension; it is the only kit, to my knowledge, that gets the 'gull wing' droop of the leading edge at the wing root. Carb intake under the nose needs to be boxed in; wheel bays are not boxed in, but actually easier to correct as the  main spar doesn't follow the outline of the wheel bays, as does almost every Mustang kit in 1/72 and 1/48...except the Airfix D! No cockpit detail, thick one-piece canopy, and all raised panel lines, although very fine and precise. A simple model, as befits its heritage.

 

There was an extensive article in the P-51 SIG on the KP P-51B kit, comparing it to the Hasegawa, Academy, and Revell kits; all of the kits were compared to the CJ Neely drawings, which are regarded by many as the best scale Mustang drawings available. I cannot provide a link to the post, which had text, drawings, and photos, without getting into trouble, but I have paraphrased the findings. The reviewer did point out that the KP kit was probably the best kit to start from, because of its engineering, the corrections are easier to do, but there were problems:

• the wings had the best plan view, but had no leading edge droop, the wheel bays were wrong as the mainspar wasn't straight, but followed the outline of the wheel bays; outer gun port and landing light were not in the correct location, outer gun port too far outboard and landing light too far inboard but panel lines were the most accurate
• cockpit canopy was 2mm too far aft
• upper and lower cowling contours in profile were too shallow, especially the lower cowling as it swept up to the carb intake
• upper cowling contours lacked the broad, flattened 'shoulders' of the real thing; the Hasegawa B/C and Monogram B are the only ones to get this contour correct
• the rudder post is swept forward, throwing the entire fin/rudder off; the Hasegawa fin is too squared off at the top, but easily fixed

Hasegawa

• fuselage is the best of the three and the only one to get the upper cowling contours correct; wing as leading edge extension more like a D and wheel bays are too shallow; gunports are staggered correctly (the outer gunport is lower than the inner, as seen from the front.) Rear quarter windows are molded as one large section, so you just mask off the wndows after attaching to the fuselage

Academy

• leading edge extension 2.5mm too wide in chord; outer gun port and landing light in same incorrect location as KP kit wing; upper cowling contours too rounded
• the Academy wing will fit the Hasegawa fuselage with very minor fettling, and if the corrections are made to the wing leading edge extension, droop,and wheel bays, a pretty decent model can be built.

Hawkeye Designs wing

• probably the best B/C model wing; has option for dropped flaps and the droop of the wing extension at the wing root, but the wheel bay wall  follows the outline of the bay. Long, long OOP and hard to find.

Mating the KP or Academy wing to the Hasegawa fuselage was mentioned as the two best starting points. There were correct resin wheel bay inserts for the B/C, but I don't think any are still available. (I'm thinking Neomega and/or Vector, but I might be wrong.)

Bottom line- there is still no state of the art P-51B/C in the gentleman's scale...whoever gets one out there is going to make a TON of money.

 

I do not mean to re-open the lengthy discussion we have had here on BM, but wanted to help answer John's query. Unless somebody like Eduard or Tamiya gets around to one, I guess each of us has our own ideas on the best way to build a decent replica.

Mike

Edited August 10, 2018 by 72modeler
corrected spelling

[MDriskill]

Thank you 72modeler for this excellent summary! Very helpful indeed.

 

Makes me wonder if Hasey fuselage + Monogram wing might be the current way to go, for those of us sans  a secret stash of Hawkeye “fixer” wings. Yes you’d have to re-scribe it and add wheel well detail...but as you pointed out, unlike the other kits you at least don’t have to excavate incorrect wheel wells first, LOL...

Edited August 7, 2018 by MDriskill

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, MDriskill said:

Thank you 72modeler for this excellent summary! Very helpful indeed.

 

Makes me wonder if Hasey fuselage + Monogram wing might be the current way to go, for those of us sans  a secret stash of Hawkeye “fixer” wings. Yes you’d have to re-scribe it and add wheel well detail...but as you pointed out, unlike the other kits you at least don’t have to excavate incorrect wheel wells first, LOL...

I think the way the wing is engineered on the Monogram kit, that would not be as easy. I have always toyed with the idea of using the Monogram leading edge extension, with its correct droop and chord and making a resin piece that would incorporate both side, plus the wheel bay with the correct mainspar- basically the center section, including the fuel tank covers. I was thinking that would be the easiest to fit, replacing that part of the Hasegawa P-51B wing. That would correct the wing root chord, the extension, and too-shallow wheel bays of the Hasegawa kit, which otherwise has the gun ports and landing light where they are supposed to be.  (Don't hold your breath waiting for me to get around to that task!) Of course, the First Law of Modeling will kick in- about the time a conversion or scratchbuild is done, somebody else will release a state-of-the-art kit of the given subject!

Mike

[Graham Boak]

Don't worry about choosing the "least worst" leading edge extension - pick your wing for other reasons..  Just take a pair of pliers to the chosen extension, bend down and after gluing the wing halves together, file to shape.  It isn't champion-grade modelling.

[Wm Blecky]

On 8/6/2018 at 8:17 AM, Graham Boak said:

I can back Jan that the KP Bf 109G is not a copy of another company's kit.  The fuselage cross-section at the leading edge is unique.

The wing is a near copy of the Fine Molds 109G wing, yes, modified somewhat and in areas the detail improved, but still the origins are Fine Molds. 

[Graham Boak]

The fuselage is not.

[AaCee26]

On 8/6/2018 at 4:17 PM, Graham Boak said:

I can back Jan that the KP Bf 109G is not a copy of another company's kit.  The fuselage cross-section at the leading edge is unique.

I completet agree with Graham hera and add the lenght of the nose, height of it and wing incidense are unique in their kit. And comparing FineMolds rear fuselage to KP was well played - I compared it to Zvezda

 

What comes to KP vs Revell P-51Bs there are enough comparison pictures in the net for everyone to make their own conclusions.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[Gwart]

On fixing the Hasegawa wing the easiest way is to leave the inner gear doors up,pack miliput into the inside of the wing root then sand sand sand (the inner gear doors are incorrect in outline shape,but a simple rescribe of the forward part is easy to do.).The hasegawa  wing has a superb cross section and a nice thin trailing edge, all other (1/72) B/C wings are flat like a sandal sole.

 

Shane.

[Bedders]

The KP wing is pretty good, with a correct leading edge kink, but the leading edge droop is not there and the wheel wells are incorrect internally at the rear (though otherwise the detail in the wells/doors is very nice). But the KP fuselage is wrong in several areas: nose shape too slender, position of exhausts too high, cockpit position incorrect fore-aft, overall length too short, and fin/rudder line leaning forward from the vertical. Very much a copy of Revell. After trying to correct all this I changed tack and I mated the KP wing to a Hasegawa fuselage and it worked out OK: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235027447-p-51b-in-172/. NB the Hawkeye wing is wrong in that the ammo bay panels extend too far outboard, like those on a D model. KP gets this right.

 

Justin

 

[Graham Boak]

On 8/20/2018 at 3:08 PM, Gwart said:

On fixing the Hasegawa wing the easiest way is to leave the inner gear doors up,pack miliput into the inside of the wing root then sand sand sand 

 

That would certainly help, but I don't think that's enough.  I believe that you have to flatten the lower surface, either by adding filler underneath the leading edge of the droop or (my favourite approach) simply bending it down on both lower and upper halves (and then sanding).  I have to admit that I haven't seen a good cross section of this area to confirm the exact shape, but the visible droop is greater than just the depth of the upper moulding of the extended leading edge.