matchbox P-70 Havoc is it a revell kit ?

[brewerjerry]

Hi All,

Curiosity,before I think of trying to get one

The matchbox p-70, is it just the old revell p-70 kit ? if so I presume an original revell issue would be better quality.

Secondly is the kit reasonably accurate, or one not worth bothering with.

cheers

Jerry

Edited October 2, 2010 by brewerjerry

[thx6667]

Hi All,

Curiosity,before I think of trying to get one

Is the matchbox p-70 is it just the old revell p-70 kit ? if so I presume an original revell issue would be better quality.

Secondly is the kit reasonably accurate, or one not worth bothering with.

cheers

Jerry

Yup! The Matchbox Havoc was an A-20 powered turret version.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...amp;mode=linear

The Revell kit is OK, depends what you wish to do with it - simple rescribe job and some basic cockpit work improves it quite a bit.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Jonathan Mock

[Chuck1945]

When Matchbox was a going concern they had an A-20J in the catalog, I dont recall it being done as a P-70. Also while Matchbox was alive and well, I don't recall them ever reboxing Revell kits, although after the demise of Matchbox, some of their kits have appeared in Revell boxes.

The Revell A-20C/P-70 pre-dates Matchbox (at least as a plastic kit producer) being issued around 1966/67 as the A-20 and a couple of years later as the P-70.

[Nick Millman]

After the demise of Matchbox Revell issued some of their own kits under the Matchbox logo (as well as Matchbox kits) and the P-70 was one of these. Not to be confused with the original Matchbox A-20 Havoc which is a completely different kit.

[theplasticsurgeon]

This is the Matchbox P70:

This is the Revell A20C - identical parts/instructions for the main airframe:

This is the turreted Matchbox A20G - which is a completely different kit.

[brewerjerry]

Hi All,

Thanks for the replies,

It explains why I never remembered a matchbox P-70, It must have come out in my modelling gap years.

So i can get either a revell or a matchbox P-70 whichever I can get cheaper.

Cheers

Jerry

[Nick Millman]

This may be of interest - a comparison of the Airfix, Matchbox and Revell kits by Brian Baker.

A-20 Kit Comparison

It was posted on 28th Sept at Modelling Madness.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Nick Millman

[brewerjerry]

Hi

thanks for the link,very interesting.

as a general question,

anyone know if the P-70 nose was the same as a Havoc nose

cheers

jerry

[Giorgio N]

This may be of interest - a comparison of the Airfix, Matchbox and Revell kits by Brian Baker.

A-20 Kit Comparison

It was posted on 28th Sept at Modelling Madness.

It's a very interesting link, however one unfortunate feature of the matchbox A-20G kit is not mentioned: the nacelles are way oversize.

[Nick Millman]

It's a very interesting link, however one unfortunate feature of the matchbox A-20G kit is not mentioned: the nacelles are way oversize.

As I understand it the main issue with the nacelles is that they are too deep and project in profile below the level of the fuselage which they should not do. Notwithstanding this I'd still rather build the Matchbox kit than subject myself to the misery of carving, fiddling and filling - erhem - a more recent kit of the same subject.

[Giorgio N]

Yes, the nacelles are too deep and as a consequence also have an excessive width. It is possible to reduce them in size by cutting strips of plastic from the inner mating surfaces and the midline. There are also some other things to change, as the carburettor intakes shape.

In the end the modeller that wants an accurate 1/72 A-20G must choose between miseries: fighting with an ill fitting more modern kit or performing significative surgery on an older tool (and adding details to the same). This until Hasegawa will decide to add an A-20 to its catalogue, in which case there will be a third misery to choose from: paying an arm and a leg.

[Nick Millman]

Yes, the nacelles are too deep and as a consequence also have an excessive width. It is possible to reduce them in size by cutting strips of plastic from the inner mating surfaces and the midline. There are also some other things to change, as the carburettor intakes shape.

In the end the modeller that wants an accurate 1/72 A-20G must choose between miseries: fighting with an ill fitting more modern kit or performing significative surgery on an older tool (and adding details to the same). This until Hasegawa will decide to add an A-20 to its catalogue, in which case there will be a third misery to choose from: paying an arm and a leg.

Ah, but Hasegawa probably won't, now that "an ill fitting more modern kit" has been released! Same with the Ki-21, archetypal JAAF bomber, planned by Hasegawa but cancelled because a certain manufacturer released their own version first, and the Ki-27 in 1/32nd - now unlikely to be seen as a Hasegawa or Tamiya production, price notwithstanding!

Thanks for the extra details about the Matchbox A-20 errors. What about cross-kitting - any mileage in that?

Nick

[Giorgio N]

Cross kitting might be an option, however there are differences in the cowling between the A-20G and the earlier versions. This means extra work for the modeller to get the right shape. I always keep an eye open for a cheap aifix boston whenever I visit a model show, just for this purpose, however I'm now tempted to build my matchbox A-20 as it is.

Regarding Hasegawa, If the presence of the Academy B-24 didn't deter them from making their own, I dont think they will worry about the MPM kits or any other short run. These are limited run, manufactured in low numbers and become very expensive when they reach Asia. If hasegawa finds out there's a market in Japan for a series of A-20, maybe we'll see them. And these of course will become very expensive when they reach Europe !

Of course I've forgotten another alternative: switching to 1/48 and look for an AMT kit. Don't know how good these are though.

[Matt Roberts]

Guys, remember that Dragon has shown a new 72nd A-20 earlier this year. Right now it is only known as an B/C according to the Wing Tech pic from Nurnberg

As for the nose of the P-70, there is still alot of disagreement on EXACTLY what nose was operationaly used. The earliest P-70's were the A-20C with what just looked to be a painted over nose and a belly gun tub. This is what the AMT 48th P-70 kit represents. There are those who say that this version was only used as a training plane Stateside, but there are pics from New Guinea showing at least a few made it into combat (Planes of Fame IIRC and Combat Aircraft mag). This is what the old Revell 72nd represented. Then there was a later P-70 (P-70B?) that was based upon the EARLY A-20G. The earliest A-20Gs had the later 'strafer' noses but did not have the gun turret. Most of these seemed to have gone to the VVS via Lend Lease but the American ones were converted to P-70s. Now the stupid thing is I have not seen a pic of one of these in New Guinea but have seen pics of them Stateside where they trained crews that went on to the Beaufighters and eventually Black Widows.

It has seemed to me to have been contradictory as to which ones went to the SWPA combat zone and which stayed Stateside. Maybe someone can actually link to a pic of the later ones in operational service.

[Nigel Bunker]

I don't know how accurate, but I used some spare B-25 cowlings from an Italeri kt on my Matchbox A-20 and thinned down the nacelles. Not perfect but does improve it.

[Nick Millman]

The earliest P-70's were the A-20C with what just looked to be a painted over nose and a belly gun tub.

That's what I thought too until I saw a photograph of a belly-landed Australian Boston which revealed that the "painted over" glass was actually aluminium sheet skinning!

[Matt Roberts]

That's what I thought too until I saw a photograph of a belly-landed Australian Boston which revealed that the "painted over" glass was actually aluminium sheet skinning!

Modeling wise it's pretty much how it goes. My second P-70 is earmarked for an RAAF strafer - just need to get some Red Roo cowls for it.

That may also be a source for 72nd updates, not sure as I have done very few 72nds in the last 20+ years.

The biggest pain with doing Havoc/Bostons are getting the exhausts right. If I think right, (huh) the AMT A-20B/C/P-70 does not have a good representation of the exhausts. Somehow I picture the Revells being almost as bad considering they are 20+ years older. For RAF ones you may want to look at Beaufighter 'porcupine' exhausts such as those from Ultracast in 48th (I remember a metal one in 72nd) to do a Boston. Not 100% sure but I am unsure if any American Havocs had any flame dampening.

[Steve N]

Back before the explosion of aftermarket parts (around 1992 or so) I put considerable effort into "accurizing" the Matchbox A-20G. I rescribed the fuselage, vacuformed my own canopies, scratchbuilt the cockpit, replaced the gun barrels with brass tube, and strachtbuilt the main landing gear and bomb bay. The gun turret "guts" came from the old Monogram Snap-Tite B-26 Marauder. But the most challenging part of the build was dealing with the grossly oversized nacelles and engine cowls. Reducing the nacelle diameter was straightforward enough, but the kit cowls were unusable. IIRC I replaced them with cowls from an old Monogram Snap-Tite B-25, and added scratchbuilt exhaust stubs. I think the engines ironically came from a Revell A-20. I've never built the Frog or Airfix Boston/Havocs, but one thing both the Matchbox and Revell kits totally botched was the oil coolers on the inboard sides of the nacelles, which I scratchbuilt. Fortunately, I was able to get some good detail photos of the oil coolers and main wheel wells of the A-20G at the USAF museum (unfortunately the bomb bay wasn't open at the time.) This was also one of my first forays into resin casting..I cast new main wheels, using a whees from the aformentioned B-25 as a master (after scribing the diomand tread pattern.)

This is the result. The serial number is fictitious, as I wanted to do may own nose art (hand painted on decal film.) She's a bit dusty (and the camera flash really shows it) and one of the guns barrels and a gear door have gone missing over the years, but she's held up pretty well.

Cheers!

Steve

Edited October 10, 2010 by Steve N

[Ed Russell]

"an ill fitting more modern kit"

Is this based on personal experience or just the manufacturers reputation for ill-fittingness? I haven't seen any proper reviews of these kits so I don't know. I have built a few of their kits and later ones have fitted together well.

I had to laugh when I saw Dragon mentioned. I have seen two other peoples' builds of Dragon kits and nothing fitted! However, I'm not saying that they can't have improved.

There is a thread here about A-20's - the last posting isn't very encouraging that "an ill-fitting more modern kit" is wide of the mark. More info please Tony.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55886