sroubos Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 To my eye the Academy I've built looks like the windscreen is squashed, it seems too low and flat. It just looks odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) To my eye the Academy I've built looks like the windscreen is squashed, it seems too low and flat. It just looks odd. I think thats goes for most of the older P-51D models. But take a look on the windscreen to the Italeri P-51D. That one looks realy odd. Concerning dihidral... ...thats a thing that must be checked and sometimes corrected on most aircraft models. For example even new Airfix Spitfires... The Academy P-51D kit dates back to 1988, the Italeri kit dates to 1997 and the date of my second or is it 3rd generation (?) Hasegava Mustang is 1994. The Tamiya P-51D Mustang came 2000. The Academy P-51D... http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=107447 I think it would be better to compare the Academy kit with the older Hasegava kit (after 1970 around?) or at least more fair. For sure Tamiya could done a better homework concerning the flaps. Academy got loose flaps back in 1988. And how old/young is the latest Mustang from Airfix? The Academy kit has good fit and a nice cockpit. It doesn't need filler or lot of sanding (compared to the Italeri kit) and it looks like a P-51D. A thing you can't say about the P-51D that Revell still tryes to fool builders with. Build the Academy kit and have som fun. But if you want accurasy I also say go for Tamiya or Hasegava... Best R. Andre Edited March 11, 2014 by Andre B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes, I said that the Heller kit looks very skinny to me. I'll take a picture and post it to show what I mean. Now, might be that Heller used the airfix kit for a while ? The one I've built (actually still building to test some paints) really does not look like a nice kit in any way and it's very far from say the nice Spitfire XVI of the same company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Yes, I said that the Heller kit looks very skinny to me. I'll take a picture and post it to show what I mean. Now, might be that Heller used the airfix kit for a while ? The one I've built (actually still building to test some paints) really does not look like a nice kit in any way and it's very far from say the nice Spitfire XVI of the same company The Heller Mustang has a "skinnyer nose" compared to the latest Airfix but is a lot more beefier than the second generation P-51D from Airfix. It's sad that the Heller Mustang lacks most of the interior but that wasn't a big issue when it came. It was rather easy to make a good interior. The Heller P-51D was also sold as a Swedish J 26. The Heller Spitfire dates back to 1972 and was one of the best Spitfire's at that time. It shares the good fit with the Mustang and compared to it has more of "interior". It's just two years concerning development. I have two Heller Spitfires and one Heller Mustang in my "stash" and the Spitfires are still nice "bubbeltopp spitfires"... The Heller Spitfire... http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=127771 The Heller P-51D... http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=146811 Edited March 11, 2014 by Andre B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Giorgio: is the canopy of your kit wider than the fuselage where it fits? If so, then it isn't the Heller tooling but the 2nd Airfix one in a Heller box. That's judging from Andre and my experience with these kits. Another question might be the transfer sheet that came with it, although that could perhaps be the original Heller one it would seem unlikely in a reboxing. Perhaps those on the Airfix Tribute Forum would know whether the Airfix P-51D was ever released in a Heller boxing? The Heller Spitfire was indeed rather nice when it came out but I'd look to other representatives now. Edited March 11, 2014 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Giorgio: is the canopy of your kit wider than the fuselage where it fits? If so, then it isn't the Heller tooling but the 2nd Airfix one in a Heller box. That's judging from Andre and my experience with these kits. Another question might be the transfer sheet that came with it, although that could perhaps be the original Heller one it would seem unlikely in a reboxing. Graham, yes, the canopy is a bit wider than the fuselage... actually quite wider. The rest of the kit is raised panel lines with rivets on the flaps, no wheel wells, very little interior. If it is the Airfix kit, then I have to apologise to Heller's Mustang... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) I've heard some gossip/rumours that there where some woman's in the leading board at Hornby that could'nt understand (nor see the differences) why thera where so many Mustangs in the Heller and Airfix companys. So maybe they took some commands to "effective" the productionline. Well it almost sank both Airfix and Heller... Airfix P-51D... http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=128592 Edited March 11, 2014 by Andre B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) In my experience that's only true of the 2nd Airfix attempt. You can "fix" it with Microstrip between the top of the fuselage halves, now you've got it... Whether you want to bother or donate it to a worthy cause is up to you. Heller sold a lot of their tools in order to keep the company going, before the take-over by Hornby. That included better models than their P-51D, so perhaps that was one of them. It might say something in the Heller history. Edited March 11, 2014 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Graham, yes, the canopy is a bit wider than the fuselage... actually quite wider. The rest of the kit is raised panel lines with rivets on the flaps, no wheel wells, very little interior. If it is the Airfix kit, then I have to apologise to Heller's Mustang... If the interior on your Mustang has batteries and an nice seat it's the Airfix Mustang you have. If the cockpit is "blanked of" behind the seat it is the Heller kit. You can also se the differences on the underside of the wings. The Heller kit has "id-lamps" on both undersides of he wings where the Airfix just have it on the correct starboardside... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Hello. One of the most glaringly obvious shortcomings of the Academy 1/72 P-51D -- and rarely mentioned in reviews -- is the shape of the vertical fin, conspicuously too narrow as compared to photos. Ironically, that fault can become an advantage if you're trying to convert it to an early Cavalier Mustang: just extend it up with a bit of plastic card cut along its leading and trailing edge outlines, and you'll have a good match for those civil-mod Mustangs used by El Salvador against Honduras in the 100-Hour War (aka 'Soccer War') in 1969. I made an comparisson with the latest Airfix Mustang and the Hasegava Mustang as well and I could'nt se any obvius difference. If the Academy fin is wrong it means that the fins on the Airfix and Hasegava kits are wrong too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 The Heller Spitfire dates back to 1972 and was one of the best Spitfire's at that time. It shares the good fit with the Mustang and compared to it has more of "interior". It's just two years concerning development. I have two Heller Spitfires and one Heller Mustang in my "stash" and the Spitfires are still nice "bubbeltopp spitfires"... The Heller Spitfire... http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=127771 The Heller P-51D... http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=146811 No, the (very nice) Spitfire XVI was released in 1979: http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=148603 1972 is the date of the release of the Spitfire I, which like the later Vb is complete As for the Mustang, it's Heller's own tooling and as Giorgio said, it's terrible compared to the Spitfire XVI and other Heller "classics". Heller did replace some of their own tooled kits with Airfix ones (F4U-1, Bf-109G) however all P-51D boxings contain their own tooling. It has optional canopies (for D and K) variants. Here are the contents of the Heller kit which Giorgio built (from a commercial website): http://www.model-making.eu/products/item_name-110497.html And for a comparison the second generation Airfix P-51D: http://www.flevoaviationhobby.net/images/kitreviews/1-72/air2098/air2098.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Yes, that's the one I built, so it's the original Heller kit and not an Airfix one. It has the lights under both wings, it's moulded in the same awful white plastic, definitely Heller. And IMHO it's not a good kit at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Yes, that's the one I built, so it's the original Heller kit and not an Airfix one. It has the lights under both wings, it's moulded in the same awful white plastic, definitely Heller. And IMHO it's not a good kit at all My Heller kit is probably older as it is moulded in a silver, more softer plastic. I've built it 20 years ago. The fit was good and it didn't need any filler. And yes compared with the mainstream kits of today it's not a good kit. No interior to speak about and the the propeller is awfull. But for it's day it was a good kit. And it is still the only mainstream kit with the option to be built with or without the dorsal spinnfin. Those portside lights under the wing is easy to sand of. That's was a well known fault 40 years ago when this kit was almost the only alternative to the Airfix and Matchbox kits. The Revell offering was awfull even then... For sure there have been a development concerning Mustang kits over the years and thank good for that. If the latest Airfix offering hadn't been better than the Italeri offerings what had happend then? If you want to build a nice Mustang that never starts any big discussions or attentions go mainstream and buy an Airfix, Hasegava or Tamiya. But for the puritanist the Heller kit still can offer a fun and cheap challenge, Since the Mustang was one of tha first aircraft with a wing profile based on laminar flow theory, panel lines on the wings were filled and sanded to achieve a smoth surface and then painted so there goes most of the panel lines away anyway, recessed or not. Rescribe the hullsides, put in an decent interior (why not one from the Academy kit). Sand of the nose a little for better shape. You can use the Airfix kit for comparing and get it right. The bigger landing gear doors where also often closed on ground so you don't have to put that much attention on the landing gear bays. Get a new prop and spinner. And last, build it without the dorsal spinnfin. In the end you will have an early P-51D that few can guess it's origin. Thats a challenge! Of course you can cut of the dorsal spinnfin on the Airfix or Tamiya kit and sand it smoth. But whats the challenge with that? Everyone can still se that it is an mainstream kit... Cheers! /Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 No, the (very nice) Spitfire XVI was released in 1979: http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=148603 1972 is the date of the release of the Spitfire I, which like the later Vb is complete :poo-poo: As for the Mustang, it's Heller's own tooling and as Giorgio said, it's terrible compared to the Spitfire XVI and other Heller "classics". Heller did replace some of their own tooled kits with Airfix ones (F4U-1, Bf-109G) however all P-51D boxings contain their own tooling. It has optional canopies (for D and K) variants. Here are the contents of the Heller kit which Giorgio built (from a commercial website): http://www.model-making.eu/products/item_name-110497.html And for a comparison the second generation Airfix P-51D: http://www.flevoaviationhobby.net/images/kitreviews/1-72/air2098/air2098.html Correct, Panoz. I had just to many numbers in my head when writing it down. 1979 it is! Cheers! Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhhalifaxxx Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 "I made an comparisson with the latest Airfix Mustang and the Hasegava Mustang as well and I could'nt se any obvius difference. If the Academy fin is wrong it means that the fins on the Airfix and Hasegava kits are wrong too..." - Andre Well, this is a picture I just took of the sprues of the Hasegawa (left) and Academy (right) 1/72 P-51D kits. Notice the difference in the vertical fin shape. In fact, what makes the Academy fin narrower is the "break" in the leading edge at the fin extension, which is attenuated in a (fictitious) curve. Width differnces can be best appreciated at the tip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Nice picture Halifaxxx...' If you take a papper on the computerscreen and draw the line of the Hasegava kit using a pen. And then transfer that "drawing" to the Academykit its easy to see how little it is to cut or sand away of the spinnfin to make them look the same. The Academy rudder isn't higher, lower, smaller or skinnyer. It's as you say the bigger "curve" in the end of the dorsal spinnfin that's is to big. And that's easy fixed... In further comparison you got a lot more interior in the Academy kit compared to the newer Hasegava and much newer Airfix kits. Look at the parts nr. 12 and 15 on the Academy kit seen in the picure. In the other kit these parts are moulded within the fuselagesides. The Academy kit also gives you a mirror to put on top of the windscreen (part nr 20)... Some nice pictures concerning the interior (with no aftermarket parts). http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234908185-academy-172-p-51d/ Sheers! / Andre Edited March 13, 2014 by Andre B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 My Heller kit is probably older as it is moulded in a silver, more softer plastic. I've built it 20 years ago. The fit was good and it didn't need any filler. And yes compared with the mainstream kits of today it's not a good kit. No interior to speak about and the the propeller is awfull. But for it's day it was a good kit. And it is still the only mainstream kit with the option to be built with or without the dorsal spinnfin. Those portside lights under the wing is easy to sand of. That's was a well known fault 40 years ago when this kit was almost the only alternative to the Airfix and Matchbox kits. The Revell offering was awfull even then... For sure there have been a development concerning Mustang kits over the years and thank good for that. If the latest Airfix offering hadn't been better than the Italeri offerings what had happend then? If you want to build a nice Mustang that never starts any big discussions or attentions go mainstream and buy an Airfix, Hasegava or Tamiya. But for the puritanist the Heller kit still can offer a fun and cheap challenge, Since the Mustang was one of tha first aircraft with a wing profile based on laminar flow theory, panel lines on the wings were filled and sanded to achieve a smoth surface and then painted so there goes most of the panel lines away anyway, recessed or not. Rescribe the hullsides, put in an decent interior (why not one from the Academy kit). Sand of the nose a little for better shape. You can use the Airfix kit for comparing and get it right. The bigger landing gear doors where also often closed on ground so you don't have to put that much attention on the landing gear bays. Get a new prop and spinner. And last, build it without the dorsal spinnfin. In the end you will have an early P-51D that few can guess it's origin. Thats a challenge! Of course you can cut of the dorsal spinnfin on the Airfix or Tamiya kit and sand it smoth. But whats the challenge with that? Everyone can still se that it is an mainstream kit... Cheers! /Andre Andre, I appreciate that the Heller kit is old and can't be compared with more recent ones in terms of details and finesse. And I have no problem with this, I have worse kits in my stash and have no problem working with old kits (witness the Matchbox MiG-21 I'm building for the STGB here on BM). It's the shape of the completed model I'm not happy with, it looks very odd compared to pictures and other Mustang kits I have. For this reason my Heller Mustang will only be used as a "testbed" for metallic paints and homemade decals, while other kits will be used to represent the markings I'm interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Don't work from the picture - the position of the camera and the quality of the lens may be distorting. Do it on the real thing or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhhalifaxxx Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Andre: I don't want this to become a "flame war", but the top of the Academy Mustang fin is definitely narrower (skinnier) than the Hasegawa one, so it wouldn't be a case of cutting or sanding away, rather the opposite -- to add to its width to make it similar to its Japanese counterpart. All other 1/72 P-51Ds I have seen -- Tamiya, older Hasegawa, old Airfix (I still don't have the newest Airfix version) -- concurr with the wider Hasegawa interpretation shown in the picture. The Italeri offering has a slightly narrower fin, but is much closer to this Hasegawa fin. I'm not saying that, detail-wise, the Academy kit is poorer than the others: its cockipit interior is definitely better than what is offered by any of the kits that came before. The original question was advice on what should be improved on the Academy kit. Well, one of those improvements should be the reshaping of the vertical fin -- both at the tip and at the fillet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 It's all about modeling. You could always find good and bad things with a kit. My meaning is that in the end the Academy it is a kit that is easy and fun to build. And when it comes to mm... ...who got really the shape right? They handmade moulds for a model in a 1/72 scale of a plane that was "handmade" for over 50 yeas ago. And for sure if you start messuring two aircrafts of the same breed you will find differences. I have worked as an professional boatbuilder and been woorking with racing yachts for over 40 years. Looking at such thing as keels and rudders you wil sometimes find that they don't always align with each other. The same things goes with aircrafts. There are storys about Spitfires that just want to turn right beacuase the fuselage wasn't straight and they where returned back to the producer... Best R. Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Oh dear, this is a common misunderstanding amongst those without production engineering experience. The Mustangs, or indeed any other WW2 aircraft, were NOT handbuilt. They were manufactured on concrete and steel jigs that rigidly controlled precise dimensions and shapes. I recommend the recent book in the Images of War series from Pen&Sword: Fighters under construction in WW2 by Graham Simons. This contains a number of useful photos showing the production of Spitfire, Typhoon and other British types. There is a right shape to the Mustang fin, in the sense as being to North American's production drawings, and it was consistent between individuals not merely to within mm but to thousands of an inch. The size and chord were driven by aerodynamic and structural needs, not the random movings of even the most skilled individual on the shop floor. Which kit is right I can't say - though I can guess - but there is one right and (inevitably) multiple ways of being wrong. There are true stories about rogue aircraft that have become distorted due to various reasons, usually overstressing in some manner, but these were a small minority. There is a very recent thread on (I think) the Flypast site Historic Forum dealing with wartime build standards, which is of course a rather wider subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) For sure I agree with you Graham, The Mustang was an high precise engineering achivement. My point was more that its diffucult to messure an aircraft correctly and then make an precise modell 72 times smaller. The enginering of this matter have ben progressive better since Revell's P-51D Mustang for over 50 years ago... I think Geoffrey Wellum menioned in his book about flying a Spitfire that wasn't strait and probably built on a jigg that was moved during or before construction. I didn't want to fly strait and was returned back to factory... On the other hand have I seen pictures of both aircraft and helicopters where plates and other things wasn't that smoth as expected, Pictures has been seen also here at Britodeller. Plates for ventilation/inspection etc on the samme type of aircraft could differ very much individually and sometimes even starboard/portside on one specic individ... Sheers / Andre Edited March 14, 2014 by Andre B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Yes; individual aircraft did vary a lot in surface finish, which created what was called excrescence drag, where all the bits and pieces that ideally fit together smoothly just don't. (It also includes aerials etc) Even more so after a few months service. Most rogue aircraft were cured by attention to such details, although some were scrapped with their problem unsolved or too expensive to fix. However, such problems were vastly more common than major distortions. All parts/assemblies are made to a given tolerance for steps and gaps, which provide some excrescence drag, and even nowadays individual aircraft are cleared despite some parts exceeding these tolerances, where they are considered aerodynamically insensitive and we just live with the extra drag. To be fully up to date, this is obviously much less true for aircraft made from fewer larger pieces, with fewer opening panels, and where the radar reflectivity of such steps and gaps is considered more important than small drag effects. I've recently seen it said (in a Coastal Command context) that when a squadron was working up, all aircraft were flown to approaching their maximum endurance to determine individual variation for planning purposes, and that this could vary surprisingly much. This could also be due to individual piloting technique, of course, but that's equally important to consider. Edited March 14, 2014 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) Looking at the old Lindberg 1/72 "Bomber Escort" one could say a lot has changed since the late fifthies...  https://www.ipmsstockholm.se/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9533&p=87124#p87124  Can eduard and/or Arma Hobby take some steps further?  Cheers / André Edited May 8, 2019 by Andre B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 I'm not sure what the situation is for UK modelers buying Tamiya kits, but Hobbylink Japan lists them for $7.60 USD, which is around 5.84 BP. Shipping to the U.S, is $6.80 USD which equates to 5.22 BP. Note sure how much more to ship to the UK, but pretty sure even two of them would be under the tariff limit. I would also rate the Tamiya P-51D kit as the best overall and the Airfix kit next,based on my observations as listed below: Tamiya accurate shapes and dimensions; very nice panel lines; rear wall of wheel bay is not correct, as it follows the outline of the bay; sliding hood and its framework are separate parts, but if you're very careful, is not a factor; no option for dropped flaps Airfix accurate shapes and dimensions; panel lines wider and deeper than Tamiya kit; sliding hood has framework included in the transparency; has dropped flaps option; has correct mainspar/wheelbay (The only 1/72 kit that gets this right!); balances on elevators are not correct, but can be easily corrected with careful scribing.  I would suggest searching the internet for kit reviews and build articles for both kits to help you make a decision. On the P-51B/C subject, I strongly suggest looking at the numerous and extensive discussions we have had on this topic here on BM; that there is no out of the box accurate 1/72 kit is an agreed consensus, with the possible exception of the old Monogram kit (spot-on contours and dimensions, but no cockpit or  wheel bay detail, simplified carb intake, raised panel line and thick canopy), but there are several ways to get one, depending upon what's in your kit stash, your skill level, or how finicky you are regarding accuracy. Long way around would be to wait until Eduard does the 1/48 P-51D and P-51B/C they are working on- they will eventually do them in 1/72, like they have some of their other 1/48 releases. Me, being God's older brother, I can't wait that long, so will moist likely do some crosskitting, as we have discussed a while back. Good luck! Hope this helps a little. Mike . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now