Anyone;
Got a Revell-Germany B-26 Marauder and a Revell-Monogram P-40B coming. Are they any good or will I have fit problems like I did with my TBD-1 Devastator by R-M? Also, any comments on Nichimo’s E13A1 Jake?
Steve
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
although i havent done the b-26 i have built the p-40b 1/48 by revell/monogram, it was a fit nightmere, no interior detail, all around is terrible. unless you are an experienced modeler i would not recomend it.
btw i used an eduards resin cockpit set and am details on it. after much work it does look pretty good. i didnt sand away and rescribe the panel lines, but that is recomended to be accurate.
joe
Actually, the P-40B is a good “3 footer”. It looks best when viewed from 3 foot away. The basic outline is accurate. If you don’t mind what the interior looks like, and you rescribe and fiddle with the fit, it turns out fairly decent. BTW I have four of these on my shelf.
I too can vouch for the difficulty of building the 'ole Monogram P-40. There’s alotta areas to watch out for, especially when joining the wings to the fuselage and putting the nose piece on.
Some interior shimming and bracing will solve any problems you may have in joining the fuselage with the wings, but it’ll take a bit of trial and error. The nose piece… that’s just a really bad compromise in the engineering department, given the mold making technology which existed back when this kit was first manufactured. (1960’s) They must have been faced with a Catch-22 and took what they thought was the best way out; but it’s a poor fit and a really bad place for a seam.
The lack of detail is typical of kits from back then, especially in the area of the gear wells; there ain’t none!! LOL The cockpit isn’t all that badly detailed, it’s just really inaccurate.
Speaking of accuracy, as Roadkill alluded to, this kit still is the most accurate P-40 kit ever made, as regards outline and general shape. i wouldn’t go as far as a three footer though! [;)]
The clear parts have suffered with all the repops over the years, so this next bit isn’t really true anymore, but Monogram was the only manufacturer to get the shape and curvature of the rear glass panels correct.
Also, while we’re on the subject of clear parts. When you do build her, don’t paint the forward vertical frames on the windshield because they didn’t exist! That’s a common error made by most folks who build these early Hawks. Kinda like the frames on the P-51 malcom hoods, there weren’t any except on the bottom. But that’s another story… [:p]
Fade to Black…
D’oH! Forgot about the other two kits…
I can’t tell you much about the Nichimo Jake. I’ve had it a few times but never kept it long enough to look at it that closely. I have seen three of them built up by fellow club members of mine, and it does look pretty nice when built. Unfortunately I don’t recall what the fellas had to say about the kit as regards buildability.
The B-26… although I haven’t built one of these (I’m waiting for the Tamiya kit…) I do know that there are a few issues with the kit. I really can’t recall what they all are, but I know there’s difficulty with the engine nacelles and the horizontal tails. The clear parts, as with most kits of this vintage, ain’t the best but they’ll do.
Otherwise, it’s a typical Monogram kit from the 70’s. Overall, very well done. Good detail, good outline and shape and it’s the only game in town if you wanna build a 48th B-26. Unless of course you getcher mitts on an old AMT kit. But that’s not worth the time to even go looking for one, unless you’re a collector!
Fade to Black…
[#ditto] to what everyone else has already covered. I have the P-40 and it will probally be used to try rescribing panel lines since it isnt a real expensive kit and wont hurt my feelings if I mess up.
st gorder,
i am currently building three of the p-40 by rm. i have one i glued together back in 1998, and now have the wings on correctly. there is only a kinda small gap on the front left wing that i will have ti fill. i sanded the seam lines, and you talk about hard to do after 6 years, lol. the other two i have the fuselage halves put together and have already sanded the seam lines on them and will have to go back with a little filler for one of them. i think i am gouing to try to scribe the panel lines on the the 1998 model, since i put it together with super glue and that one won’t hurt my feelings to mess up. The other two when i finally get them done will represent Lt. George Welch, and Lt. Ken Taylors a/c on 07 Dec 1941.
st_gorder;
the P-40 isn’t to bad it’s better then the Hobbycrafts, that kit has a load more problems then the R-M’s, and hopefully the AMTechs will be the one to get, as for the ole R-M’s the cockpit is dated and inaccurate with a newer style instrument panel then what it’s suppose to be, and the fit between the fuselage to wings, but with a little info and some sheet styrene it’ll come out to be a pretty good display, for the B-26 for now it’s the only game in town, there are problems too with this kit but with a little patience and filler it too will turn out very nice, the problems are the engine cowlings & carb intakes and lack of detail in the aft section of the fuselage around the top turret and waist gun positions, for both of the R-M’s kits there might be some fit problems but you have to take thier age in effect the dies where cast in the 1960’s for the P-40 and late 1970’s for the B-26 as with the TBD, I haven’t seen the Nichimo’s kit but I heard the Arii’s/Otaki’s is a touch better
Echo, echo, echo… [:p]
On the whole, I wouldn’t say that the Monogram kit is better than Hobbycraft’s. I’d say they kinda even out, with the Hobbycraft kit gaining a slight edge because of buildability.
The Hobbycraft P-40 (also boxed by Academy) has many accuracy problems, yes. But it’s a much easier build than Monogram’s. And if all one is looking for is to build a model of what looks like a P-40/B/C, then the Hobbycraft kit would be the more hassle free kit.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for too long on the AMtech Hawks; I think we’ll see the Trumpeter kit long before AMtech’s. And I don’t believe Arii/Otaki ever made a Jake in 48th. Could be wrong…
Fade to Black…
Thanks for the replies Fightinjoe, Blackwolf, Roadkill, Jeff, 72cuda and Falcon. When you say you’ll wait for the Tamiya B-26, does that mean you have some info that I don’t have? Where to get it and how?
Steve
I’ve recently built both the Academy (Hobbycraft) and Monogram (Revell) P-40Bs. While the basic shape of the Monogram kit is good the tooling for this kit was worn out long ago. Mine was so twisted and warped that even with making bulkheads and supports I couldn’t get the fuselage straight. I then built the Academy kit and used the Rick Barnds method to change the wing angle which was fairly easy to do and worked out quite well.http://www.kitparade.com/features00/p40brb_1.htm
Trumpeter has announced a 1/48 P-40B for release late this year.http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=tr02807 I think this is why AmTech has dropped all mention of their P-40B project.
I can attest to the Monogram B-26 kit being less than spectacular. Much putty was needed, especially at the wing joints. Nacelle halves were a poor fit, as well. Inconsistent detail continuity where the fuselage halves meet. I can’t wait to strap a cherry bomb on mine. And if BlackWolf wasn’t kidding around about Tamiya makin’ a kit, detonation day isn’t far off!
Hey Nerd,
The comment: "I’ll wait for the ________ (insert manufacturer of choice) kit… is a jesting standard of mine which basically means I really think a subject is overdue for release as a modern-day kit.
So, no, there’s no 48th Tamiya Marauder coming.
Yet…
Fade to Black…
NUTS!!!
Actually, I have been e-mailing Tamiya a request for a B-26 kit in 1:48 every few months. I thought maybe they took the hint. Maybe if we ALL sent them e-mails… how 'bout it, boys?
Good idea Modelnerd!
Thanks Nerd, Blackwolf, and Daryl. The P-40’s were $7.50; so, I guess I’ll get what I paid for, huh!
Steve