I have been looking for a plastic model of the X-3 Stilleto. Recently I found that a company produces one. The name of the company is Mach 2. Has anyone purchased a model from this company & of so what was the quality of the product? Also does anyone know of any other company that makes the X-3?
Lindberg makes one in 1/48. I don’t know about the quality or fit, but a larger scale at 1/4 the price, I think the Lindberg would do fine.
http://www.greatmodels.com/~smartcart/cgi/display.cgi?item_num=LND71426
Ahh… a review from a reliable and knowledgable source. http://www.swannysmodels.com/X3.html
[#ditto]
I think Revell made my kit.
I only consider a Mach 2 kit if it is the only option, they are made from pretty rough molds in most cases and the clear parts are execrable. The Lindberg X-3 is really a pretty nice kit, if you add in a little work to make up for the simplicity of the kit. The fit and shape is good.
I spent over 100.00 for a 1/72 Vickers Valiant in 1/72. That was for S&H too. After I got the kit, I wouldn’t have paid 20.00 for it including S&H!!! In my opinion, avoid!!! Unless you are like "Bondo"Phil, and love filler, and filing. Never again will i go the MACH 2 route. EVER!!!
You’ve probably got the general picture about Mach 2 kits from the other posts, but I would like to say that I don’t think they’re really as bad as other contributors have implied.
Some Mach 2 kits suffer from poor quality moulds and/or styrene (especially clear parts) and are generally very expensive for the overall quality that you get for your dollar.
But they do offer a good basis for some unusual subjects. With the addition of some patience, a little effort and some genuine modelling skill, they can be made into quite nice models.
My general impression of Mach 2 models are that they are challenging at best and definitely crude . I am currently building the French Leduc ramjet kit and have found it to be a major repair project.
The Revell kit of the X-3 is a bit out of scale being 1/77, I believe. The model is a very old pressing and will require some clean up but does make up into nice presentation when completed. The only kit of the X-3 that I know is in 1/72nd was produced as a vacumform under the Project X label ( Maintrack Models) out of England. This is an excellant vacumform model and features decals as well as metal parts for the landing gear and other small details. Having built several of this company’s vacumform kits Ican attest to their overall quality.
I can’t providse any comments on the Lindberg kit as I only build in 1/72nd.
Richard
I would agree with that, the Mach 2 PBM is pretty good, I think, and if you want to build a Falcon 20 in any scale there is no alternative. The AJ-2 and B-45 I think are OK with some effort. Don’t bother with the Mach 2 DC-4, it’s off in shape, build the Heller DC-6 into a DC-4. I may salvage the nacelles from my Mach 2 DC-4 for that, but they aren’t really that good either. For the X-3, buy the Lindberg instead.
I completed the Lindberg X-3. Makes in to a nice model in 1 /48. Just the right size. All I did was add a seat and a pilot from the spares box. Even that is barely visible. So don’t spend alot of time there. Need some filler to blend and contour the nose cone to the fuselage but no big deal. I used Acryl Blue in stages. What’s nice about the nose cone is that there is enough room to add weight so she sits on her nose gear. I painted mine with Model Car Works White Acrylic Lacquer and used Alclad on the wings. The X-3 took a First Place Gold in 06 and a Second Place Silver in 07 in the X Plane category at the I P M S Warren Contest here in Michigan. Believe it or not the Lindberg X-3 is really decent. I think your gonna be satisfied with it. No pics of it as yet but I’ll post them when I get em taken.
i would say buy a mach 2 product ONLY if your skills are of show winning standards
if you are of avg or below talent the kit will truly annoy you into quitting modeling
Do you know what changes other than the engines and window shape are needed to back date a DC6 into a DC4?
I agree with Durr. I have the Mach 2 Sea Dart which to say the least leaves something to be desired. Bought it on E-bay for next to nothing since I like to do oddball aircraft every so often. Not ever having a Mach 2 kit I should have known better. At least the kit and the shipping was cheap. Thank God. Buyer Beware of Mach 2 kits.
I have to throw in my vote for the old Lindberg kit. It’s a shame no one has given us a good X-3 since the 1950s, when the kits were primitive to say the least. The Revell kit was originally issued in 1957 and as noted above is in 1/65 scale according to Schiffer’s “Remembering Revell Model Kits.”
The Lindberg kit is purportedly between 1/48 and 1/50 scale, and that seems about right. The shape is quite good, after comparing it to various drawings. The problems, of course, are that it’s made of about 20 or fewer parts. The good news is that it is an almost perfect jumping-off point for detailing. That would include the undercarriage, making some sort of intake trunking and accurate exhaust. And a cockpit with an accurate seat, of course.
The X-3 was one of those many, many programs whose great promise was destroyed by the Westinghouse engine debacles, and though it looks like it’s going Mach 2 sitting on the ramp, the only time it went Mach 1 was in a shallow dive. But it had a number of interesting, if ill-advised, innovations.
I have an article by a modeler who scratchbuilt the unusual downward firing ejection seat, which the pilot strapped on after it was lowered to the ground by a powered “elevator” system which had the lower hatch a few inches off the ground, and the seat on top of that, with rails that raised it up into position. Of course, the experiences with downward firing seats in the F-104A showed what a terrible idea that was in a single-seat fighter, and it claimed the life of famed test pilot Ivan Kinchloe and a number of other USAF pilots. Losing an engine on takeoff was almost always fatal.
Anyway, don’t spend a fortune on a substandard Mach 2 kit when for less than ten bucks you can get the old Lindberg kit, modify the seat and install an instrument panel and consoles. You don’t need much detail because from the top you can’t see much at all. Also, some of those Lindberg kits come with blue-tinted windows. I’d use them for templates to make new and more accurate clear windowns, which are flat and easy to cut from card stock.
One more thing I remember: When Revell, in the early '80s I think, came out with its “History Makers” slew of reissues in fancy boxes at ridiculously high prices, they included the X-3 for about 22 times what it cost new. The series did not stay on shelves long after modelers figured out the scam.
TOM
The fuselage is quite a bit shorter, fort and aft of the wing. The placement and shape of the doors is different. The horizontal stabilizers are shorter. The tail is shorter. The control surfaces are fabric. The nose is generally more blunt.
The -4 is a much under served a/c IMHO. I’ve done the conversion, and have 1/72 layouts if you’d like. Send me a PM. Fixing the windows was the hardest. And getting decals is impossible really, so mine became a C-54 which was easy enough, since it wasn’t the fancy MATS scheme that Mach 2 does.
John, the Heller nacelles made up into ok DC-4. I cut them off forward of the cowl flaps, ground out a collar and made up new ones (further forward) and scratched up the intakes.
Anytime any of you want to build a really great prop liner thats not a Connie, I really recommend the Heller DC-6.
Speaking of Mach 2, I have the Valiant, Caravelle and Mariner kits on my shelf. They are rough in the extreme, but I go back to the carved balsa block days so my expectations generally match my skills, which makes me a happy modeler of mediocre builds.
You won’t find another injection Valiant, but the nose is all wrong and it cost me WAY too much.
The Caravelle actually looks promising.
The Mariner, well, I’ll hold out to see if Hasegawa sells one.
Bill
I have an Ian Huntley article that mostly covers the DC-6, but it has drawings of all the DC-4 thru DC-7 fuselages. I also have some other Douglas station drawings of all variants, not as good as the Huntley drawings. The vertical tail and horizontal tail is also different on the DC-4, as well as the other things noted by Bill the Bondoman.
I have mixed feelings about Mach 2. While I havent built any of their a/c yet, I have built their helos. I have the HH-34B Huskie, and it is a horrible kit. Still havent worked up the courage to finish it. However, I built their R-5/S-51 and their HUP 2 kits, and both came out pretty good. The clear parts sucked, but the rest of the kits werent bad. I would say its pretty much a crap shoot. Depends on how readily available the subject is. If its a 1/72 HH-34 Huskie…your stuck with Mach 2
Thanks, guys, hopefully a 1/72 DC4 will get kitted before I ever start such a conversion, but its nice to know it can be done.
Bondoman PM sent.
Get yourself a copy of Airliners Tech Volume 4 (author: Harry Gann, publisher: Specialty Press, ISBN 1-5807-017-5)
Pages 98 through 99 are a chart showing significant changes in fuselage, tail, tailplanes, nacelles and wings from DC-4 through DC-7C.
As fo my view of Mach 2, that’s the speed at which you should run away form one; otherwise, its the speed at which the kit contents will hit the dust bin.
Phil
most mach 2 kits have enough flash to make another kit. i pass on them.