Yeah if you like a canopy that’s open I could see where that’s a problem, but I didn’t worry too much about it and built it OOB canopy closed.
I cant resist a Monogram kit when I find one. As has been said, most of us older folk grew up with Monogram, many of the classics first time issues! The price just cannot be beat on a new Revell re-pop of one. Someone on here coined the phrase “Biggest bang for the buck”.
I am hip deep in the middle of a Revell/Monogram B-25 J Mitchell in 1/48 scale. Has copyright 1977 molded on the starboard wing. Paid $22 and some change for it brand new. Right now the cheapest price I can find on Italeri’s B-25 C/D in 1/48th is $75.99 on sale at Tower. MSRP is $102!
Someone please show me where the extra $60 worth of plastic is in the kit? That doesn’t mean I haven’t bought an Italeri kit, or Tamiya, or Hasegawa, and I will again, but the price is usually heavily discounted when I do.
And they are nice.[whstl] It all boils down to this… If everyone liked the same thing it would probably be a pretty dull world.
Even if I were to build with the canopy closed, I’m concerned about filling gaps between the clear canopy and frame. If not for that canopy feature, I’d build a more than the one kit I have in stash.
BTW…looks like a nice, neat build.
Did you add putty for a wing faring to blend in the elevator assembly with the fuselage?
As for the gap on the clear part of the canopy and the frame molded to the fuselage, I just used Testors clear parts cement and window maker. Of course there wasn’t much gap to fill anywhere. Not only around the canopy but the whole kit, it fit so well putty never got near it.[:D]
kustommodeler that Corsair is beautiful! And the fit looks pretty great, too!
I grew up with Revell/Monogram, as well, since they were most of what got stocked at Michaels when I was buying kits as a kid in the late 80s and early 90s. At the time, I viewed Testors kits as the height of luxury.
Overall, I’ve got fond memories of those kits. Still love the big B-52, I built three when I was growing up, and remember them as sediment layers of my modeling skills at different ages. If I can ever figure out somewhere to 1) actually build it and 2) display it, I’ll pick one up again in a heartbeat.
Maybe that’s why I was so disappointed with the Revell Dauntless. I remember fun, pretty well detailed, well-engineered kits. Just looking at what people are doing over in the B-17 GB is a testament to that. But the Dauntless, to me, just felt cheap. The cockpit. The fuselage fit. The laughable decal sheet. It all rubbed me really the wrong way compared to the kit I was expecting to find.
I think once I work my way through my current backlog of kits I may pick up another R/M and give it a shot.
I hate to say it, but my recent return to the hobby means i am still unfamiliar with much of the model building aids currently available to the modeler.
I will check for the Testors products you mentioned.
If I understand correctly from your post the Testors window maker is intended ( or can be utilized ) to fill any gaps between clear and opaque styrene with little or no discernable seam?
i missed many of the kits first time around ( was building Airfix 1/72 aircraft / 1/600 ships and Airlines, Testors 1/72 aircraft ) which is why I asked about the old Monogram kits.
I bought the Revell F4U re-pop as the kit was one I wanted back then but didn’t have at the time.
Italieri kit prices are insane.
If everyone liked the same things there would never be any bargains on ebay. [:D]
Yeah the clear parts cement will fill gaps if they are fairly small. what I did was put the canopy in place and ran a small bead around the edges. When it was dry, I simply painted right up to the edge of the kit part. As it says in this link, it dries crystal clear, and is very versatile.
I think this is one reason I decided to find all of the actual old kits (rather than repops) via the secondary market. It’s probably nostalgic but maybe there is something to be said for building the exact same kit I once built in the mid-70s to mid-80s.
I always loved building that old Monogram P-40B. When I got back into the hobby in '95, I found a Monogram Spitfire that I thought would be the same kit I had built many times as a youngster; turns out it was not quite the same, as the kit I built in '95 no longer had the retractable wheels. Did the repop Dauntless kit still possess all the working features that were far more toy-like than model-like?
I have the latest P-40 Unchanged from the original Monogram except for the decals which will be normal:
I think what happened with the Spitfire, is when Revell and Monogram became one with the force, is both companies had a Spitfire in 1/48. The Spitfire you are refering to, and the one I have is the Revell version, and not the Monogram tool:
That could explain the non-working parts.
The latest re-pop Dauntless is the original in all respects including movable dive flaps, tail hook, releasing bomb, rotating prop, and retractable landing gear. The decals, although new, are authentic, as I confirmed on Navsource.org, they represent aircraft #4 on the U.S.S. Wasp August 1942, s well as an aircraft from the New Zealand air force of the same time frame. The one I finished is in generic markings however.
I think the best answer to all of this discussion came from bondoman:
Question- What Revell Monogram Aircraft Kit Re-Issues to Avoid?
Stik every time I see your Fagot I’m turned on, umm, I mean that is a really nice model.I think you’ve put it up once or twice before, but your job there is a favorite of mine.
When I was a kid the Monogram models cost too much, so I always thought of them as adult models. I used my paper route money to buy Revell 1/72 which were cheaper than Monogram 1/48. I think the first Mono airplane I ever built was the Kingfisher.
Shep Paine made us all see that plastic models could be a form of art.
The Kingfisher was the first kit I ever built a diorama for. Absolutely loved that kit, and was just so overcome by a wave of nostalgia that I placed a bid on one on eBay.
So much for my determination to keep my stash held down to six kits. But the Dauntless is entering the home stretch, so…
From what you’ve said, it sounds like you’re from a generation just after ours. For guys my age, 46, we went from the early Monogram kits to their more detailed second generation, so, from the TBF, F6F and SBD to the P-39, P-40B, TBD and the large multiengine kits. You’re right, compared to the kits Monogram developed in the late 60s and in the 70s, the Dauntless is simple and lacking detail, as is the TBF, the F6F, the Kingfisher, the Zero and the Me-109. But again, as many of us Monogram veterans have said, we remember them fondly and like the opportunity to stretch our scratchbuilding muscles.
Regarding the Monogram TBF’s interior, it is very basic and lacking in anything more than a suggestion of a cockpit. I’ve built 2 of them in my second modeling life, and I added the instrument panel and side panels to the pilot’s office, added radio equipment to the middle cockpit, and rib and stringers, some radio and panel gear, and the radioman’s seat in the aft station. I also have the AM kit in my stash, but I enjoyed doing the research and adding the details. Plus, the kit figures are excellent, especially the crewman running across the deck.
Regarding Lindberg, I concede there, too, that the detail isn’t what we expect today from model companies, but again, for its time, they weren’t bad kits. Their TBF is a little distorted in shape, though, I think, in cross-section from top to bottom. It makes the top of the nose seem pitched a little too steep to my eye. However, their F11C Goshawk is still a decent kit, and until Classic Airframes issued their version, it was practically the only game in town, except for Renwal’s kit, with the Aero-Skin feature. Its shape is pretty accurate, just that it, too, suffers from a lack of interior, but that provides another scratchbuilding opportunity. I have 7 or 8 of those in my stash, waiting to be built into a flight deck display of the Tophatters. I also have a couple of the CA kits, though they’re hard to come by, they get snapped up quickly on eBay.
One more thought on the SBD kit–I don’t think we can categorize it as a re-issue. If I’m not mistaken, it’s been in the catalog in one boxing or another, from Monogram’s days of independence and ever since the companies were forcibly merged. It’s really never been out of circulation, has it?
Whatever we all think, let’s just say, build what you like! And DoogsATX, your SBD is coming along very nicely!
Brad - yep, I’m 30, so for me any first or second generation kits just blend together as Monogram kits. It’s interesting that the Kingfisher’s included in the same “simple and lacking detail” category as the SBD, since that’s one of my three all-time favorite Monogram kits, alongside the P-47 and 72nd B-52.
As I mentioned a few posts above, a wave of Kingfisher nostalgia actually spurred me to bid for one on eBay. Since my scratchbuilding skills are non-existent, I think I may try to track down some of the various Cutting Edge resin kits for it. Already got an idea in my head for a diorama of it being hoisted onto a catapult launcher. Which would most certainly involve developing some of those scratching skills.
Monogram’s old 1/48 P-39 is a real favorite of mine. It really is timeless. In the hands of a capable modeler it can still hold it’s own against more recent P-39s from Eduard and Hasegawa.
On the other hand, Monogram’s old 1/48 P-38 (not the Promodeler one) has given me fits everytime I try to build it. It doesn’t seem to matter what I do, how far ahead I plan or how fastidiously I prep parts and dry fit; there is always something in that kit that will not come together properly for me! Even worse if I go for the night fighter variant in the kit.
