| Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Brengun Allison Mustang at Nuremberg Show | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 3 2017, 12:41 PM (1,997 Views) | |
| Mark Schynert | Feb 9 2017, 08:12 PM Post #31 |
|
Yeast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suppose that depends upon what you mean by 'better.' More accurate? No, it won't be that. But will it be less accurate? If not, then perhaps it is better for allowing easier construction of variants otherwise unavailable (or clearly inferior). the existing A-36 (condor) is pretty horrible. Mustangs are not getting the accuracy love, and it's not likely to get better after this set of kits. How much wrongness does one tolerate? I'm not sure I know, for my part. |
![]() |
|
| woody | Feb 9 2017, 09:19 PM Post #32 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The rear fuselage is not higher on the Merlin Mustangs. When they built the Merlin versions they did not raise the rear fuselage, they lowered the wing 4". Hence the sharper curve to the radiator area up to the tail. The wing was lowered to help improve the lower cowling aerodynamics because of the Merlin's updraft carburetor and attendant ducting. This also caused the landing gear attachment points to move down with the wing meaning the P-51B sits more nose high than the Allison versions. Cheers, Woody |
![]() |
|
| Graham Boak | Feb 9 2017, 09:31 PM Post #33 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for the correction, I'll try to remember it, but the key difference (either way) is that there is a greater step up from the rear of the (larger) radiator fairing to the bottom of the rear fuselage. Instead of a smooth gentle curve upwards there is a much sharper curve with more distinct kink to the rear underside, and this is what can be seen in the photos of the example at the show. Just being better than the awful Condor thing isn't enough for me. Come on, Frog got this right in the 1960s! An Allison-engined aircraft with a Merlin-sized fuselage just isn't acceptable. What next, an Fw190D with a radial engine? But of course, that would be just silly... |
| Lancashire, UK | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Fleming | Feb 10 2017, 12:02 AM Post #34 |
|
Beast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is also a distinct difference in the upper rear of the fuselage/wing fairing |
|
IPMS UK Harrier SIG http://harriersig.org.uk/ | |
![]() |
|
| Graham Boak | Feb 10 2017, 10:48 PM Post #35 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've been digging into my stacks, and making a direct comparison of the Academy P-51, the Italeri P-51A and the Condor A-36. To my surprise, the Condor A-36 fuselage is a close match to that of the Academy kit, except for accentuating the curve up of the rear fuselage underside making it look more like a B. The deepest of the three kits is the Italeri, by the thickness of the plastic on the bottom, but it has a better curve. None of the kits have the appropriate droop on the leading edge strake. (OK, my Italeri one does - now.) I don't have a Frog kit to hand as a further check. So it seems that I owe Condor an apology: the kit may not be inspiring, just a reasonable short-run product of its time, needing etched brass for the divebrakes and some work here and there. The awful kit of memory was the MNC - Model News I believe. Perhaps we may hope that this belly line is the key fault of the Brengun kit, and the apparently deep fuselage isn't. |
| Lancashire, UK | |
![]() |
|
| John Thompson | Feb 12 2017, 02:00 PM Post #36 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm willing to take your word on the Condor/MPM fuselage depth, although to my eye it looks a bit deep below the cockpit, but I haven't held a fuselage half against the Academy one (apparently the current accuracy champion) as you did. I've probably got 10 of these kits in various guises, so I'm eager to hear good words said about them. However, it sure looks to me that the Condor/MPM kits have a P-51-D-shaped wing root leading edge! John |
| i cant brain today - i have the dumb | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Kits, Aftermarket, etc. What's New? · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



2:21 PM Jul 11