Critiques of 21st offerings

Your Main Forum For Discussing 1:18 Scale Military Figures and Vehicles.
Post Reply
Snake Man
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:14 am

Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Snake Man » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:08 am

Now that 21st is long dead, I would like to open a discussion on scale issues with their items. There have been postings before regarding individual aircraft, but not all in one place.

I would like to open the discussion with issues that I personally noticed. For one, I find the rudder outline on the S1 Messerschmitt 109 to be incorrect at the top. Compare it to the shape of the rudder on the BF109G, and scale drawings and photos.

I also think the shape of the canopy on the Spitfire is a bit off. Seems to me to be too low in profile.

I am also very unhappy about the droopy wings on the Avenger. I would much prefer correct dihedral without the folding feature.

I have seen postings regarding "flat" wings on the P-40, but my example does not have this problem at all. It has correct dihedral, so I wonder if there was a fix incorporated in the later releases. Anybody have an opinion on that ?

The landing gear on the P-51 is set at a very incorrect angle.

These are just a few examples to start the conversation. There should be no hard feelings from the manufacturers at this late date, so feel free to chime in on this. This is not to say I don't like the models, because I truly love them. They are quite impressive on display. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.....

[CAT]CplSlade
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 3544
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: Villa Rica, GA

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by [CAT]CplSlade » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:28 am

Well, errors are to be expected on items meant to be both toys AND examples of real aircraft. Certain features require compromises be made (in the landing gear especially), but there definitely are areas where the errors make no sense and are not a result of catering to playability. They simply f'ed up.

Jesse James
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 3484
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:37 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Jesse James » Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:53 pm

Yup, what Slade said... Mass produced toys aren't models. :)
http://www.JediDefender.com Bringing Balance to the Force
http://www.FFURG.com The Ultimate Customizing Resource.
Now Hasbro, make us some Head Sculpt & Endor Uniform variations! The new Rebel Fleet Trooper gets the JJ Seal of Approval Though!

granch
Officer - Major
Officer - Major
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:21 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by granch » Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:00 pm

My son got the Avenger and we immediately notice the risk of wing saging. The structure is simply too weak and the material should be much thicker (same with the 109, Spit,...) But when the wingspan is so wide, they should have think about that before. So, we hang the beast at the ceiling, with fishermen's thread not only Under the fuselage, but also at the wing tip.

User avatar
Studly
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Bundaberg Queensland Australia

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Studly » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:04 pm

Hi Guys . I found out of the two Avengers i have the flight 19 one has a shocking wing droop while the Atlantic version is fine . :(

dcway
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: NEW HAMPSHIRE

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by dcway » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:21 pm

DO We really need to go through this again???????? these posts just reopen old wounds .... Just no more pissing and moaning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! their gone get over it !!!!
My 2 cents !!! Dana :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel: :blueangel:

tmanthegreat
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 11237
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:38 pm
Location: Central California

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by tmanthegreat » Thu Mar 12, 2015 3:15 pm

Its always fun to discuss these things :wink: Since we haven't gotten any new 1:18 aircraft in a couple years, why not discuss all the old classics?

I agree that CplSlade pretty much summed it up... We did see a wide variety of accuracy on the 21c models throughout their run - along with the planes made by other manufacturers like Admiral Toys and BBI. I won't get into the QC issues, etc that plagued 21c items from the beginning except whereas relevant. Overall, however, the 21c items at least initially were marketed as toys and have to be thought of as such. They began at TRU with the idea of creating an affordable military toy line that was exclusive to TRU (the spot now filled by the True Heroes/Chap Mei items). But still, there were winners, losers, and some that hit-and-miss when it came to accuracy with the 21c items...

LOSERS:
P-51Ds

I won't even get into the S1 P-51 which is horribly inaccurate on nearly all aspects of the model: oversized riveting, incorrect canopy shape, incorrect landing gear thick wings with no real dihedral, etc. The only excuse is that it was their very first aircraft and obviously a company has to work out the kinks... That 21c later made a more accurate "retooled" P-51D says something - yet that had certain flaws as well, particularly the bent props!

BF-109s
The S1 ME-109E had its share of inaccuracies as well - the tail, the canopy shape, the landing gear, etc. JSI partially fixed it with their recent "Galland" release with the correct canopy, but still far from perfect. The BF-109G while significantly better than the S1 release still had a bunch of issues. It lacked the radio mast in the correct position and the landing gear were a little off. When fully extended and locked, they pointed down vertically as opposed to being splayed. That issue could be corrected with a little handy work, however. Really, only BBI got the BF-109 as accurate as possible - their latest "Erich Hartmann" release to me ranks among the most perfect of 1:18 planes and is a real winner.

P-40
This one was a toy through and through, not the model it should have been. So much is off from the oversized panel lines and thick surfaces to the way-oversized cockpit & canopy and the "pregnant" look to the fuselage. I often rank this as one of the worst 21c aircraft.

Snake Man, I have 3 P-40s (AVG, RAP, Pearl Harbor). The RAF one is the earliest (bought early 2004) and has flat wings; my AVG and Pearl Harbor ones are special editions released a couple years later and have some wing dihedral.

P-47s
These still reflect some of the toyish features of especially the earlier 21c planes like the tabs on the landing gear doors; oversized cockpits & canopies; and other features. The gap in the fuselage behind the cockpit of the "Razorback" P-47s is terrible... The bubble canopy on the "Bubbletop" versions is oversized and toyish, killing the accurate look of the plane.

HIT-&-MISS:
FW-190D9

This was certainly one of the more controversial 21c 1:18 planes... Would have been so much better had they made the more well-known radial-engine FW-190A/F and the 21c plane sold so poorly they had to offer a contest to clear the shelves of Wal Mart. I liked this plane and then I didn't. On the one hand, it is an FW-190. started to move away from the toyish look of the 21c items. However, the landing gear are one piece, don't sit at the correct angle, & have the exposed screw.

F-4U Corsair
This was an earlier release and has some of the more toy-like features, but at the same time still very much looks like a Corsair. This was a fantastic model until BBI came out with their 1:18 version which was far more accurate and certainly one of the better 1:18 aircraft ever made. The slots behind the cockpit, lack of depth within the cockpit (including the window under the fuselage) and the design of the pitot tubes are very inaccurate. It did look good in the special edition Boyington and Kepford paintjobs, however!

Spitfire
This has always been a favorite of mine, but Snake Man is correct about the canopy shape being a little off. The hood should be a little more bulged out. Like the FW-190D, this was starting to move away from being a toy and being more of a model. It has thick panel lines and the prop and exhaust stacks could be a bit more accurate. The 1:18 21c model looks very toyish when next to my excellent Corgi diecast 1:32 model.

P-51D Retooled
This was a good attempt at an accurate P-51D model, especially after BBI's 2004 release of their 1:18 P-51D made the S1 21c example look like crap. They got a lot right with this model from the deep intakes to the forward rake of the main gear, the tail wheel, and even the cockpit is nice. Still, its likely under-riveted just as much as the BBI example is over-riveted. The smooth surfacing starts to look a bit toyish. Then there were the bent props that really messed up the look of the first few releases. Overall, the model was more toyish than it should have been...

TBF Avenger
Likely 21c's penultimate aircraft, it fell short of expectations, or at least my expectations. We waited nearly 2 years for it, only to get something that seemed rushed and under-developed. The fuselage itself is awesome - big and with an interior. I love the gun turret. The bomb bay doors are very inaccurate, but I know are a compromise as it would have been difficult to engineer them to open correctly while keeping them functional and sturdy. Having separate inserting pieces for the open and closed doors (like on the 1:72 scale Hobby Master Avenger) would have been "un-21c-like". Where this plane failed was with the wings. I know 21c was going for maximum accuracy, but they are poorly engineered. The hinge is too weak and they wings could have been designed to secure more tightly and in the correct position. The wing sagging kills the look of what is otherwise a great model. I have 3 Avengers and only one has the correct dihedral on the wings because I glued them in place after one of the hinges broke.

ME-262A/B
I almost included this in the "Winner" category below and in many respects the 21c ME-262A & B are winners. These models showed just how accurate and detailed 21c could get with their models. Compared to the earlier Admiral Toys ME-262, the 21c examples are highly detailed, accurate, and functional models. I love the paint work on them, particularly the ME-262A. Its also a pretty solid model.

Where I felt 21c royally screwed up with the ME-262 was with the canopy design and certain QC issues. In terms of shape the canopy is accurate, but the hinges are way off. The fact that they used the same fuselage tooling for both the A and B variants meant that on the ME-262A, they had to cover over the rear seat and canopy hinge. Most of the ME-262As I saw in person (including mine) had a very noticeable gap behind the cockpit where the rear seat was covered. This ruined the flush look of the fuselage. (Actually, on the ME-262A, if you removed the top of the rear fuselage, you will find the rear seat and partially detailed rear cockpit of the ME-262B... I gained a spare seat!) I found that the ME-262B tooling hid the seams and cockpit hinges better and is the better looking of the two jets.

For whatever reason, I also encountered serious QC issues with the ME-262A. I went through 3 models before I got one that held up well. I had the canopy snap off the hinges on one model, landing gear doors crack off on another. My current one has held together, though I'm always very careful with it. If it weren't for the fuselage seams and QC issues, I'd rank the 21c ME-262s as real winners in terms of 1:18 aircraft design.

WINNERS:
UH-1C Huey

I always felt 21c got their UH-1C Huey more-or-less correct. It looks the part and while some of the detailing isn't as crisp as on later 1:18 models, it still looks the part. Heck, the JSI repaint that came out a decade or so after the original Huey release still looked good!

P-38
This likely could fall into the "Hit & Miss" category as well, but I think that for a 2001/2002 design, it still holds up remarkably well against later more detailed models. The P-38 was conceived when 21c was still making "toys" and it shows: the landing gear are off, the cockpit a bit oversized, and oversized panel lines. However, they did get the overall shape right and with a good paint scheme, the plane still looks fantastic.

JU-87 Stuka
This is another plane 21c made early on that has held up well. My most serious complaint is that the control surfaces on the wings are off and should have been "staggered" as one can see on the 21c 32x model. But even without the correct control surfaces, it still captures the look of the Stuka, has a detailed cockpit & interior, and as JSI showed with their weathered repaint, could still look good in a professional setting nearly a decade after it was first released.

AH-1 Supercobra
The 21c AH-1 Supercobra is another winner in my book. Compared to its contemporary offerings in 2004, it was a step above. There are minor accuracy issues, say with the shape of the forward fuselage and canopy, but overall it looks like a Supercobra and its level of detail and functionality is excellent. My biggest complaint with that item was that it should have come with a proper pilot figure instead of the special forces soldier.

F-104C/G
A rather unusual subject for a Cold War/Vietnam era fighter jet, 21c still did a great job with this model. It has an excellent blend of functionality and accuracy and just looks fast. The cockpit detail is awesome. I've had one on display ever since I got my first one in 2005. My only gripes with this is that the air brakes weren't designed to open and they should have modified the wing to include hardpoints on the F-104G tooling.

Mig-15
In my opinion, this ranks among the best of 21c's offerings. Here their years of experience perfecting their design of 1:18 planes was starting to pay off. The Mig combines an excellent amount of detail, accuracy, and playability. I love the cockpit detail, opening gun bay, and air breaks. The model is also rather sturdy and can be handled well without real fear of breaking it.

F-86
This is one of 21c's best efforts in my opinion. They did everything right that the earlier Admiral Toys 1:18 F-86 got wrong. Like the Mig-15, it combines an excellent amount of detail, accuracy, and playability, while still being a bit rugged. It captures the look of the F-86 and is a beautiful model. 21c got so much right that when JSI re-released it, it seemed only the landing gear bay interiors were what needed modification. My only real gripe is that on the 21c versions, they did not put the yellow strip ID markings on the underside of the wings. That was the grossest inaccuracy with this 21c model!


Well, I think that covers just about all the 21c aircraft and my general assessment of them... The 21c armor, BBI aircraft, BBI armor, and JSI toolings will need other separate threads and I'm not dwelling on them here (especially the JSI F-14!!) Kudos if you made it to the bottom of my post :D
"If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

Snake Man
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:14 am

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Snake Man » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:40 am

Excellent and informative post, tmanthegreat !! Its not about complaining, or nitpicking, but rather informing folks about issues in these offerings. Not at all intended to discourage people from enjoying these planes. I like 'em all !!

dragon53
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 8715
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:56 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by dragon53 » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:40 am

TMANTHEGREAT:

As usual, you have outstanding, very informative reviews.
You were exactly right about 21st Century's problems with quality control and accuracy.
Yesterday, my Hobby Master 1/72 Joe McConnell F-86 Sabre arrived, and it has yellow stripes under the wings that my 21st Century 1/18 F-86 "The Huff" doesn't have.
Also arriving was my Hobby Master 1/48 Robin Olds P-51 Mustang "Scat VI" with a pitot tube under the wing that my three 21st Century Mustangs don't have, and I bought four different 21st Century "Big Beautiful Dolls" with all four having serious quality control problems.

I can't wait for your review of the first JSI F-14---I'm sure it will be "spot-on". :mrgreen:

User avatar
Studly
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Bundaberg Queensland Australia

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Studly » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:25 pm

great review tmanthegreat, Well Done a very enjoyable read :D

snake
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 3657
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:28 am
Location: Victoria,B.C. Canada

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by snake » Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:42 pm

Very good and informative post, Tman.

Pretty much agree with all of your points, but everyone has their own opinion.

In regards to the Avenger. I love both of mine, and to solve the wing sag, I use part of a toothpick wedged in the gap on the underside of the wing. A little trial and error, and presto, no wing sag. Easy fix :wink:

User avatar
Studly
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Bundaberg Queensland Australia

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Studly » Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:42 am

In regards to the Avenger. I love both of mine, and to solve the wing sag, I use part of a toothpick wedged in the gap on the underside of the wing. A little trial and error, and presto, no wing sag. Easy fix :wink:[/quote]


Thanks for that tip Snake i will give it a try :D

RAD 2112
Officer - Major
Officer - Major
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:59 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by RAD 2112 » Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:30 pm

I wish 21st Century had released the Spitfire MkVb... :(

I think the only major critique I had of 21st, was when they tried to resurrect themselves as AllGo with a product that was a 1/18 bust before it hit the market.

They should have stayed with a smaller scale (ie 1/32) and released a P-51C/D, Fw-190A/F, or Spitfire as their first AllGo offering.

I would have really liked a P-51C "Old Crow", Fw-190 Maximowitz, or Ray Hanna's Spitfire MkIXB.

oh well...
There is no security in this life. There is only opportunity.
- Gen Douglas MacArthur

Safe Trader List:
Black Lion VF-213, hworth18, KWR190, nooker 21, Olifant, Tmanthegreat, Trigger1, V2 MAN, vulgarvulture, Coreyeagle48

normandy
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: Atlantic Coast

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by normandy » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:12 pm

I've got no critiques, its all been said more or less above.
But what I will say is that I'm glad 21st Century TOYS made the 1:18 line of
Aircraft, Armor and Figures. For the price you couldn't beat it.

I've been building model kits since I was a kid so any inaccuracy's in 21st's
offerings I was able to fix as needed. Their models are a great base for
anyone wishing to add more details or do custom work.

If 21st had never happened........what would we have done for these past fifteen years? :shock:
Thanks James Allen / 21st, wish you were still around!

Normandy.

User avatar
Axis Nightmare
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:40 am
Location: Amelia, OH

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Axis Nightmare » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:50 pm

Perhaps think of it as observations and notations from those observations.

. 109E: Beyond the landing gear, the wings are WAY too thick. The nose seems a bit short (or is the cockpit too far forward :?: ) and the spinner too small. And of course no dihedral.

. 109G: Much better except for the landing gear again and lack of dihedral. I actually prefer the 21st C. to the BBI because the wings on the BBI are MUCH too thick and straight. Reminds me of a Hawker Hurricane. If I could take the gear from the BBI and put it on the 21st C and coax some dihedral, I'd have a great looking scale model.

. Stuka: Pretty much covered above.

. The later P-51's I also prefer to the BBI. As bad as the gear is on the 21st C, it's worse on the BBI including the bicycle width tires and main wheels and fat struts with no scissors. Thick, blunt leading edges of the wing is annoying on both and all the Mustangs look best displayed pointing nose away at a 45 degree angle.

. Corsair: 21st C and BBI to me are just about a tie. Lots of little things on the 21st C but on both, they got the overall shapes, thicknesses, plan and side profiles right. Not bad for a toy. Displaying with the wings folded screams TOY! so that to me is out of the question. If you want it more perfect, buy a $75 kit and take the time to build and paint it and you still will only have something half the size or less.

. P-38 I covered elsewhere.

. P-40: All has been said already.

. P-47: A shame about the Razorback since the wings were really as correct as most scale models. The fix for the Razorback is long and painful. The Bubble top is just off enough to be noticeble but impressive just the same.

. Spitfire: Again, Quite close to a scale model for a toy.

. Avenger: Unless I'd want to add all the plumbing that is in the real one, I wouldn't want to display it with wings folded The gear is the worst part. The wings can be forced into dihedral. The overall shape is excellent.

. FW-190D: Lack of dihedral and the unexplained squared off trailing edges of the wings and stablizers just ad misery to the pain of the landing gear. Overall shape of plan view and side view are not bad at all.

. The jets were coming at a time when they were really starting to get it right. The MiG seems to be the most accurate and the impressive F-104 and F-86 can look great if you aren't too picky.

As said before, quite a lot for the money.
Image

What makes the P-51 Mustang so special?

"It would do for 8 hours what a Spitfire would do for 45 minutes."

Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager

User avatar
skorzeny
Officer - 1st Lieutenant
Officer - 1st Lieutenant
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:01 pm
Location: WIND CITY

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by skorzeny » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:37 pm

If 21st had never happened........what would we have done for these past fifteen years? :shock:
Thanks James Allen / 21st, wish you were still around!

Normandy.[/quote]


Well said Normandy !

Thanks James Allen (2)

Snake Man
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:14 am

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Snake Man » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:54 pm

Axis Nightmare.... Strange that you cite lack of dihedral in those examples. ALL of mine have a normal amount of dihedral. I would agree with the droopy wings on the Avenger, which I never bought, but all the others I have are fine. I wonder if there was more than one release of these ? I know there was more than one release of the Razorback P-47 for sure. The early ones had a non-sliding, but removable canopy, and the later versions had a sliding canopy with those ugly slots for it to slide in. I think the issue with the P-51 landing gear is that in order for it to retract, the struts must be in the extended position, as they would be with the weight of the aircraft off of them, or they won't fit into the wheel wells. That doesn't excuse the very incorrect rake however.

Snake Man
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:14 am

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Snake Man » Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:49 am

tmanthegreat wrote:Its always fun to discuss these things :wink: Since we haven't gotten any new 1:18 aircraft in a couple years, why not discuss all the old classics?



Snake Man, I have 3 P-40s (AVG, RAP, Pearl Harbor). The RAF one is the earliest (bought early 2004) and has flat wings; my AVG and Pearl Harbor ones are special editions released a couple years later and have some wing dihedral.
Your evaluation of the P-40 is interesting. The only one I have is the RAF version, and the wings are definitely not flat. It has a normal amount of dihedral. This leads me to believe that there was more than one release of these models, with some corrections made in the later ones. I agree that overall, it looks a bit off in some areas, but still looks like a P-40 from a distance. I think there were probably some re-toolings made to some of the other offerings in mid production, which would explain the differences in opinions about these aircraft. I know for certain there are differences in the Razorback P-47's between the early and later releases.

User avatar
Axis Nightmare
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:40 am
Location: Amelia, OH

Re: Critiques of 21st offerings

Post by Axis Nightmare » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:10 pm

There are definite changes along the way in the series of aircraft. I have two very different paint jobs on the "29" Kepford Corsair. The base color shades are different. The prop hub is black on the darker one and silver on the lighter one. The darker one has poorly done sloppy weathering with random splotches of silver all over. I call it the "Spot Corsair". VERY careful use of fine steel wool will usually remedy it by removing or reducing the effect a great deal. So changes did take place over the years. I was also able to carefully remove the kill markings with the same fine steel wool without destroying the blue under them and plan to modify the "29" into a 23 or 28 to make it a different plane from the Squadron like in the well known in flight formation photo. Note the number 8 has what appears to be a silver or white hub while the rest seem to have the correct intermediate blue hubs. Number 3 still has red surrounds to the stars and bars and no two paint schemes are identical in coverage and weathering. Kepford's 29 seems to have received the attention with new paint on the cowl starting just ahead of the kill marks and touch ups on the fuselage and fresh white tape around the top cowl panels. #8 has the tape almost gone and 28 has none. The possibilities for mods is great.


Image


I've yet to see a 109E that didn't appear to have very flat wings. Same with the 190D. At least less well than a real example. The thickness may contribute to the effect. Also the fit of the wing can effect whether it's able to achieve a decent dihedral. This can vary from model to model. There can be fixes with most if you can identify where the problem is keeping it from a proper angle. May require shims, may require reshaping or sanding. Depends on the culprit. :wink:

Diheadral is good on the later Mustangs, Spit, and the P-47s consistantly.

Now for a few really picky issues.....

The torpedo/bomb bay on the Avenger is wrong. Each door is a bi-fold. The gear on the 262's is among the best. The struts and tires look real good but.... the main gear covers should be two seperate detached parts on each main. ( I was standing a few feet away from the one at the Air Force Museum a couple weeks ago). Same with the P-47. I can live with it as long as the gear itself is as good as it is on the 262's. They were really starting to lean toward more of a scale model near the end.
Image

What makes the P-51 Mustang so special?

"It would do for 8 hours what a Spitfire would do for 45 minutes."

Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager

Post Reply