[tank nut]

Never seen one of these in pics before, so where they fired by remote or somthing???

[mapleflag]

The tailgunner position on the Mitchell was manned and the guns pointed out through a canvas mantlet below the glazing-the gunner's head and shoulders were uo in the glassed area and his hands below on the guns. What model is that?

[djjeffhall]

tank nut,
Unfortunately that is a case of Corgi just being REALLY sloppy. All they did was add the canopy over the position, as opposed to actually making it a real position. There are a couple of thread about this bird. Unfortunately it really stands out and is just a drag.

[tank nut]

To bad that they did not do it right. It is a very nice plane, the plane is the south west pacific black 310 by corgi. Thanks guys.

[mustangdriver]

THe gun position is wrong, but not as wrong as you think. It just should have a place for the gunnerunder that canopy. It shouldn't look like the ones in the pics posted oof the other B-25's because it was a field mod.

[mapleflag]

This might have something to do with why Corgi seems to be losing its place in the diecast lineup-why the hell would you cut corners in the second most prominent spot on the aircraft,
they may as well have stuck two-bladed props on it too! That little dog just keeps piddling in its own dish....

[tank nut]

What I don't understand is why they did not do it right all the way around? The plane looks ok other then that and the funny thing is that I have seen other corgi b-25's with the right machine gun setup in the back so why is this one wrong? Just does not make sense I guess.

[slammin]

Here's a link to when I asked the same question. There is a good picture of the actual field modification in here.

Is Corgi's B-25 "Black 310" tail gun accurate?

[Louie]

I am disappointed in Corgi for doing that. The RAF B-25 I have has a wierd tail gun as well. If something better does come along(maybe FOV) mine will be on the block.

[djjeffhall]

I've said elsewhere that its really dissapointing the way Corgi approached this bird.

In all fairness, Corgi should be given props for deciding to go for more than just the basic model of the bird, however, in this case, the end result is pretty obviously and sloppily awful.

I guess the question that I really want to ask is this. How difficult is it to manufacture the mould with different parts that can be swapped from version to version? Is making a separate section for the nose, tail and whatever signifigantly more costly? This would give them the manufacturer the opportunity to switch out one tail section, nose section, whatever from plane to plane to account for one mould or another. What would the extra cost amount to? More importantly, how much would we be willing to pay for that level of accuarcy? (Addressed many, many time elsewhere, I know.)