[Cruver Collecter]

I have come across numerous posts that pretty much tar and feather the Corgi P-51D. Have to admit that I really had not taken that close of a look at it to see what might be the reason for this. To be honest I like the P-51, but it is not one that I really consider one of my top favorites, to smooth and streamlined for me (My apologies to the P-51 lovers out there.). I figured there has to be several things wrong with the model so pulled out the ruler and my reference material to see what I could find. I started of on seeing how close it was to being overall scale. Fuselage length should be right around 5.38 inches and the wing span at 6.17 inches. Well the model did not have any major discrepancies there. I then started going over the model by its different components to see what I could find. As far as the tail assembly goes, well over all profile looked correct, but the horizontal stabilizers look to have a slight bit of anhedral (real slight). The wing overall had correct profile and possibly could use a tick more dihedral to it, but overall looks pretty good. The fuselage might be a bit deep by 1/32nd of inch behind the trailing edge of the wing, but only talking about a possible error of 2 to 2 1/4 inches. The Cowling contour was a bit to flat on top and probably with a little grinding along the upper portion could bring it into shape and error here is probably between 1/64th and 1/32nd of a inch off which would be sitting at an error of between 1 and 2 1/4 inches off on the real thing. Smaller features like cuffed prop, canopy, antenna and landing gear look to be well with in scale also. Things that stood out to me were the seam lines for the tail wheel & main wing assembly, also the drop tanks setup could have been done a bit better. For the most part everything I found was a bit on the minor side. I figure for a model to get panned there has to be several things wrong with it. So I have to ask, what did I miss?

[PappyB]

Nice detailed analysis but IMHO you are being a bit too clinical -- (that said if you like it, great, and I certainly do not want to change that -- to each their own and seeing how Corgi has pumped out a lot of 'em and few hit the bargain bins, someone must be buying 'em.)

I don't like the pilot figure and I don't like the nose section at all -- looks too square and fat, not at all streamlined like the real bird does in profile, to me. I think the nose is ruined in part by that dang silly removeable top cover to see that wonderfully detailed engine (I do wish they would abandon this, or make it worth the tradeoffs). This is really the number one thing that makes me not like the Corgi Mustang -- the profile just doesn't look right to me.

Try this -- put your Corgi Mustang next to a Dragon Mustang for a bit and see what you think. Dragon's D model Mustangs have made all others irrelevant for me. And the Pooch's B model... It just looks all wrong to me. No offense intended to anyone that's a fan, just voicing my opinion.

So for me the aesthetical "analysis" if you will wins out and Corgi just doesn't cut the mustard for my tastes.

That said, the Mustang is one of my top three favorite aircraft from WWII. If I didn't really like it I'd probably be more okay with a Corgi if I scored it for a good deal -- like the Down for Double at the TM sale, which looked like one of the better Corgi Mustangs I've seen (but I still couldn't buy it).

[no4mkit]

Originally Posted by PappyB

Try this -- put your Corgi Mustang next to a Dragon Mustang for a bit and see what you think. Dragon's D model Mustangs have made all others irrelevant for me.

Have to agree 100% with Pappy on that one. No comparison in my book. If you have to narrow it to one thing, the biggest problem I find with the Corgi P51D is the nose. It's just too flat in both profile and cross-section. I know some can overlook that, and I have no problem with that (to each his own!), but I just can't put a Corgi in with all my Dragon D's and Gemini B/C's!

[aeroeng]

I think there is an old thread by Skunky talking about the geometry problems with the Corgi Mustang.

[trex0770]

For me the detailing leaves alot to be desired. The paint application on the ones I have seem too thick, kinda like getting your car repainted at Earl Schibbs for $49.99 where they don't bother to strip the old paint vs a real body shop or dealer. The panel lines and cut of the aircraft just are not crisp when compared to DW's Mustang or even GA's Mustang.

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by trex0770

For me the detailing leaves alot to be desired. The paint application on the ones I have seem too thick, kinda like getting your car repainted at Earl Schibbs for $49.99 where they don't bother to strip the old paint vs a real body shop or dealer. The panel lines and cut of the aircraft just are not crisp when compared to DW's Mustang or even GA's Mustang.

I only have four of the Corgi P-51s (And one Matchbox P-51) and it's pretty much half and half as how I view them. Have Capt. Roscoe C Brown's "Bunnie", Lt. Col. Gordon's "Down For Double", Major Robn Olds Skat IV and Lt. Col. Edward O. McComas P-51. Of the four I am pretty much ok for the first two, but the second two are pretty much ehh to luke warm. Capt.Brown's "Bunnie" is actually kind of nice looking model and Down For Double is kind of warming up on me. My Corgi P-51s all have one thing in common, they were picked up at Tueday Morning store.

[Epapazian]

I'm afraid that I have to go along with the critics of Corgi's P-51s as to the squared -off look of the engine cowling, which, for me, is the biggest beef I have with this particular mold. OK, so this was an early effort by Corgi, but the solution should have been to make a simple correction in the cowl, via a new sub-mold, rather than plugging on as if there was no problem. Hopefully, Corgi, under Hornby's direction, will make such corrections, when they are really warranted, in response to collector criticisms.

[trex0770]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

I'm afraid that I have to go along with the critics of Corgi's P-51s as to the squared -off look of the engine cowling, which, for me, is the biggest beef I have with this particular mold. OK, so this was an early effort by Corgi, but the solution should have been to make a simple correction in the cowl, via a new sub-mold, rather than plugging on as if there was no problem. Hopefully, Corgi, under Hornby's direction, will make such corrections, when they are really warranted, in response to collector criticisms.

Agreed! Corgi really had a chance to make amends with the cowl with their recent "B" model Mustangs but, of course, they didn't. And providing us with yet more ammo!

[Celtic]

I know the Corgi's D and B have technical problems, but they seem to have a "model personality" all their own. The B especially reminds me of the kind of artistry used in making older Britains toy soldiers or the old pod-feet. I understand why others like the realism of the Dragon and GA versions, but, IMHO, compared to the pooch's models they seem a little, well, bland.

[trex0770]

Originally Posted by Celtic

I know the Corgi's D and B have technical problems, but they seem to have a "model personality" all their own. The B especially reminds me of the kind of artistry used in making older Britains toy soldiers or the old pod-feet. I understand why others like the realism of the Dragon and GA versions, but, IMHO, compared to the pooch's models they seem a little, well, bland.

Celtic, don't be taken in by the glare! When it comes to Corgi, just because it's done in chrome or gold doesn't mean it's got personality or pretty. Heck, if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig...or something like that.

p.s. speaking of chrome.......where the heck is the Corgi exclusive???????????