[Elmer]

It's nice to see that a few other vendors (Becks, Diecast Direct, Wings and Wheels) are now showing the first two Texans "in stock." However, no production model pictures (yet). I am surprised the Mule has not yet received any (at least not listed in stock). Anyone else have one yet?

I am told mine should arrive next week. Since I have been screaming for pictures or reviews, I will post a review when they arrive (sorry, no pics, my Windows 98 dinosaur just won't accomodate me).

[johnnyboy]

[STARMAN 352ND]

PICTURESAre now posted on the Flying Mules site.
It's about time too.
JP

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

PICTURESAre now posted on the Flying Mules site.
It's about time too.
JP

Yeah, and what shocked me the most about them was the extremely crude appearance of the pilots. It also looks like MD's comments about overdone rivets may have something to them.

Well, I've got one on the way from DieCast Direct (the yellow AF one), so I'll find out soon in person. But whether I get another one of these, or two, remains to be seen. This may turn out to be the disappointment of the year (I do hope not). Although I would say that would be largely due to the super-high expectations EI set out with their P-51 line, combined with the high prices they are asking for these models. From any other company, and at $50 or so, everyone would be gushing about these models, I'm sure

FVD

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Yeah, and what shocked me the most about them was the extremely crude appearance of the pilots. It also looks like MD's comments about overdone rivets may have something to them.

Well, I've got one on the way from DieCast Direct (the yellow AF one), so I'll find out soon in person. But whether I get another one of these, or two, remains to be seen. This may turn out to be the disappointment of the year (I do hope not). Although I would say that would be largely due to the super-high expectations EI set out with their P-51 line, combined with the high prices they are asking for these models. From any other company, and at $50 or so, everyone would be gushing about these models, I'm sure

FVD

I've got both and will say that from 3 feet away, they look fantastic. However, as you get closer, the scale effect is lost and the riveting is pretty distracting. The pilots aren't quite as bad as some of the comments suggest as they have some coloration to them, but they sure aren't what they could have been.

[FormerViperDriver]

I got my Air Force T-6 today. I have to echo Mustang Driver's thoughts to some extent, with regards to the over-done rivets. However, I must say that I still like the model very much. Mine had no paint flaws that I could see. So other than the rivets, I say this is a great model. I will also be getting the Mosquito Korean War FAC version when it is out, even at $80 a pop. The decision is made.

I do hope they improve those pilots. Their shape is adequate, but the paint job is pathetic. Anyway, not too hard to fix, but at the price I paid, I wouldn't expect to have to spend time fixing things like that myself. EI take note, please.

FVD

[Old Crow]

I also had a chance to see the first 2 liveries today in person and I reluctantly have to agree with Mustangdriver's assessment. The rivets really appear to be overdone, much like the Matchbox Mig-15 rivets. I saw several examples so it does not appear to be a bad example but just the basic design. I also agree the paint is uneven in quality of application and the pilots are just simply well below the standard of the plane itself.

That said, it is still a very nice model but I am having more difficulty justifying the increased cost over the HM 1/72 versions and, if I do acquire one, will have to be very selective.

I think the fundamental problem is that this model, while still very nice, will suffer by comparison to its outstanding older brother.

[Elmer]

Review

Eagles International 10101
North American T-6G-NA Texan (USAF, Hondo AFB, ca. 1951)
and
Eagles International 10102
North American SNJ-5C Texan (U.S.Navy BuNo. 51896, ca. 1941)

After a one year wait, Eagles International’s long awaited Texans finally arrived at my home. They are assembled (10101 on its gear, and 10102 perched on its in-flight display stand), sitting in front of me on my computer desk as I write this.

Shape and fit:
To my eye, the overall shape of the models is excellent. Wings and fuselage fit is also excellent. EI achieved better fit at the wing roots than it did on its Mustangs. Only a few seams are visible (most notably under the wings), but there are no gaps. Fuselage fit is especially outstanding. Fit of small assembly bits is not quite as good. On 10101 the rectangular plug (which is to be inserted when the model is not displayed on its stand) had to have all paint (except the visible side of course) scraped off with a hobby knife; the paint was quite thick and it took a good deal of scraping to finally get the plug inserted. Take pause before you fully insert the plug because it will be extremely difficult to remove. I decided I wanted 10101 on its gear, so I fully inserted the plug and achieved a good fit with no gaps. Also, the starboard gear would not stay inserted, but a little dab of Elmers took care of that problem. On 10102, the tabs for the four bombs needed a little scraping to achieve fit. Be forewarned about putting too much pressure on the rear gun when inserting it; I applied too much pressure and pushed the mount down into the fuselage. I was able to pull it back up with some tweezers. I sanded the tab of the gun down and re-inserted. The gear up fit on 10102 is outstanding and required no sanding, filing, or cutting.

Detail:
The models come with gear down or up options. The gear is not retractable; two sets of gear are provided, one set for each mode. The gear down wheels are rubber and roll. The propellers are metal and spin freely. The landing flaps are fully extendable. This is a beautiful feature on this model; it looks sharp on its gear with extended flaps. Flaps also stay closed (relatively tight) when up. Air scoops and exhaust stack are recessed and look sharp. The engines also look sharp; they are three toned (gray crankcase, black coil rings, and silver cylinders), with separately molded parts and nice depth. The wing lights are clear plastic and look outstanding. Stenciling detail is extensive and sharp looking. Panel lines look nice. The molded fuel caps with accompanying stenciling on both sides of the wing look awesome. On 10102 the rear seat is removable and positional (facing forward or rear). Cockpit detail is nice with nicely painted instrument panels. The gear wells have relatively nice molded detail. Pitot tubes, antennas, and guns are hard plastic. The in-flight display stand is beautiful, exactly the same as EI’s previous Mustang stands. The stand inserts forward of the tail wheel. As previously mentioned, a rectangular plug is provided to cover the insert point when not on the stand (but I wouldn’t use the plug if you will frequently change from gear down to in-flight). Now, a word about the rivet detail: riveting is extensive as is obvious from available on-line pictures. Is it overdone? You must decide. To my eye, (although I have only seen the FM/A Wildcat model in pictures) the number/amount of rivets is similar to FM/A’s F4F Wildcat with columns and rows of riveting along the wings and fuselage. The rivet holes are really no more deep or wide than on EI’s Mustangs (there are just dozens, if not hundreds more!) Certainly they are over scaled, but isn’t most riveting detail on any model at this scale? The rivets on 10102 are crisp. Unfortunately, on 10101, the riveting on the port fuselage, port and starboard wing tips, and underside center wing is grossly exaggerated, apparently due to thick paint. 10101 is clearly the better painted model with small fuselage details crisp and sharp. As a former plastic modeler, I have experienced the frustrating, cussed woes of applying paint too generously and ruining perfectly molded bitty parts. If you acquire 10101, I hope your model is better painted than mine, if so, your riveting detail will look sharper. Also to my eye, the multi-colored yellow, silver, red, and black of 10102 breaks up the monotony of the riveting more than the more monotone 10101. I admire EI for going for the “gusto” with mold rivet detail. I think they largely pulled off a nicely detailed model. Perhaps selective riveting would have been advisable. Nevertheless, having previewed the model via pictures and comments on MHII, the monster rivets I feared, thankfully, did not materialize for me.

Finish:
More so than overdone rivets, I think the potential of these models was diminished somewhat by the finishers. As previously mentioned, the paint is too thick on parts of 10101. The black anti-glare panel was applied somewhat sloppily; edge lines are wavy and not crisp. Decal graphics are better, especially stenciling, all pad printed. The star on the topside wing roundel has one arm without a clean, crisp edge (somewhat odd looking). Finish is better on 10102. The black anti-glare panel is applied better than 10101 (although not perfect). The red paint on the silver fuselage looks “red sharp.” On the wings, the red bands are spoiled somewhat by the yellow undercoat (although the riveting would have been destroyed in this area if the bands were coated several times to completely cover the yellow undercoating). The edges of the red bands on the rear fuselage and tail are not as crisp as they could have been. The crew looks awful (I left the crew out of 10101). I give paint finish a B on 10101 and a B+/A- on 10102. Finish is certainly not at the outstanding level of C1.

Quality Control Issues:
10101 arrived without canopy for the student. 10102 arrived without port gear door. 10102 also arrived with port horizontal stab disconnected. During shipping, it appears that the metal arm/stand came out of its Styrofoam insert and scrapped the underside red coating of this loose stab to the silver undercoat (two spots). Bummer. When I removed the model from its Styrofoam insert, the starboard stab also fell off. Then the tail wheel (just the wheel) fell off. I applied my modeling experience and fixed all of the loose parts, no real big deal. 10101 arrived with part of the engine detached from its mounting (I think it is just the front crankcase and coils); while the prop spins freely, it spins somewhat wobbly due to its mounting being loose (10102 is OK) I also need to look closely at pics of the real pitot tubes for it appears 10101’s tube is inserted sideways and 10102’s tube is inserted upside down. If this is the case, again, shouldn’t be a big deal, I can gently pry them out and reinsert. Overall, there are more QC issues than I normally expect. I think I can acquire the missing parts from OMI, so this should not be a real problem. Again, the crew looks awful.

The Grade:
Do I like these models? Yes!! I do! Even with their flaws, I think they are charming. EI aggressively goes for the detail. I admire the company’s approach, even if the detail isn’t perfect. Despite the flaws, the models have a quality feel and look with great heft and lots of metal. No model is perfect, and these are less perfect than they could have been. If I could only acquire one (speaking for myself here) I would acquire 10102. I love the prewar colors. Mine is better painted than 10101. The rivets look better. It should go well with my prewar HM F2A and C1 F4F. Oh… I also have an Accurate Miniatures (plastic build) pre war F3F in 1:48 scale. I can't wait to get them all together. Thanks EI for finally bringing your interpretation of the beloved Texan to market!

A postcript to this long rambling review, if anyone can provide a history of the aircraft 10101 represents I would much appreciate it. From evidence on the internet, it appears it may be 51-14461 (or 14401 or 14481), possibly with civilian registry N20683. This aircraft may have been destroyed in a fire in June 2006. The aircraft appears to be a re-paint job. I suspect the tail number is not authentic (again I am talking about the real aircraft... pictures of the real deal are available on the web). According to USAF serial rules of the time, the tail number would refer to 49-3925. However, according to Joe Baugher's much used serial number data base, serials did not go that high in 1949. The stenciling below the cockpit appears to read 51-14461 (or 01 or 81 as noted above). This is correct according to Baugher's serial database (correct in that serials in this range are indeed T-6G rebuilds of older AT-6s and SNJs).

[hworth18]

Great review Elmer!! Very professionally written and I think your assessment is accurate and fair..

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by hworth18

Great review Elmer!! Very professionally written and I think your assessment is accurate and fair..

Thanks, Harry.