[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Copland

Although I am an armor guy, I enjoy reading the aviation posts. What amazes me is the amount of knowledge concerning every small detail of these models. Then, I thought to myself. If these guys here are this "up" on aircraft specifics, shouldn't the diecast company itself be more informed? I mean, surely someone has to be researching this stuff, and they're paid for it! Here is my suggestion: Some of you guys need to volunteer to serve as a consultant to these companies. Better than that, apply to work for them. What do you think? Some of the things they appear to miss would seem major to me . . . like the wrong windows put in. Just complimenting and wondering.

I agree, I'm an armor guy too and have helped with atleast three kits out there in some form or fashion. And to be honest, I'm not a museum quality builder either. But I do have some knowledge or access to the real thing.
Unless the diecast world is so ultra secret, needing GS69 Secret Squirrel clearance. I don't understand why they wont ask for help off these DGs.
- Shawn

[smd4]

I hate to bring this post back from the dead, but I feel I must put in my two cents.

The Armour B-17 was the plane that convinced me not to purchase any other planes from Armour. The comments below are based on my recollection of the piece; I gave mine away to the young son of a friend of mine who wouldn't be bothered by the discrepancies, so I apologize in advance if I miss-describe something.

I purchased the "Memphis Belle" when it first came out a couple years ago. I had anticipated this plane since it was announced, and I couldn't have been more disappointed.

This particular plane is perhaps (no, IS), the most recognized B-17 of WWII. So, to begin with, it should have been modeled on the "F" model, and not the "G" model. Nearly everything about the plane's nose is incorrect, from the Plexiglas nosecone with incorrect bracing to the astrodome to the forward window arrangement.

The ADF antenna is even placed in the wrong place--on the plane's center line, and not off to the left side as it should be.

The opening cockpit is a nice feature, but the shape of the front windows is completely wrong. These windows are almost like the plane's "eyes," and the shape of the originals--with a seeming squinty, angry scowl cast into them, bent on retribution--was not reproduced, unfortunately.

Moving to the wings, I was disheartened at the utterly massive and out-of-scale wheel struts, sorely lacking in detail. Also--the supercharges are nothing more than blobs of metal, painted a hideous shade of wine red(?).

Every propeller blade on my model was bent slightly rearward to the exact same degree, leading me to believe they were molded that way.

The bomb bay is not even modeled with panel lines!

The plane is missing a fair amount of lettering. Where's
"Stuka"?

And, of course, the paint colors chosen were absolutely atrocious! They seem to have used a shade of bright Kelly Green where OD should have been! And the gray underside looks like some of the red from the superchargers got mixed in!

I'm not sure what Corgi model folks are referring to when they compare this model. I also have the 1:72 Memphis Belle from that company, and I can't begin to tell you how much better it is.

It's certainly smaller, but the amount of features they included--which should have easily been replicated in 1:48 scale--makes the larger bomber look like a mere toy.

The Corgi model features:

--Airframe accurately modeled on the F model with appropriate nose window detail;
--METAL GUNS! All of them.
--Operating Bomb Bay doors with bombs inside, attached to a bomb rack;
--Scale landing gear struts;
--accurate paint job;
--Very nicely detailed superchargers, painted in a metallic bronze color;
--OPERATING CONTROL SURFACES!, including the split-flap ailerons;
--Display stand.

Now, don't think I'm a shill for Corgi; this is the only plane of theirs that I own. But when I compare this plane, feature to feature, operating detail to (non) operating detail, it seems Armour/FM really did a terrible job with their plane.

I'm truly glad that there are those who enjoy this model, and I don't wish to rain on your parade. But when I think about what Armour/FM could have done with the plane, it could have been their masterpiece. Sad, really. And I do hope that by shedding some light on the errors of the model, that I can prevent other, similarly detail-oriented collectors from being as disappointed as I was. And maybe, just maybe, Armour will get the picture.

Now, don't get me started on the terrible F4U Corsair with the wrong front windshield or the P-40 with the perfectly cone-shaped spinner...

[djjeffhall]

Welcome to the forum.

Just out of curiousity, why did you resurrect this post? I'm sorry you didn't dig the model but I don't understand why you didn't let this post rest in peice and find something else (Perhaps more positive, or at least on a different subject?) to contribute as your first post?

[smd4]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

Welcome to the forum.

Just out of curiousity, why did you resurrect this post? I'm sorry you didn't dig the model but I don't understand why you didn't let this post rest in peice and find something else (Perhaps more positive, or at least on a different subject?) to contribute as your first post?

I told you why I resurrected this thread in my first sentence. And really, I don't think it's that old, or the message unimportant or somehow obsolete because it's a few months old. Folks out there still want to hear opinions on this model, I'll wager--negative or positive.

I've never been a big believer that one's first post has to be something necessarily positive, or earth-shattering, or profound or anything else. Post numbers mean little to me. This easily might have been my 500th post. When I see a subject that interests me, or a topic where I feel compelled to post a response, then I will. And that, after all, is what Forums such as this are about, no?

[Canucklehead]

Welcome aboard smd4.

Your critique was obviously well thought out, and well written. Thanks for sharing and I look forward to your future contributions.

[smd4]

Thanks, Canucklehead, glad to be aboard!

[Captain Eddie]

Welcome to the Forum, smd4! Look forward to further posts by you.

[Aircrafty]

smd4, thanks for your opinion on the Memphis Belle as I certainly learnt some things about the Armour Model/Franklinmint model. I guess their main claim to fame is that they are big, accuracy is a secondary consideration for them

[smd4]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

smd4, thanks for your opinion on the Memphis Belle as I certainly learnt some things about the Armour Model/Franklinmint model. I guess their main claim to fame is that they are big, accuracy is a secondary consideration for them

Many folks here--and I don't blame them--think that if a model looks good from afar, it's OK.

I don't think that way. If I'm spending good money on a model, I want it to look GOOD. And that means close-up. If it has operating features, all the better.

[parsig9]

I read your post with interest and carefully looked at my Corgi MB as I did so.

With Armour prices being so low lately it is tempting to want to grab a few more of them but it's posts like this that bring me back to reality...at least on this plane.