Sounds like you da man to convert this sow's ear! Sometimes I just marvel at the odd complexity of some early (and mostly foreign) molds. Not to be too harsh on the eastern European molders, I recall the odd (to me) four piece molding of the Airfix Vosper kit hull. Must be like Matty said...an early inability to produce molds with any excess depth. But some of us love a challenge and looks like our board host is well up to it! Model on, Matt!

So - what else could possibly be so wrong with this kit? One pic will tell you most of it:


Click on Image for FULL RESA four-sided box for a fuselage, that's what! While I suppose in some universe this could possibly be a sure-fitting design - and admitting that I was able, without too much difficulty, to tape the pieces together (top) at all - this construction is frought with potential problems, and could easily wind up crushed/skewed to one side or the other. And - once again - it bespeaks an ancient and crude manufacturing technology, unable to cope with deeply-hollow moldings, such as entire fuselage-halves. (Again, consistent with a later/latest manufacturer providing the deep cowling pieces - very likely by Revell.)

Be any of that as it may, these fuselage moldings present an infinitely worse problem - as you might have noticed at top, far upper-right, regarding the cutout cheek, and glimpse of a flat clear part:


Click on Image to Enlarge
--FULL RES----------FULL RES--And that flatness is precisely the problem: almost all contours of the parts for this conical nose greenhouse - clear parts and fuselage frames alike - are essentially flat! Which I here graphically demonstrate, with the aid of latex maskoid, to secure the clear cheek parts, temporarily. Note, when their after 2/3 or so are in place, the forward section does not meet up with the fuselage parts - neither above, nor below. Meanwhile, the top of the nose - easily the most visible point on an airplane model - is a flat frame, to accept yet another (relatively) flat clear part. Will this make for a conical dome greenhouse - appearing and in reality very similar to that of the later-model Heinkel He111? I don't think so - it's going to look like some sort of square-nosed monitor lizard!

How could it get any worse? At right, note at bottom-left that (at least) the three central panels also are marred by lines, inexplicably scribed on the inside surface - which don't follow the canopy framing! To paraphrase Gus: "What manner of retard(s)" came up with this?!!

Meanwhile, at top I (try to) show how I was able at least to align the aft portions of the cheek parts flush with the fuselage - though it leads to maximum divergence, forward - while Revell, on their box photo (bottom-right), and I suppose in pursuit of at least some truth in advertising, fitted the front part as well as possible - to show a whopping, mismatched joint remaining along the top. But even this really doesn't honestly depict the (lack of) fit, hiding as it does the truly god-awful top - which you know how terrible that's going to look!

Time to back up and remember just what we want to build, here:


Click on Image to Enlarge
FULL RESWhich can really be shown now, thanks to the Squadron book of references (left) that Gus also snagged for me (BZ, buddy!) - and its very first historical pic (top-right), showing how thoroughly rounded this nose - just like in the artwork - really was. The kit parts won't cut it and can't cut it - no matter how they might be massaged - IMHO.

So, does this stop us cold? No - thanks to yet another recently-made spare part, coming to the rescue: a clear nose cone (bottom right) from my RAAF Boston-II refit exhibits very compatible contours to replace the top- and forward side areas - which are certainly all those most crucially needing replacement, including doing away with that heavy, first top-fuselage frame, entirely. Note that once that's done, and the replacement actually fitted/snugged into place, it will probably stretch far enough aft to replace all but the last two columns of windows - thus eliminating all panels suffering from those obnoxious scribe marks, as well!

OK, so that's one problematic kit - but it has finally come to rest on the one bench fully equipped to whip its sorry, offensive a** into (hopefully some excellent) shape!

Cheers,

-Matty

Through some kind of minor miracle (Thank You, Gus hager and Jacksonville IPMS club!) I recently snagged Revell's apparent repop of a 1:72 mold of this aircraft:


Decent box art - typical (of Revell-DE, in particular) - and, although depicting the standard bomber (w/belly drop tank shown), the box does indeed contain a torpedo - and, even more interesting - a (very large) mine! More generally, surface details - on the wings and fuselage (see below) - is not that bad: raised panel lines, but not too crude, and none of the over-proud rivets that often plagued earlier Revell planes.

That, however, is pretty much where the Good News ends - and the Journey Into The Bizarre begins. Let us start with the second most offensive, yet most revealing, aspect of this mold - its engines:


Click on Image to Enlarge
FULL RESAt top-left, the four engine components - cowling and mount (both white), and engine and prop-shaft (both black) - appear, at first glance, reasonable enough - in fact, the design obviously is meant to trap the shaft, so that the propeller need not be added until afterwards (and overall painting is completed). However, the fan-like louvers in the cowling (bottom-left) - completely filling it in - do make one wonder why the at least decently-textured engine (right) was ever molded, to begin with - only to never again be seen, once installed! Neither are the two some optional choice, either: cutting out the cowl louvers will eliminate the necessary collar in the center - leaving the prop to hang on a long spindle, extending from the engine - while discarding the engine would leave the shaft completely without an anchor - and the hole in the cowling is too wide for a retainer! Is some part(s) missing? The instructions do not show any hint of it. But the parts do: note at bottom left-center, a notch in the cowling center ring. A nice crank-case cover could plug into that - but there is none! At bottom right-center, inside the back of the cowling, note there is another notch - which mates with - nothing! Likewise, the mounting part, at bottom-right, is center-punched and has a groove - neither of which have anything to go into them! And finally, on the back of the engine itself (top-right), there is a notch apropos of nothing in the kit! Bottom line: this type of engine louver only appeared on the late-war (and later) IL-4s: with very careful (by eye) positioning of the kit's "engines" onto its mountings, the nacelles could be assembled for a late-version IL-4, as-is. For an earlier IL-4 - having very visible engines, inside the cowlings - the kit represents an invitation to fix it yourself.

All of which clearly bespeaks an amalgam of modifications arising from (at least two) repops, over the years - and the Zvezda mold, it seems highly likely, is yet another of these, very likely also containing some, if not all, of the unaccounted-for parts, above. (I'm now trying to pick one up, to see if I can find out.) Meantime, I just happen to be uniquely equipped to take this kit up on its challenge, above:


Click on Image to Enlarge
--------FULL RES--------------FULL RES------FULL RES--Because, as you can see at left, I have a sh**-pot-truckload of 14-cylinder, twin-row engine parts - complete with trapped spindles and (two styles of) cowlings - in fact, virtually everything possibly needed - already cast in resin, from my Lancaster conversion project! (And a general foresight that all these could prove useful - who knew?!!)

At center, after a little cleanup you can see it's essentially plug-n-play - for some nice-looking engines, with cowlings nearly if not completely perfect for a mid-war IL-4! And at right - though an option I'm no longer considering, but just FYI: to make the more conical nacelles of yet-earlier IL-4 versions, cowlings from my 1:72 Ventura-II kit (gray) could also be merged with the kit part (white), while perfectly housing the kit engines, as well - though, again you would have to add back in the thickness of collar/spacer (which you could carefully cut out and save) from the center of the kit piece.

So - the worst of the kit now safely behind us? Not hardly:


Click on Image to Enlarge
FULL RESBehold, at top: the most offensive propellers ever seen (at least, by me) in a model kit - bare, individual blades - to be plugged, with no guidance whatsoever, into crude slots in the hubs (top, far right)! This is real, Ukranian-outback-with-a-jacknife modelling stuff and yet more proof, if any were needed, that this mold did not originate with Revell, but was kyped from someone(s) else, far away, and probably long ago, too!

Of course, you've already seen my solution - and here again, at bottom, where I actually have a choice of two: clockwise-pitched, with hubs already molded-in (left), or with counter-clockwise pitch (right), able to plug into the kit hubs (which by themselves are not bad).

So, that's virtually the entire propulsion system on this kit, a total mess - only (relatively) easily fixed by virtue of the tons of parts I happen to have already duplicated, in resin!

Thus it should come as no surprise, in a kit like this, that the clear parts might also come up short, as well:

Click on Image to Enlarge
FULL RESFor mysterious reason(s) unknown, the sliding section of canopy (top) at top-left, has a roughened, eggshell finish - severely reducing transparency of what otherwise turns out to be surprisingly good-quality, clear plastic molding: compare against the windshield part, at bottom-right, and other clear bits. Although the turret canopy (top right) is also quite good, I have something (probably) even better, at bottom: a spare/reject clear thermoplastic canopy - for exactly the same type of turret - from my SB-3 build. Rejected for the SB-3 due to pleats/flaws around its base, it is sufficiently formed over the top half to work with this kit's turret base (black).

OK, so now we're pretty much starting to nit-pick - that must be most of this kit's unique foibles/problems solved, right? Wrong - in fact, that's so not-even-most of them, that a whole 'nother post is needed, to show the worst part of all! So, stay tuned for that...

Cheers,

-Matty

--Originally Posted 2/6/09--

In looking for a second Soviet plane suitable to accompany my SB-3 build, I ran across - for the first time - this aircraft:


The Illyushin IL-4 - in torpedo bomber fit! As I understand it, this plane was a mainstay of the Soviet medium bomber force, during WWII.

The above art is from the Zvezda kit, which may be a very good one - or it might be rather crude and heavy, like my SB-3 kit (and several Zvezda sub kits I've seen) - but in any case, its on-line listed price of $50-$60 means I won't be finding out anytime soon. Instead - as you're probably guessing - I'm looking into ways to bash this fairly simple-looking design, in 1/72 scale, from other aircraft kits.

Step one of which was get a better idea of the overall form and dimensions of this plane:


Click on Image to EnlargeFrom the side, the heavy fuselage towards the tail, and triangular rudder, reminded me strongly of a Japanese G4M Betty. However this 3-view drawing reveals the fuselage is not cylindrical like the Betty, but taller than it is wide.

Meantime, the front end - apart from the unique dorsal cockpit - is distinctly reminiscent of the German Heinkel He-111. And now this 3-view drawing reveals the wings - at least, their leading edges - are also swept very much like the He-111:


Click on Image to EnlargeHere, an overlay-comparison of an He-111b drawing, sized to the same scale, shows some strong compatibilities - but also disparities as well. With the nose greenhouses aligning quite well with each other, the wing leading edges also largely agree. And the engines, while very different, are mounted with exactly the same separation. Moreover, the low-wing roots are also positioned about identically, on the bottom of the fuselage, for both planes.

Proceeding aft, however, the wing trailing edges disagree significantly - and the aft fuselage even more so; it is simply too tall, even after telescoping forward the tail (whose surfaces are also pretty different, though they do have the required area/mass).

Continuing to think which other aircraft might present a more similar fuselage, especially aft, including tail, I hit on this one:


Click on Image to EnlargeThe Japanese P1Y Frances - which also had a "pod"-type cockpit, though under a bubble canopy - but note this still would provide the entire cockpit, in exactly the right location. But note it is the nose greenhouse , as well as the tail stabilizer and rudder, which are almost perfect matches, as-is!

The Frances' wings don't match at all - and again, the engines are far too long, though their cowlings are much closer, and could no doubt be adapted. Meantime, the fuselage width and dorsal line are very good matches - exactly where those of the above He-111 are not.

So, where is this leading? Well, it just so happens I already have cannibalized kits of both the above - spare He-111 and P1Y1 - which I got for cheap; specifically for kitbash possibilities just like this. Little did I ever suspect they would form the perfect pair to bash together into exactly the new plane I just discovered! In addition, I anticipate both the cockpit windshield and dorsal turret could be largely if not entirely supplied by spare thermoplastic clear parts from my SB-3, which Don Czech and I already made.

What do you guys think - do you know of any better airframe(s) to bash for this? Because I'm getting pretty jazzed to start cutting and bashing up this cool Soviet IL-4T, torpedoplane!

Cheers,

-Matty