1/72 B-26 Maurader

Hi,
can somebody tell me, which kit of the Maurader ist the best. The
Matchbox or the Revell or the Airfix kit.
Regards
Robert
Reply to
schoro
Loading thread data ...
I'd ride with the Airfix kit. The Revell has engines and is a veritable rivet farm. The Matchbox is simplistic but do-able if you want a quick build.
Additionally, Monogram made a snap-tite of an early version which is nice but hard to find and I've yet to find aftermarket decals for it. Also, FROG made a kit (re-boxed by Eastern Express) that's best left in the box. hth The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
Believe it or not the Monogram snaptite. It's an early B-26A.
Reply to
Brian Francis
The Airfix is probably the best, of the three you mentioned. About its only *real* negative, is that like most Airfix kits from that era, it has about a "bazillion" pieces, making construction a bit more challenging that we are accustomed to with today's kits.
There is also a rare Monogram kit, from their "Snap-Tite" genre. Like most of the Monogram Snap-Tite kits...it is actually *very* nice. The B-26 kit also has the distinction of being an early variant, with the earlier wings.
Reply to
Greg Heilers
I'd vote for Airfix. It has the most detail and options. It also "looks right". The Revell kit is covered with rivets and has a "squashed" cockpit canopy. The Matchbox kit seems hard to find.
Martin
Reply to
Martin
so the mpc/eastern express are not worth building? of course i have one of each.
Reply to
someone
Okay, the MPC is a licensed production of the Airfix kit, currently the best available. MPC and Airfix were both owned at one point by General Mills who marketed the Airfix kits in the US under the MPC label.
The Eastern Express is the old Frog kit. While the rear gun turret is clear (as it should be) the rest of the kit is no prize; the carb intakes being the most noticable. They barely resemble the aircraft's. It is a relatively simple build though, good if you're looking for a quick finish. Does yours have British/French decals? hth
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
Actually it's an early B-26B-1 or -2. Noticable characteristic: the stepped rear gun position with handheld twin fifties. Also the short wing and the small carb intakes. The A had a clear tail "cone" with a single .30. Sadly, The A hasn't been kitted, there's several nice British schemes worth doing as well as US Pacific birds. I've never seen a conversion kit either. hth The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
ok, the amt kit is beige plastic, the decals have american and brit decals. sharkmouth us and a diving girl for ?the ea has star and bar plus a different shark mouth. the kitys are identical tree for tree. aha, amt, not mpc. ok keeper, we have a solution. amt was also the frog molds, it seems.
Reply to
someone
Correct, AMT imported and packaged FROG kits back in the sixties as did the Lines Bros. before them . hth
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
so they're not terribly good?
Reply to
someone
The one that I had (still have some of the decals) wasn't great, but it was a good learning experience. Funny thing about the decals was what was supposed to be red was more orange. Never saw Brit roundels in dark blue and orange before.....
-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger
Reply to
The Old Timer
>>>>ok, the amt kit is beige plastic, the decals have american >>>>and brit decals. sharkmouth us and a diving girl for ?the ea >>>>has star and bar plus a different shark mouth. the kitys are >>>>identical tree for tree. >>>>aha, amt, not mpc. ok keeper, we have a solution. >>>>amt was also the frog molds, it seems. >>>> >>>> > > > >>>Correct, AMT imported and packaged FROG kits back in the sixties as did the >>>Lines Bros. before them . >>> >>> > > > >>so they're not terribly good? >> >> > >The one that I had (still have some of the decals) wasn't great, but it was a >good learning experience. Funny thing about the decals was what was supposed to >be red was more orange. >Never saw Brit roundels in dark blue and orange before..... > > >
Reply to
Derek Shaw
the amt decals are starnge. and crumbling, so i would have to replace them. i doubt i'll build either, i stuffed them both in the ea box. hmm, 5 bucks and postage takes both. or send me a lindberg 163 or two. any takers?
Reply to
someone
AMT decals were always strange and crumbling. I learned after some started crumbling right on the model to avoid them. My first B-26 was the 'Air Lines' rendition of the Frog kit. Those markings were fairly decent for the times. Airfix and Monogram are definitely the best Marauders in 1/72.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Reply to
Mad-Modeller
They're perfect for your use. I've got one I hope to build at some point. I'd like to be able to write a concise review on all the kits of my fave a/c, the Marauder being one of them. The FROG kit and it's derivatives is simplistic and not extremely accurate. It won't win you any contests but it's still looks like a B-26 when done.
In the recent book "Remembering Revell" the author indicates that the British mold makers really screwed up the B-26 mold and it's terribly inaccurate. Personally I don't see what he's talking about; he didn't go into detail. If I could find a decent set of plans I could do a comparison. Cheers,
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
ok, i'll build the ea for practice. thanks. did you get my email thanking you for the stuff?
Reply to
someone
Thank you, for the answers.
But I had built long time ago the B-26 of Revell. I think, it was a "terribly" kit.
regards
Robert
snipped-for-privacy@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de schrieb:
Reply to
schoro
Thanks for the answers.
I built long ago the B-26 of Revell. I think it is a "terribly" kit.
Regards Robert
snipped-for-privacy@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de schrieb:
Reply to
schoro
IIRC these were for a SAAF B-26.
The Revell kit in its first incarnation had a squashed cockpit canopy that was corrected in later issues.
Tom
Reply to
Maiesm72

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.