Corsair.

Depends by what you mean by "best". There are only two, the old Revell kit and the newer Trumpeter kit. The Revell kit is an old (70's?) kit with not much detail, but it looks like a Corsair. The Trumpeter kit is a lot more detailed, but some issues like ejector pin marks, gap tooth cowl flaps, dodgy fit in some areas, and undersized exhuasts.

Dave

JohnLC a pensé très fort :

Revell ! Old, not a lot of details, but accurate. The Trumpeter is not a corsair, even there is a lot of details, like often with Trumpeters kits (feel free to take a look at their 'stang, you will lough... or cry...) :o)

Funny no one's mentioned price. Revell's for $20 or less, Trumpeter's for what, $150? Obviously, for price Revell's the better deal.

Trumpeter.

Hell yeah.. I might want to get some after market parts like a resin R2800 engine flaps and any ohter assessories that I can get to make it a better kit.

-JOhn c.

frank wrote:

Don't know where you are shopping, but retail on Trump's Corsair kits is $70 and can easily be found for a touch over $50. Yes, it is more than the Revell kit, but as it has a complete engine, folding wings, weapons, much more detailed landing gear and cockpit, you get what you pay for.

Dave

The resin R-2800 from Teknics is a must - best example out there, IMO. And Eduard makes a set of cockpit etch specifically for it; though you can probably also use the exterior set(s) meant for the Tumpeter one. A set of cockpit placards are available from Waldron as well as thier seat harness buckles, and Verlinden makes a pretty nice resin cockpit set - I seem to recall Black Box doing one as well, but it looks to be OOP. And Squadron has a vac canopy available.

Jerry Rutman also has various resin goodies available...though I still can't seem to get onto his website...

I even have a Birdcage convesion set...from Lone Star, I think...but I've had it long enough that I can't recall who made it. I think I also have some gunsights...somewhere...

I have most (if not all...) of the 1/32 Corsair enhancement goodies out there, and both the Revell and Trumpeter kits. I prefer the Trumpeter kit as a launching point, but that's just me...and I could change my mind anytime during building them. Either will be some bit of work...and expense. Indulge as you see fit.

BTW - Hobbyland is currently advertizing the Trumpeter F4U kit(s) at $51.99. Don't let anyone fool you with triple digits...

I didn't do any shopping, that's why I wasn't sure of Trumpeter's price. Yeah, you get what you pay for & it depends on what you want. I have soft spot for the Revell kit, but I also have 2 unbuilt Trumpeter

-4s & if they'll ever come out with a -5 &/or '7, I'll have them too.

I'm building two Trumpeter F4U-4s to present to (then) LT Tom Hudner and LTJG William Koenig in appreciation of their absolutely essential help in our search for ENS Jesse Brown's crash site. Dave Klaus from Meteor Productions kindly donated the decal sheets for this project.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

I have the Revell F-4U-1D and the Trumpeter F-4U-4, and both are good kits, but there are a lot of difference, and I remember when almost every one critisised the Revell for being wrong, or at least not a -1D! The engine, cockpit and wheels leaves a lot of work or resin replacements to meet todays standard. The Trumpeter kit shares most parts with their F-4U-1D and the painting instructions got carried over from that kit - not good, but easily corrected. As for the correctnes of the kit, they both look like Corsais to me, but as a kit the Trumpeter kits offer a lot more parts and details without being perfect. The flaps can be opened as everyone complained wasn't possible on the Revell kit, but the PE and rod hinges are not for beginners. Beautifully done movable tailwheel and hook, but fixed wheelwelldoors and fixed main undercarriage. Foldable wings on both kits, Trumpeters looks best, but have difficulty if you want to unfold them, but especially if you belive they can be movable, then they will sag.

Hobbyland is about as good as it gets:

True, true...I was planning on throwing my Revell kit out, but after looking at it again I may give it a go. One of the two of them is going to end up being converted into a Birdcage...just not sure which I want to start with yet.

Out of all the unit squadrons that used this aircraft from NAVY to MARINES. Which one would you use as an example and how would you best try to emmulate what you see from pictures and historical fact?

-JOhn C.

Rufus wrote:

I tend to favor Marines units (mostly because I've worked with a number of them supporting thier Harriers), but I do plan to do examples of both shore and carrier based Corsairs - the carrier based one with the wings folded, shore based one with wings spread. What you choose really depends on your asthetics for color - I tend to like aircraft painted for war, not for advertisment, so I tend to choose schemes with minimal color in them. Marine schemes more often fit my personal asthetic.

You may also have a particular interest in a particualr bit of history which may influence your choice - as an example, one thing I found while doing research for my 1/48 Tamiya Birdcage Corsair was that the Marines often removed the tail hook from their aircraft to cut weight when shore based - so I removed the hook from my Birdcage, using the Osprey book as my reference for the particular aircraft I was modeling. Such small but notable "modifications" based on the historical operational practices of a particular unit are worth the effort...and also make for some interesting conversation...

IMO most model airplanes I see are over-weathered - particularly USN and USMC ones - when it comes to areas of exposed metal. You have to bear in mind that left un-attended, the ravages of sea and salt play sheer havoc with aluminum. I've personally seen the innards of scraped P-51 wings that look like powdered steel wool from the effects of corrosion gone amuck...you simply can't let a fighting aircraft "go to seed" and expect to keep fighting with it...not for long, anyway.

I'm not sure if the Navy began the practice during WWII or not, but modern Naval aircraft are maintained on rotating 14 day intervals of scheduled inspection/repair - 14, 28, 56, etc. - days through a caledar year. Part of this process is corrosion control - in general, the corrosion team will grab whatever paint they have handy that is closest to treat and overspray any exposed area. This is where the blotchy appearance of modern Naval aircraft comes from. On a model you can simulate this with actual color, or just by airbrushing contrasting areas of glosscote, semigloss, and flatcote. A carrier based aircraft would probably be kept a bit more "pristene" in appearance than a shore based one, I would think.

The Monogram Painting Guides are probably the best collection of technical references I've come across other than direct access to US Naval pubs.

Other than that, pour over as many sources for decals as you can find and a unit or scheme may just jump out at you. Then the next step is to research that particular unit. You may find something interesting (like I did with the tail hook) that may also pique your interest...or turn you in another direction entirely...that's part of the fun. The best advise - as always - is to find as many photos of the particular aircraft you wish to model and use those as your guide.

British Fleet Air Arm - they had the guts to use a less than perfect a/c because it was a matter of life and death for the nation. And I don't like blue a/c. (c:

RobG