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.
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
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.
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."
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.