Monogram 1:72 F-82G Twin Mustang

IT looks real nice there Toshi. I've seen this kit many many times at the store and I could have sworn it was a 1/48 scale. If it is I'll pick one up. My eyes and periodically shaky fingers just won't allow me to do 1/72 kits. You are doing a fine job on the kit.

BK

patrick206

Hi, Toshi

The twin '51 really looks like one of the more questionable designs the U.S. ever came up with, to me at least. While at first glance it may seem like an easy adaptation of the P-51, after a careful look it's obvious it would take a major effort to produce the twin version. I suspect there is actually very little of the original remaining, a major engineering and production change. The twin was NOT simply a bolt two P-51's together and go fly it effort, I'll bet it was quite a challenge.

I'm looking forward to seeing this one completed, bet it will be a beauty. Thanks for the post.

Patrick 

 

 

Your not alone on that fact, I've researched some info in regards to the Twin Mustang and am shocked at it's lack luster performance as well as the Frankenstein assembly needed to get the Twin Mustang into the air.

Just as an example, the drop tanks would not assemble properly, they had to rig a P-51 drop tank to fly missions requiring longer runs.  Well, nothing is perfect!  Still, it is a unique aircraft in the annals of flight history and has a place now in my collection even at 1:72.  LOL!

Patrick206, thank you for your support as well as the read and write, I really enjoy our discussions.

Toshi

BrandonK

IT looks real nice there Toshi. I've seen this kit many many times at the store and I could have sworn it was a 1/48 scale. If it is I'll pick one up. My eyes and periodically shaky fingers just won't allow me to do 1/72 kits. You are doing a fine job on the kit.

BK

 

I did not realize that it was 1:72 until I opened the box and Mrs. Toshi pointed out the size of the kit.  According to GMorrison, the 1:48 does not assemble well and that this 1:72 Monogram Twin Mustang goes together like as is it were a Tamiya.  I must concur, it did not need any putty and one small area needed to be lightly sanded.

Thank you sir for the compliments, I try to do my best.  I want to thank you for your support in my builds and for the read and reply, I so enjoy our discussions.  I look forward to it!

Toshi

 

P.S. I too cannot see any detail nor have such dexterity.  Mrs. Toshi occasionally helps me at times.

Toshi

 

 

patrick206

Hi, Toshi

The twin '51 really looks like one of the more questionable designs the U.S. ever came up with, to me at least. While at first glance it may seem like an easy adaptation of the P-51, after a careful look it's obvious it would take a major effort to produce the twin version. I suspect there is actually very little of the original remaining, a major engineering and production change. The twin was NOT simply a bolt two P-51's together and go fly it effort, I'll bet it was quite a challenge.

I'm looking forward to seeing this one completed, bet it will be a beauty. Thanks for the post.

Patrick 

 

 

 

 

 

Your not alone on that fact, I've researched some info in regards to the Twin Mustang and am shocked at it's lack luster performance as well as the Frankenstein assembly needed to get the Twin Mustang into the air.

 

Just as an example, the drop tanks would not assemble properly, they had to rig a P-51 drop tank to fly missions requiring longer runs.  Well, nothing is perfect!  Still, it is a unique aircraft in the annals of flight history and has a place now in my collection even at 1:72.  LOL!

Patrick206, thank you for your support as well as the read and write, I really enjoy our discussions.

Toshi

 

Actually the reason for its lack of performance lay with the Air Force brass as jets were the new thing and they did not want to put anymore money into them.  They were designed as fighter escort for B-29's, and were designed to use Packard Merlins like the P-51's, but the brass didn't want to pay anymore royalties to Rolls-Royce.  The first 20 were given Merlins, and designated as B models, and used as trainers.  The rest were given Allison V-1710's and the  performance sucked.  The trainers were faster than the actual service aircraft.  The round-the-world flight was done by a B model which is in the USAF Museum.  FQ-377 was the very last one in use by the AF at Ladd Field (Fort Wainwright) Alaska.  It was scrapped in 1953 at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.  The F and G refugees from Korea were winterized as H models and sent to Alaska to buzz Army troops on exercises, and to bomb river icejams during Breakup (ah, springtime in Alaska for the lower 49'ers). Correction: not round-the-world flight but NY to Hawaii, I believe.

Toshi, great effort as usual. I'm amazed at how fast you can turn out nice looking models. I'm still not done with either of my 2 models since getting back into this a few months ago. 

Put another shrimp on the barbie

richs26

 

 

Toshi

 

 

patrick206

Hi, Toshi

The twin '51 really looks like one of the more questionable designs the U.S. ever came up with, to me at least. While at first glance it may seem like an easy adaptation of the P-51, after a careful look it's obvious it would take a major effort to produce the twin version. I suspect there is actually very little of the original remaining, a major engineering and production change. The twin was NOT simply a bolt two P-51's together and go fly it effort, I'll bet it was quite a challenge.

I'm looking forward to seeing this one completed, bet it will be a beauty. Thanks for the post.

Patrick 

 

 

 

 

 

Your not alone on that fact, I've researched some info in regards to the Twin Mustang and am shocked at it's lack luster performance as well as the Frankenstein assembly needed to get the Twin Mustang into the air.

 

Just as an example, the drop tanks would not assemble properly, they had to rig a P-51 drop tank to fly missions requiring longer runs.  Well, nothing is perfect!  Still, it is a unique aircraft in the annals of flight history and has a place now in my collection even at 1:72.  LOL!

Patrick206, thank you for your support as well as the read and write, I really enjoy our discussions.

Toshi

 

 

 

 

Actually the reason for its lack of performance lay with the Air Force brass as jets were the new thing and they did not want to put anymore money into them.  They were designed as fighter escort for B-29's, and were designed to use Packard Merlins like the P-51's, but the brass didn't want to pay anymore royalties to Rolls-Royce.  The first 20 were given Merlins, and designated as B models, and used as trainers.  The rest were given Allison V-1710's and the  performance sucked.  The trainers were faster than the actual service aircraft.  The round-the-world flight was done by a B model which is in the USAF Museum.  FQ-377 was the very last one in use by the AF at Ladd Field (Fort Wainwright) Alaska.  It was scrapped in 1953 at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.  The F and G refugees from Korea were winterized as H models and sent to Alaska to buzz Army troops on exercises, and to bomb river icejams during Breakup (ah, springtime in Alaska for the lower 49'ers). Correction: not round-the-world flight but NY to Hawaii, I believe.

 

Thank you for the reiteration, I always look forward to new and interesting related information.  Thank you also for the read and reply.

Toshi

What is that thing in the middle?  Seems to start the offensive on adversaries even before the shooting starts. Lol.

 

Ive stayed with 1/72 since the 80s. Considered shifting to 1/48 a number of times but have always stayed with the scale. It'll grow on you. Makes for easy storage of built up kits too.

 

allan

What is that thing in the middle?  Seems to start the offensive on adversaries even before the shooting starts. Lol.

 

Ive stayed with 1/72 since the 80s. Considered shifting to 1/48 a number of times but have always stayed with the scale. It'll grow on you. Makes for easy storage of built up kits too.

 

 

LOL!  Yes, it's a radome.  Radar technology was still in it's infancy especially in night fighters.  Hence such a large radar enclosure.  Till this day most radar is in the nose cone or the front of the air craft.

Mrs. Toshi asked about that as well!  LOL!

Toshi

7474

Toshi, great effort as usual. I'm amazed at how fast you can turn out nice looking models. I'm still not done with either of my 2 models since getting back into this a few months ago. 

Put another shrimp on the barbie

 

Thank you sir, I think I have way more time than you do sir!  LOL!  I thank you for the read and reply, I enjoy them very much.

Toshi

 

A warning on the decals, those new Revell decals are a BEAR to get to snuggle down, that is if the ones on my 48th CH-53D are any indication, Solvaset wont even put a dent in them.

 

Just a heads up, your Twins looking good so far