The All New Arma 1/48 P-39Q Airacobra! Full build Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2025
- In this episode I tackle Arma's new Airacobra in 1/48 scale. It is a challenging kit with some speed bumps you need to watch out for. You can find the model for sale online now!
www.armahobby....
I wish we had more videos like this one where the builder points out trouble spots and solutions to fix. LOVE THAT!!! I am like you. I don't expect a 100% perfect kit not everything has to Tamiya. But, I also feel that a kit should be fun to build and not fight you the whole way. Finally, this is a great looking model! Awesome job.
@@gonzalomendoza3152 thanks Gonz! I’ve never been a fan of review builds or box reviews that gloss over this stuff.
With regard as to which door was used for cockpit entry and exit, it is true that pilots used the starboard door on a P-39. The reason for this was that the throttle quadrant actually encroached a little into the port door opening, and there was a real risk of damaging it by a pilot wearing bulky flying gear. It was, therefore, much easier and safer to use the starboard opening. The port door was usually used by ground crews for easier ancillary access on the port side.
I suspect the photos you have were possibly taken for publicity purposes.
In early variants of the Hawker Typhoon fitted with 'car doors', pilots also accessed the cockpit on the starboard side.
Yep, this. I try to model day-to-day reality, not staged publicity shots. Right door open, or both doors open or closed, but I wouldn't model only the left door open. Of course at least one kit (I'm looking at you, Academy) only offers a left door open option.
@thadrobinson8343 Absolutely. At the end of the day, it's a scale model and how it's built and displayed is up to the person that's assembled it.
@@markfranks1329I guess I can call the build good when the only flaw people are pointing out is the “wrong” door is open
@@TheModelGuy That wasn't meant as criticism in any way. I was just pointing out a fact. My comments were in no way a negative reflection of your skills as a modeller.
As I stated to someone else. It's your model. How you assemble it and present it is your perogative and no one else's. Again, that's all that matters.
The greatest gets even greater. Impeccable work.
@@scaleffect I wouldn’t call myself the greatest. I put my pants on like everyone else; both legs at once
Always a Joy to watch you work Brother -Detroit
@@jeffreyross-zb8cz thanks Jeff :)
Try building the AFV Pak 43. I had to finally put it down after assembling the cradle. Huge ejector pin marks, no locating pins to align pieces, it was overwhelming. And I agree building a model shouldn’t induce massive frustration due to poor manufacturing. I’ve been building the 1/48 HKM b17g and I’ve had the fuselage crack twice due to fit issues so frustrating. I tried flooding the inside with CA GLUE but I’m not sure if that will be a good long term solution. Keep up the good work!
@@InSidious1805 I have their B-17F that Eduard released….
This was a build for my friend, his dad flew one during the war and he was shot down by one of the German jet fighters he managed to crash land in Poland. He purchased all of the Eduard photoetch. In my opinion the only one really worth it is maybe the radio room and the bomb bay. I’ve been working on it for years and after everything was sealed off you can barely see any of the detail. I actually ruined a few pieces so bought the same kit for myself to swap parts so I’m sure when I rebuild it I’ll keep it much simpler.
Beautiful result Robbie. Thanks for taking the time to identify the issues with the kit and providing work-arounds. It’s such an interesting subject that I expect a lot of folks are going to buy the kit despite its challenges.
@@brucethemodelnoob thanks Bruce! I hope it helps some people work through the kit.
My absolute favorite WWII Aircraft build has been the 1987(?) REVELL BLACK WIDOW.
I have built this kit 3 times. The first was blow-up for a student film in 1991, the second was given to my great-uncle (who flew in a few in the Pacific Theater), and the third was destroyed by a previous friend...
@@tkskagen that was an aircraft that grew on me when I built one.
I just ordered that black widow kit on eBay. My favorite vintage kit is the old Revell P-40 Flying Tiger although it took two vintage kits to make one example due to some parts being so old 1969? some smaller parts just broke from being too brittle.
Great video.
Concerning the tip with drilling small to large: Normal 2-fluted drill bits don't center very well in pre-drilled smaller holes. Better use a narrowly tapered reamer to widen the pilot hole.
(In machining speciall three-fluted drill bits are used to widen holes.)
@@HotelPapa100 in the real world I’d just go to the reamer :)
The Squadron Signal P-39 reference book was a wellspring of info, too.
@@Bob-b7x6v I’ll have to check them out. I have a few digital copies of detail in scale I use as references
Thank you for sharing this helpful kit review. The kit is not cheap and I would have expected more for a new tooling. It would be interesting to know if the 1/72 kit has the same problems. The painting and final result is great! Best regards...
@@ScalerDan their 1/72 kit was tooled with the previous company. It had a lot of great reviews
@@TheModelGuy good to know, thanks!
Nice video! thanks for the info about the Airacobra kit. Can I ask where you get your lead wire? I have not been able to find it local to me in Canada. Thanks!
@@jeffdayman8183 I’m in Canada too! I got the lead wire kit from Cabellas online
@@TheModelGuy Many thanks! just ordered some from them. Shipping was almost as much as the wire though... (typical for here)
Bell built Airacobras.
Yes, that's correct. Curtiss-Wright built the P-40 Warhawk (AKA Kittyhawk) in Buffalo, Western New York State.
The assembly site for both the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra was the Bell Aircraft Corporation factory located in Wheatfield, New York (directly east of Niagara Falls, NY, adjacent to the then Niagara Falls Army Air Force Base, less than 20 miles (~28 km) from Buffalo). Both the P-39 & P-63 were produced on the same assembly line. Allegedly, 9,588 P-39s & 3,303 P-63 were produced.
The Soviet Red Army Air Force used the P-39 predominantly as an air-to-air front line combat fighter at its best altitudes, typically well under 15,000 feet, and _not_ as a ground attack aircraft (or "tank buster"), as was widely reported for decades. The US never provided armor piercing 37mm shells to the USSR for the Browning/Colt/Oldsmobile M4 cannon onboard the Cobras, only the high explosive variety.
The Airacobra is credited with more air-to-air kills than any other US WW II fighter and was deemed by many Russian pilots a nimble, well-built, fast-climbing, fast-rolling, well-armored, ergonomic (if noisy) aircraft with devastating firepower and a canopy offering superior visibility. I read that early on, British test pilots complained of poor windshield vision during rainfall. I don't know if or how that issue was addressed. Its tricycle landing gear was appreciated for controllable handling on the oftentimes rough airstrips and for allowing decent taxiing visibility when moving around the airfields.
The Kingcobra's fuselage was enlarged to accommodate a two-stage turbocharger, the tail section was reconfigured, strengthened (twice) and enlarged, it was given a new laminar flow airfoil wing (like the P-51), better hard points _and_ a larger four-bladed propeller to address the P-39s weaknesses: flat spin propensity, low fuel capacity (which drop tanks had already somewhat addressed on the P-39), poor high-altitude performance and structural weakness in the tail section under high-G stresses.
Though much improved, the USAAF decided instead to dedicate their production resources to the superior Packard-built Merlin-powered Mustangs and the crushing P-47 Thunderbolts. "OK, then more Cobras for us, please." said the Soviets. They had sent aeronautics experts to the Bell factory to help develop the P-63.
The Soviets were prohibited by a 1943 agreement from deploying their Kingcobras in the European war theater, something regarding balance of military power I imagine or maybe part of an US/UK push for the Soviets to enter the war against Japan, but there are numerous unconfirmed reports of P-63s engaging the Luftwaffe in 1944-45. The French operated P-63s in Algeria and Vietnam until phased out in 1951.
Bell also built the GE twin-turbojet testbed P-59 Airacomet (October 1942), the Model 30 helicopter (June 1943), the Bell 47 chopper as seen on "M*A*S*H" (December 1945) and the pioneering supersonic X-1 rocket plane (designed/built 1945 - first flight January 1946).
The UH-1 Iroquois ("Huey") was largely designed and built in Texas (first flight 1956) after Bell relocated their growing helicopter production there in 1951. More than 16,000 were built.
The nitrogen/hydrogen peroxide powered Bell Rocket Belt (a wearable rocket jet pack) was also developed in Buffalo/Niagara Falls (first untethered (free) flight April 1961), but its disappointing 21-second flight endurance and 120-meter range ended Pentagon funding for further development. Sure looked cool though.
Well done, really great result there. Love the video.
@@daviddillon5908 thanks david! I hope it helps some people out
The Soviets at least could appreciate the P-39 and make the most of it despite its shortcomings. You’ve done the same with this build! Looks sharp as always.
I’ve been wanting to build one myself and thought I might try the Arma, especially after my last Hasegawa kit left such a bad taste in my mouth. But Arma prices in Japan are outrageous, and I wonder if the old Eduard might not be best, if only I can find one.
@@plastictsubasa1390 they definitely made an impact with the Soviets. I still need to do a historical build video with the -39. But I appreciate you liking the final result:)
The Eduard kit is nice, but it has absurdly thick and squared-off trailing edges that really need to be addressed by the builder.
Excellent work with the modulation as always !!
@@markc7002 it really helps sell the weathering right?
@@TheModelGuy Indeed so!
The port door was seldom used, the throttle extended into the doorway.
I second your recommendations on Doog's black chasing series. Really took my paint jobs up a notch. In fact, if I do a good job on the under coats and don't overdo the blend coat, I don't even need to bother with oil paint work as there is plenty of depth and variation without it and honestly I think it looks a lot better.
I had been having some trouble with OD schemes, they didn't show enough variation so I appreciate what you did here. On my next OD build I'm going to use some of your colors underneath as I mostly stuck to greens and browns.
Also, for the price, I think I'll stick with the Eduard kit. Yes, it has some issues but looks a lot less fussy overall.
Black-BASING, not chasing. Stupid autocorrect...
I'd highly recommend you checking AK Interactive or DSPIAE markers. They make painting cockpit so much stress free. Highly recommended
@@arseny79 My local hobby store just got some in. But painting the cockpit was the least of my stress on this build
@@TheModelGuy roger that 🤙🏼
Didn’t the prop shaft run between the pilots legs?
@@francisagosh2175 it did but was under a tunnel like a rear wheel drive car
Airacobras were either Bronze Green or Interior Green in the cockpit, whilst the gear bays were either Yellow Zinc Chromate or Interior Green. References are a must for the aircraft you're modeling.
@@Bob-b7x6v good thing I used dark dull green which is a very close match to Bronze Green. It’s been my go-to for a few years now.
Really enjoyable and very informative. Thank you
@@seanyoung8085 thanks Sean! I’m hoping it helps some people out with their builds
Fantastic build although I won’t be building this although I love the P-38. I am same as you and although I expect some issues I don’t want my modeling hobby turning into a frustrating ordeal. IMO there is a difference between frustration and acceptable trouble shooting. Great build.
@@shannonmonroe5873 I 100% get that. I’ve recently changed jobs and am doing a training role now instead of just repairing heavy equipment. So a frustrating model kit doesn’t hit as hard as it would of before. I don’t want to feel like I am still at work
Very cool! I'd like to have a go at one of these one day
Edit: shame to hear about the fit issues, it looked like a good kit. I still think you did a fantastic job despite the problems it had though :)
@@ModelMinutes it’s definitely buildable with those relatively easy fixes. It’s just finding the fixes that takes time
That is a really nice build and the painting is exceptional. I noted your comments on the fit of the parts. I recently built the Tamiya P-38 and the kit goes together very well with no flash or fit issues. I kind of felt that the build didn't offer enough challenge as it was a little like putting Lego together. I kind of like a bit of fit issue challenge and the opportunity to build in some personal extra detailing. For me the most important part is now the quality of the exterior detail like panel lines and rivets. Older kits lacking detail or having excessive deep and overscale panel lines don't cut it for me now.
The starboard door actually had internal framing in the way, making ingress and egress nearly impossible. Ground crews usually permanently closed the starboard door. Try the P-39D at the Wright-Patterson USAF museum in Dayton Ohio for reference photos.
@@Bob-b7x6v I had quite a few reference photos with the port door open.
I find that assertion dubious at best. The starboard door was the usual and preferred means of entering and exiting the cockpit. Permanently sealing a door? Seriously? What if a pilot needed to bail out and one door was jammed shut? What if after a crash landing only the starboard door was available to exit the cockpit?
So how would it compare to the Eduard kit?
@@frankwittner1979 I’ve never built the Eduard one so I can’t honestly say
Great looking build, nice work!
@@georgethomas9040 thanks george!
Crikey! That was an effort and like seeing your solutions. It came out quite nice in the end. Regarding the sprue-goo, just used some to fill panel lines on my Mustang and see what you mean about shrinkage. Oh well, going with wear and tear ;)
@@fotomakr the only time I haven’t had sprue goo shrink was on a long term project when I had to re-fill them again. What Mustang did you build?
@@TheModelGuy I’m doing the Eduard D-5. I’ll email you a shot of it. Bryan
Another nice job on a aircraft that always looks rugged and ready...😊
@@richardjordan5036 it definitely grew on me. So odd looking but efficient
Great build and video.
@@jessejones640 thanks Jesse! Glad you like it
It's a bit rich, having to remove all those locating tabs: it smacks of poor QC. That said, and having had to work for it, you made a beautiful looking P39. Really interesting little video......👏🏻👍🏻👌🏻
@@septiccalling8341 thanks dude. The biggest thing here was helping people who may be building the kit hitting the same issues.
With the current offerings of 1/48 p-39 kits, which one would you recommend?
@@november5945 this is the only one I’ve built. So unfortunately I can’t give an honest opinion on the others.
P-39 pilots generally did not enter/exit the cockpit from the port side side because they would bang their knees on the trim tab control wheel when entering the cockpit. Notice that its placement is directly in front of the door obstructing easy access to the cockpit. Not really the best design location. They usually entered from the starboard side to save their knees from this repeated nuisance. But yes, they could enter from either side, hence doors on both sides.
8:06 I feel ya 🙂. Lovely job Robbie 👍.
Thanks bud! Proud assembler here lol
Perfect build 🔥🔥🔥
@@darthhokum thanks bud! Don’t look too close or you may change your mind :)
@@TheModelGuy 😂😂😂
Great build regardless of the trouble the kit gave you. To the "well, not everything is Tamiya" crowd: to be fair, in 2024 if a company aspires to be a mainstream manufacturer the very least they can do is make sure that their kit parts fit. Standards have gone up, it isn't the Wild West of scratchbuilt and Vacuform kits anymore. Even Special Hobby's latest releases have pretty good fit. Arma needs to address this, as I've enjoyed their other kits. At the end of the day, model building should be FUN, not a chore. We're past that.
@@mcruzdiaz I’m hoping their tooling gets corrected for whatever their new 1/72 kit is. Otherwise this may hurt them
7:45 Well, given the quality of recent AH kits You could expect it, their 1/72 Airacobra built like a dream, it puzzles my why 1/48 doesn't, especially since it's not more detailed than smaller kit, and certainly not as detailed as Hurri
@@Szopen715 I think it’s the tooling company that dropped the ball
I heard Arma recognized they had QC issues with the initial production batches, and they re-released the kit with tweaks.
@@5EyesIsntWatching I have the following release and all of the same issues are there
@@TheModelGuy good to know
Hello how many hours does IT take yOu to make this model excluding drying time?
@@Michu32421 this one here was about 60 hours for a quick build. The 1/48 Tamiya F-14 was about 250
@TheModelGuy The only time you count is painting, gluing or, for example, cleaning the airbrush too?
@ I count the time I am physically at the bench. I use lacquer paints so drying time is quick. The only thing that slows progress is having to fill with putty. But even then I try to work on another area of the kit
Good to know I don't need to get rid of my Eduard kits then
@@thekunninglinguist2397 I’ll take one for comparison lol
One thing I notice is that the details seem very chunky compared to their hurricane. I really wonder why because it is a shame.
@@erikjackson84 it’s the tooling that has caused that. If this went to the same company that did the Hurri it would have been a different story
@@TheModelGuy That’s a shame.
Ooof, I was looking to buy this kit, maybe not. Great work.
@@mencewilkinson9625 it’s not unbuildable, but it will take some time
Long time no see, I hope things are well with you.
@@simonkubacki9823 thanks Simon. Just busy with a new job, reserves and hockey starting up soon. Something has to give
Excellent job.
I know as a careful modeler,it goes against the grain to remove location pins..lol i always figured i can trust the guys who designed the kit....nope.
Thanks for all your efforts.
@@stevecausey545 I think the problem was the guys doing the molds. Tolerances were not as tight as needed
@@TheModelGuy the parts look delicate and lovely..that had to be frustrating..I've been building old monogram kits I built as a kid..some fit great some need a bit of work.
I just got tired of gazillion part kits this summer.
You did an amazing job on the airacobra!
Cool 🛩👍
Thanks! I tried to go for it while painting :)
You in denver? I here you talk about colpar?!?
@@tomspettel3646 I was down for a visit back in March to hit CoMMies Fest. I live in Alberta
@@TheModelGuywow long trip. Was Commie fest good?
@ I liked the show but the hang with friends before and after was the best part! First time down in the US
If you revisit the P-39 in a future vid would you consider the eduard P-39? 😊
@@TheModelGuyhope you make it back this year 😊
The P-39Q Airacobra is a unique fighter aircraft U.S. ARMY nice plane
@@neilhaas it was definitely leading edge for it’s time. Had they been allowed to throw a Merlin in one they would have been wild.
No excuse for the problems with a new production kit at the price asked. Plus there are already good kits from Hasegawa and Eduard, not to mention the 50+ year old Monogram model.
This is a shame after the excellent Hurricane....
Got their Dieppe double set of the 1/72nd Hurricane... Not gonna lie, it's impressive. It kind of takes you aback a bit. Gonna build it, of course. Just not now.
Whoa... Those plastic shenanigans oozed some real "Indian Airfix kit" stench. Pretty sad thing that Arma had their name tarnished by a subpar product. I'm pretty sure they were sent the better test-shots of the "0" batch for checking, greenlighted production and then the production company ran a "Nah, it'll be fine..." on them. Just like what happened to Airfix when they moved their production chain to India.
Still hating every single Humbrol paint produced there. Absolute awful quality.
Excellent work ironing out the issues, Rob.
Cheers.
Wings of the red star Soviet fighter aircraft besides U.S. ARMY I like the P-39Q Airacobra very nice fighter plane.
Ok
Silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Shame on that mold shop. No premium model kit should fit that horribly. Lemme guess, a bunch of mold engineers with zero experience touching grass, women, or model kits?
@@Bob-b7x6v I think it was a company not used to very tight tolerances
Doogs Models doesn't post videos anymore on TH-cam
@@marcelhoff186 his sandwich shading series is still up.
@@TheModelGuy true, but no use to subscribr
Just a comment for the algorithm.
Just a reply to the comment for the algorithm to do more algorithming
Hard pass on this one! Great job showing all the issues!
@@midori6756 it’s not unbuildable but you definitely have to work at it.
Not a fan of U.S. equipment in communist marking and service. Regardless, nice build and pointing out those build issues. I do believe difficult models can make us better modeler’s in the end.
@@TRINFSS I liked this livery out of the choices available because it was different. If it wasn’t for US supplied equipment, I think WWII would have been a bit different
Fan of u.s equipment in ukr nazi hands?
14:16 I'm not a native speaker, how to spell the channel you mentioned here?
Doog’s Models