F2H-2P Banshee - Sword Model Kit Review

1. Introduction
Aircraft: McDonnell F2H-2P Banshee
Model kit manufacturer / country: Sword / Czech Republic
Scale: 1:72
Catalogue number: 72078
Release time: 2014

Basic information on the F2H Banshee is available in Wikipedia (link) and will not be repeated here.

2. Kit
2.1. Box
The box is a typical side-opener, of moderate size (25 x 17.5 x 4 cm) and of soft cardboard (therefore, not particularly sturdy).

2.2. Instruction
Instruction is printed in on three black & white A4 sheets. Guidance on building and painting is clear enough. A typical review writer will lament the lack of references to model paint numbers and corresponding FS codes, but I believe that this is a type of information that modellers ought to obtain from a reliable source beforehand.

2.3. Plastic, Resin and Photoetched Parts
This is a true multimedia kit. In addition to plastic parts you get a number of resin items and a set of pre-painted photoetched parts.

The quality of molding is very good, all exterior surfaces are smooth with thin panel lines. Resin items are very nicely cast. The quality of etching is superb.

But quality is one thing, while accuracy is quite another. And in this area the kit leaves much to be desired:
1) Unfortunately, the distinctive shape of the camera nose is not accurate in the kit. On a real F2H-2P there are pronounced "eyebrows" above the camera apertures, the tip of the nose is slightly more pointed and more rectangular (rather than roundish) in cross-section.
2) Engine exhaust shroud shape is inaccurate in the kit. Refer to my comparison pictures. The round bulge of the engine shroud must stand more proud above the wing surface.
3) The wing root fairing between the engine exhaust shroud and the fuselage is less than accurate in the kit. On a real Banshee the fairing is longer.
4) The camera bay interior on a real F2H-2P is much more intricate than the plastic parts offered in the kit. Furthermore, those parts give the appearance that no less than 9 cameras are present, whereas a real photo-Banshee was not designed to carry more than 6 cameras.
5) The proportions of the nose wheel in relation to its tyre are slightly off in the kit. There is no imitation of the ribbed rim. The tyre lacks tread pattern.
6) Resin main wheels provided in the kit are not exactly accurate, as the central part of the hub should be flat and not bulged inwards (see my comparison pictures) Furthermore, the tyres lack tread pattern.
7) The F2H has a rather distinctive tail bumper. Respective part is present in the kit; however, the instruction manual tells you to glue it onto the entirely wrong place on the fuselage. As always, historical photographs are the only thing to trust.
8) The fuel dump tube on a real Banshee is rather prominent. It is omitted in the kit.
9) Alas, as it is customary with practically all kits in the 1:72 scale, there are no clear parts to imitate navigation lights, landing light and position lights. Incidentally, the Sword guys themselves have already broken this trend with their F9F-8P Cougar and T-28C Trojan kits where clear navigation lights are present.

 

To be objective, a number of high points of the kit must also be noted, in particular:
10) The kit includes resin cast seamless intake channels. This is a most welcome part, and sadly absent in many other good kits.
11)  Resin items to detail engine nozzles are provided (turbine blades and center body).
12) The cockpit has excellent detail straight out of the box. A nicely detailed resin ejection seat, finely painted photo-etched dashboard, side consoles and seatbelts are especially worth mentioning
13) Some items are provided to detail the space below the sliding canopy, and that is an extremely rare occurrence in this scale.
14) The kit's canopy is given as two separate parts and thus can be positioned open, which is excellent.
15) The whole nose section is provided in clear plastic. This is a very clever idea, as masking is much easier than gluing 9 small clear pieces into small holes.
16) Very good out-of-the-box detail is provided for the landing gear legs and landing gear wells (modellers should note that main landing gear doors are always closed on a stationary Banhsee).

The instruction manual suggests to install a pair of outer wing pylons. Indeed, specifications state that the F2H-2P had provisions for a pair of underwing flash cartridge pods for night photography. However, among all available historical photographs of the recce Banshees I was unable to find any to confirm that either of the machines covered by the decal options has in fact carried the pylons.

3. Decal
There are 2 decal options provided:
A) USMC. BuNo 125687 / MW3. VMJ-1, Pohang (K-3), Korea, 1952.
B) U.S. Navy. BuNo 128863 / PP28. VC-61, USS Yorktown (CV-10), 1953-54.

Unfortunately, as it is often the case with out of the box decals, there are many inaccuracies.

Variant A:
1) The branch of service name above the BuNo lettering is inaccurate on the decal. It must read "MARINES", not "NAVY". Proportions are also wrong: the branch of service letters must be 50% as tall as the BuNo.
2) Font for the "MW" tail code is inaccurate on the decal. Observe the difference in "M" on the decal and on historical photographs.
3) Font for the "MARINES" lettering is inaccurate on the decal. Observe the difference in "M", "A", "R", "S" on the decal and on historical photographs.

Variant B:
4) Font for the wing "NAVY" lettering is inaccurate on the decal. Observe the difference in "A" on the decal and on historical photographs.
5) Font for the fuselage "NAVY" lettering is inaccurate on the decal. Observe the difference in "A" and in spacing on the decal and on historical photographs.
6) Font for the "PP" tail code is inaccurate on the decal. Note how thick the P's are on historical photographs in relation to what we see on the decal sheet.
7) Proportions of lettering of the BuNo block are wrong on the decal: the branch of service letters must be 50% as tall as the BuNo.
8) Most of the VC-61 Banshees, including BuNo 128863, had their modex repeated on the rudder. Respective item is missing on the decal sheet.
9) Some of the VC-61 Banshees, including BuNo 128863, had their BuNo repeated on the wingtip tanks. Respective item is missing on the decal sheet.

4. Alternatives & Aftermarket
For a very long time there was only one F2H-2P Banshee model in the 1:72 scale available on the market, the one from Airfix. For a kit released in 1980, it was very good; from today's viewpoint it is rather obsolete. Somewhere around 2010 the Banshee was tackled by Olimp Pro Resin who released full resin kits of the F2H-2 and F2H-2N variants. At some point they have announced the recce variant as well, but then have seemingly backed off.

There aren't many aftermarket items applicable for either variant of the F2H-2. As far as I can see there is only this:
1) Vacu-formed canopy that comes inside the set # 4 manufactured by Falcon.
2) Vacu-formed canopy from Squadron Products (# 9111).

5. Conclusion
Pro:
 - Very good quality of molding, smooth surface, fine panel lines.
 - Very good out-of-the box detail, including cockpit, landing gear, intake channels and exhaust detail.
 - Fair price (~$17 at Hannants).
Contra:
 - Significant inaccuracies in shape and geometry, including: camera nose shape; engine exhaust shroud shape; main and nose wheel hub shape.
 - Inaccurate decal.

The Sword's kit is surely an improvement over the old one from Airfix. However, Sword must do something about accuracy on the corporate level. I have bought their Banshee, Skyknight and Seastar kits, and each turned out to have a whole cluster of avoidable inaccuracies. These kits are new tools released in the 2010s, and they all represent subjects for which a lot of information is available (including historical photographs, detailed books and preserved aircraft accessible for measurements). This information must be used rather than ignored.

6. Reference Data
[1] FH Phantom / F2H Banshee in Action | Aircraft in Action Series # 182 | Squadron/Signal Publications, 2002
[2] Early Banshees | Naval Fighters Series # 73 | Ginter Books, 2006
[3] McDonnell Banshee | Naval Fighters Series # 2 | Ginter Books, 1980
[4] Basic information on the F2H Banshee in Wikipedia: link
[5] An excellent photo walk-around: link
As usual, one has to be careful when looking at photo walk-arounds of museum exhibits. Frequently, painting and markings on such exhibits are historically inaccurate.

F3D-2 Skyknight - Sword Model Kit Review

1. Introduction
Aircraft: Douglas F3D-2 Skyknight
Model kit manufacturer / country: Sword / Czech Republic
Scale: 1:72
Catalogue number: 72074
Release time: 2013

Basic information on the F3D-2 Skyknight is available in Wikipedia (link) and will not be repeated here.

2. Kit
2.1. Box
The box is a typical awkward side-opener, of moderate size (30 x 20 x 4 cm) and of soft cardboard (therefore, not particularly sturdy).

2.2. Instruction
Instruction is printed in on three black & white A4 sheets. Guidance on building and painting is clear enough. A typical review writer will lament the lack of references to model paint numbers and corresponding FS codes, but I believe that he who lacks this type of information should first obtain it from a reliable source and only then start thinking about building an accurate model kit.

2.3. Plastic Parts

There is no way around it. What we get in this box is NOT a model of the U.S. Navy / U.S. Marine Corps F3D-2 operational night fighter. It is a model of a one-of-kind testbed operated by Raytheon for the U.S. Army to conduct some electronics tests (several airframes were passed to Raytheon, including BuNo 124598, 124630, 125807, 127043 and 127074).

This scale model kit was released in 2013. The Internet is here, with options to search for information and to order books at your fingertips. How on Earth Sword came to ignore more than a hundred historical photographs and at least two good books (Squadron Signal's and Steve Ginter's) that clearly explain the very few variations that the Skyknight has actually came in?... How blind one should be to close one's eyes on hundreds of historical photographs and instead pick a one-of-kind testbed as a basis for manufacturing a scale model kit?

Coming to the point. The Sword kit's port and starboard fuselage halves possess prominent bulges that should not be there at all. Those bulges are instrumentation fairings; they belong to the Raytheon's test airframes and must not be present on operational Skyknights. Sure, a modeller can (and must) sand those fairings off. But this will take time and effort (no, this is not "very easy", as some of the reviewers suggest), and would ruin the delicate panel lines. The fact in itself is extremely disappointing.

Here are some historical photographs that show the "clean" fuselage valid for all operational Skyknights (including EF-10B): link, link, link.
And here is a photograph of a preserved ex-Raytheon BuNo 124630 with fake markings and the offending fairing in place: link.

A number of other issues should be listed:
1) The shape of engine air intakes on a real Skyknight is very intricate. It is simplified in the kit, and sanding will be required in some very awkward places. Fences that run between the fuselage and intake channels on a real aircraft have to be scratch-built as they are not present in the kit.
2) On a real Skyknight, the way the forward part of the canopy is integrated with the fuselage is very intricate. This area is inaccurate in the kit, as the clearly seen arched joint lines between the fuselage and the canopy of the real aircraft are not discernible in the kit.
3) Troughs for port and starboard pairs of guns are too close together in the kit.
4) The kit's cockpit interior is austere. This is unfortunate, as on a real Skyknight quite a lot of the cockpit is clearly seen through the bulbous canopy, including dashboard, pilots seats and canopy structure beams. On the one hand, some well-respected manufacturers (Hasegawa, for instance) continue producing model kits with practically no interior details to speak of. On the other hand, Sword themselves has recently released kits with excellent out-of-the-box interior which includes multiple resin and photoetched parts – these are their F2H-2 Banshee and T2V-1 Seastar products.
5) The wheels are accurate, but the tyres sadly lack tread pattern.
6) Wheel bay interior and landing gear door interior details are present but much simplified – see walk-around, reference [4].
7) Flap hinges are missing, whereas on a real aircraft they are very prominent (two per flap).
8) Small juts on ailerons outboard from trim tabs are missing.
9) Rudder hinge line has no depth at all; it is not so on a real Skyknight.
10) Horizontal stabilizer trim tab actuators are missing.
11) Raised rectangular panels are present on the horizontal stabilizer which are not found on operational Skyknights (another legacy of copying a Raytheon testbed, I presume).
12) The way to glue the wings to the fuselage that the manual suggests is simply unworkable. The resulting joint will no doubt be fragile. It would be advisable to devise and install metal reinforcing rods.

2.4. Clear Items
The kit's canopy is designed to be assembled from three parts, which requires some care. The forward edge of the canopy does not align well with the respective bulges on the fuselage, but it is just as well since the said bulges are themselves not entirely accurate.

Alas, as it is customary with practically all kits in the 1:72 scale, there are no clear parts to imitate wingtip navigation lights and position lights. Incidentally, Sword has already broken this trend with their F9F-8P Cougar and T-28C Trojan kits where clear navigation lights are present.

3. Decal
There are 5 decal options provided:
A) USMC. BuNo 124620 / WF15. VMF(N)-513, Pyeongtaek (K-6), Korea, 1953.
B) USMC. BuNo unknown / WF23. VMF(N)-513, Korea, 1953.
C) USMC. BuNo 124615 / WF8. VMF(N)-513, Pyeongtaek (K-6), Korea, 1955.
D) U.S. Navy. BuNo 127022 / NA603. VC-4, USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42), 1952.
E) U.S. Navy. BuNo 127072 / T402. VF-14, USS Intrepid (CV-11), 1954.

Surprisingly, the accuracy of decals is slightly better than average.

Variant A:
1) Decals for this variant appear to be accurate. There's just one thing: do not heed the instruction manual and do not apply the wing code and modex to the top starboard wing. All available historical photographs of VMF(N)-513 Skynights show that the top starboard wing as well as the bottom port wing are devoid of any markings.
2) A note regarding all VMF(N)-513 Skynights: careful research is required to ensure that the size of the national insignia is appropriate for the BuNo that you are modelling. The stars and bars of at least two different sizes can be seen on the squadron's aircraft.

Variant B:
I could only find one historical photograph of the WF23 in supposedly red markings: it is black & white, grainy, and only a part of the aircraft is actually visible. To me this means that there is simply not enough information to attempt modelling this particular aircraft, regardless of its MiG Killer status. Period.

Variant C:
I could only find one historical photograph of the WF8. Only part of the aircraft is visible, and there is no indication that it's BuNo is 124615. Same verdict as for Variant B.

Variant D:
3) "603" modex for the top starboard wing is too small on the decal. According to a historical photograph of BuNo 127022 the wing modex is as tall as 70% of the wing "NA" code letters, whereas on the decal it is only 58%.
4) Small "603" modex that according to a historical photograph is present on drop tanks is actually included on the decal but not mentioned in the instruction manual.

Variant E:
5) Decal for the wing code reads "ATG", whereas historical photograph shows that only the "T" was actually present on the top starboard wing. Otherwise decals for this variant appear to be accurate.

4. Alternatives & Aftermarket
For a very long time there was only one F3D Skyknight model in the 1:72 scale available on the market, the one from Matchbox (# PK-134). For a kit released in 1988, it was very good; from today's viewpoint it has only nostalgic value. One aftermarket item existed: a vacu-formed canopy that comes inside the set # 4 manufactured by Falcon.

The appearance of the Sword's modern kit has brought us some more aftermarket. As of March 2016, the list is as follows:

1) Resin cockpit from Pavla (# 72124). Note that although this set contains excellent detail for everything that is below the windowsill, no items are provided to detail the canopy structure which is highly visible on real Skyknights.

2) Small photoetched detail set from RES-IM / Eduard (# 72030) that contains very useful pre-painted instrument panels.

3) Resin air brake set from Pavla (# 72166). Modellers should remember that air brakes are designed to be used when an aircraft is airborne. Air brakes were never left open on a stationary operational F3D-2 aircraft. This piece of aftermarket does not remedy any of the kit's shortcomings but will only result in more kits being built in a historically inaccurate configuration.

4) Aftermarket decal from PrintScale (# 72087). Even a very brief glance on this decal shows the U.S. national insignia that are bright blue instead of Insignia Blue, plus a set of absolutely inaccurate letters and digits for the VMCJ-1 variant (just look at how the "5" and the "RM" appear on the Print Scale's decal and then look at historical photographs - like this one - of some real VMCJ-1 EF-10Bs). This is only fit for a waste basket.
It is curios to see how PrintScale, after producing dozens of decals for different U.S. Navy / Marines subjects through several years, makes the same mistakes with every new decal. Their USN / USMC subject decals invariably use historically inaccurate fonts, with letters and digits apparently taken from some standardized ready-made font / typeface, in many cases considerably different from what all of us can see on perfectly available historical photographs.

5. Conclusion
Pro:
 - Very good quality of molding, smooth surface, very fine panel lines.
 - Decal with unusually few inaccuracies.
 - Fair price (~$16 at the manufacturer's site).
Contra:
 - A number of noticeable inaccuracies, including: canopy-to-fuselage joint shape; gun troughs positions; Raytheon's instrumentation fairings inapplicable for operational Skyknights.
 - Simplified air intake shape, wheel bay interior and landing gear door interior details.
 - Lack of detail: cockpit interior; tyre tread; various small items missing (flap hinges, trim tab actuators, rudder hinge); no clear parts to imitate navigation lights.

The Sword's kit is surely an improvement over the old one from Matchbox. However, Sword has raised the bar rather high recently and I have expected them to do better both in terms of accuracy and detail. 

6. Reference Data
[1] Douglas F3D Skyknight in Action | Aircraft in Action Series # 10229 | Squadron/Signal Publications, 2012
[2] Douglas F3D Skyknight | Naval Fighters Series # 4 | Ginter Books, 1982
[3] Basic information on the F3D Skyknight in Wikipedia: link
[4] A good photo walk-around: link
My advice is to be careful when looking at photo walk-arounds of museum exhibits. Those in the USS Intrepid Museum and the Flying Leathernecks Museum are ex-Raytheon airframes. They carry a number of modifications not applicable to operational Skyknights.