# Monogram's re-issue of the Phantom Mustang



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

I absolutely love this kit...it's fun to build, it's nice looking, and it's fun to operate all of the features when it's done. I bought two of these kits from a local hobby shop yesterday and my only complaint about it is that they changed the instruction manual. I don't like the new one. Do any of you have one of the original instruction manuals that I could buy from you?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

God, I think I have one of those kits from each time it was reissued over the last 20 years. I should probably build one some time! :lol:


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

John P said:


> God, I think I have one of those kits from each time it was reissued over the last 20 years. I should probably build one some time! :lol:


Do you have one of the original instruction sheets? If so, would you be willing to part with one of them? I'd pay you for it. Thanks.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I loved mine when I was a kid although the front is oddly short forward of the wings.
I love hardware and being able to see the structure inside the skin is wonderful. I can't wait to see some 21st century build up s of this kit.


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

Richard Baker said:


> I loved mine when I was a kid although the front is oddly short forward of the wings.
> I love hardware and being able to see the structure inside the skin is wonderful. I can't wait to see some 21st century build up s of this kit.


I don't see the shortness of the nose that you mentioned...it's looks pretty accurate to me...


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

I remember when I built the original back in the 60's I painted the 1/2 in color and left the other 1/2 clear. Picked up the latest issue a while back.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Yeah the Monogram kit is a bit short in the nose. It is not a bad kit though. The original instruction manual hasnt been used for ages. It's been reissued off and on many times though.


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

djnick66 said:


> Yeah the Monogram kit is a bit short in the nose. It is not a bad kit though. The original instruction manual hasnt been used for ages. It's been reissued off and on many times though.


The instruction manual is the only thing I don't like about the latest re-issue of this kit. It may have many more pages than the original one, but there are a lot of the instruction details that were left out of this instruction manual. In fact, if I hadn't built this kit so many times previously, I could very easily have screwed something up because it isn't covered in this manual. The original one also had actual pictures of the assembly, which made things much easier. Also, both the print and illustrations were of much better quality on the original. I am trying to get ahold of one of the originals, and if I do, I will hold on to it because I'm sure I'll build this kit again...


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

You can probably find a PDF of it online. You may even find a copy of an older form on Revell's web site. They have PDFs for kits that Revell/Monogram hasn't had out for decades and some that have not even been reissued. There are also web sites with instruction PDFs and scans

I just looked on eBay and there is a 1961 manual on sale for $12...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

grampi said:


> The instruction manual is the only thing I don't like about the latest re-issue of this kit. It may have many more pages than the original one, but there are a lot of the instruction details that were left out of this instruction manual. In fact, if I hadn't built this kit so many times previously, I could very easily have screwed something up because it isn't covered in this manual. The original one also had actual pictures of the assembly, which made things much easier. Also, both the print and illustrations were of much better quality on the original. I am trying to get ahold of one of the originals, and if I do, I will hold on to it because I'm sure I'll build this kit again...


The one I have is from the 50th anniversary reissue. It's a booklet. Is that the one you need?


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

John P said:


> The one I have is from the 50th anniversary reissue. It's a booklet. Is that the one you need?


Does it look like this? I suppose I could just buy this one...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MONOGRAM-US...647265?hash=item235c046521:g:AEcAAOSwl9BWMsUe


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Not quite - it's probably the same, but it has newer logos.


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

John P said:


> Not quite - it's probably the same, but it has newer logos.


Does it use actual pictures? The manual that comes with the kit now has no actual pics, just drawings...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yup, pictures. But god knows when I'll be able get around to scanning it. Maybe you should buy the one on ebay.


----------



## oggy4u (Sep 27, 2007)

Which glue would any of you recommend for this kit ? It has too be strong yet leave no white marks or streaks like regular plastic cement .


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Clear Watch Crystal cement should do it. Also, since there is a lot of dead space in the kit, you can glue it together, finish some of the seams, and mask and paint portions of the plane, leaving certain areas clear to see the interior. Paint the parts zinc chromate first so that shows on the inside.


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

Now that I am almost finished building this kit, I must say overall speaking, I'm very disappointed with it. The quality of the intricate moving parts of this kit are terrible. About the only functioning part of this kit that works properly is the spinning propeller. The landing gear doesn't work properly at all. I had to remove the tail wheel doors as the tail wheel would catch on them and prevent retraction. The main landing gear doesn't retract fully and I'm guessing it has something to do with the round piece that rotates, or the piece that piece connects to. THESE PARTS MUST BE VERY PRECISELY MADE IN ORDER TO WORK PROPERLY, AND SOMETHING HAS GONE VERY WRONG IN THIS AREA WITH THESE RE-ISSUED KITS. The parts that release the bombs also seem to be very sloppily made and also don't work properly. I have built this kit several times and IMO, none of the re-issues are anywhere close to the quality of the original releases. I never had any problems with any of the functioning parts of the original kits. I will say it's still a nice looking kit, and the clarity of the clear parts is very good. Other than that, this kit is a big, fat fail IMO. I bought two kits, but I have no interest in building the second one...


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

For better or worse you are building a kit from a 60 year old mold. Molds do wear out. You have to be extra careful in clean up, fitting and testing. No kit molded today from the original mold is as crisp, sharp or good fitting as it was when it first came out decades ago. 

A key with the Phantom Mustang (I've built a few along with the non Phantom version) is to make sure everything works freely before finally gluing the main parts together.


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

djnick66 said:


> For better or worse you are building a kit from a 60 year old mold. Molds do wear out. You have to be extra careful in clean up, fitting and testing. No kit molded today from the original mold is as crisp, sharp or good fitting as it was when it first came out decades ago.
> 
> A key with the Phantom Mustang (I've built a few along with the non Phantom version) is to make sure everything works freely before finally gluing the main parts together.


I did all of these things, however, being careful and overly meticulous can't make up for misshaped parts, which I believe is the problem with this kit...it will end up being a nice looking model when I'm done, but it looses some (if not most) of its appeal without the properly working functions...


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Like I said, over the last 50 or 60 years of use, the mold gets worn. Part tolerances change. Things that used to fit snugly may bind up. You tend to get more flash, mold marks, and mold mis alignment over time too. This is not just something peculiar to the Phantom Mustang, but any kit run from a 60 year old mold. If you buy the current reissue of the prehistoric Monogram P-40 B and Huey Hog chopper, they are virtually unbuildable. The parts are so thin you can see through them, there is a lot of flash and heavy mold marks. The parts are also all warped and twisted. But, if you buy original issues of those kits from 40 years ago, they are molded much better, fit better, etc. You wouldn't believe they were the same kit.


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

djnick66 said:


> Like I said, over the last 50 or 60 years of use, the mold gets worn. Part tolerances change. Things that used to fit snugly may bind up. You tend to get more flash, mold marks, and mold mis alignment over time too. This is not just something peculiar to the Phantom Mustang, but any kit run from a 60 year old mold. If you buy the current reissue of the prehistoric Monogram P-40 B and Huey Hog chopper, they are virtually unbuildable. The parts are so thin you can see through them, there is a lot of flash and heavy mold marks. The parts are also all warped and twisted. But, if you buy original issues of those kits from 40 years ago, they are molded much better, fit better, etc. You wouldn't believe they were the same kit.


This may sound like a silly question, but why don't they replace the molds?


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

grampi said:


> This may sound like a silly question, but why don't they replace the molds?


The cost, in most cases, would be prohibitive. Molds back then were all cut by hand from hand carved and sculpted patterns. Today, they can reverse engineer a mold using computer scanning and machining but it is not a cheap or easy process. When this technology first came out back in the mid 90s, it was a bit more cost effective, but no as refined either. You saw Polar Lights reverse engineer some old Aurora kits, like the Lost in Space Robot. The copies are not bad, but are not as crisp or precise as the originals. Nowdays, they can do better copy work, but the cost has gone up tremendously. From what actual companies have said here on the forums, it costs as much to make an all new kit as to reverse engineer one. Moebius has done a few kits that way like the 2001 Moon Bus. In the case of that kit, orignal Aurora kits were bringing over $100, so it was a good choice. Revell also made an all new mold for the old Monogram Rommel's Rod car. Again, the original RR kit was a huge collectible so investing in a new mold made sense.


----------



## finaprint (Jan 29, 2006)

It seems to me that in today's world of 'We gotta have more, MORE production!' that the kit makers are shooting the trees out way too fast now with much less cooling done to them and why so many warp and sinkhole worse than they used to. 

I thought exactly the same thing about that Monogram Huey copter, the late ones are abysmal. I'd swear my first issue one fell together back in the day. 

Molds do wear but if one is mechanically proficient you can often think up a slight fix for some of those issues but of course you would be making up for lackluster product. Just like anything else made now it seems. Gear teeth might need filing back to correct shape as well as other small things. I remember doing all that to the old Revell 2.3 liter Ford Turbo kit back in like early '80s, the assembled motor still works to this day. But then as a mechanic I'm familiar with how to get non-working things back to working again. 

That Mustang blew my mind back in the '60s as one of the few working feature kits that I as a 13-14 year old got to work longterm every feature on it.

One I was never able to get to work was the Entex? Wankel Rotary Engine, the clear plastic was so brittle that any screw you screwed into the plastic broke the bosses off, I gave up on it.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

2005 version

http://manuals.hobbico.com/rvl/80-4726.pdf

Jim


----------



## grampi (Nov 23, 2006)

portland182 said:


> 2005 version
> 
> http://manuals.hobbico.com/rvl/80-4726.pdf
> 
> Jim


That's the same one that comes with today's version of the kit. This is the one I was referring to:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MONOGRAM-US...647265?hash=item235c046521:g:AEcAAOSwl9BWMsUe


----------

