# Old School 1/72 Mavis



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Progress thus far


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Nice work. I always wanted to build this kit. I did finish the Emily in the 80s. I've had the Mavis but think I sold it off. The kits are old and rough by current Hasegawa standards.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yeah,I would say equivalent of a late 60s early 70s Airfix or Revell.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Im not sure exactly when the Emily, Mavis and B47 came out, but they were some of Hasegawa's earlier large kits. The Emily was sold under the UPC brand in the late 60s or early 70s. I thought the kits were pretty decent if not a bit rough. Certainly they are workable. I have another Emily kit to do some day. I think I would sand off the heavy rivets and rescribe her.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Well the rivets dont really bother me too much.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The problem with the rivets on the Emily is I had to do a lot of sanding on the fuselage joint and especially the wing roots as the wings were smaller in cross section than the flat areas on the fuselage where they abut. So a lot of the surface detail was sanded off. The rest was just very coarse. I assume the Emily is similar. I know the G4M Betty was also rather rivety and it looked bad in natural metal finish.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

WellI plan to paint it green with Ash White undersides.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

I had some trouble with the rear control surfaces.The slots for the vertical stabs were too shallow so I had to grind the tabs down to fit.The tabs for the horizontal stabilizers were too thick to fit the slots in the fuselage,so I thinned them down with my Dremel.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Neat... I recall some work like that on the Emily. Your work makes me want to build the Mavis.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

The fabric is very well represented on the rudders.Nice engraving indeed!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The old Hasegawa kits, while a bit rough by 2014 standards were really sweet for 1968 or so. Myself, I would tone down the fabric a bit with sandpaper. The real planes had the control surfaces doped and were really pretty smooth. In 1/72 you wouldn't see any coarse fabric. A light sanding will give you a textural difference between the metal parts, but look more realistic.

I forget if the Mavis has any accessories. The Emily included a tow tractor and a couple standing figures. You can also build the wing leading edge access hatches/ladders open.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

It come with 3 crew figures but no other accessories.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I guess the Emily had the tractor and tow bar since the kit has beaching gear (not that the tractor was overly good)


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

I am thinking of making a beaching cradle for it.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Philo426,

I too built the Emily many years ago. I always thought both were beautiful aircraft. Although the Emily looks very similar to Britain's Short "Sunderland", apparently it was a much superior aircraft. In fact, I have read the Emily was the "best" large seaplane from ANY navy during WWII. I also read the Mavis was very susceptible to catching fire and easily shot down, once spotted. It is still a great looking design. I look forward to seeing this finished, as you do not see them very often.

Phillip1


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yeah it is pretty, but non armored fuel tanks made them a sitting ducks!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Most Japanese planes lacked armored fuel tanks and with the big bombers and sea planes, the fuel tanks were in the wings. The Betty really bad. You just looked at that one and it burst into flames. But, the lack of armor made the planes lighter and gave them much longer range and more maneuverability.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

yeah they called the Betty "The roman candle"!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dad told me the Emily was tough, though. He caught one on patrol once - he was flying a P-47N. He said he made several passes at it, even got one engine burning, but the Emily just kept on going until the pilot found a cloud to duck into.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

T the Emily was much faster and had armor plating.in one of my reference books(Combat aircraft of the world)we evaluated one after the war and it was judged superior to the Catalina!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The Emily was also heavily armed with five 20mm cannons and five 7,7mm machineguns. Oddly there were only under 200 of those flying boats built


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yes it was much better able to defend itself.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

I elected to paint the Hinomarus rather than using the decals.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Got the center wing section together.Much clampage was necessary.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Epoxied the wing to the pylons.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Looking good. Someone on Hyperscale is building a 1/48 Mavis... its a monster.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

I will have to check that out! Added additional bracing to the horizontal stabilizers.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Wing floats mounted up.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

You have made pretty quick progress here


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yes it is trucking along.


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)




----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Looks pretty cool. You did a great job of it! One of the few flying boats I don't have. Getting too old to build the old kits. Don't want to take the time to do all the extra work to make it like that.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Carl-


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Thanks!For an older kit it is not too bad!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Sweet. Looks nice. These old kits really aren't bad they just need some TLC


----------



## philo426 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yes for the era in which it was produced it was a cut above most kits.


----------

