# OoB Review: P-38J Lightning



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

The one adjective I had upon handling the trees was 'flimsy'. Seems like it will be a fun little build, but the thin plastic, the streaking in the plastic, the fact that it's a silverish gray plastic (never had good luck with them...) makes me think this ain't so great a buy. Oth, the detailing is strong and crisp, though accuracy I cannot speak to, and I do like the plane design specifically.

Revell military kits are hit or miss when it comes to quality? I expect this was one of their monogram acquisitions?


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Yeah this is a Revell issue of the old Monogram kit. Its actually not "bad" but it is not an easy build either. On the other hand, the Academy and Hasegawa P-38 Lightning kits fit fairly poorly as well. At least with the newer kits, with engraved detailing, its a bit easier to putty and sand out the numerous seams. Monogram's kit is still the only one with a nose gun bay, and considering the kit is some 40 years old, the basic cockpit OOTB is as good or better than its newer competitors. If only the instrument panel were not just a decal... The kit has parts to build different versions. Im not sure if the current instructions cover quite all of it. But it used to build an F5 photo recon plane, Pathfinder bomber, P-38 J/L or the M night fighter. Some differences in the real planes are glossed over, like adding rocket racks to the J does not entirely make an L, as the wing lights were different too, etc. The M version was a prototype only... I think one plane was built and tested?

About the only real let down is the total lack of wheel wells. You can see up into the hollow booms and into the hollow from beneath gun bay. Bill Koster still sells a simple vacuuform drop in wheel well set that is quite handy if you want to build this kit up.

Decals in the current issue are not bad. Revell uses the box art from their own 1/32 vintage kit, depicting Dick Bong's "Marge". Its funny when the original 1/32 kit was issued, Marge, Bong's widow, sued over the use of her name and image on the kit, and lost in court when the ruling said that the fame of her husband's plane and the fact that it had been used in many many publicity photos put it in the public domain.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Cut my teeth on those old Monogram kits in the 70s, and I loved that they had five different versions in one box. Their 1/48 Mosquito and Fw-190 were the same way. Nowadays a company will release a kit 5 different times with different decal sheets and modular sprue trees. I bought a bynch of them when they reissued them in the 90s(?), but then realized that they weren't up to modern standards. But they _were _the modern standard in the 70s.

What's the purchase price of the P-38 now? When it was first released it retailed for $2.50, and HiWay Hobby sold it at 30% off.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

stymye said:


> .... the percieved "flimsy-ness" of the sprue ?...thats getting pretty anal


I thought it a clear indication of cheap manufacturing and/or low grade plastic. Of a hundred plus models over the last 3 years, a tree full of parts has never flopped around like a piece of paper as these parts did. We'll see how well it goes together when i get to it.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The kit is 40 years old... it was flimsy back then. Nothing new and not a sign of cost cutting. Actually some of the sprue gates (where the sprue touches the parts, like the wing edge) have been enlarged so the molds run on modern injection molding machines.

The thickness of the sprues isn't really indicative of how a kit goes together or not. Old Monogram kits have fairly thin parts and that can make assembly fiddly as the gluing surface is less. Their old P-40B is really bad... most parts are just 1mm thick or so.

The Monogram Lightning fits fairly well but due to the design and seams, a lot of putty and sanding is needed... with the etched surface texture and raised rivets, you lose a lot of detail cleaning up the joints.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think the only _major _inaccuracy is the wingtips. The real plane's taper from the underside to a fine edge. The kits are of the same thickness top and bottom, making the tips look fat. It's kinda obvious if you compare to a photo.


----------

