I just found these pictures and made a side by side comparison with the new Revell kit: One should note the impression of shallower canopy glass on the real aircraft in the second photo is a little accentuated by the angle, as visible in the third photo, much more favourable to the kit in this respect: The issue of the width of the nose remains the same however. The different ratios between blue lines and red lines is pretty evident and remains the same as well:





The kit's strange tapered prop blades were apparently used on some versions of the PV-1, but not most of the decal options in the kit...

An interesting point is Revell's slightly "blunter" plan view of the canopy's triangular leading edge: They did not do the worst job ever of it here: Trumpeteer did much worse on this characteristic triangular feature on their FW-200...

This is about on par with what we can expect these days (fixable, but not for me)... Now, if they could only match the accuracy of Monogram's 1975 B-17G, that would really be something...

Gaston

Well I'm not saying it is or isn't but the way the model is painted only tends to lend credence to the too narrow nose hypothesis and the actual plane in the photograph, the way it is painted, does just the opposite as it is difficult to tell where the top ends and the side begins. One would need a direct overhead shot of both to convince me and in any event having thrown good money and time after bad screwing with the Foundrie Miniatures kit, I will gladly overlook any of Revell's transgressions in order to have a build able kit !

Yes, but the position of the nose Mgs do seem to provide a nose width reference point... Still, it could indeed be the angle of the image...

The props are a bad deal however, even for casual builders, because they look nothing like what it mostly carried...

I have a sliding scale where if the aircraft is less famous, small errors are more acceptable: This is a marginally passable kit by virtue of its relatively obscure subject, especially since I will likely never want to build it... I give points for non-Luftwaffe subjects too... Now if it could only be a Russian or Japanese bomber...

Gaston

The PV-1 & PV-2 only used 1 model propeller, the 23E50-473(505)-6477A-12. The blades used were the same drawing # as the B-17F-G, B-24D-H and C-47B cut down by 6" per blade. The best option is to use the Revell/Monogram B-17G or AC-47 props and cut down the tips of each blade 1/8 (.125) of an inch. Another choice would be to contact Koster Aero Enterprises and purchase a set of resin props from his Ventura kit.

Plenty of folks dealing with the props...Mike West over at Lone Star Models, Vector is doing a prop/crankcase update, and there is wheels plus very near future USMC nightfighter update from Lone star as well.

Yes, the props are well covered now...

Another issue is the slight flatness of the cowl lips (but not the intakes which are indeed fairly flat): Obscureco has a cowling in the works which does improve that, but the intake profile on top is a bit too curved and could use some flattening: This should be easy to do, and this resin cowl is a valid replacement for the front curvature of the rest of the cowl:

http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n569/otakar11/DSC02853.jpg


Another issue that has surfaced since is the lower cross-section of the nose, not rounded enough on the kit, an issue which I think may possibly carry on the whole length of the belly, and is at least corrected here for the most visible portion of it by D-Mold:

http://dmold-modelworks.com/contents/media/PV1%20Ventura_page.JPG

D-Mold site: http://dmold-modelworks.com/contents/en-us/d2_02.html

With the various AM props, pretty much everything except the canopy is covered by after-market resin now...

The canopy could be improved by trimming the rear of the plastic part(maybe), or smash-moulding/vacu-forming a new one: A dedicated Falcon/Squadron part is unlikely as the output of new 1/48th releases has been slow of late...

Gaston