Hi Jean-Luc
Guess what kit I was preparing to review today!
Nicely done! Your own experience with the kit pretty much matches mine exactly and, at times our texts almost paraphrase each other! We always joke we're twins!
Rather than bore everyone with a second full review, I'll just quote a couple of bits from my own that might add to the overall picture:
" Sadly, after the Spitfire fiasco, the obvious question that springs to mind with a new ICM kit is "What about sink-marks!?", so let's get that out of the way first. Basically, there are none at all in my sample! (Brief pause while the shock sinks in...) That's right - none. That's certainly not to say all's perfect moulding-wise - there is a bit of flash here and there and the nose radiator door isn't fully formed, as though the styrene hasn't completely reached into the mould. There's also an odd ridge along the base of each fuselage half that will require sanding off.
The surface has a semi-matte finish which should polish-up quite well, given the soft styrene used, but there a few pock-marks in places (whether that's a technical moulding problem or a sign of damage to the moulds, I don't know). Panel lines are neatly engraved for the most part (if perhaps a little on the heavy side), but do vary somewhat; for instance, those on the top panels of the wings are much heavier than elsewhere and one elevator hinge-line is scribed much deeper than the others. The depiction of fabric surfaces is similarly mixed, with the ailerons and elevators looking quite good, while the rudder is grossly overdone.
... Although I'm always very wary of published plans when I have no way of verifying them, comparing the ICM and Hasegawa kits with Kagero's plans is interesting. ICM's cockpit is positioned slightly further forward, matching the plans rather better than Hasegawa and the rear fuselage is slightly "chunkier" - again a better match. The angle of the fin is slightly raked back on both kits, but ICM's tailplane seems a better match for span. The leading edge slats are slightly longer than shown by Kagero but, overall, the wing seems a fair match. The wingtips are often a bone of contention and neither kit quite captures the shape shown on the plans. The propeller blades are very peculiar, being shorter and far more pointed than shown any reference I can find.
A test fit is a rather mixed bag. The fuselage halves match up well enough, with panels all lining up and the tailplane is an excellent fit. The wing is another matter... the upper halves include quite nice interior detail (for the circular-style wheel-wells!), but this is actually slightly too large for the openings in the full-span lower wing and prevents the parts closing without modification. The separate wingtips are much thinner than the wings, so a lot of careful filing and sanding will be needed to blend them in. The multi-part nose obviously defies a test fit - but I'd be prepared for some extra work lining it all up..."
On the subject of the decals, I think there could be a fair bit of variation in quality. While you say your sheet was perfectly in register, mine certainly isn't - a bit of a moot point really, as I doubt many people will want to apply the ICM items anyway, given their dubious reputation in use...
There could be similar quality-control issues with the clear parts. Although, like you, I found the canopy thin and very clear, my example is spoiled by flow-lines.
All the best
Rowan
