I think if it is close it is close. Modeling is suppose to be a fun endeavor, some people take it too far, I have met some in the modeling community who seem only interested in building for a win at a show. I know I am not the best modeler on here, but I do a model a fair representation of what it should look like! Let us all remember that this is a hobby which is enjoyable, anything taken to extremes becomes a chore instead of a pleasure. My two cents. Russell

Wow,thats good.the 1/48 kit looks great.1/72 fans should enjoy this one.

Quick, call the accuracy police!! Yet another kit has been released with flaws so fatal that the tooling should be destroyed before we get to see it in the flesh. If it looks like an Il-2 then it would do me, it just isn't my cup of tea.

Gaston, You tell us: 1) The windscreen & canopy were never changed. Which is absolute wrong. There is no evidence for your statement. 2) The flying Il-2 which you mean is not the same as the war period Il-2s 3) Most inaccurate kit you ever had in your hand? Come on,thats silly... here you see a picture of an late Il-2, with the Tamiya-like canopy shape

Michael / Gaston - Thank you for the great news! I see there is some discussion concerning the accuracy of the forthcoming kit. O.K. I realize in this day and age of high tech/high price we want an accurate kit; however, let's consider what we, the 1/72 scale modeler, have had to contend with for the past 40 years. Airfix - Il 2 Sturmovik (2 seater) Yikes! Smer - Il 2 Sturmovik (single seat) Looks nice in the box, but the fit was bad. Toko / Roden - Il 2 Sturmoviks - a whole range of variants .. all close, but no cigar! Eduard - Il 2 Sturmovik (2 seater) Poor mold + low grade plastic = failure All the aformentioned kits contain flaws, mold issues, fit issues. Academy came out with a very good single seat variant a few years back, but it was not the main line variant most hoped for. Now in 2013 we have two twin seaters to look forward to from two companies known for their quality. Again, consider what we've had versus what we are getting. Michael just wanted to pass on the good news while Gaston added a little commentary. Me? I'm just happy that a couple of good replicas are finally on the way after a 40 year wait. Cheers to that!

1-1) Quote: "The windscreen & canopy were never changed. Which is absolute wrong. There is no evidence for your statement." Ask Serguey from Vector what he said about this: The armored windscreen glass itself was NEVER changed, and was always armored... If, beyond the framing styles, there was any evidence as to major dimensional interchangeability problems between the different canopies, don't you think this would be widely known? Has anyone ever expressed any doubt that the sliding pilot's canopy of a single seater Il-2 will fit ANY of the two seaters that followed it? For the entire series?: If that wasn't the case for dimensional resons, this would be widely know, as this would affect interchangeability and the pilot's working space (narrower cockpit opening), and even his visibility... This would be widely known from the repair depots that have to scrounge sliding canopy parts to repair aircraft damaged by gunfire... In this case the burdsen of proof is on your thesis, which has absolutely nothing to back it up. There is as a consequence nothing to mitigate Tamiya's mistake. 2-The FHC aircraft is identical to wartime Il-2 in the windshield dimensions because, as I explained about the differences in the framing, the overall canopy and its glass dimensions are always the same, and the sliding canopy and framing are either original parts or made from factory drawings anyway (It is made from four wrecks). My quoted dimensions are exposed glass area, not including the framing around them. Note the details of the upper nose scoop just behind the spinner are not the same as a real Il-2 because of the use of an Allison engine, but that is the only visible outside difference on the FHC's Il-2M3, and it is slight. 3- I said the most inaccurate kit I have seen THEM (Tamiya) do. It was very clear who I was talking about from the previous sentence and the reference to the Stork's belly in the following sentence, which is another of Tamiya's duds. Here is the whole sentence in context: "Tamiya's canopy is 1/53rd scale in cross-section and that's all there is to it... This makes it hand-down the most inaccurate kit I have seen them do, if you exclude the Fi-153's belly..." I don't think anyone could read this as meaning that it the most inaccurate kit I have ever seen... I have no clue what your included photo is supposed to demonstrate, as the canopy looks very imposing in it, almost like a 1/32 scale fighter, as it should, which is exactly what it doesn't look like on the Tamiya kit, where it looks almost like a regular fighter canopy... The whole feeling of how the thing actually looks like is lost. To answer another poster, I tried building just for fun, but I find this is just too much like hard work, even with a well-fitting kit, for it to be tolerable that the outlines are unsound by large amounts, which over 1% would qualify on large parts (OAL for instance) and over 3% on smaller parts... What I consider fun in this hobby is the finished result, which I know will enjoy every day of every year forever, not the work required to get there... Gaston

well I can tell the hobby-boss kit is doomed... I have concluded from studying the CAD drawing above that the left wing is significantly shorter than the right and there for fatally flawed.... After all this Im pretty sure we will have been sturmoviked to death unless of course airfix wants to offer a 1/24 kit or something

Hi Mike It certainly feels like it in this thread! Can we agree to let the matter drop until we actually see the new Tamiya kit? All the best Rowan

By Heck, you do have some radical ideas, at times. Edgar