Why is it that the kit manufactures feel it's necessary to always split the fuselage of a F-86 to show off the kit engine. Nearly all become major fit issues the seam has a nasty step. All the pictures are with the aft end of the fuselage next to the front end, but not attached. Found this picture on ARC, seems that the joint fit is excellent. This just might be my 1st 1/32 scale kit. And where is the F9F-6 Cougar already? I'm starting to get concerned that I'll die of old age before it's ever released. Joel

Hi Joel Do you have the saying "A kettle watched..." in the US? Fear not, you'll get the shout as soon as we see the Cougar - all good things are worth waiting for... All the best Rowan

For that matter where's the Banshee got to?? I've had my credit card chambered and primed for the damn thing and it's fallen off the face of the earth!

I do like the look of that, but I agree Joel; why do manufacturers feel the need to split the fuselage! However if the fit is as good as it looks then it isn't an issue. I have just, yesterday, joined the tail section to the forward part of the fuselage of the Hasegawa 1/32 P-40E and it wasn't very well designed! It was this issue that had put me off building the thing but I bit the bullet as I need to build a P-40, the chances are that I will need to build a Sabre Dog but it will depend on the fit of that rear fuselage, as a not to good a fit will mean that I will leave the kit alone!

I'm willing to bet that 3 out of 4 built or being built models with split fuselages for engine display, are always closed up. It would seem to me that the R&D, funds, and time spent on those engines, which are usually more fantasy then reality, would be better spent on increased and more accurate visible details. GWH fantastic F-15C is a perfect example. Both engines are highly detailed, but that detail is quite questionable, and they'll end up inside a closed up fuselage where there isn't even the option of displaying them. Why in the world would GWH waist those resources that way? Beats me. One other issue has surfaces on the KH F-86D, and that's the leading edge slats. They're molded as separate pieces that slide along molded brackets as the real aircraft did. The issue is that there is a lip/step from the front of the wing that the slat would butt up against while in the closed position. In real life, the back of the slat is tapered to point and slides up to butt against the wing, but there is no real step as molded. If you scale it out, it's quite a steep step. In reality it's hardly noticeable. Since today's kits have much sharper trailing edges, the step issue isn't just to compensate for molding limitations. I would gather, as other have said, that it's to aid modelers in closing the slats up if they want to so they don't end up with a nasty seam that would be rather difficult to deal with. Going back to the real aircraft, the slats are automatically dropped or raised by air speed and air pressure, so that when parked, the slats are in the down position. In every photograph I've seen, that's how they are. 90%+ modelers will show them that way. So wouldn't it be more prudent to follow the actual aircraft design, rather then the option they've chosen? Joel

I'm very thrilled to see that the tail is removable after assembly! Imagine the diorama options that could be created with this! I'm also hoping that the canopy can be moved to the open or closed position after assembly. It would be nice as well to have the same option for the airbrakes. Oh yes-forgot about the removable nose cone-another neat feature!