Curtiss Hawk 81-A-2

[Paul A H]

Curtiss Hawk 81-A-2

1:72 Airfix

The Curtiss Hawk 81-A-2, known in US Army Air Corps service as the P-40B Warhawk and in RAF service as the Tomahawk Mk. IIA, was a single seat fighter based on the radial engined P-36 Hawk and first flown in 1938. The P-40 series went on to be amongst the most produced US fighters of the war, with more than 13,000 rolling off the production line. A popular aircraft with its pilots, the P-40 earned a reputation as a manoeuvrable yet tough aircraft.

Every new release from Airfix generates a lot of interest and discussion these days, so without further ado let’s crack open the end-opening box and take a good look inside. The kits 47 parts are split across 2 light grey sprues and one small transparent sprue. The quality of the mouldings looks very nice indeed; as you would expect from a brand-new kit there is no flash present and there are no sink marks. The panel lines are crisply rendered and, although they are quite deeply engraved, they are certainly not too broad or ‘trench like’ and I imagine the majority of modellers will be very satisfied with them. The surface of the plastic is also smooth and glossy as opposed to the slightly textured finish that has featured on some recent kits from Airfix. From the layout of the sprues it would appear that slide mould technology has been used to create the hollow intake on top of the engine cowling too (credit to Stuart of 3D Kits for spotting that one!).

Cockpit detail is comprised of a floor, instrument panel, seat and control column. The instrument panel is devoid of raised detail as a decal is provided to represent the instruments instead. The cockpit sidewalls feature convincing detail, the majority of which is embossed into the sides of the fuselage rather than standing proud. The lower wing is moulded in one piece and the main gear wheel wells are moulded with convincing depth and detail. Two different main gear wheels are provided – a pair of nicely weighted wheels for the undercarriage down option and a pair of thinned wheels for the undercarriage up version. The tail wheel is moulded in one piece and the fabric cover for its bay is very nicely represented.

Two types of radiator flaps are provided, giving the modeller the choice to pose them open or closed. The tail planes are perhaps the one area of the kit where the panel lines are too pronounced, but by happy coincidence this would be the easiest area to rectify should you so wish. The rudder is moulded separately to the tail and can be posed in a deflected position – a nice touch for a relatively simple series one kit. The exhausts are moulded separately to the fuselage and can be dropped in at the end of the build, which will make painting these parts much easier. The transparent parts are beautifully thin and clear, so much so that it’s a shame that the sliding canopy is moulded in one piece with the windscreen as it can’t be posed open without some surgery.

As with its series 1 stable mate the Spitfire Mk. I, just the one option is provided on the decal sheet. The aircraft in question is that flown by Flight Leader Charles H. Older, Third Squadron, American Volunteer Group, Kumming, China 1942. The decals are nicely printed by Cartograf and appear to be crisp and thin. I would have preferred an RAF option on the decal sheet, but this is a personal observation rather than a criticism. Aftermarket decal options for RAF Tomahawk Mk. IIAs seem a little thin on the ground, so hopefully this gap in the market will be filled soon (perhaps by Airfix themselves if they rebox the kit with alternative decal options).

Conclusion

As with other recent releases from Airfix, this is a great looking kit that features nice details and a host of clever little touches. If the fit and engineering of this kit is up to the same standard as their other recent kits then this will be a very buildable little model indeed. This kit can be firmly recommended and on this evidence I can’t wait to see their forthcoming Gnat, Swordfish and Zero.

Review sample courtesy of

[hacker]

l am sold better kit then the Academy one, but given time there will be other options provided by the decal manufacturers

[Moofles]

Tried to pick one of these up today, but alas not in stock, a great looking kit, that I for one cannot wait to get my hands on.

[kev67]

Nice kit, shame its made in India

[Paul A H]

l am sold better kit then the Academy one, but given time there will be other options provided by the decal manufacturers

I've been thinking about this one and in the end I ordered the Barracuda decals set for the Tomahawk Mk. IIb. The differences between the IIa and the IIb will be easy enough to account for.

[IrishAir]

[center. The decals are nicely printed by Cartograf and appear to be crisp and thin. I would have preferred an RAF option on the decal sheet, but this is a personal observation rather than a criticism. Aftermarket decal options for RAF Tomahawk Mk. IIAs seem a little thin on the ground, so hopefully this gap in the market will be filled soon (perhaps by Airfix themselves if they rebox the kit with alternative decal options).

Airfix will be reboxing this kit as a Tomahawk in the starter set where it will be a Mk IIA in the Desert scheme.

Cheers,

Paul

[Basosz]

I like the box art. I think James May recently did a thing on TV about his childhood toy experiences (Not James May's Toy Stories btw) where he talked for a bit about Box art and how it got sanitized over the years but this one seems to be from the 1960's with exploding enemy fighters on the ground and a whole exciting feel about it. Is this a resurging trend? If it is... I'm all for it.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Want one!

[rotorheadtx]

I like the box art. I think James May recently did a thing on TV about his childhood toy experiences (Not James May's Toy Stories btw) where he talked for a bit about Box art and how it got sanitized over the years but this one seems to be from the 1960's with exploding enemy fighters on the ground and a whole exciting feel about it. Is this a resurging trend? If it is... I'm all for it.

Amusing you should say that, as it just made me realize the box art is dubious; it propagates the myth that the Flying Tigers flew against Zeros.

They would have been flying against JAAF types, so they should be strafing Ki-43's, or some such. Anybody else with me on this, or am I about to get flamed??

http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafloss.htm

And yes, I desperately want a copy of this kit too, and I am NOT bashing Airfix, just making an observation.

[Basosz]

Amusing you should say that, as it just made me realize the box art is dubious; it propagates the myth that the Flying Tigers flew against Zeros.

They would have been flying against JAAF types, so they should be strafing Ki-43's, or some such. Anybody else with me on this, or am I about to get flamed??

I do not know about the accuracy of the scene depicted, I was talking about the action-packed-ness of the box art. James may complained that the B/A of recent years has been very boring and politically correct. The B/A on the P-40 really does away with all that

[Paul A H]

I think Airfix have realised that action-packed box artwork really appeals to small boys* and helps to shift kits.

* by this I mean small boys between the ages of 25-80.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I think Airfix have realised that action-packed box artwork really appeals to small boys* and helps to shift kits.

* by this I mean small boys between the ages of 25-80.

Spot on! 'Though if our intrepid pilot flies any lower he's going to have a serious propeller versus ground issue!!

great review too.

Jonners

[rotorheadtx]

I do not know about the accuracy of the scene depicted, I was talking about the action-packed-ness of the box art.

James may complained that the B/A of recent years has been very boring and politically correct. The B/A on the P-40 really does away with all that

Please don't get me wrong, I also like the dynamic box art, something that was dreadfully curtailed to make things PC and non-violent.

A resurrection of the good old Roy Cross days is long overdue, and surely welcomed by all of us modellers that remember those heydays.

I did not mean to be contrary to your opinion, in fact I agree wholeheartedly.

It just struck me last night, after your initial post, that the places should be exchanged, and the Zeros should be strafing P-40's at Pearl Harbor.

Maybe that will be done on the Pearl Harbor boxing???

[Killingholme]

I just got mine. Nice kit.

Lesson that all other manufacturers should take- the joint between the legs and wheels are moulded with square joints which means that the weighted wheels are automatically set at the correct angle. Simple, but great idea.

Will

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Just a thought... how likely is a resin kit to convert this into a P-36?

[Dave Fleming]

Just a thought... how likely is a resin kit to convert this into a P-36?

Intesresting thought - although with several aftermarket P-36 kits (MPM/Azur, AML) it may be unlikely. I did wonder about digging out my Airwaves Mohawk IV conversion nose to see how it fitted. It would be ironic as one of the first conversions I ever did was a P-36 (Monogram IIRC) to P-40B, based on a conversion article in Aircraft Modelworld using two upper halfs of the RAF Phantom recce pod for the nose!!

[Paul A H]

Here's a picture of the finished thing, by the way:

[Troy Smith]

Just a thought... how likely is a resin kit to convert this into a P-36?

It shouldn't. According to a p-40 nut, HB Bates, the P-40 is NOT based on the P-36, he goes on at length about making at accurate p-40B by grafting trumpter B parts onto a hasegawa E, this is 1/48th BTW.

First a few points on the monoplane Curtiss Hawk line (Curtiss H-75, P-36, Mohawk), Early “long

nose” (Curtiss H-81, P-40cu/B/C, Tomahawk) & Later “short nose” (Curtiss H-87, P-40D-N, Kittyhawk /

Warhawk)

“The long nose P-40 is basically a P-36 with a V1710 engine while the later “short noses” P-40 is a total

redesign over the early “long nose” P-40”….

Despite what you read in P-40 history, after many hour looking over photo and drawing of the P-36, “long

nose” P-40 & the “short nose” P-40, other than the XP-40 prototype.

In reality the P-36 is more a cousin of the P-40 with a family resemblance but very different “bones” and the “long nose” P-40 & the “short nose” P-40 are more closely related then their looks would make you believe. And this would make

sense…The “short nose” P-40 was really not intended to be a total redesign, it was a quick wartime stopgap update of “long nose” P-40 using the engine of the “flop” P-46

there is pdf here about it, link below, but has a load of p-40B detail pics so would be worth a d/l even for this kit.

http://downloads.hyperscale.com/guides/longnosehawkshb_1.pdf

hope of use

T

[roys]

I am a bit confused regarding this kit.

Despite the title "Curtis Hawk 81-A-2" airfix then refer to it as a P40 or P40B on the box and in the instructions.

Can I use the Xtradecal X72139 P40B sheet with it or is the nose the wrong length?

Off to consult my books but if anyone can help please do !

[Navy Bird]

I am a bit confused regarding this kit.

Despite the title "Curtis Hawk 81-A-2" airfix then refer to it as a P40 or P40B on the box and in the instructions.

Can I use the Xtradecal X72139 P40B sheet with it or is the nose the wrong length?

Off to consult my books but if anyone can help please do !

I think the nose length should be fine. I've always believed that 81-A-2 was the export designation of the P-40B, but I'm willing to be corrected!

Cheers,

Bill

[stevehnz]

Bill is correct on this, Airfix has used the same kit for the Flying Tigers 81-A-2, the USAAF Pearl Harbour P-40B & the RAFs Tomahawk Mk I so yes, same plane, different designations & I'd agree, its confusing.

Steve.

[Navy Bird]

Bill is correct on this, Airfix has used the same kit for the Flying Tigers 81-A-2, the USAAF Pearl Harbour P-40B & the RAFs Tomahawk Mk I so yes, same plane, different designations & I'd agree, its confusing.

Steve.

That it is for sure. Steve is spot on that 81-A-2 is the Curtiss designation for this model, while P-40B and Tomahawk Mk.I are the USAAF and RAF service designations, respectively.

The Airfix kit is quite nice, and IMO the best P-40B out there. The only thing that I don't personally care for are the "faded" Chinese roundels for the top of the wings. They're faded so much that without well done weathering on the airframe, they will just look odd. However, I have read that the paint used for the Chinese roundels actually faded like crazy, so the decals are likely accurate.

The EagleCals sheets for the Flying Tigers provide both freshly painted and faded roundels, and the latter are much less faded the the Airfix decals. They won't stand out so much, and I think you can get away with less weathering. And you have the option of using the "normal" roundels and making a nice, new factory-fresh look, or in this case a "local depot" look.

Cheers,

Bill

[roys]

Thankyou for your replies gents.

I have been browsing a few books at the Huddersfield show today and came away with the Warpaint No77 book as the best value.

Plenty of drawings, photos and side elevations.

Also came across the Osprey Vanguard P40 book which is devoted to the "snub" nose P40's which are the later ones.

A lot of the P40 books do seem to concentrate on the later ones so it pays to have a good flick through any P40 book before purchasing.

[castlegaiden]

Beautiful work Paul!!

I just posted a build review article on this kit by veteran modeller Paul Tomczak on my site last week that might be of interest to you.

www.thescalereview.com.

Cheers!

Brian