Impressive progress, George @gblair
That camouflage scheme for your third Hudson looks special, would love to see how that turns out.

I just can't keep up with all these builds! 🙂 It looks like you're making good progress George (@gblair). I haven't begun to tackle much on my Airfix Hudson build just yet because I am actually working on five different projects simultaneously while I also try to get a small part time side hustle off the ground.

But the windows on the Airfix kit have the additional problem of needing to be thinned down in order to make them clear enough. I'm going to try Jamie Haggo's technique he recently mentioned on his YouTube channel where he thinned down the interior landings as well as the landings on the edges of the windows. This will leave the windows proud of the fuselage where they can then be sanded down (and eventually polished). Hopefully, they will stay in place during that process.

The goal for today was to cement all of the internal sub-assemblies into the fuselage, and then close it up.

First, I added the passenger windows to the right side of the fuselage. I had previously added all of the windows on the left side using white glue followed by a layer of Future to hopefully keep the windows from getting loose and going astray in the fuselage. For the right side, I added each window and then placed a dot of Tamiya clear liquid cement in each corner. When this was dry, I examined the windows and noticed that the right side windows had gaps in either the top or the bottom of each pane. Apparently the windows are slightly smaller north and south than the opening in the fuselage. I had just gotten a new product in the mail by Deluxe Materials that is designed for canopies, and is supposed to dry crystal clear. I used it to fill the gaps.

I had previously pre-fitted the parts to make sure they would fit in the fuselage. 99% of the models I have ever built have you attach the various components to the right fuselage half, and then close things up. I thought it was interesting that Revell has you attach everything to the left side, then close the fuselage. Not a big deal, just interesting. I glued the fuselage halves together without any drama, and then taped and clamped everything together while the glue dries. I left the upper joint forward of the canopy as directed by the instructions. I still have a 1mm gap in this location, which is apparently the reason Revell wants you to add a 1mm strip in the gap. The instrument panel is attached to the fuselage by a triangular piece on the top of the panel. Anticipating some shaping in the area due to the 1mm strip, I left the panel off until I can test-fit and insert the 1mm strip. Once the strip is in, I will have to shape it to accept the instrument panel.

This is my guide-dog for the next two kits, so I plan to pause the build on the first Hudson until I get the other 2 built to this same place. Once they are all at the same place, I think I can build them all together.

More tomorrow. Cheers.

9 attached images. Click to enlarge.

Excellent progress and ditto loks so far, my friend @gblair! Interesting to see how this new cement will work.

Great progress, George @gblair
Nice work on filling the gaps at the side windows.
I'm still wondering why they would have designed this fuselage to have a 1mm gap after closing up.

Today I got started on the Italeri and MPM versions of the Hudson. Since all three of these planes are from the same molds, I was really interested to see if there are any differences between the three kits. I was already familiar with the parts and their location on the sprues, so it took only an hour to cut all of the parts off the sprues for both kits, clean them up, and then assemble the modules. I then sprayed all of these parts, including the inside of both fuselage halves, with some black primer.

In general, here is what I learned when I compared the three kits:

1. When it came to the molding, Italeri was clearly the best. The parts were flash-free, crisp, and showed the most molded detail. MPM came next. I really expected Revell to be the best molded of the three, but it was a distant third, with flash, soft details, and poorly formed parts.
2. The quality of the decals appears comparable in all three, but only the Revell decals had an instrument panel and seatbelts provided.
3. The crispness of the Italeri molding made positioning and gluing parts easier than the others.
4. The clear parts in the Italeri and MPM kits look clear and crisp, while there are ripples in the Revell parts.
5. Only the Revell instructions give an indication of areas where you will need to adjust the fit of the parts to make them fit.

There are other differences shown in the photos. More work tomorrow. Cheers everyone.

11 attached images. Click to enlarge.

Great progress and really interesting findings, my friend @gblair! Indeed, as our friend @clipper stated, one wonders about the actual process of using other manufacturers' molds. Also, looks like the addition of locating pins at the "Italeri" molds was a side step at best, as it created more problems than solved. This trio build is becoming more and more fascinating! Looking forward to your progress!

Thanks, Carl (@clipper), Spiros (@fiveten), and John (@johnb). I have always thought that when a model is released by another manufacturer that they simply change the box, instructions, and decals, and the plastic is the same in both kits. I think we have also seen where the current manufacturer has removed the previous manufacturer's name and copyright from the molds. The parts are identical in all three kits, the instructions have the same sequence and diagrams in the Italeri and MPM kits, and the sprues are exactly the same in the Revell and MPM kits. Although the parts are the same in the Italeri kit, the layout on the "A" sprue is different. I was also surprised that both Revell and Italeri made an attempt to add some locator pins to the kit, although MPM has some tiny holes and pins in theirs. We will know soon how accurate the pins really are. The Italeri pins do create some more work, but I have built plenty of old kits from mainstream companies that have similar sinkholes. The key will be how everything fits when I add the wings and tail to the fuselage. More fun later today. Cheers everyone.