Best Mustang in 1/72? | Arma Hobby vs Eduard

Hi guys!

Eduard… or Arma Hobby?

Let’s see whether a bigger box really means more! It seems like every manufacturer has to release their own Mustang. Arma Hobby announced theirs years ago, right after the excellent early version, which I’ve built, but the project took a long time. In the meantime, Eduard released their kit. In the end, we have two top-tier Mustangs on the market.

Arma Hobby gives you two grey sprues and one clear sprue. You can build versions from D-5 to later variants, with decals for the D-5 and D-10. The clear sprue also works as a stand for assembling the landing gear and t

Eduard’s box is richer.ransporting the finished model, which is very clever! Since I only had the Limited Edition at hand, you’ll see two fuselages here — one for the D-5 and a separate one for the D-10, 15, 20, and 25. In standard Profipack or Weekend Edition, you’ll probably get only one fuselage, so if you want to use aftermarket decals, make sure you have the correct fuselage parts.

 Both kits offer plenty of optional equipment, propellers, tails, intakes and drop tanks, but Eduard simply gives you more of everything. You even get rockets and bazookas. So, if you want every option right now, Eduard’s box gives you greater variety. If you can wait a bit, I assume extra parts will also appear in next Arma Hobby releases, just like they did with the B-model.

All this variety makes the assembly complicated, so Eduard’s instruction is overloaded with information and easy to get lost in. Arma Hobby’s instruction is clearer and shows colors, which makes life easier.

Eduard’s decals are just huge! There’s no point comparing a dozen Limited Edition schemes to the standard Arma Hobby release, so I’ll just say: among all boxings Eduard is gonna to release, everyone will find something they like. In a standard Eduard Profipack you usually get 4 to 6 schemes, compared to three from Arma Hobby. That’s modest, but I like that Arma chose diverse schemes: Natural Metal, partial camouflage, and standard RAF-style plane.  

The quality of Eduard’s decals is a bit disappointing. Poor saturation of bright colors, strange carrier film, and soft stencil printing. Arma Hobby’s decals are much sharper and in this case, less is more. Interestingly, both kits include markings for the same aircraft, but each suggest different upper-surface colors: Arma Hobby says British Dark Green, while Eduard suggests Olive Drab.

Eduard includes a photo-etched fret, which is essential for their instrument panel, because the decal dials are terrible. Arma Hobby instrument decals are excellent and you don’t need photo-etch for this. Interestingly, the instrument panel in both kits is slightly convex in the center, whereas in the real aircraft it appears slightly concave. Arma Hobby’s part is closer to the real thing, and painting the center section a bit darker should help trick the eye. 

On the other hand, Arma Hobby provides seatbelts only as decals, which really doesn’t look good. Eduard’s PE belts work much better here. Arma somehow solves this with a 3D print available during the preorder, which is now ready for download or purchase. With it, the kit feels complete and doesn’t require aftermarket, although it may mean extra cost or effort to make a home print.

Remaining photo-etches are not essential, and I believe you can get a more interesting, in-scale effect using the printed cockpit decals from Arma Hobby. You can also buy the 3D-printed seat from Eduard for their kit. I’d say the quality of both sets is very similar, with maybe a slight edge for Eduard. By the way, Eduard has flooded the market with extras: cockpit, tanks, wheels, engines, or PE parts. Really, anything you can imagine… Both manufacturers include pre-cut kabuki masks, but Eduard forgot the tail-wheel mask, which Arma includes.

Each manufacturer also solved the tail wheel installation differently. Eduard lets you install the tail wheel after closing the fuselage — safer and easier to sand. Arma requires installing it earlier. Point for Eduard. Technically speaking, both kits have excellent molding quality with no defects. However, Arma Hobby’s sprue gates are usually larger and placed in less user-friendly spots, 

As for the main parts, the first noticeable difference is the lack of rivets on the Arma Hobby fuselage. Some may like rivets or not, but I have to admit Eduard’s fuselage looks more visually striking. Of course, any sanding or filling will destroy some rivets, so it’s a double-edged sword... and you can always rivet the Arma Hobby fuselage yourself.

The second big difference is the wings. Many modelers agree that most of the Mustang’s wing panel lines shouldn’t be visible, or should be barely visible, because the wings were filled and smoothed in real life. Eduard’s wings have regular panel lines with no rivets. Arma Hobby approached it historically correct — and this might be the first time any manufacturer in any scale decided to reproduce this feature. Ideally, we’d have Eduard’s fuselage with Arma’s wing… oh well.

The cockpits are comparable in high quality — some details are better in one kit, others in the other. Personally, I like that Arma Hobby provides the seat frame and its equipment as separate parts, while Eduard has them molded as one piece. Separate parts are easier to paint, though of course it's more pieces to handle.

Anyone who’s painted a Mustang knows how annoying it is to mask the two-tone wheel bay, so I really love that Arma Hobby designed the ribs as separate pieces. This makes the masking so much easier compared to Eduard’s solution. In theory, you can just paint the bay Chromate Yellow, because Arma Hobby includes silver decals for the ribs, but personally I’ll stick to traditional painting.

Arma Hobby’s tires are a big improvement over their B-version. This time the tread mismatch between mold halves is minimal — just like in the Eduard kit, which has strangely small and less attractive wheel hubs. All of this is solved by Eduard’s resin wheels, which are drastically better than their plastic ones… but only slightly better than Arma Hobby’s parts.

This little panel under the fuselage is absurd in Eduard’s kit. You basically always need to rescribe it. In Arma Hobby, you get two separate panels, and only one small inspection window needs filling. Point for Arma Hobby.

Both kits offer separate flaps in the lowered position. Eduard also lets you deflect the ailerons; Arma does not. Each manufacturer approached the gun section differently. Eduard’s separate gun inserts are the better engineering choice. Arma Hobby’s parts are harder to clean up, even though the 3D-printed barrels are smart and look great.

Eduard’s vertical stabilizer is always a single part glued into the fuselage. Arma Hobby uses two or three parts, requiring more care. If you want to use clear parts for formation lights, you need to drill the holes in the Arma Hobby wing, which is something Eduard already provides.

Another interesting touch in Eduard’s kit is the joint line on the engine cowling, visible after the fuselage halves are glued. Very practical… but as long as you can glue it cleanly.

The clear parts in both kits are excellent. 

The fit of the main parts in the Arma Hobby kit is basically flawless, and the wing-to-fuselage joint in the Eduard kit is excellent as well. However, the fit of Eduard’s fuselage halves is surprisingly poor. The problem is caused by overly protruding alignment pins, which are best trimmed down.

And that’s it! There’s no obvious winner here. Your choice will depend on what you prefer more: rivets, accurate wings, variety of parts and aftermarkets, markings, or simply overall value for money. What’s certain is that both kits are excellent and will let you build a fantastic miniature.

Thank you Guys!