Jump to content

stravinsk75

Banned
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

stravinsk75's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/9)

3

Reputation

  1. There is no way the 1/72 Finemolds is in front of the 1/48th Zvezda... Not even close. Other points: The symmetry of the 1/48th Monogram G-10 nose is a terrible issue, massive and not easily fixed at all. The lower rear fuselage is wrongly squarish in section. Also, in profile, the comparisons in the above post speak volume about all that is wrong with the Monogram nose, including the nose-up bottom and the length/proportions of the oil cooler. The photo meant to show the lower rear cross-section of Hasegawa as wrong, and 1978 Monogram as right, is wrong: This is one of the few positive points on the Hasegawa fuselage, the 1978 Monogram being too squarish in this lower area... You can see in this photo the curve starts way up`into the access panel, very close to what Hasegawa did: One of the few good points in the Monogram kit, if I remember right, is the narrower cockpit, meaning the width is better than Hasegawa's fictional 14 mm. The Hasegawa 1/32 kits share the same cross-section errors of the 1/48th kits, meaning fictional in both directions: Too shallow and too wide. Shallowness being actually slightly worse in 1/32... The two directions combine to about 10% off. The best Erla Haube canopy in 1/48th so far is still by far the one provided in Hobbycraft kits (even if a little thick), and it should be adaptable to a Zvezda F kit, being the correct 13 mm width, although the incoming Vector G-6 conversion might make this moot. The best F/G/K spinner in 1/48th, with the correct prominent riveting and panel line location, is from the Eduard Me-110G(!): No gun hole however, and the blade holes are too big. Zvezda has the blade holes too small. Best G prop by far is from the Otaki kit... Dead on. Maybe the Eduard is equal, but surely a more expensive box to pilfer... J.
  2. Agreed about the need of a new P-51: Fortunately Zoukei-Mura should downscale its excellent 1/32 kit in the foreseeable future. The problem is the smaller scale is really slow, and out of favour with most makers these days. J.
  3. It is not in a different scale; just wrong everywhere. The wingspan is the highlight, being 214 mm instead of 206.7 mm, so 7.3 mm over actual, or well over a foot(!), yet similar in chord to the Zvezda, so the wing is not scaled up... Apparently it has the exact same 14 mm cockpit width as the Hasegawa, instead of the correct 13 mm cockpit width, which is, in itself, proportionally as big an error as the Eduard wingspan... Another horror is the squarish undernose, due to fictional paralell sides in this area. The spine is also slightly humped, while the rear belly is flatter than it should be, as if the curves were exchanged... Hopefully, buying more Eduard Spitfires (or Mig 21s) will nudge this maker in the right direction... J.
  4. In my mind we always need an accurate kit when we don't have one... Like the Monogram, the GW P-61 is rubbish from the wing forward, with a few extra bad points back of it. Unfortunately Hobby Boss is not a promising brand. We'll see, but it will likely match the previous kits in cockpit/nose dreadfulness... J.
  5. Yes, Airfix is bucking every trend, even to the extent of not being all over the 1/32 bandwagon! Airfix and Zvezda are two makers to watch! But they are definitely the exception, as may be the UK as a whole... Many of the new Airfix 1/72 kits are excellent and cheap. 1/48th hasn't been so lucky with them, but with their recent P.R. XIX and Javelin, that is getting better. They should upsize their Lancaster to 1/48th with the CAD data. J.
  6. Only the new tool Airfix Lanc has an accurate canopy. J.
  7. I appreciate your optimism, but I'm afraid I am going to have to stick with your initial pessimism... I do not see where are those kids you mention, those that are more interested in "everything" equally: This is not what I observe in North America, to put it mildly, and, except for the former Eastern Block countries, it must be a British or Japanese phenomenon if these kids exist at all... If you want to see another area of decline, look at the local bookshop in North America: They are rapidly disappearing, and the big giant chain bookstores, the very ones that contributed to killing the small bookstores off, these are now turning half their floor space to interior decoration, computer tablets, lamps, cushions, mugs, plates and wineglasses: It is a disgrace... People who do not encounter books on a regular basis are not likely to read more, or encounter unexpected ideas, and they are certainly not likely to take up a slow, difficult, methodical, historical-minded hobby like modelling... The evidence is abundantly clear: People who do not build models as youngsters will not take it up as adults... I have yet to see the slightlest evidence to the contrary, and this means the hobby is inevitably headed for serious decline, especially outside the peculiar countries that are the exception that confirm this overall rule... That being said, the idea that, in this declining industry (runs that used to be of 50 000-100 000 are now considered stunning successes at 14 000...), the idea that executives of modelling companies have any clue what modelling is all about is rather fantastical: They have no interest at all in modelling, just in the unconscious desires of what they know is an aging demographic: They all jumped on the 1/32 bandwagon at Tamiya's prompting (with Tamiya's Zero in 1999) and that is the main reason 1/48th scale WWII has been in such a precipitous decline ever since (Hasegawa has abandoned 1/48th WWII completely a full five years ago, to no one's notice apparently, concentrating mainly on superb 1/350 scale ships instead, and Tamiya has produced one (poor effort) in that period: Fourteen years ago, they both averaged two or three all-new tools a year in 1/48th). 1/32 will remain the dominating scale (now partenered with the even more exclusive 1/24) because it is a great scale for blocking off new teenage modellers, which manufacturers have finally figured out is the scale's main attraction, and what the aging demographics of today really wants (if unconsciously): Adult-level bucks, for adult-level sizes: Make sure the kids are kept out of it. For sure no one will confuse them with begginers when they are done (and who cares if that is never?)... Personally, I think most of these large kits look terrible because of the insufficient surface details (and the builder's finishing skills) which are often not up to the huge leap in size (most people don't realize that it is well over a tripling of the internal volume from 1/48th to 1/32)... But hey, it's a subconscious want we are dealing with here, and I guess that is what self indulgence does to you... The main problem with 1/48th is that it is way too inclusive, even for giant four engine bombers: That is why you will see all the british bombers done in 1/32 long, long, looong before you will see any of them done in 1/48th (which will probably be never). And just as those absurd $400 1/32 kits will keep being pumped out at us (the Lancaster is already incoming), you will hear people say, in the very same breath, how 1/48th is too expensive and too bulky, the research too expensive, and that if they don't make them it's because there is no market for it... As for that last paragraph, don't ask me... J.
  8. The interesting thing about WWII fighters was that the dive limitation was different with altitude. At high altitude the speed of sound is lower so the Mach limit intrudes earlier and earlier. For high altitude diving performance, Maximum Mach is everything, and the Spitfire was the best (as Graham said). At low altitudes, it was completey different, and it was the buffeting and fluttering that was the limit, since the Mach limit (speed of sound portion number) was much higher down low: Structural rigidity was king for diving at low altitudes. That is why the P-38 could probably dive better than some others at low altitude, but it was hopeless above 20.0, having an exceptionally low mach of 0.69: In fact, at 28 000 ft, its level speed was so high that, at maximum level speed, it could barely dive much before hitting its low mach limit... The dive brake surfaces added later did not improve this poor performance, but allowed an automatic recovery, so occasionally pilots pushed the P-38 more vertical shortly because they knew they could recover, where otherwise they woud not... The P-38 was still seen as a "relief" to Luftwaffe fighters at high altitudes, since they could dive away at will... Where the P-38 impressed was with its climb, especially its spiral climb, which confused many Me-109G pilots used to having an edge there... In spite of this, and the lower altitude fighting more common later in the war, the P-38 could not compare with the P-47D and P-51 for dogfighting effectiveness, particularly compared to the P-47D. To give an idea, P-47Ds would often dogfight Me-109Gs on the deck and not drop their payload of 2X 1000 lbs of bombs, since they could more than hold their own at low level with the Me-109Gs, even with their full 2000 lbs bomb payload onboard, and no altitude available to dive away from them... J.
  9. Which is exactly why I dumped 1/200, which was my preferred scale, for 1/350. Happy as a clam ever since... The way 1/200 ships are done is pretty much where 1/350 was in the 70s and 80s. And I don't want those either. Dragon is the one good current 1/350 maker with smooth hulls, but for small destroyers that doesn't look too bad. J.
  10. If you want the best kit to do it with, the only choice is the Hasegawa in 1/72. It is excellent and does have most basic variants as options (if with occasional detail errors). The second choice is the Academy, but something is wrong with the engine nacelles (too small I think). Unfortunately the Monogram 1/48 offering is not really a choice no matter what after-market you put on it: The word Quality and this kit do no belong in the same sentence. J.
  11. The separate long porthole "strips" inserts into the hull, to cover variantions in the class (all four of them, two of them in front two in the back), are an extremely unusual hull feature which fits poorly, with the joints right next to the porthole "eyebrows". What's worse is that Hasegawa chose to not make the join in-between their super-fine panel lines, but right on them: A terrible idea, because the excellent fine engraving is suddenly interrupted by a coarse join you have to preserve somehow... The kit is extraordinarily good otherwise. But the joins will show and can easily look terrible, or wipe off porthole details. Jean
  12. Rather than following Eduard's "lead", what with its cylindrical cowling and other gross inaccuracies, it would be better to follow Hasegawa's own FW-190As in 1/48. J.
  13. Beech C-45!!!!! That's something really interesting! Jean
  14. Monogram B-17G moulds are as good now as they ever were. The kit has been in continuous production for 39 years. Revell's 1/196 "Constitution" is from 1956, has superb surface detail, and the recent boxing I have looks the same I remember from 30 years ago.... It has been in regular production for 58 years... Jean
×
×
  • Create New...