radub Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 You're making yourself more important than this kit. You're not. I don't understand why you didn't write something good about this kit, because they are present in many aspects and I'm saying that because you're romanian as I am. Don't want to be misunderstood, I'm not telling you to say that it is an wonderful kit only because of that. Maybe I'm asking you too much. Maybe you're angry because HB didn't call you( the Bible of IAR) for information... Who knows? Play the ball not the player. The subject is the kit, not me. If you have anything to say about the kit, please share. None of what I wrote is mandatory. Anyone can take it or leave it. If anyone dislikes what I wrote, they are free to ignore it, do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Radu 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 You're making yourself more important than this kit. You're not. I don't understand why you didn't write something good about this kit, because they are present in many aspects and I'm saying that because you're romanian as I am. Don't want to be misunderstood, I'm not telling you to say that it is an wonderful kit only because of that. Maybe I'm asking you too much. Maybe you're angry because HB didn't call you( the Bible of IAR) for information... Who knows? Sorry mate - thats just bang out of order. Whatever your problem is, leave it at the door. Lets talk model there, and not what increasingly seems like some personal grudge you have against another member. I reckon the wheel well issue is fixable - but then I do like to cut things apart Jonners 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 This is starting to get silly. Sven - if someone else wants to make their kits more accurate, let them. If Radu is pointing out what needs doing in a positive way (as I read it), then he's helping those people. Equally, if you're happy building it out of the box, then that's great! Just live & let live. It's not a competition to see who cares most or least about accuracy 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilh Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 On 14/09/2016 at 1:50 PM, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said: Sorry mate - thats just bang out of order. Whatever your problem is, leave it at the door. Lets talk model there, and not what increasingly seems like some personal grudge you have against another member. I reckon the wheel well issue is fixable - but then I do like to cut things apart Jonners Yes you do like the old cutting and make a good job of it. If you do fix this one- what about marketing a resin correction for the wing undersides or even better maybe seeing if John Adams will work with you for an injected replacement part? Someone's bound to do a cockpit in due course. Given the choice of trying to make a nice job of the LTD kit, finding , forking out for and then building the resin 81C ( and not screwing up with he CA glue in the process), I'd rather benefit from your efforts and pay you for the privilege. Time poor , cash not so poor! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) Sven Hobby Boss and Trumpeter are famed for doing crap research and then flawed kits, in the case of the obscure subjects, this means that the subject is unlikely to be done again properly, in the last few years they have made very flawed kits of DH Vampire, Westland Whirlwind, DH Hornet, Spiteful (and they asked for and were given corrections on this!!) and many more. They need to be hammered hard about this, as bad sales are the only thing that will stop this. when they get good research, the kits are excellent (Wyvern, Sea Hawk, 1/24th Hurricane...why this has not been scaled down is beyond me) Shame about this, as decent OOB IAR 80 would be a boon (having the LTD and the resin kit already) regarding the wheel wells issue, I xeroxed up the IAR 80 Airframe plans a while back, to see what could be done regarding the LTD IAR 80....That's another story .... but, here's a pic showing both, the right is the correct version how they stuffed up the cockpit is beyond me, given there are pics up on the net..... Edited September 17, 2016 by Troy Smith correction 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radub Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I would rather recommend the drawings published in the book "Vanator" as a starting point for all corrections - they are in scale 1/48 as well. There was no change in the dimensions of the wheel wells throughout the entire life of the aircraft. As Troy mentioned, the drawings on the right are closer to what the wheel wells should be like. The drawings on the left do not even come close to what the Hobby Boss kit wheel wells look like. It must be pointed out that the wheel wells in the Hobby Boss kit are the just as close to each other as the wheel wells in the LTD kit and all detail inside is inaccurate, so the wheel wells are not an "improvement". This distance between the wheel wells was the same for both the I.A.R.80 and the I.A.R.81 that had a bomb rack there. The Hobby Boss kit parts seem to be around half of that, a bomb rack would definitely not fit there. For comparison, look at the distance between wheel wells on the Azur FRROM kit (1/32), the Hobby Boss kit (1/48) and the LTD kit (1/48). Of the three kits, only the Azur FRROM has correct detail inside the wheel wells. HTH Radu 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 On display at the All Japan Model & Hobby Show 2016. Source: http://www.moxingfans.com/new/liao/2016/0923/2491.html V.P. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sven_ss Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Beautiful Can't wait to have it on my table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sven_ss Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) Appena arrivatoJust arrived Edited November 7, 2016 by sven_ss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisov Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Interesting to see the price and the uk price. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyTiger66 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 It looks a bit better than the old Formaplane Vac-Form 1/72 kit I have ! I'm in 1/72 (hardly any display space; house full of kids). I'm not sure how good the A-Model or Parc kits are? I have the former, but given I'm not an expert, I was just pretty thrilled when they were released. I had started the Formaplane and got stuck. Anything I/M was welcome. Anything Rumanian to be honest (Bulgarian is another passion; some I/M Kaproni-Bulgar kits would be nice). I wish I had more space, for many reasons (age/eyesight included), 1/48 is starting to look very attractive . Best regards TonyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sven_ss Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Just got this kit and I must say that as a plastic kit it does look very good. However, there are several issues regarding accuracy as mentioned in this thread. I also purchased Radu Brinzan's book "Vanator" on the IAR 80/81 and if you contemplate building this kit you need to get this book. No, scratch that, just get this book. It is amazing and full of details you rarely see explained in works on much more well known types! A joy to read. I did a quick comparison of wings and fuselage to Brinzan's drawings and dimensionally they look spot on. So at least there is that. Also, it does have the external bracing behind the cokcpit frame that were present only on aircraft no. 21 to 95, if I understand Brinzan correctly. This can be modified as well of course, but involved quite a lot of work. I doubt it will happen, but I wish Hobby Boss would give us a later series IAR 80. Or that someone with the skill makes resin replacements wings so more variants can be built. I wonder how long I can go before I start building this, I have a Kitty Hawk SuE, a Bv 222 and some others to finish, but I may fall to the tempation to do this now! I will attempt to make a better and more accurate cockpit but I doubt I'll dare tackle the undercarriage well problem. Kjetil 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 20 hours ago, Kjetil Åkra said: Just got this kit and I must say that as a plastic kit it does look very good. However, there are several issues regarding accuracy as mentioned in this thread. I also purchased Radu Brinzan's book "Vanator" on the IAR 80/81 and if you contemplate building this kit you need to get this book. No, scratch that, just get this book. It is amazing and full of details you rarely see explained in works on much more well known types! A joy to read. I did a quick comparison of wings and fuselage to Brinzan's drawings and dimensionally they look spot on. So at least there is that. Also, it does have the external bracing behind the cokcpit frame that were present only on aircraft no. 21 to 95, if I understand Brinzan correctly. This can be modified as well of course, but involved quite a lot of work. I doubt it will happen, but I wish Hobby Boss would give us a later series IAR 80. Or that someone with the skill makes resin replacements wings so more variants can be built. I wonder how long I can go before I start building this, I have a Kitty Hawk SuE, a Bv 222 and some others to finish, but I may fall to the tempation to do this now! I will attempt to make a better and more accurate cockpit but I doubt I'll dare tackle the undercarriage well problem. Kjetil Hi Kjetil - mine is arriving tomorrow or Friday, and i want to see how fixable the UC bay is.... I have Radu's earlier book - which I know has a few issues on the plans relating to the well position for some drawings according to Radu , but the rest is superb. The IAR has long been a favourite of mine so I'm keen to "Do a good show" Good to know the shape seems OK though Jonners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Having now read and studied more of Radu's incredible work, I think it is correct to say that the kit can only be built out of the box as a series 21-50 with the modified canopy, i.e. the bulged version introduced with no. 51. This rather limits the choices if one want to do an OOB-build and be as correct as possible. Fortunately, No. 42, one of the decal options, seem to fit the criteria. I am however, going to try to model no. 1 as seen in the famous series of colour photographs. The undercarriage bay can be fixed, but it would require reconstruction of the entire central u/c bay area and would be quite involved. I have not decided what i'll do about this. Look forward to hearing your comments, Jonners. Kjetil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Hi Kjetil - mine arrived yesterday but I've only had a chance not give it a cursory glance, as I've been at work. The moulding looks very nice - but the combined aileron flaps will need to be dealt with!! Over the weekend I'kk compare to radio's plans and see whats what - but, as ever with me, I really would like to do a later version armed with the additional heavy 13mm machine guns - so I can feel a bit of work coming on..... The wheel wells look like they will be a challenge! But I do like a challenge Cheers Jonners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) On 1/19/2017 at 7:52 AM, Kjetil Åkra said: Having now read and studied more of Radu's incredible work, I think it is correct to say that the kit can only be built out of the box as a series 21-50 with the modified canopy, i.e. the bulged version introduced with no. 51. This rather limits the choices if one want to do an OOB-build and be as correct as possible. Fortunately, No. 42, one of the decal options, seem to fit the criteria. I am however, going to try to model no. 1 as seen in the famous series of colour photographs. The undercarriage bay can be fixed, but it would require reconstruction of the entire central u/c bay area and would be quite involved. I have not decided what i'll do about this. Look forward to hearing your comments, Jonners. Kjetil Yet going from Radu's drawings in his book, the extended intake duct first appeared on no.51, which seems to be included in the kit and the artwork for no.42 shows it not fitted, though HB have it fitted. It also shows no.42 with the earlier style canopy (though maybe this aircraft got retro fitted at some point with the newer canopy). Seems to me HB have got a little mixed up, might have been better if they had given us a 6 gun wing version, or better do both. Edited January 20, 2017 by Tbolt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said: Hi Kjetil - mine arrived yesterday but I've only had a chance not give it a cursory glance, as I've been at work. The moulding looks very nice - but the combined aileron flaps will need to be dealt with!! Over the weekend I'kk compare to radio's plans and see whats what - but, as ever with me, I really would like to do a later version armed with the additional heavy 13mm machine guns - so I can feel a bit of work coming on..... The wheel wells look like they will be a challenge! But I do like a challenge Cheers Jonners According to Brinzan the flaps/ailerons were actually linked and sybnchronized during landing up to and including aircraft no. 75. But of course, they were not one-piece items as in the kit so they will need to be cut. I'd love a later version too, but it would involve a whole lot of rescribing panels and adding small bulges on the ventral side, neither of which are my strong points, so I hve decided to build a four-gun version for now. As for the wheel weels, still unsure what to do. Kjetil Edited January 21, 2017 by Kjetil Åkra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 21 hours ago, Tbolt said: Yet going from Radu's drawings in his book, the extended intake duct first appeared on no.51, which seems to be included in the kit and the artwork for no.42 shows it not fitted, though HB have it fitted. It also shows no.42 with the earlier style canopy (though maybe this aircraft got retro fitted at some point with the newer canopy). Seems to me HB have got a little mixed up, might have been better if they had given us a 6 gun wing version, or better do both. Fortunately, no.1 in its later appearance (as seen in the colour photos) had the same air intake as in the kit and also the later bulged canopy (as confirmed in a caption earlier in the book), so it is possible to build no. 1 from the kit as is, if you remove the external reinforcement strip behind the cockpit. At least that's what i think, so far. And yes, it would have been more interesting to have a six-gun version. Hopefully, there will be conversion sets around for this kit because it does have potential. Kjetil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Kjetil Åkra said: Fortunately, no.1 in its later appearance (as seen in the colour photos) had the same air intake as in the kit and also the later bulged canopy (as confirmed in a caption earlier in the book), so it is possible to build no. 1 from the kit as is, if you remove the external reinforcement strip behind the cockpit. At least that's what i think, so far. And yes, it would have been more interesting to have a six-gun version. Hopefully, there will be conversion sets around for this kit because it does have potential. Kjetil Good point - although the kit only gives decals for airframe 42 and 137, we've got five numbers there to make quite a few different aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Actually, upon closer study, it seems that aircraft no.1 to 20 also got the external stiffener behind the fuselage later in their career, so a 1942-era No.1 can be built straight from the box. Which is what i intend. Kjetil 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kjetil Åkra said: According to Brinzan the flaps/ailerons were actually linked and sybnchronized during landing up to and including aircraft no. 75. But of course, they were not one-piece items as in the kit so they will need to be cut. I'd love a later version too, but it would involve a whole lot of rescribing panels and adding small bulges on the ventral side, neither of which are my strong points, so I hve decided to build a four-gun version for now. As for the wheel weels, still unsure what to do. Kjetil Synchonised doesn't mean they moved together - the flap setting for landing and take-off was 45 degrees and as I understand it that cause the ailerons to have a new neutral of 18 degrees down. Page 223 in Radu's book nicely shows this with the aircraft upside down after what looks like a landing crash with the ailerons 18 degrees down. The only time when one aileron would match the flap in that config is when it was full down at 46 degrees and the other aileron was fully up 4 degrees. Also with no hydraulic pressure the flaps dropped down when the aircraft was parked up but ailerons don't since we are obviously in a time before powered flying controls. So I will separate the flaps and ailerons and pose the flaps down on mine if it's not to hard to do that. Edited January 21, 2017 by Tbolt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 On 21.1.2017 at 11:32 AM, Tbolt said: Synchonised doesn't mean they moved together - the flap setting for landing and take-off was 45 degrees and as I understand it that cause the ailerons to have a new neutral of 18 degrees down. Page 223 in Radu's book nicely shows this with the aircraft upside down after what looks like a landing crash with the ailerons 18 degrees down. The only time when one aileron would match the flap in that config is when it was full down at 46 degrees and the other aileron was fully up 4 degrees. Also with no hydraulic pressure the flaps dropped down when the aircraft was parked up but ailerons don't since we are obviously in a time before powered flying controls. So I will separate the flaps and ailerons and pose the flaps down on mine if it's not to hard to do that. Yeah, you are of coruse correct and there are several photos in Brinzan's book that show this. I should have been more specific. I think separating them and posing them at different angles will be a minor issue, fortunately. But It is one point HB should have researched a bit more. Kjetil 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vh-bob Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I am amazed that Hobby Boss even bother trying to please you lot and make Barbi dolls or something else instead. Would we have had this much whinging if it had been made by Eduard? For goodness sake, you've got a 1/48 scale IAR-89, Get over it. All the best, Trev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, vh-bob said: I am amazed that Hobby Boss even bother trying to please you lot and make Barbi dolls or something else instead. Would we have had this much whinging if it had been made by Eduard? For goodness sake, you've got a 1/48 scale IAR-89, Get over it. All the best, Trev. If Eduard made these mistakes everyone would be complaining! Just look at what happened with their 109 and some of that was minor. There's no whinging going on - there's nothing wrong with discussing how to fix a kit, if you are not interested then don't get involved in the conversation, some of us actually want to improve on some of the fault made in kits, it's also a good way to learn about the aircraft. Edited January 22, 2017 by Tbolt 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now