1/48 - Industria Aeronautică Română IAR-80 by HobbyBoss - released

[sven_ss]

I'm not an expert in aircraft history, less in the I.A.R. aircraft production and their products, in this case the -80.

I'm just an average modeller who wants to build planes, especially this iconic Romanian fighter even if 48 it's not my preferred scale.

I don't care so much about millimetres/rivets/missing panels.

But I'm very happy that this kit it's now available for all the Romanian modellers. Thank you Hobby Boss!

[Wez]

I did not mean to put anyone off, I was just pointing out the areas that need correction for an accurate model.

The landing gear bays are the hardest part to fix, but I did not mean it was an impossible task. ;-)

Radu

Radu,

Your comments have not put me off, rather its Hobby Boss's poor execution of the subject caused by a lack of research that put me off.

A bit of knowledge of the subject meant that I was already wary of what HB would do with the subject. If only they'd invested in a really good book by a Mr.R.Brinzan would have reaped dividends

[Ali62]

Hi Radu

I think you know me well enough by now, and your comments and what other guys observe when plastic is released is often a huge relief to me and others. It also saves a lot of money being wasted, and I like many others do not have loads just to splash.

I have moved away from being over pedantic, but when there are then very difficult issues to deal with just to make a reasonably accurate model, then I really do get turned off by the product and the company.

Let us be honest this particular company are releasing really cool subjects some of which do not get touched by other main stream injection moulding companies. They plus a few other companies make very good looking kits with super surface details and features BUT THEY JUST CONTINUALLY FAIL, to get the the main details right or even more correct. There is no real excuse as we all know they can and do amazing CAD and use modern methods but at the end of the day they just seem to have no pride or be bothered to do a little more research and even to cross check their work before production starts.

We all know and as sven__ss has quoted he is not bothered about the issues and that is fine, but how much greater and better could these guys be IF they just upped their game by 10 or 20% just to get the bigger issues more correct.

I too love the IAR 80 and if this had been a good kit would quite possibly have bought 6 or so for my own pleasure and I would have done conversions to accommodate some of the wing armament options to enable other versions to be built, and then that in turn would sell more kits for the company, so it is short sighted all the way round.

cheers Ali

[sven_ss]

The perfectionists have the possibility of building an -80 from scratch. There may express within their capabilities to represent exactly and precise ( in the scale they want ) an I.A.R. -80 aircraft with the correct number of rivets on the wings or in the cockpit cables .

Until then, the rest of us will be happy to deal with this kit which I think it is welcome.

We point the finger in this field also, but we-Romanians- are not able to build a replica of this airplane in 1: 1 scale . Especially as we have plans and books (not to mention the correct FS colour codes used by Brasov factory in 1941 )

I say bravo Hobby Boss !

[Homebee]

Just for the record, the lcaerodesign 1/48th IAR-81-C resin kit: http://lcaerodesign.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/product&path=59&product_id=50

See also here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234938533-148-industria-aeronauticaef-romanaef-iar81c-resin-kit-by-icaerodesign-released/

V.P.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Homebee

[sven_ss]

Homebee

How could you compare a 60 euro full resin kit with an injected plastic one(25 euro)?

Don't see the point.

Edited September 13, 2016 by sven_ss

[Tbolt]

Homebee

How could you compare a 60 euro full resin kit with an injected plastic one(25 euro)?

Don't see the point.

I completely see the point. OK they are different versions but if the ID kit is a lot more accurate, then there's plenty of people that would rather buy that. The fact that the ID kit has loads more detail and is probably more accurate, makes paying twice the price of the HB kit well worth it, you could easily spend that extra on resin bits and stuff for the HB kit and it still probably wouldn't be as good as the ID.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tbolt

[sven_ss]

I completely see the point. OK they are different versions but if the ID kit is a lot more accurate, then there's plenty of people that would rather buy that. The fact that the ID kit has loads more detail and is probably more accurate, makes paying twice the price of the HB kit well worth it, you could easily spend that extra on resin bits and stuff for the HB kit and it still probably wouldn't be as good as the ID.

It's like comparing a M3 BMW with a Mondeo.

Anyway, I was not expecting the "definitive" I.A.R.-80 plastic kit from HB.

It has some minor issues, ok but what kit doesn't have some?

[Ka-Efka]

Just for the record, the lcaerodesign 1/48th IAR-81-C resin kit: http://lcaerodesign.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/product&path=59&product_id=50

See also here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234938533-148-industria-aeronauticaef-romanaef-iar81c-resin-kit-by-icaerodesign-released/

V.P.

Thanks for the heads up. That's something I'd carefully consider. Hooping for a decent IAR80/81 for some time, and not going to support companies anymore who obviously don't even care to get the basics right.

Unfortunately, with the HB release an injection moulded one will most likely not be again made by any other manufacturer, so resin might be the way to go.

After all, correcting the HB will result in at least the same amount of money to be spent, but more work.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi Radu - hope all is well.

I was leafing through your IAR-80 airframe & systems books last night looking at the plans, and looking at the plans for IAR 80s in the early series ( up to no 75) the wheel wells don't seem to be too close. After that the wheel wells appear to be wider apart.

So has new info come to light since the book came out? Mines dated 20111 - infact you signed it for me at Telford that year

Cheers

jonners

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike
Removing extraneous quote

[Tbolt]

It's like comparing a M3 BMW with a Mondeo.

Anyway, I was not expecting the "definitive" I.A.R.-80 plastic kit from HB.

It has some minor issues, ok but what kit doesn't have some?

Not a great analogy, because the big difference between those cars is performance, which obviously doesn't have any relevance here, so they wouldn't often get compared (unless we are talking about a modded Mondeo).

The Dragon 1/32 P-51 is half the price of the Tamiya kit, which is a just as a relevant comparision as this, but lots of people want to know the difference between those kits. The fact is a lot of people want to know what's out there so they can judge if paying more for a kit is worth the extra they are getting. If you just want to buy the cheapest kit that comes a long and don't care about anything else then there's nothing wrong with that, but others would like to be more informed before spending their money.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tbolt

[sven_ss]

The Dragon 1/32 P-51 is half the price of the Tamiya kit, which is a just as a relevant comparision as this, but lots of people want to know the difference between those kits. The fact is a lot of people want to know what's out there so they can judge if paying more for a kit is worth the extra they are getting. If you just want to buy the cheapest kit that comes a long and don't care about anything else then there's nothing wrong with that, but others would like to be more informed before spending their money.

I'll try again.

If you have another IAR-80 injected plastic kit to compare with, I agree with you. But in this case you have to put together 2 resin kits and make your decision about.

You cannot compare a (very) short run resin kit with an injected plastic one. Undoubtedly the resin one will be more accurate and expensive. That's the point.

[Tbolt]

I'll try again.

If you have another IAR-80 injected plastic kit to compare with, I agree with you. But in this case you have to put together 2 resin kits and make your decision about.

You cannot compare a (very) short run resin kit with an injected plastic one. Undoubtedly the resin one will be more accurate and expensive. That's the point.

I don't see why you can't compare a plastic kit with a resin kit - who says a resin one will be more accurate? The material the kits made of obviously has nothing to do with accuracy. There have been resin kit of types that have then been done in plastic which are just as good if not better. Just like plastic kits, there are resin kit out there which are quite basic and rough.

If the comparison is not relevant to you then that's fine, but don't go around telling other people what is relevant to them.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tbolt

[sven_ss]

I don't see why you can't compare a plastic kit with a resin kit - who says a resin one will be more accurate? The material the kits made of obviously has nothing to do with accuracy.

We have two different opinions about that.

And that's it.

I'm happy that a big company like HB had released a kit of "our" WW2 fighter and this will make it known around the world. Five or ten years ago this was just a dream. That's why I don't care so much about some minor issues.

Maybe one day, some other company will put on the market a decent IAR-80 in 72 scale and this little racer-fighter will get his well deserved space in the skies of the WW2 along with another "minor" friends: Rogozarski Ik-3, Avia B35...

Edited September 14, 2016 by sven_ss

[radub]

I was leafing through your IAR-80 airframe & systems books last night looking at the plans, and looking at the plans for IAR 80s in the early series ( up to no 75) the wheel wells don't seem to be too close. After that the wheel wells appear to be wider apart.

So has new info come to light since the book came out? Mines dated 20111 - infact you signed it for me at Telford that year

Cheers

jonners

Hi John,

All well here, good to hear from you again. Hopefully we will meet again in Telford in a few weeks.

When I wrote the "Airframe and Systems" book, the common belief was that there were two types of landing gear. I included that in my drawings. However, a while after the book was published I came across a new "cache" of information and I discovered clear and solid evidence that the length of the landing gear never changed throughout the life of the plane. So, I spent another good few weeks correcting all of my drawings to include this landing gear information and the new drawings were published in the book "Vanator" published by MMP.

Ali, good to hear from you. The "problems" with this model can be solved and none of the corrective work needed is beyond your capabilities.

Sven-ss, you keep saying "I don't care" but you are repeating all of these antagonising posts, word for word, on another forum and on Facebook. That is a lot of "caring" for someone who "does not care".

Radu

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi John,

All well here, good to hear from you again. Hopefully we will meet again in Telford in a few weeks.

When I wrote the "Airframe and Systems" book, the common belief was that there were two types of landing gear. I included that in my drawings. However, a while after the book was published I came across a new "cache" of information and I discovered clear and solid evidence that the length of the landing gear never changed throughout the life of the plane. So, I spent another good few weeks correcting all of my drawings to include this landing gear information and the new drawings were published in the book "Vanator" published by MMP.

Ali, good to hear from you. The "problems" with this model can be solved and none of the corrective work needed is beyond your capabilities.

Sven-ss, you keep saying "I don't care" but you are repeating all of these antagonising posts, word for word, on another forum and on Facebook. That is a lot of "caring" for someone who "does not care".

Radu

Hi Radu - glad to hear you are well.

Thanks for clarifying that - so if I used plans from the original book and stuck with later wider UC positions that would work for all versions?

Jonners - see you at Telford hopefully

[Tbolt]

Hi John,

All well here, good to hear from you again. Hopefully we will meet again in Telford in a few weeks.

When I wrote the "Airframe and Systems" book, the common belief was that there were two types of landing gear. I included that in my drawings. However, a while after the book was published I came across a new "cache" of information and I discovered clear and solid evidence that the length of the landing gear never changed throughout the life of the plane. So, I spent another good few weeks correcting all of my drawings to include this landing gear information and the new drawings were published in the book "Vanator" published by MMP.

Ali, good to hear from you. The "problems" with this model can be solved and none of the corrective work needed is beyond your capabilities.

Sven-ss, you keep saying "I don't care" but you are repeating all of these antagonising posts, word for word, on another forum and on Facebook. That is a lot of "caring" for someone who "does not care".

Radu

Anyone who hasn't got the Vanator book and is going to build an IAR.80 should seriously take a look as it's very detailed and well produced and the sort of book I wish was produced for a lot more types.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tbolt

[radub]

Hi Radu - glad to hear you are well.

Thanks for clarifying that - so if I used plans from the original book and stuck with later wider UC positions that would work for all versions?

Jonners - see you at Telford hopefully

Hi John,

Yes, that should do nicely. The landing gear issue affects only the drawings up to No.75, the rest should be OK.

Please keep an eye on the version you are building. The 4-gun wing included in the kit is only suitable for planes up to No.50. Starting with No.51 the wing had 6 guns and you will need to drill holes for the outboard guns, add the guns and scribe some panels. Please follow the drawings.

HTH

Radu

[Caerbannog]

I'd rather go with Icaeros resin kit (if this is correct) than to use an injected kit and add tons of corrective resin sets. It will cost about as much in the end and does not leave the strange taste to have supported a company with hard earned money that obviously does not realy care about the quality of their products.

From my point of view that is exactly the problem of TrumpyBoss - they release kits of very cool subjects (in my eyes at least) which most other main stream manufactures ignore. Many of these subjects seem to have something like a "fan base". So who wonders when there is an outcry when the subject is not well presented? In addition people who build kits do this usually for pleasure. It is a heart thing. When you start with this hobby you usually just stick together what is in the box. You will be very happy with Trumpy Boss as they have good engineering. But many start to get deeper into the subject they are building - here Trumpy Boss fails miserably. Anyone of the latter category modellers will be upset by the sloppy researched kits they release. These are (in my eyes) not just wasted opportunities but also taste a bit like an insult on all who want to build an as much as possible accurate replica of the real thing. Isn't modelling about this?

René

[sven_ss]

Sven-ss, you keep saying "I don't care" but you are repeating all of these antagonising posts, word for word, on another forum and on Facebook. That is a lot of "caring" for someone who "does not care".

Radu

What's wrong with maintaining the same opinion on different forums?

I'm not an expert in IAR-80 and I don't want to be one.

I'm only disappointed about your review and I'm not talking about the technical issues.

There are so many good things about this release and what you write? "A missed opportunity"

Chapeau!

Edited September 14, 2016 by sven_ss

[Tbolt]

I'd rather go with Icaeros resin kit (if this is correct) than to use an injected kit and add tons of corrective resin sets. It will cost about as much in the end and does not leave the strange taste to have supported a company with hard earned money that obviously does not realy care about the quality of their products.

From my point of view that is exactly the problem of TrumpyBoss - they release kits of very cool subjects (in my eyes at least) which most other main stream manufactures ignore. Many of these subjects seem to have something like a "fan base". So who wonders when there is an outcry when the subject is not well presented? In addition people who build kits do this usually for pleasure. It is a heart thing. When you start with this hobby you usually just stick together what is in the box. You will be very happy with Trumpy Boss as they have good engineering. But many start to get deeper into the subject they are building - here Trumpy Boss fails miserably. Anyone of the latter category modellers will be upset by the sloppy researched kits they release. These are (in my eyes) not just wasted opportunities but also taste a bit like an insult on all who want to build an as much as possible accurate replica of the real thing. Isn't modelling about this?

René

From what I can see from the pictures it looks like the Icaerodesign kit has the closer well wheels as well. Not an easy fix and maybe not be worth correcting it.

The other thing I noticed about the HB kit is that the flaps and ailerons seems to be molded as one, seems a strange decision to go to the effort of making them separate from the wing and then doing this. Easy enough to cut them apart though, but a shame they didn't provide positionable flaps though as they seem to be in the down position most of the time when the aircraft is parked up.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tbolt

[radub]

What's wrong with maintaining the same opinion on different forums?

I'm not an expert in IAR-80 and I don't want to be one.

I'm only disappointed about your review and I'm not talking about the technical issues.

There are so many good things about this release and what you write? "A missed opportunity"

Chapeau!

What is wrong is that you keep going on forums and facebook looking for rows and trying to make this an issue about me. These problems exists with or without me. I did not cause them, I only listed them for the people who care. You see that as a challenge to your desire to remain uninformed. Fine! If you do not care for what I have to say, stop reading my posts. Others may care, please allow them to exercise that freedom.

Radu

[wyverns4]

Well, I am happy that we have the latest iteration of the IAR 80 from HobbyBoss. Yes it has some problems, as expertly pointed out by Rabud, but I feel confident that it will be a decided improvement over the previously available model from LTD. I looked in the box once at Colingdale, (Hannant's) and walked away... There are resin models available, which have their own problems, but an allergic reaction to large amounts of polyurethane denies them to me. Not forgetting the price tag...

Yes it has problems, which kit does not? I, for one, am looking forward to getting my hands on this model and beating it, (hopefully), into submission. I have the Vanator (?), tome amongst others and have a plan , (well, several, A, B, C to Z ) . As I am unlikely to get my hands on one before Easter next year, (next time off for good behaviour), there might even be a couple of WIP's underway, (Jonners! are you listening), which will be useful.

Plasticard, wire, shim and may be even etch to the ready. I am looking forward to this one, warts and all!

Christian, exiled to africa

[sven_ss]

What is wrong is that you keep going on forums and facebook looking for rows and trying to make this an issue about me. These problems exists with or without me. I did not cause them, I only listed them for the people who care. You see that as a challenge to your desire to remain uninformed. Fine! If you do not care for what I have to say, stop reading my posts. Others may care, please allow them to exercise that freedom.

Radu

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?

[Tbolt]

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?

To be fair the pictures we have so far, some of the faults can be seen, but it's hard to see any good things about the kit because we haven't got any close up of details, surface details or a build up, so Radu is just calling what he sees.