Similarities between 1:48 Academy/Hobbycraft´s and Hasegawa´s Bf 109E

[Sturmovik]

I remember when I first built Academy´s Bf 109E-3 in 1:48, that the tailplane struts were molded too long and the forward bulkhead had to be trimmed quite a lot to allow for a good fit between the fuselage and the wing. Both issues were solved, the first one by cutting the struts in half and the second one doing what I did above. When I bought Hobbycraft´s Ha 1112 "Buchón" with decals for the BoB movie, it also came with too long struts, which had to be cut in half and trimmed. After that, I made the connection between both companies.

Some months ago, I was checking kit´s instructions, and I came across Hasegawa´s Bf 109E instructions, and they were the same as the ones that came with the Academy kit, and I assume the same with the Hobbycraft kit.

 

TL.DR, my question is, who copied who? And if Hasegawa got copied, does that mean the Hasegawa Bf 109E tailplanes struts are too long and it´s a factory defect? If its a factory defect, I´ll go and buy the Airfix kit or the Pegasus Hobbies one.

 

I hope you guys can help me with this question.

 

 

 

[VMA131Marine]

I've built a Hasegawa Bf 109E and have copies of the Hobbycraft kit (which is the same as Academy). There is no parts commonality between the two kits. They were definitely developed independently of each other. The Hasegawa kit was first released in 1988; the Hobbycraft kit didn't appear until 1992.

[Sturmovik]

That´s a great thing, I´ll go ahead and buy the Hasegawa Emil should I find it. How do you explain the similarities between the part´s layout and the instructions? 

How could Hobbycraft mold the strut tailplanes too long?

Edited March 6, 2018 by Sturmovik

[Troy Smith]

Hobbycraft were infamous for having kits 'inspired'  by other  existing models,  their 1/48th Hurricane is based on the Airfix Mk.I, their Sea Fury owes a debt to the Falcon vac.

 

Most of the Hobbycraft moulds ended up with Academy, a few ended up in China with Kitech-Zhegdufu (Sea Fury, Spitfire XIV) though.

 

IIRC the HC Bf109E was based on the Hase kit, but kits not at hand to check.

 

Are you asking what the best option for a Bf109E in 1/48th?   

 

I don't know about the Pegasus Hobbies 109E, but the other kits are snap together, some are decent shapewise, but they tend to be a bit simple on detail.

there are build here of many 109 kits

https://modelingmadness.com/scott/109s/109gallery.htm

 

reviews mention needing to trim the HC tail struts, but not the Hase kit,  but google up  some reviews and see how other builders got on.

more reviews herehttps://modelingmadness.com/kitindex/kitindexb.htm

 

HTH

[Sturmovik]

10 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

 

 

Are you asking what the best option for a Bf109E in 1/48th?   

 

 

Not really, I just wanted to know why did the Hobbycraft kit, being so similar to the Hasegawa one, had those errors. Now that it was established it was a Hobbycraft only thing, I´ll make sure to buy one of Hase´s offerings. In the end, for me, what counts is how good the camouflage is and if the aircraft had a good fit.

 

Thank you all who answered for solving my doubt.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Sturmovik

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Sturmovik said:

Not really, I just wanted to know why did the Hobbycraft kit, being so similar to the Hasegawa one, had those errors. Now that it was established it was a Hobbycraft only thing, I´ll make sure to buy one of Hase´s offerings. In the end, for me, what counts is how good the camouflage is and if the aircraft had a good fit.

 

Thank you all who answered for solving my doubt.

OK, but this is up on Hyperscale and is worth a read

Which 1/48 Bf 109E kit?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1520177368/last-1520286749/(View+All+Messages+In+This+Thread)

 

Note Lynn Ritger posting in the above wrote the Bf109 datafile books.

[Sturmovik]

@Troy Smith interesting, the article mentions both Hasegawa and Hobbycraft´s Bf 109Es as contemporaries, with the latter being designed with the Hase kit as its model. It also mentions about the ill-fitting canopy (something I experienced too). Thanks for the very interesting article.

[tempestfan]

As a bonus, I seem to recall it being mentioned at the time that HC also copied a Verlinden cockpit set for their cockpit parts... The list of "inspirations" goes on, e.g. their Labrador was based on the Fujimi Sea Knight series, their Ar 234 on a War Eagle (IIRC) vac - though War Eagle was explicitly mentioned, and it has been said their 48th Ju 88 has a heritage with the AMT kit.

[Sturmovik]

@tempestfan the Verlinden cockpit set looks the same as what came in my Academy kit, but I had to play with the parts to make them look like the drawings in the instructions. Maybe that´s why the frontal bulkhead was too long.

[longweight]

I've built both back in the day and once owned dozens of each brand in their various incarnations.

Problems I recall with the HC/ACAD kits was besides the tail struts (I cant think of any kit in 72th or 48th that doesnt have this problem) I recall having problems fitting the engine cowl as it was a touch narrower (wider?...it was some 20 yrs ago) than the fuselage.

A major difference between the two kits was the underside of the wings. HC had the cannon bulge as a separate part so doing an E-1 was a doddle compared to sanding down and reinstating on the Hasegawa wing. 

IIRC the Hasegawa E series kits were slightly updated around the fin and rudder a couple of years after initial release. I confess I had both and could barely tell the difference.  Tamiya too did some remedial work on the nose of their E3 and then changed a a couple of things and put out an E4 onwards. 

The HC kits make up into a very presentable E nonetheless. If youre really keen it helps a lot to get decent replacements for the canopies though.. The Tamiya and Airfix kits turn out nice too. I havent seen the other contenders.

Anyone? Was it the E series kits or the G series that had the tail plane mounts moulded at different heights on the two halves of the fin.

HTH 

[Sturmovik]

46 minutes ago, longweight said:

 

Problems I recall with the HC/ACAD kits was besides the tail struts (I cant think of any kit in 72th or 48th that doesnt have this problem) I recall having problems fitting the engine cowl as it was a touch narrower (wider?...it was some 20 yrs ago) than the fuselage.

A major difference between the two kits was the underside of the wings. HC had the cannon bulge as a separate part so doing an E-1 was a doddle compared to sanding down and reinstating on the Hasegawa wing. 

 

The cowling was a tad narrow, and also wouldn´t fit without a sanding on its mounts. The way HC did the nose assembly allowed for an easy painting, you could add the propeller after the model was completely painted and decalled.

Leaving the bulges out and not opening the flashed holes for the wing cannons will give you an E-1? 

 

 

[tempestfan]

You need relatively large holes in the leading edges as openings for the MG 17.