tempestfan
-
Posts
2,660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by tempestfan
-
-
Well I know what Thorney Island is (IIRC it had a large FAA airfield ) and have a general idea about its location. My intent was to point out that error in the instructions shown above which is no typo as it is repeated twice. While the actual decal research probably was done by someone not responsible for that error, stuff like this always casts some shadows of doubt upon the care with which the job has been done. I admit this may be viewed as nitpicking.
-
I fully agree that H-33 was very remarkable for a Revell kit back then - if one compares it to the 1/48 F-15 that was released around the same time, one wouldn't necessarily believe they are from the same stable. I'd say the next kit of their own origin as remarkable was their 32nd F-15 some 5 years later, but I'm in danger of veering o/t. Probably the G-10 benefitted from being a "from scratch" project, whereas the Spit and P-40 appear to have some 32nd kit ancestry.
Still I wonder why they didn't go the easy way and scaled the 48th kit down, as this appears to not have been the cas. And yes, I'm well stocked with the 72nd one as I bought a half-dozen or so of the original small box release for DM 3,- each when Revell decided to use a larger box and up the price by 80 %
-
IIRC the Hasegawa FG.1 and FGR.2 have recessed panels (unlike some of the US versions).
-
Duncan, I take your comment to apply to the smaller kit - I don't recall any rivets on the 48th one. Does the u/c problem also affect the larger one (just curious, there are so many 109 experts in Germany already that I'm not keen on becoming another one)? To clarify, with the "it" in "it being called" I referred to the 48th kit.
-
So do I, but apparently the link should lead to the Lindberg Vulcan. No Vulcan expert, but it is a kit of a straight leading edge proto and IIRC has problems even for one of those. I seem to recall the Frog 1/96 B.1 was much better as a kit and as a model, but then you'd need to rob a bank to buy one.
-
Hard as it may be to understand, companies do not set out deliberately to make an inferior product, and one of the incessant cries is "Why don't they ask for help?" To this must come the counter, "How do they know who to trust?" Academy received a fearful amount of stick for their "inaccurate" Hunters and Spitfires, but what is not generally known is that they were sent dud drawings from what they thought was an unimpeachable source, following which the owner said he'd never trust them again.
Edgar
In this specific instance, a natural port of call would be Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike, though there may well be some recent discoveries/views not contained in their works or shared by them. I guess my approach as a model company would be to gather as much information from as many sources as possible, see in which aspects there is a general consensus (which of course may still be wrong...), and try to sort out the disputed issues by validating each differing view. I admit that it probably would be naive to expect a manufacturer to undertake such a semi-scientific approach as it likely is much too expensive and their object is simple - make a profit.
In the good old days of my childhood, it was a standard feature of Matchbox kits to acknowledge their research sources on the instructions. Perhaps that would be an idea to pick up for Trumpeter etc., so everyone knows who is responsible for the latest piece of inaccurate research
-
I am surprised to read the 1/72 Revell G-10 is regarded fairly lowly. It was my assumption it is directly based on their 48th kit, and I recall it being called "best late 109 in any scale" for a long time.
-
Add to those the Revell Germany C-47 Luftwaffe/Swedish (4357)& DC-3 Finnair (4234) boxings which came out in the mid 80s.
And here's the Luftwaffe/Swedish AF boxing.
http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=134479
Note that the site indicates that this is an Italeri rebox but having built it (in 1989
) I am certain that it's Esci.# 4357 is the Italeri kit - one dead giveaway are the pilots. # 4236 (the Lufthansa version you linked to on the following page weren't there KLM decals included, too ?) indeed is the Esci. After Revell ceased to distribute (and rebox) the complete Esci line, they reboxed only a small number of Escis (F-5A, DC-3), and I think that stopped around 1986 or so. The DLH boxing is a couple of years earlier than the Luftwaffe one. On the other hand, Revell has for a long time cooperated with Italeri and reboxed a substantial number of Italeri (and in later years Italeri-née-Esci) kits.
-
To add to the confusion: There was a boxing of Esci kit 9014 including Eastern Airways markings (the UK regional operator).
Was kit 7005 (Airfix) actually released ? If it was the Italeri, it would have entailed a remarkable price rise against the preceding Series 5 release.
-
That IP decal doesn't actually look all that bad. I should buy one of those kits.
-
Possibly that cockpit has been designed by the same person who designed the Academy 48th Hunter cockpit ?
I suspect there's a giant plot by some kit manufacturers with the aftermarket industry to include at least one completely inacceptable major inaccuracy in any given kit.
-
1
-
-
I expect to get stoned for the suggestion, but the old Matchbox 72nd E used to be well regarded for the shapes (OK, that was thirty ys. ago), main neg being the oil coolers more resembling those on the F and later, while their 32nd kit was the benchmark in this scale for some 30 years ( and I think not only relative to the Hasegawa competition, but also in absolute terms). As I don't think either one has been reissued much in the past 20 ys., their collectors price may be at a point that they can't seriously compete with newer kits, though. May I hasten to add I'm not a 109 expert...
-
Where exactly is "Torney Island" ?
-
As "ground role" unfortunately has GR as initials, your explanation "GR (ground role)" could be read as being the words behind the abbreviation, which, as has been stated, are actually Ground attack/Recconaissance.
-
It seems that Lynn Ritger is the 'Go-To' man in all cases regarding Messerschmitts so I opened the Datafile book on the late series Bf109 and compared the parts to the plans at the back.
The wingspan is 2mm long at the tips. Yes folks the TIPS!! All the rest of the wing detail is spot on and I am absolutely certain that the majority of those bothered enough by the extra 2mm own a razor saw.
...
I'm actually quite pee'd off at the rudeness shown by some to others. If this were a pub a few here might be actually throwing punches by now!
Your approach assumes the drawings are correct in the first place. Reading some of Mr Rittgers posts elsewhere, I read him that he doesn't hold the drawings in very high regard - what that may or may not mean regarding the kit's accuracy or otherwise I don't know. The fact is that checking kits against drawings is dangerous - there are a lot out there that look beautiful and have appeared in well-respected publications but have serious ("fatal") errors (and yes, I have done quite a bit of checking of drawings against photos and could back up my claim if necessary). Some reviews say "looks good against drawings" or even "well respected drawings" but do not tell which they are. Many people won't care anyway, but it would be nice if the reference is stated in such cases. Probably it's wiser for any reviewer not to check against drawings at all and to state this, as he may be in for instant stoning if he dares to pick a set whose accuracy is proven or disputed.
My impression is that the mood would be much more relaxed if people didn't perceive a somewhat arrogant attitude by Eduard. Anyone who has his mouth wide open for an extended period and fails to live up to his claims must expect a whipping, even if the model as a kit is absolutely perfect.
-
2
-
-
-
There was also a DB 5 and Mercedes 280 in that range.
-
They did a TR7 , but it wasn't their tooling . If memory serves , it originated from one of the smaller Japanese manufacturers . I think it was during the Palitoy period , so it could have been something owned by General Mills .
To return to a very old thread:
Airfix released the TR.7 twice, first in 1980 in Series 6 and later in 1992 (or thereabouts) in S. 5. We have been discussing the origin of the Airfix 1/24 rallye cars at length at the Airfix Collecting Forum, and came to the conclusion that both of the TR releases are the Gunze kit (concurrent with the 90s release, they also released a Merak which appears to have been also Gunze, while their 1980 Merak was Tsukuda's).
Those were our conclusions/findings (the Tsukudas are definite because they feature the Tsukuda trademark)
06405-9 Lancia Stratos, 1980, Gunze, never re-released
06406-2 TR.7, 1980, Gunze, re-released 1992
06407-5 Ferrari 365 GTB, 1980, Gunze, never re-released
06408-8 Porsche 934, 1980, Gunze, never re-released
06409-1 Datsun 280, 1980, Gunze, never re-released
06410-1 Mustang Cobra II, 1980, Gunze, never re-released
06411-4 BMW M-1, 1980, Eidai, re-released 1992
06412-7 Lamborghini Countach, late 1980/early 1981,Eidai, re-released 1992
06413-0 Maserati Bora, late 1980/early 1981, Eidai, re-released 1992
06424 Alpine, 1981/2 post Palitoy takeover, Eidai, re-released 1992
06425-3 Boomerang, probably late 1980, Eidai, available as USAirfix ca. 1979, re-released 1992
06426-6 BMW 3.5, probably Eidai, available as USAirfix ca. 1979, probably first released 1992
06427-9 Pantera, source unkonwn, probably first released 1992
07401-0 Merak, 1980, Tsukuda (available as USAirfix and German Airfix ca. 1979), never re-released
07402-3 Lotus Elite, 1980, Tsukuda (available as USAirfix and German Airfix ca. 1979), never re-released
07403-6 probably reserved for Lambo Ital, Tsukuda (available as USAirfix and German Airfix ca. 1979)
07404-9 BMW M.1, probably Tsukuda (available as Lambo Ital by USAirfix and German Airfix ca. 1979), probably not released
07405-2 Ferrari Dino, 1980, Eidai, re-released 1992
The 1992 kits were:
5401 BMW M.1 ex 06411-4
5402 Bora ex 06413-0
5403 Alpine ex 06424
5404 Countach ex 06412-7
5405 Pantera announced 1981, probably not released then, probably ex 06427-9, probably ex Eidai
5406 Ferrari Rainbow
5407 Boomerang announced 1981, probably not released then, probably ex 06425-3, ex Eidai
5408 Lotus Esprit probably ex Eidai
5409 Lambo Jota probably ex Eidai
5410 Custom Corvette ex Eidai
5411 TR.7 Gunze
5412 Merak Gunze
6401 Dino ex 07405-2 Ferrari Dino, ex Eidai,
6402 BMW 3.5 ex 06426-6 BMW 3.5, probably Eidai
I have most of the 1980 boxings that are confirmed to have been released, but none of the 1992 versions, so have not been able to check the earlier against the later issues.
The 1981 catalogue also included a range of 8 SnapFix kits of assorted Corvettes, Mustangs etc. that were released before by USAirfix but apparently didn't make it into UK (or French) boxings. Lindberg later (?) released a very similar range - we have not been able to establish whether the USAx and Lindberg kits are the same, nor whether they may have been tooled by Lindberg in some mould sharing agreement. Anyone who can add to any of the open questions is very welcome !
Too big for me, Mr. Grumpy. Entex did the TC in 1/16th scale ages ago. A much more sensible scale than that daft 1/18th!!
Martin
Entex reboxed that kit - IIRC it was a Gakken original that later was also reboxed by Revell and finally went to Minicraft (though Revell may have had leased the mould from Minicraft, as they had quite a number of kits of Japanese origin in their range in the early 80s that were reboxed for the US by Entex before and are with Minicraft today). The Jaguar SS100 was also a Gakken mould originally.
-
Considering that Eduard's core business is fixing and improving shortfalls on other kits it is amazing they got this so wrong.
If the 109 is actually as bad as it seems, it gives them the opportunity to offer an update & correction set consisting of a full newly tooled kit.
-
2
-
1
-
-
As I recall that kit it had a canopy wider than the fuselage, so a little piece of microstrip fore and aft of the cockpit solved that. Other than that it was a good kit if a little disappointing after the Spitfire Mk.I that had preceded it in that phase of replacing Airfix's earlier toolings. It was certainly far better than their first one from the late 50s.
The 2nd mould P-51D (02045) was released in 1974 or thereabouts so precedes the 2nd mould Spit I (01065) by a couple of years. You are probably referring to the B (02066) which must have come out around the same time the Spit I did, and was indeed a bit oversimplified in places (especially as it was clearly designed as a S. 1 kit but released as a S. 2). The 2nd mould D incidentally was one of the very few attempts by Airfix at recessed panel lines (the Do 17 being the other - if we discount the Gladiator, BT-K, 109F and original Albatros), and obviously benefitted in the cockpit from the research for the Super Kit.
-
C'mon Airfix - how about a 1/48 Tempest.
I second that !!!
-
A most interesting thread - the 47 was the last kit I managed to finish, way back when it was new...The kits (22/34 and 46/47) were likely heavily based on the Argus/MAP drawings of the 22/24 - I used them too, and IIRC almost everything matched up perfectly, so any error in the drawings would have been faithfully replicated in the kit.
I would have said that the kit included Seafire-specific u/c doors, as now that this thread has come to my attention I seem to recall reading about them in a piece by Eric Brown on the 47 in Air International. I also think that I read somewhere that these were retrofitted to Spits as they were much better on soft ground. But obviously my memory is wrong regarding the inclusion of the Seafire doors in the 46/47 kit. Seems I have to look up my kit and the review I wrote if I can find either.
-
1
-
-
This seller has a quote of € 15,90 for shipping to Norway (click on "Versandkostenrechner" in the panel to the left, section "service), payment with PayPal has a 1.5% surcharge. I hasten to add I have no experience with this seller, it's just to give you an idea. Looking around a bit may pay, and it'd probably be wise to check on s&h beforehand via an enquiry.
-
You may be better off ordering from a continental seller. The RRP here in Germany is 25 €, I think, but on amazon.de the cheapest is 18.20 plus s&h, so it may pay to look for a seller via amazon who ships to Norway.
) I am certain that it's Esci.
Just seen this, anyone had experience of Lindberg kits?
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
At least the Victor has been reissued quite frequently, I think, and as releases of those kits from the 70s and onwards are not eminently collectible, I'd expect them to be available on ebay for a lot less.