fightersweep Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Hi All; As I don't have any reference material at hand for the Dornier Do-17Z, I was wondering if anyone has any observations regarding the accuracy of the Frog and Monogram Do-17Zs. I have both kits at hand, and was comparing both today, and I noticed that the wing chord on the Monogram kit is considerably wider than the Frog kit. So my question is, which kit is the more accurate of the two? I have a soft spot for the Frog kit, having built a Revell re-pop of it back in the early 80's, and again a few years ago. Am I better sticking with the Frog kit, or is the Monogram kit the way to go? All opinions greatly appreciated! Regards; Steve PS....Seems to me that we're way overdue a new Do-17Z kit in 1/72, and I hope that we eventually see a 1/32 kit from Revell. It's quite apparent that the Do-17Z gets largely ignored, which is a shame. It's an aircraft that I have a huge soft spot for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clift Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Hi Steve, As I understand it, Monogram's kit is the better of the 2, but as you have pointed out that the wings chord is quite wide. That would be where the FROG kit comes in. It will require some elbow grease and patience, but if you fit the wing to the Monogram kit, you'll have a pretty decent Do.17Z on your hands. I do recall reading that ICM (?) is scheduled to finally release a Do.17Z this year, but then again, they announced that one several years ago. Keeping my fingers crossed! HTH. Edited January 29, 2013 by clift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I think the Monogram kit is nicer as a kit, but the Frog is a better shape. So it depends on your priorities. If you've been happy with the Frog before, you may as well do another. I'm happy with the Monogram one, probably because I am not an expert on the shape of most Luftwaffe things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phat trev Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 The Monogram Dornier 17z is very good and a great base for detailing and scratch building (if you like that sort of thing like me) Also you can get an etch set for the interior from hannants (and probably other places?,,) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heloman1 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I think you summed it up already "I have a soft spot for the Frog kit".... As mentioned above it appears to be more accurate and therefore would be far less work than trying to get the Mongran kit to the same state. Plus imagine the satisfaction of brining an old Frog kit up do date with some real modelling work. Smile on your face! Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicPl Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I remembering reading a comparing review of these very kits. I'll try and get hold of it till tomorrow. Cheers Nicolai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Seems to me that we're way overdue a new Do-17Z kit in 1/72, Agree with you that a state-of-the-art Do 17Z is probably the most significant hole in the ranks of 1/72 Luftwaffe bombers. If I were Airfix (which unfiortunately I am not, otherwise we've had a Blackburn Shark TT.III by now), I would be quietly tooling one up to launch in conjunction with the press ballyhoo when the aircraft on the Goodwin sands is recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightersweep Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 Hi Guys; Thanks for all of the replies so far. So it appears that the Frog wing is more accurate, but the Monogram fuselage is better. Having compared the Frog and Monogram fuselages together, they appear to be quite close to one another. Out of curiosity, how does the Monogram kit score points in this department? As far as new tool kits are concerned, I totally agree that the Do-17Z is a huge gap in the Luftwaffe arsenal in most scales. I hope that we will see a new tool from ICM in 1/72, and another one in 1/48 wouldn't go amiss...especially as the Classic Airframes example is not easy to find. The holy grail for me would be a 1/32 kit from Revell to sit alongside the He-111 and Ju-88. I hear that this maybe a possibility, but the raising of the Goodwin Sands aircraft would be a key factor in this. Either way, it would be nice to see the venerable old Do-17Z get some recognition at last. Regards;Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJP Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I'm curious about how each of the kits compares to the original, less so to each other. Has anyone taken a ruler to them? And what about that wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 ... As far as new tool kits are concerned, I totally agree that the Do-17Z is a huge gap in the Luftwaffe arsenal in most scales. I hope that we will see a new tool from ICM in 1/72... While also wishing for a new tool Do 17Z in 1/72, I am not at all sure I want it to come from ICM. Their kits are usually way over engineered for my tastes. The Do 215 kits ICM have done make them a logical candidate for a Do 17Z, from all I have read however, they are definitely not "shake n bake" regarding assembly. The ones I have look nice in the box, but the experiences I have had with ICM's SB-2 and I-16 kits don't fill me with warm feelings about a Do 17Z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Thanks for all of the replies so far. So it appears that the Frog wing is more accurate, but the Monogram fuselage is better. Having compared the Frog and Monogram fuselages together, they appear to be quite close to one another. Out of curiosity, how does the Monogram kit score points in this department? Have never owned a Frog Do 17 so can't comment on it. The Monogram kit, though ancient, shows a surprising delicacy in moulding (eg, IIRC, the seats have a basket-weave pattern on them) which I would be surprised if the Frog kit matched. The current Revell boxing of the Monogram kit has some impressively comprehensive markings options. Edited January 31, 2013 by Seahawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicPl Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Hi, here is what I've read about the two kits: Cockpit (external): Frog: a bit too thick frames, but as the radio dome comes as a seperate part, it makes an excellent possibility to make a Do-17Z-2 Monogram: good Cockpit (internal): Frog: very sparse Monogram :good (well detailed) Other transparancies: good in both kits Wings: Frog: leading edges a bit thick Monogram: root 6 millimetres too wide Tailplanes/elevators: Frog: correct Monogram: root 4 millimetres too wide Fins/rudders: Frog: upper edge wrongful shape Monogram: correct Undercarriage (gear): Both good Propellers: Frog: blades too wide; hole in spinner too big Monogram: correct Engines: Frog: air gills are missing and cowling front edge wrong shape Monogram: exhaust tubes too simplified Weapons: equally good / bad I could be a good idea to make a combination of the two kits by using the best of the two and leave the rest in the spares bin. But the choice is yours. Nicolai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Back in the 1980s Ray Rimell did a series of 1/72 models of Battle of Britain aircraft. They were to a high standard (I think they were destined for the RAF Museum) and he wasn't shy about cross-kitting to get the most accurate model. The article on the Do 17 is one of the least detailed in the series but, if it's of any interest, he used the Frog kit with the cowling fronts replaced by Monogram items and the mainwheels replaced by those from the Italeri Ju 188. He comments on the heavy frames on the Frog canopy and says he would have used the Monogram one but it didn't fit. He also replaces a lot of the detail parts (actuating rods, guns), mainly with sprue. Edited January 31, 2013 by Seahawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bil Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 As noted above, the wing chord of the Monogram kit is too big, not really noticeable if its the only D017 on the shelf, a problem if its sitting alongside others (Airfix/RS 17E/F/P/M, Frog 17z, ICM 215B). The Frog engines need significant work to make them look acceptable (translated: replaced) and the lower gonner's transparency is just wrong. I've been waiting 3(?) years for the ICM interpretation; it will probablt be accurate but a b*****d to build (cf their Do215Bs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popeye Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 . A state of the art Do 17 Z is really to be hoped for ! Some additional info re 17 Z and 215 may be found here if you care: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234919061-luftwaffe-recce/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightersweep Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Hi All; Thanks ever so much for the detailed replies! On reflection, I think my best bet will be a kit bash between the two kits. I do like a bit of kit bashing and scratch building, so this could be a fun project. Popeye; Thanks for the link to your builds...Some great looking models there which have also prompted me to pull my two Airfix Do-17P's out of the stash. Those pre war three colour splinter schemes have always appealed to me. Thanks also for the heads up on the ICM kits. With a stash of a few hundred kits, I'm surprised that I don't have at least one ICM kit, so a low down on these is helpful. If they do bring out a Do-17Z, I will have to take the plunge regardless if it is a bear to put together. I'm still hoping for that 1/32 Dornier from Revell. I really hope that we see one at some point as it would complete the trio of BoB Luftwaffe bombers. I seem to have accumulated a 1/32 BoB collection, and it wouldn't be complete without the Do-17Z. I did pick up the 1/33 card model from Poland with the intention of using it as a template for a scratch build...maybe if I make a start and get half way through the build, then someone will invariably release an injection kit in 1/32! Once again, many thanks for all of your views and advice! Regards; Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Steve If you can find it, the Ray Rimell article suggested by Seahawk is in the Sept 1980 issue of Scale Models magazine (UK) and I endorse his recommendation. His whole BoB series was later re-published as a soft cover book in its own right and I still consider it of value/merit for anyone undertaking BoB type builds. Copies of the magazine can be picked up quite cheaply on eBay and I have seen the book a few times. Regards Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightersweep Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Thanks Nick... The annoying thing is, is that I have that book, and the Scale Models you mention. The problem I have, is that I still have some stuff packed away after a house move a year and a half ago, and the man cave is undergoing re-decoration. The book still eludes me, and the only editions of the magazine articles I can't find are the Dornier and Spitfire. I'm still searching for them! It was a great series by Ray Rimmel, but I just couldn't remember the thrust of his Dornier article. I don't know if you are anything like me, but I have piles of old magazines from the 60's, 70's and 80's, and I can never find an article when I want it! I really should catalogue them! I recall reading an article a few years ago about converting the Airfix 1/32 Humber staff car to a NAAFI wagon....now I want to have a go at that as well, can I remember which magazine it was in? No! Moral of this story is, don't move and don't re-decorate the man cave! I'm going to be trying to find stuff for years to come! Regards;Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Thanks Nick... I don't know if you are anything like me, but I have piles of old magazines from the 60's, 70's and 80's, and I can never find an article when I want it! I really should catalogue them! I recall reading an article a few years ago about converting the Airfix 1/32 Humber staff car to a NAAFI wagon....now I want to have a go at that as well, can I remember which magazine it was in? No! Regards; Steve Absolutely. I have had a couple of moves and each time my knowledge of where everything is has been disrupted. The rule I know I can count on is that the chances of finding an article will diminish proportionately to the desire to find it. Memory also plays tricks. You think you know which magazine it was in but it isn't there. Then months later you find it whilst looking for something else in another magazine. I have my magazines filed and even if I know which issue it was in the chances are that is the very issue that has been taken out and put "somewhere". My poor old dog, who has to put up with my fruity incantations to the god of serendipity as I roam the house searching in vain! Regards Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightersweep Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Hi Nick; At least I'm not alone on that count then! As part of my re-decorating, continued unpacking and sorting out, I've been doing something I should have done a long time ago...putting all of my aftermarket and magazine issues in the appropriate kit boxes ready for when I want to build. I'm hoping that may help things. The other worrying thing I have found is just how much stuff I have, and just how much stuff I had forgotten about completely! I couldn't believe just how much 1/24 Waldron extras I had...I think I must have stock piled when Waldron said they were calling it a day a few years back. I think I'm going to have to sell some of it on to make some space! Regards; Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Aha! The "museums" of scale modelling that must lurk in houses and lofts all over the country! Unfortunately 1/24th is way beyond my modelling rating! Regards Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightersweep Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 I know that I have a museum of kits in the man cave, loft and garage! It's getting out of hand! Trouble is, is that I just can't part with vintage kits, especially those I built as a kid. I did get thinking a few months back. I was wondering what the ratio of built kits were to those that still sit unmade that have been sold, in say, the last 50 years? Just how many unbuilt kits must be filling lofts across the land, and how many perceived rarities must be hiding out there? There must be a few of those ESCI Transit's out there that I have a hankering for, or a few Fireball XL5's or Eagle Transporters? This may make my head hurt... ...And apologies for the thread drift! Regards; Steve 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