Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-8 1/72 AIRFIX

[spiton]

Great rivets. Made very well !! Looks like 1/48 !!

[stoohoo]

Stunning build Libor as always, great paintwork and rivetting. Have this one the 'to get' list and looking at yours makes me want one even more,

Stu

[Roman Schilhart]

Here's a close up of the undercarriage legs.

The Airfix leg is the darker one in the back.

The front leg is from the Revell kit.

Note the position of the oleo strut and scissor link.

The oleo struts are fully extended on the Airfix kit, as if the plane has no weight - might be ideal for a take-off diorama, but actually makes the model sit about 2mm to high.

This is only evident when compared to other kits - so not a 'big issue' really I think.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Roman Schilhart

[Nigel Heath]

Convinced now I am.

[Navy Bird]

If you look at the entire strut (and not just the oleo area) I see something interesting. The struts are arranged in the original photo so that the right hand sides line up. Now, I make the assumption that the location where the strut attaches to the fuselage is where the strut has a kink in it, not the absolute end of the strut. Notice that the kink does not line up in the original photo.

If you align the struts to the spot where the kink is, I think you will also see better alignment with the top of the oleo, and the various details on the strut proper. And, the axles are now closer together.

Clearly nothing has changed with the oleo, Airfix is still less compressed. But the overall error looks much less, and the "sit" shouldn't be so very different. All this depends, of course, on the female receptacle on the fuselage (and if it positions the top of the strut in the same way on both kits) and on the tyre diameter.

Food for thought.

Cheers,

Bill

PS. I'm surprised no one has pointed out how much sharper and crisper the Revell moulding is. But is the Airfix strut painted in this photo? That may account for it.