Al Keller Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Hello! There are many choices and I am hoping that the "experts" on this forum could rate the kits that are available. I'm looking for the most accurate kit. Thank you in advance for your comments and guidance, Al Keller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I prefer the Eduard kits. I feel they are the most accurate but I am no 190D expert. The Tamiya kit has errors in the landing gear. But it builds easily. I forget the shortcomings of the Trimaster kits. Someone here will know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Reviews around the internet suggest that the Hobby Boss Dora's are quite good and certainly easier to build than the Eduard kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Hello! There are many choices and I am hoping that the "experts" on this forum could rate the kits that are available. I'm looking for the most accurate kit. Thank you in advance for your comments and guidance, Al Keller hi Al discussed here a bit http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234973061-a-little-polldiscussion-on-your-favourite-148-fw190-d-9and-why/ I'd have a search on Hyperscale Plane Talking, as there are more 190 nuts there, and the search works pretty well. this discusses Trimaster/Dragon vs Italeri, predating Eduard and Hobbyboss kits http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1256144102 The Eduard kits do have a too thick tail leading edge though it's not hard to sand thinner , and someone was ranting on about the front canopy being too wide or narrow. This maybe rubbish as it might have been Gaston Marty.... and I really can't be bothered to try to find it right now found it by chance http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1222171716/4/Uh+Oh%21+Eduard%2C+don%27t+make+the+same+mistake%21 I did try to find some info on the Hobbyboss kits, and I didn't find any huge wailing and gnashing of teeth over it. it's late, hopefully someone will post up a some more information. edit Hobby Boss vs Eduard http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1372858888/1/Hobby+Boss+FW+190+D9+compared+to+Eduard+D9+for+Len this is worth a read http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1408993786 Irritatingly no kit bits compared to real thing and each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDriskill Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Take this for what it's worth: I am not a 1/48 expert, but am a lifelong fan of the 190. I recently served as a judge at a well-attended contest where quite a few 1/48 Fw 190's were on display, including an Eduard D-9.I feel the overall shape and "look" of this kit are quite good. But the fat fin already mentioned is definitely there, and the another noticeable item was how spindly the landing gear struts look. I've never seen this mentioned before, but they were significantly smaller in diameter than the struts on the various Hasegawa and Tamiya Fw 190's nearby, and it really stood out when looking at the group.There were two radial-engined Eduard 190's at the same contest. The chunky fin seems even more obvious on these, and the gear struts are very similar (in fact the same parts I suspect).Minor issues to fix (or just ignore) of course, and again the Eduard Dora is otherwise excellent, to my eye at least. Edited March 2, 2015 by MDriskill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I honestly don't think there is a 'most accurate kit'. If you managed to wade through some of 'toys out of prams' on a couple of Troy's links, you'll see all the available kits have errors. What you have to do is weigh up the degrees of error (i.e. fixability vs livability) with other aspects such as cost and ease of build. I like the look of the Eduard 190Ds but they can be 'demanding' to get right and the thick tail and ill fitting (in the closed position) wing root cannon fairings can take some work to correct yourself (or via a Loon Models set or two). Only from what I've read, does the HB kit look OK in most areas. It will be less finessed than Eduard, is allegedly 5mm too short (in company with earlier 190 D releases by Tamiya and Trimaster) but sounds eminently more buildable. It's all about trade offs.... Of course, in a couple of years, Zoukei Mura may have released their 1/32 FW 190D-9 and then scaled it down to 1/48... that could then hold the crown as most accurate (and probably most expensive) D-9 in the scale. Matt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank152 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I honestly don't think there is a 'most accurate kit'. If you managed to wade through some of 'toys out of prams' Of course, in a couple of years, Zoukei Mura may have released their 1/32 FW 190D-9 and then scaled it down to 1/48... that could then hold the crown as most accurate (and probably most expensive) D-9 in the scale. Matt Pretty much normal fare for HS! Well I'm 3/4s into building ZM's 1/48 Ta152H and I can't say I'm all that impressed with it, you wouldn't believe the amount of seam lines that I have had to deal with on almost every single part, the detail is pretty chunky and the wing to fuse joint is poor. Back to the Fw190D, I'd forget about the Tamiya kit unless you want to buy all of MDC's resin correction sets to put all it's many faults right, probably the best thing the Tamiya kit is the canopy! I've built the Hobbyboss Ta152c, its on here in RFI, so I'd imagine their D kit would build up nice and easily like the Ta did, however I threw a load of aftermarket stuff at it to get it accurate. I'd recommend using the Eduard D, and ignore it's fat tail, replace the prop with the MDC one for the Tamiya kit and if you're building one with the later Blown canopy replace that with say a Squadron vac formed one or pinch it out of the Tamiya kit. Tim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I got a spare Fw190D fuselage, the plastic on the fin is pretty thick, so a thinner fin can be got with some scraping and sanding... the real fin is more complex shape wise than might be assumed. http://data.primeportal.net/hangar/lawrence_lai/fw_190d_yellow_ten/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank152 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Or you even wait until Eduard re kit all of their Fw190 series and hope they address the final problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reserve_22 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I thing Eduard is now best Dora when you use MDC propeler and AML tail http://www.eshop.aml.cz/lang-en/pur-sets/433-focke-wulf-190d-correct-tail-.html Eduard relase new Fw 190 easier to asembly not saw engine and gun bay and all surface will by riveting like Bf109E/G.But only version A5-9 not version D9/11/13 Edited March 3, 2015 by Reserve_22 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank152 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I thing Eduard is now best Dora when you use MDC propeler and AML tail http://www.eshop.aml.cz/lang-en/pur-sets/433-focke-wulf-190d-correct-tail-.html That looks promising, thanks for that link, I was unaware of that correction set.Tim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reserve_22 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 There is propeler too but not good than MDC propeler http://www.eshop.aml.cz/lang-en/pur-set-1-48/547-fw-190-d-9-propeller-with-tool-.html and when you whant close gun bay Quickboost http://www.quickboost.net/Obrazky/48107.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Yes, I've managed to scrape and sand the fin down to something more prototypical, it's then just the hassle of re-scribing the detail. I also have the AML tail which looks good and Loon Models' gun bay covers. I'm sorry to hear the ZM 1/48 Ta 152H is disappointing... so maybe not worth hanging on for them to do one... Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I don't believe it easier to cut off and replace the tail, than to reshape the existing fin, but as a corrected fin exists, I'd say the pragmatic, not to say economical course of action is to try reshaping the kit one, and if that is not satisfactory, then get a tail replacement. found this http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal10/9701-9800/gal9701-Fw-190-Ben-Shahar/00.shtm Eduard Dragon (ie Trimaster /DML, Italeri too) Eduard Dragon and compare with the D-13 fin above. Is it me, or is work and accuracy of cutting off a tail unit and then adding a resin one, a much harder job than some careful scraping and sanding? Not to mention the expense. What is actually wrong with the Eduard, or Dragon prop/spinner as well? Here's the one in the US, I can the Eduard spinner looks too pointy, the Dragon one looks pretty close? all surface will by riveting like Bf109E/G an unfortunate fashion, which I hope will cease when it realised that rivets are not holes.... this is an interesting shot, both for lack or holes, and that the leading edge is detached, note fin shape 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reserve_22 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I know the rivet are not holes but negativ panel lines would i never seen on real aircraft thats the same.The MDC riveting tool is great but Im not maniac do it with this.Live is too short and scale models too much at home ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank152 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well personally I'd rather pay for the tail unit and save myself the bother of all that scraping, I can't see it costing the earth anyway. The Eduard prop blades are overly thick and the wrong profile at the cuffs, again I suppose you could spend time sanding them down and re profiling to save you a few bob! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank152 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm sorry to hear the ZM 1/48 Ta 152H is disappointing... so maybe not worth hanging on for them to do one... Matt Probably not. May be I was expecting to much from the kit, I certainly wasn't expecting the amount of clean up required on every part! Don't get me wrong it looks ok and up till joining the wings to fuselage everything fit ok. People who go cold at the thought of building Eduard's 190s would be best giving it a wide berth though that is for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reserve_22 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) My friend Jakub make a master for AML propeler you can see on his web site http://www.modelplac.cz/pages/recenze/aml_vrtule.htm Edited March 3, 2015 by Reserve_22 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Keller Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. I will look at all the sights listed here and do more research. It sounds like there is no clear winner! Again, thank you, Al Keller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Åkra Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Being old enough to remember when the Trimaster/Dragon 190s appeared I must admit I am very fond of those kits and even if Eduard´s kit is more "modern" and more detailed I just prefer those old classics. Kjetil 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