Jump to content

Hobbyboss 1/72: which are the "A Team" kits?


Seahawk

Recommended Posts

Sparked by a comment by @Ed Russell  on the Hobbyboss MS406, I fell to wondering which Hobbyboss Easy Assembly kits were tooled by their A-Team ie (with a  bit of slack cut for the simplified assembly) actually stack up well against the conventional opposition.  Ed's description of the Hobbyboss MS406 as a debugged Hasegawa kit sounds appealing.   I am a great fan of the F4U-4 especially when tarted up with some seatbelts and spare Tamiya stores but, when I said so on here, someone bobbed up to point out the kit's manifold sins and weaknesses.  Encouraged by the F4U-4, I looked at the first 12 or so releases in the range at that year's Telford (Spitfire, Hurricane and P-40 come to mind) but I could not see anything that wasn't let down either by inaccuracies in outline or details or by crude simplification (much more grossly than the F4U-4)..  Since then, I think I recall hearing positive noises about the He 162, Me 163 and MiG-3.

 

So, which Hobbyboss Easy Assembly kits would you happily put in a lineup alongside your Tamiyas, Hasegawas and Eduards?

Edited by Seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MiG 3.  Not that Tamiya, Hasegawa or Eduard do one.  The T-6 is pretty good (ditto T,H & E) and the Typhoon copes with a new canopy (ditto...).  Generally though, not the others I've seen.  What's wrong with the Hasegawa Morane?

 

PS.  OK, thread found and question posed there.

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their Mig-3 is often stated as being the best kit available anywhere in 1:72.

 

I personally think their Mig-15 (both versions) is good, especially when price is considered. Sure the Eduard kit is more refined, but it's also more expensive.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's horses for courses really isn't it, the ease of build/low parts count are the prime reason for their existence. I have looked at quite a few of them and they all look reasonable for what they are and if taken as entry level/pocket money kits then they all have very few rivals. The best of them are unlikely to match a modern mainstream comparison but that would be to miss the point of them in my opinion. The kids they are intended for are mostly not concerned with the accuracy so long as it was fun and cheap.

The kits that do confuse me are Zvezda's snap together kits (1/72 scale Fw190, Bf109 Ju87 etc) as they are very simplified (Ju87 is a little better) but are not bargain basement prices either.

 

Duncan B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive built there Me-262 and am currently building there P-39.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235042402-its-a-british-cobra/

Yes they have some minor foibles. However if youre on a tight budget(me), or easier to modify/add/change then i say grab the H/Boss kit. I have the 262 build here if you want a link let me know. 

 

Dennis

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello  Seahawk,I've built a good few if not nearly all of the early releases and to be honest they all build well,are pretty accurate in outline and are great fun

for a hassle free quick build,that said the Spitfire canopies are awful and need replacement,I never liked the poor under fuselage join on the Wildcat family

and the decal's can be hit or miss(I seem to recall the Raf codes on the Hurricane being almost "lime green),the Buffallo which is a later offering is superb

which had it been an Airfix or Revell release I think would have been raved about by a lot of folk,I think much of the later stuff is of a good standard the Claude

got a bit of a kicking though.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Duncan, but the point of the thread, as I saw it, is to identify those kits in the range  which do stand their own in a wider market.  Or, perhaps, just a more sophisticated and critical (in the best sense of the word) market.  It would be too easy to say "Oh, they're just for kids and should be ignored."  That would mean missing a few minor gems, or at least reasonable alternatives at a good price.

 

Having said that, I can see why a model aimed at a junior market will benefit from being simplified and lacking detail, but no reason why getting the shape wrong is anything other than a fault.  Or omitting the undercarriage doors.  Would a kid notice?  Not on his first kit, possibly, but don't underestimate their speed at picking up on low quality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

What's wrong with the Hasegawa Morane?

 

Graham, @Graham Boak

 

It's really a pretty nice little kit, with the usual niggles common to Hasegawa kits of the same time period; little to no cockpit detail. one piece but crystal clear canopy, and the wheel bays are not boxed in, but if you're interested, I have a little trick on addressing that issue that works pretty well on aircraft that have that style of wheel bay- pm me if  you're interested. The fabric detail on the fuselage is a little overdone, but not nearly as pronounced as on their Hurricane kits, so easy to sand down. Some of the details on the undercart/retraction struts are simplified, but can be added from scratch or IIRC are on the aftermarket etched sets that were produced. The radiator assembly is engineered to be in the extended position, but this can be rectified easily. I have attach a link to a first look video that will show you what I'm talking about. Gotta be in Finnish colors and markings, though!

Mike

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q42R7bX-AzE

 

Edited by 72modeler
added notification
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevej60 said:

Hello  Seahawk,I've built a good few if not nearly all of the early releases and to be honest they all build well,are pretty accurate in outline and are great fun

for a hassle free quick build,that said the Spitfire canopies are awful and need replacement,I never liked the poor under fuselage join on the Wildcat family

and the decal's can be hit or miss(I seem to recall the Raf codes on the Hurricane being almost "lime green),the Buffallo which is a later offering is superb

which had it been an Airfix or Revell release I think would have been raved about by a lot of folk,I think much of the later stuff is of a good standard the Claude

got a bit of a kicking though.

Yes, that chimes with my memories from my Telford inspections.  Spitfire: horrible canopy, no undercarriage doors,  Hurricane: didn't like the shape of the radiator, Wildcat: even cruder undercarriage than the ancient Frog kit.  Your views on the Buffalo are interesting though personally I'm all buffalo'd out with Special Hobby and Hasegawa kits.

 

Think the Dewoitine D.520 gets a good press too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, the MiG-3 is a nice kit that builds up easily, but is missing the flaps - easy to scribe these in, though. The interior is simplified, but that goes with the type of kit it is. The shape appears to be accurate. Their Tu-2 is also accurate shape-wise, but you have to do a lot of work to get a reasonable interior, and the guns are toy-like. Still, it's a much easier build than the ICM kit, which is over-engineered. I just combined the two, using the guns and interior from the ICM kit to fit out the HB Tu-2. I'm quite pleased with the result. The P-39 to me looks like a decent representation, and went together easily, as it should. I'm interested in their Gladiator, as that's one of my favourite aircraft, but it doesn't seem to have been well-received by those who have reviewed it. I liked their P-40B, finding it to be an easy build, and it looks accurate enough to me, although I'm certain there are P-40 experts out there who can point out some problems/omissions. Still, I wanted a cheap and easy early P-40, and it fit the bill, so I'm happy with it. Although I haven't built it yet, their La-7 looks like a reasonable facsimile of the original, and even has a better spinner than the Eduard La-7, and can be built as either the two-cannon or three-cannon variant (although the decals are probably not appropriate for a three-cannon version). Their Il-2 is definitely a bit of a curate's egg - the dimensions appear to be spot-on, but the decals are incorrect for 'White 100', which should be for the straight-winged version (the HB effort is of the swept-winged arrow variant). It also has the incorrect metal rear fuselage, which needs to be sanded down or filled-in. Perhaps the most egregious error (at least to this Il-2 savant), is the inclusion of the 37-mm cannon pods, which were not used on the 'arrow'. On the plus side, this kit gets the upper gun hatches correct, which the otherwise quite nice Eduard arrow doesn't (the excellent Tamiya Il-2, the best Il-2 in 1/72nd scale, does get these hatches correct). The HB Il-2 will be a bit of work for me, but then I'm rather fastidious about my Shturmoviks.

 

Regards,

 

Jason

Edited by Learstang
Additional comments added.
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avoid the Hurricane. It’s......inspired by the Academy one in that the fuselage is too narrow. Also on my copy at least I was unable to mate the one piece wing/ventral fuselage to the fuselage - no how no way would the mating surfaces even get close no matter what I tried!

 

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the ones I've built, the MiG-3, Yak-3, P-40B, P-39, Bf 109G, F4U-4, He 162, Tu-2, Sabre and D.520 were certainly good enough for me, though I've not checked the accuracy closely. The Typhoon builds into a nice model but the canopy has flat sides and is glaringly wrong. It includes both 3 and 4 blade props but only the original small tailplane: from memory, it would be uncommon at best for a Typhoon to combine that with a 4 blade propeller. The Spitfire, apart from the unusable canopy and missing wheel covers, bizarrely has its propeller blades feathered (i.e. edge on to the aircraft's centreline) and landing lights lowered. The Hurricane has a common fault in Hurricane kits, a nose that's much too tapered in plan view. I have the Fw 190D and MiG-15 but haven't built them yet. I did have the La-7 but I've a feeling I ditched it at some point after reading a critical review. I can't remember the details or where I read it (online somewhere, I think) but I seem to remember the shape of the cowling was one of the things criticised.

 

I've not seen the Gladiator (there's a review here) but it's priced at several pounds more than other Hobbyboss kits of single-engined fighters, approaching the price of the Airfix kit. I think the same's true of the MC 200.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The La-7 cowling is a bit off - the front tapered part should be a bit longer in my opinion, but it is not in any way a 'show-stopper'. Overall, looking at the profiles I had done for my book on the Lavochkin fighters (the profiles were done by a very conscientious artist and researcher, Massimo Tessitori), the HB La-7 appears to be accurate, at least accurate enough for those who simply want to build models and not measure everything with calipers and a jeweller's loupe. I'm afraid when it comes to Soviet aircraft, at least, reviewers often base their complaints on drawings that are themselves suspect (Massimo always works from photographs).

 

Regards,

 

Jason

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Yes, that chimes with my memories from my Telford inspections.  Spitfire: horrible canopy, no undercarriage doors,  Hurricane: didn't like the shape of the radiator, Wildcat: even cruder undercarriage than the ancient Frog kit.  Your views on the Buffalo are interesting though personally I'm all buffalo'd out with Special Hobby and Hasegawa kits.

 

Think the Dewoitine D.520 gets a good press too.

Agree,and the Stormovik,built both,Hellcat  and Yak not bad either

20170611_124333_zpsdyisate9.jpg

 

DSCN0153%20640x480_zpsbuhnufop.jpg

 

DSCN4912_zpsjum7ojmd.jpg

 

20170524_112314_zpslj2sptyt.jpg

 

Just finished the Sabre for the Warpac/NATOGB

43580006904_18bc5662b7_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by stevej60
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Learstang said:

The La-7 cowling is a bit off - the front tapered part should be a bit longer in my opinion, but it is not in any way a 'show-stopper'. Overall, looking at the profiles I had done for my book on the Lavochkin fighters (the profiles were done by a very conscientious artist and researcher, Massimo Tessitori), the HB La-7 appears to be accurate, at least accurate enough for those who simply want to build models and not measure everything with calipers and a jeweller's loupe. I'm afraid when it comes to Soviet aircraft, at least, reviewers often base their complaints on drawings that are themselves suspect (Massimo always works from photographs).

 

Regards,

 

Jason

Thanks, Jason. I've got a copy of your excellent Lavochkin book; I'll have to check whether my memory has failed me (again......) and the Hobbyboss kit is still lurking in the garage somewhere. It certainly sounds as though it'll be accurate enough for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AWFK10 said:

Thanks, Jason. I've got a copy of your excellent Lavochkin book; I'll have to check whether my memory has failed me (again......) and the Hobbyboss kit is still lurking in the garage somewhere. It certainly sounds as though it'll be accurate enough for me.

 

Thank you for buying my book! I do hope it's of some help to you if you build this kit. There are some attractive wartime and postwar schemes for the La-7.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My little comment has stirred an interesting pot. I'd say the MS.406 and MiG-3 are the only ones I have built that are the best available although others mentioned above come pretty close.

I think Mike (72modeler) has addressed the Hase 406 - from memory the wing tapes also are in wrong position moulded as recessed lines.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you know, Hobby Boss makes some very nice “real” 1/72 kits of jets, and I find that in the Quick Build line the jets seem consistently nicer than the prop jobs. The MiG-15’s, F-84, and F-86 seem particularly good (though I confess that era is a bit out of my wheelhouse).

 

The MiG-3 is about the only 1/72 game in town as already mentioned. It no doubt benefitted from the research done for Trumpeter’s good 1/48 and 1/32 kits.

 

Among the few HB kits that I have experience with, the Fw 190D is not bad. Has some made-up detail in the gear wells, wheels are a bit small, needs the cowl flaps and prop trimmed back a bit; but overall shape is convincing. It’s the only 1/72 kit to depict the small channel between the D-9's wheel wells. 

 

The 109G's are OK, except for the G-6 and it's weird nose gun "mono-bulge" caused by the molding geometry. The G-10 is well worth getting for its two sets of wings (one with each size of wheel bulge; the large ones are very neatly molded in place, as opposed to the Revell, FM, or AZ add-on parts with preposterously over-thick edges).

 

I’m also a fan of their Macchi 200. Yes the wings have equal span which is wrong (overall span dimension and taper angles are excellent though), but they duplicate the unique wing section with its thin leading edge, and basic fuselage shape, much better than any other kit to my eye. It also has a sketchy cockpit fairing shape and some missing details (no carb intake!), but IMHO with a bit of work and some resin details borrowed from the otherwise regrettable Special Hobby or AML kits, could be the basis for a class-leading model.

 

The notes above on the MS.406 and D.520 are great...who knew those guys had put in overtime on these lesser known machines? I need to procure some of those for sure. 

Edited by MDriskill
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 109G-10 in the stash and I seem to remember that the cowling is not asymmetrical as should be.

Regarding the 109Gs in general, they lack a few bits and pieces, like the flaps on the radiator leading edges, trim tabs and the counterbalances on the ailerons. Flaps and tabs are easy to add with plasticard, the balance masses are another story. Said that, I still like these kits, I've built a couple and have more in the stash.

Their 109E are totally different and also offer some proper cockpit detail. The shape is suspect, don't know what it is but does not convince me. Mind, I'm not a 109 expert so I may be wrong.

The MC.200 is a mix, lacks a number of important features (asymmetrical wing, a few parts, open wheel wells) but is today the most easily available and best starting point for anyone who want to build this subject. This says a lot about the lack of good kits of some of the most important Italian fighters of WW2...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...