Adam Poultney Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 How good is the kit? Are there many challenges to the kit? It's cheap, and I like Me262s.... May have to get a few and a decal sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Challenges...well that depends how particular you are. It goes together well, I don’t remember any fit issues. I don’t recall if it is engine nacelle shape or nose that is off a little, but I was happy with it except the main gear bays. The real thing has main bays open on the top so you can see up into the fuselage. More specifically you can see the outside part of the inner fuselage cockpit tub. Revell even molded the detail on the tub but or some unknown reason then closed off the gear bays 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmovik Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 It still holds up well to this day, 22 years after its original release. The kit has some flash, as stated above it has closed wheel wells, fit overall is good, but the canopy should be replaced with a vacuform, since the kit one is missing the framing. It also has the correct dihedral out of the box, whereas in the Airfix kit you have to sand the mating surfaces of the wings to get a proper fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Chuck's and Sturmovik's comments are on the money regarding the wheel bays. I have the Hasegawa and Revell 262 single and two-seat kits, as well as the Heller and JoHan kits. All of the kit makers have released single and two-seat kits except Heller. I do not have the Airfix kit yet, so can only comment based on what I have read and the sprue shots I have seen, For the most part, I think all of the kits are pretty close as far as dimensions and shapes go- they differ mainly in the detail parts and construction of some subassemblies. My observations, for what they are worth, are as follows: Revell kits have separate intakes with the nose 'bullet' and compressor fans indicated- no seam between the halves to deal with; the 'onion' at the exhaust end of the nacelle is molded as a separate part, and the tailpipe is small enough that the inside seam really isn't visible. Nose gear bay is a separate assembly, and as pointed out, you will need to remove the flat upper section or roof to the main wheel bay- the area between the beveled sections. This will open the wheel bays so you can see the curved floor of the cockpit tub, which is the roof of the wheel bay on the real airplane. See photos of the real airplane and the photos in the link I have attached below to see what I mean. The cooling vents that are located around the sides and bottom of each nacelle are indicated, but are very faint. Canopy is clear and one piece, so a vacformed one would be much better. The two-seat kit has the same issues as the single-seat one, but the canopy, while much thinner and clearer, is one piece and will need a vacformed replacement if you want to open it. The Hasegawa kits are very similar to the Revell kits. The canopies for both versions are thin, clear, and are in sections so they can be displayed open. The wheel bays are molded correctly open, but unlike the Airfiix kits, there is absolutely no detail on the area that represents the bottom of the cockpit tub. The nacelles have the intakes molded with each half, so there is a seam inside tat will have to be dealt with. When I built mine, I cut the intake halves off at the rear panel line, glued the halves back together and filled and sanded the inside and outside seam. Then I glued the bullet fairing and 'onion' into each nacelle, glued the nacelle halves together, and then cemented the intakes back on- there is a natural panel line where the intake attaches to the nacelle. It is a lot easier than it sounds! Cockpits are very simplified and would benefit from aftermarket bits. The Airfix kit, from what I have seen, as I haven't gotten my hands on one, yet, is superior to the other two I have described. The wheel bays are correctly depicted, the cockpits are much better detailed, but either version will benefit from a vacformed replacement. The only real negative I have seen or read about is that Airfix completely forgot to indicate the cooling vents that go around the rear of each engine nacelle- these could be scribed or a small rounded bit could be used to make them. See photos and drawings to see what they look like, as they are a very distinctive feature. IIRC, the intakes are separate pieces, so no nasty interior seams to address. I think the canopies might be one piece, but I don't recall- easy to find out, though. This should get you started until those who have actually built or have the three kits I have described can log on and help you; looking for kit reviews and/or build articles would also help you decide which kit is best for you. Good luck! Mike https://modelingmadness.com/review/axis/luft/guerra262preview.htm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Hi Adam, Further to the above, it's a nice kit and easy to assemble. Fit is reasonable, apart from the canopy which, as others have already stated, is worth replacing. One thing not previously mentioned is that the stance with wheels down is a little 'nose down', whereas it should be nose up. One BM member (The Wooksta, I think) mentioned a fix he had which, IIRC, involved deepening the main wheel leg attachment holes somewhat. Perhaps he'll see this and elaborate further. regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 The Hasegawa kit has undersized engine gondolas: before the Airfix kit came out, the "best" Me 262 was considered to be a Hasegawa kit mated to Revell engine nacelles. The nose of the Academy kit is allegedly a bit off: I don't know - I've never seen one or known anyone who had one. I fully expected the new Airfix kit to comprehensively outclass the Revell kit. It hasn't. It's expensive, a lot of the details are indistinct and/or suffer from flash, details are missing (nacelle vents) and the fit is horrible, notably the engine nacelles to wing and the wing to fuselage (where, as has been noted, you won't get the correct dihedral without trimming either the wing or the fuselage). It is just not what one has a right to expect from a new 2018 issue kit. I shall finish the one I have but am resolutely determined not to own any more. It may be that I got a rogue kit and that others have had a better experience: apparently with Airfix's shoddy QC there can be variations even between kits in the same batch. On the plus side, the transfer sheet is nice though not without errors. So my Revell Me 262 stash is safe from the axeman. There may be marginally less detail than on the Airfix kit but what there is will be more sharply rendered. Comments about the boxed-in undercarriage bay correct but it's an easily rectified problem. The nacelle to wing fit is again less than stellar but no worse than on the Airfix kit. I have heard that on more recent Revell Me 262s the canopies suffer badly from distortion. Not a problem I have noticed but mine are all early issue: a Rob Taurus replacement is probably a good investment anyway. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Poultney Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 31 minutes ago, Seahawk said: The Hasegawa kit has undersized engine gondolas: before the Airfix kit came out, the "best" Me 262 was considered to be a Hasegawa kit mated to Revell engine nacelles. The nose of the Academy kit is allegedly a bit off: I don't know - I've never seen one or known anyone who had one. I fully expected the new Airfix kit to comprehensively outclass the Revell kit. It hasn't. It's expensive, a lot of the details are indistinct and/or suffer from flash, details are missing (nacelle vents) and the fit is horrible, notably the engine nacelles to wing and the wing to fuselage (where, as has been noted, you won't get the correct dihedral without trimming either the wing or the fuselage). It is just not what one has a right to expect from a new 2018 issue kit. I shall finish the one I have but am resolutely determined not to own any more. It may be that I got a rogue kit and that others have had a better experience: apparently with Airfix's shoddy QC there can be variations even between kits in the same batch. On the plus side, the transfer sheet is nice though not without errors. So my Revell Me 262 stash is safe from the axeman. There may be marginally less detail than on the Airfix kit but what there is will be more sharply rendered. Comments about the boxed-in undercarriage bay correct but it's an easily rectified problem. The nacelle to wing fit is again less than stellar but no worse than on the Airfix kit. I have heard that on more recent Revell Me 262s the canopies suffer badly from distortion. Not a problem I have noticed but mine are all early issue: a Rob Taurus replacement is probably a good investment anyway. My Airfix Me262 did not fit.... I managed to build it to my standards (there is a thread of Britodeller), and I want to get at least the 2 seater and the new boxing coming later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 I recall being told that the Hasegawa nacelles were correct for early prototypes, I don't know if that's right but they would not be most modellers' choice anyway. It used to be the Matchbox nacelles that were used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Adam Poultney said: My Airfix Me262 did not fit.... I managed to build it to my standards (there is a thread of Britodeller), and I want to get at least the 2 seater and the new boxing coming later this year. From the images I have seen the new frame with the radar aerials is heavy and clunky, little to no advance over what Revell did 20-odd years ago: no takers here. To be honest, the Airfix Me 262 kit is one of those cases where I felt angry that the manufacturer had conned me into being separated from my money. I hope mine was a one-off and that others have a better experience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Poultney Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Seahawk said: From the images I have seen the new frame with the radar aerials is heavy and clunky, little to no advance over what Revell did 20-odd years ago: no takers here. To be honest, the Airfix Me 262 kit is one of those cases where I felt angry that the manufacturer had conned me into being separated from my money. I hope mine was a one-off and that others have a better experience. I enjoyed the build of mine. I'm not overly concerned with 100% accuracy, as long as it looks the part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 I did have an ‘interestng’ experience building my Revell Me 262. I had recently acquired a block of lead wool, sort of like very coarse steel wool but lead and each strand very short, used by train modelers for ballast for too light weight rolling stock. My plan was to use it in the engine nacelles to help make the 262 nose heavy. I packed some into the forward part of the first nacelle and then flooded in thin CA. That is when I discovered how much heat is generated as CA cures. The nacelle melted as I watched in shocked surprise😲 Fortunately I had a second kit so took a nacelle from it 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmovik Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Chuck1945 said: I did have an ‘interestng’ experience building my Revell Me 262. I had recently acquired a block of lead wool, sort of like very coarse steel wool but lead and each strand very short, used by train modelers for ballast for too light weight rolling stock. My plan was to use it in the engine nacelles to help make the 262 nose heavy. I packed some into the forward part of the first nacelle and then flooded in thin CA. That is when I discovered how much heat is generated as CA cures. The nacelle melted as I watched in shocked surprise😲 Fortunately I had a second kit so took a nacelle from it It took me three melted noses on my 262s to realise I was adding the glue on the wrong area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Single-seaters: as above, OK but you will definitely need a canopy. Two-seater: consider also the rather nice old Heller kit, which can occasionally be picked up at very good prices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Seahawk, Thanks for the heads-up on the Hasegawa engine nacelles; I was planning to use the JoHan nacelles that I had, as they have the vents done better than anybody elses, so maybe a Frankenschmitt mixture of the best of the Revell/Hasegawa/JoHan kits might be the way to go. I'm nuts as I think the 2-seaters are much more sinister-looking than the single-seaters. That and the Me-262A-1a/U-4 with the 50mm cannon in the nose and the modified nose landing gear. Glad I read everybody's feedback before shelling out the bucks for either of the two Airfix kits! The comments about the Heller kit were interesting, as I have two of them and they are actually very nice little kits, especially for their time; with some work in the cockpit and gear bays, as well as scribing, I think they would be very presentable. I'm in no hurry to build one, but it was fun yanking all the kits down off of the shelf and rattling the boxes! Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 I was going to mention the nice-looking Jo-Han but didn't think anyone would have access anymore. I'm still a little disappointed at the lack of a recce nose option. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 7 hours ago, Chuck1945 said: the first nacelle and then flooded in thin CA. That is when I discovered how much heat is generated as CA cures. The nacelle melted as I watched in shocked surprise😲 Ruined a great build of a Monogram Thunderjet in the early 90’s that way. Packed the nose full of lead shot and poured the C/A in. Much to my shock the forward third melted beyond repair. I still have the A/M Decal set for it too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 hours ago, Graham Boak said: I'm still a little disappointed at the lack of a recce nose option. There are 2 options in 1/72: Revell did one, which wasn't their finest hour, and Arba did a replacement nose for the Hasegawa kit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairtrigger Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 You could consider the Smer version old Heller ... Hardly any flash and fit pretty good.. Good canopy as well, nice quality plastic for the price I was pleasantly surprised. £6.00. Big downside clunky antennas, but I will rectify one day. The wheel well area lacks detail as well, as does the cockpit. See below my most recent build: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDriskill Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) I am not an expert on the 262 by any means, but I am a fan of this gent who posts frequently on the Czech “Modelforum” and US “72nd Aircraft” sites. He has done several stunning 1/72 scale 262’s lately, and considers the Revell kit to be by far the best starting point. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/72nd_aircraft/me-262-a-2a-in-natural-colors-t8061.html#p100349 https://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=123203 https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/72nd_aircraft/me-262-a-1a-u3-t8089.html#p102010 Edited January 10, 2019 by MDriskill 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) MD, I agree with your comments- very, very nice 262's, and I also think, after yanking my Heller, JoHan, Revell, Hasegawa, and MPM kits and comparing them, the Revell Me-262's are the best starting point, but do need the main undercart mounting points removed, as has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, to get the proper tail-low sit, as well as removing the floor of the inner wheel bays so the bottom of the kit cockpit tub becomes the roof of the wheel bay, as on the real airplane. You can see the incorrect 'sit' in the photos of the three models you posted. @Graham Boak I guess maybe you and I might be one of the few old-timers that have the JoHan kit....if it had come with a decent cockpit, wheel bays, and undercart, I think it would be as good as any of the later releases in the scale...I plan to use the nacelles from the two kits I still have for my single and two-seat Me-262 build, but will remove the intakes and use the ones from the Revell kits. Mike Bring back any memories? I still have their F4U-1A, A6M-2, P-47D, Bf-109F, and two of the 262's...they were even scribed and had two-section canopies! https://www.boxartden.com/gallery/index.php/Boxart-Collection/OTHER-COMPANIES/Jo-Han-Me-262 Edited January 10, 2019 by 72modeler corrected ext Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janneman36 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I have been building a Revell and Airfix single seater and the fit from the Revell is ok but i had some sinkholes on the nacelles.. It is buildable with the original cockpit but i recommend a replacement from Rob Taurus .. Detail is very nice on the nacelles but i had sinkholes on the inside of the intake which is difficult to fill and sand due to the single part setup and the intakecone was short shot.. The Airfix intake is in two parts and easyer to sand these had sinkholes as well.. My experience is that shapewise the Airfix is more appealing to my eyes (espacially on the nose area) than the Revell and it is an reasonoble easy build.. Revell has in some area’s like the outside of the engines a more accurate detail.. But in the end the have both some strong and week points. Regarding pricing the Revell is cheap with a lot of detail. The Airfix is in my experience a more easy build but i do miss the louvres on the backside of the nacelles.. They both can be build into some very nice 262’s.. cheers Jan 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) @72modeler, may I object in that I am a young maverick at well below 50 and have one, actually all the five aircraft they released ( would love to find a lone P-40B some day...). If I ever find the time I should have a look whether it „owes“ something to the Frog like their 109. Otherwise: I can’t add anything that has not been said already, I have five each of Revell‘s A and B bought at half price when they increased box size to justify a 60% mark up for next year‘s re-release, otherwise unchanged. Considering price and what you get, you can’t do much wrong. If it were more expensive, a cheap Matchbox one may be a viable alternative as I always thought it best looking of the pre-Hase kits, but probably an MB would actually cost more. So have fun with the Revell! Edited January 10, 2019 by tempestfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Tempestfan, I've got clothes older than you, but I loved your comments! 😜 Re the Jo Han P-40B- are you sure they released it? I seem to recall them announcing one, but I don't think it was ever released- some test shots, maybe? I was thinking you might have been referring to the Academy P-40B, which was a Frog knockoff, but was scribed and had nicer clear parts. It had the same faults as the Frog kit, as Academy didn't correct any of the major issues. I seem to recall a lot of my buddies snagging the Jo Han Bf-109 kits as they supposedly had the most accurate nose, according to many, along with the Hawk kit, which was one I never had a chance to get. Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 The Jo Han Bf109 was nice enough, but as the main G competition at the time was the Airfix you are dead right it had the better nose! It was said in print that the Jo Han 109 was a match for the Frog one, but for scribing etc, but I never compared them directly. I had the Rufe, which was good, the 109 and the 262. I don't think that I saw the others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 On 10/01/2019 at 03:01, Graham Boak said: I was going to mention the nice-looking Jo-Han but didn't think anyone would have access anymore. I'm still a little disappointed at the lack of a recce nose option. I'm finishing off this kit, I know it's from 1973 boy it's a old kit. 2 page instructions very basic kit not many parts. The cockpit is very basic with just 2 seats. I got this because it's a night fighter and wanted a challenge with the correct colour scheme for Red 8/12. I'll be doing a other one to compare. I will post pics soon. 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