FLY G50Bis Review

[Giorgio N]

On 7/24/2019 at 12:23 AM, Luka said:

Going back for a sec on the development of the G.55; apparently production cost in man-hours was 2-3 times higher than for a Me 109. So although the Germans were very impressed with the G.55, it was more sensible to build extra 109's for the Italian republican air force instead of G.55's to counter the vast numbers of Allied aircraft they had to face.

Back on the G.50 model; ages ago I did an upgrade of the Airfix G.50 (I used the old Airfix A6M2 cowling) and IMO it still took a lot of work to turn it into something convincing. Unfortunately I do not have this model anymore so I can't compare it..
I did buy the Fly kit last weekend, and on the sprues it looks very nice. It looks pretty clean too, but of course as with many short run kits, only an actual build will reveal how well it goes together.
Instructions look straightforward at first glance. Nice decals by Cartograf (2 Italian, 1 German, 1 Croatian version), nice resin parts (the gunsight could indeed be improved with a tiny piece of acetate). The windshield is somewhat distorting, but there's still plenty to see in that open cockpit. The engine cylinder detail looks a bit soft though.

Not intending to hijack this thread, but I want to do a little review on this kit soon. There's also a pictoral sprue tour online (in Polish IIRC).

 

The G.55 problem was common to pretty much all Italian WW2 types. Most of these were designed for production methods that were fast becoming antiquated by 1940, and this showed in the time required to complete them. And the G.55 was one of the best in this respect, others were much worse.

 

Glad to hear your comment on the Fly kit, I have to get one myself.

 

On 7/24/2019 at 2:04 AM, 72modeler said:

Does anybody know if either the 1/72 AML or SBS G.50bis have the correct shapes and dimensions? Is one wing slightly longer in span than the other, or am I thinking of the Mc202/205?  Also, are the wheel bays enclosed or open on the real airplane? I would hate to spend the money on the SBS resin kit if the wing and wheel bays are not correct. Can't tell about the wing in the sprue shot photos I have seen, but the wheel bays are enclosed. Do you know, @Giorgio N? Aiutami, per favore! 

Mike

I will check the AML and Airfix kit against the Ali d'Italia plans in the next couple of days. I know that plans are not always correct, but the late Angelo Brioschi, who drew these ones, was known for being very meticolous in the preparation of plans, reason why I trust them.

 

Regarding the wheel wells, I'll check the manuals for all details, my memory tells me that they were fully enclosed and AML is right here.

The landing gear was attached to the inner wing structure, as shown in this picture:

 

http://www.cmpr.it/MN - manuale Fiat G. 50/manuale G.50 (16).jpg

 

 

 

 

 

[Giorgio N]

On 7/24/2019 at 12:26 AM, Graham Boak said:

The production of the Re2005 can simply be explained as it being much easier and more productive to continue the Reggianne production line with this modified airframe than close it down and start anew with something else.  Doing the latter would mean a considerable drop in the number of fighters produced, at a time when every fighter was required.   Not that this need be the only reason, but it is a very strong one.

 

The Re.2005 however was not a modified airframe. While the Sagittario retained the tailplanes of the previous Reggiane fighters, the rest was new. The wing had the same planform but the structure was different.

[AaCee26]

On 7/24/2019 at 3:04 AM, 72modeler said:

Does anybody know if either the 1/72 AML or SBS G.50bis have the correct shapes and dimensions? Is one wing slightly longer in span than the other, or am I thinking of the Mc202/205?  Also, are the wheel bays enclosed or open on the real airplane? I would hate to spend the money on the SBS resin kit if the wing and wheel bays are not correct. Can't tell about the wing in the sprue shot photos I have seen, but the wheel bays are enclosed. Do you know, @Giorgio N? Aiutami, per favore! 

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

According to my knowledge both AML and SBS kit's are pretty accurate. AML has too small naca-ring intake - easy to adjust and strange wing upper side shapes on the kink - not so easy to adjust. SMS has a bit too narrow flaps on undersurfaces. I believe that the wheel wells are closed on the real aircraft. In any case I would select the SBS from these three.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[72modeler]

39 minutes ago, AaCee26 said:

Hi Mike,

 

According to my knowledge both AML and SBS kit's are pretty accurate. AML has too small naca-ring intake - easy to adjust and strange wing upper side shapes on the kink - not so easy to adjust. SMS has a bit too narrow flaps on undersurfaces. I believe that the wheel wells are closed on the real aircraft. In any case I would select the SBS from these three.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

Thanks, AC, as I bit the bullet and ordered the SBS kit- it does look very, very nice, and appears to go together very well, but I have yet to work up the courage to do an all-resin kit- especially as I plan to come out of retirement this year after a 34-year hiatus from aircraft modeling...where did the time go? Thanks for the heads-up about the flaps- guess filling and rescribing with increased chord is the fix? Have to see if I have any decent scale drawings, as it's much too far to travel to check out@Giorgio N's archives!

Mike

[AaCee26]

Hi Mike,

 

SBS was reviewed in a local modelling magazine and said to be easy to built. I have it and it looks like that. So I suppose it is good entry kit for building high-quality resin kits. Flaps can be corrected as you say but it might need new hinges for them too.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[Roman Schilhart]

21 hours ago, AaCee26 said:

Hi Mike,

 

SBS was reviewed in a local modelling magazine and said to be easy to built. I have it and it looks like that. So I suppose it is good entry kit for building high-quality resin kits. Flaps can be corrected as you say but it might need new hinges for them too.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

Sorry to disagree, AaCee - I am currently building the SBS Fiat G.50.

This is my very first full resin kit, and I was thinking it would be a good starting experience, too.

As fabulous as the parts look in the box, assembly is complicated by several fit issues:

 

- First problem is the firewall (#25), it needs to be reduced in height significantly, otherwise the gun covers won’t fit.

- The front part (#13) does not conform to the shape of the fuselage.

- Next problem is the fuselage itself - it is too wide to fit the wing root, overhanging the wing and resulting in a nasty recess.

- The cowling is too tight to accept the engine. As I understood the instructions, the engine backplate should be butt-joined to the forward fuselage opening. This is not the case. The engine backplate (#33) should actually slip into the front aperture, otherwise the engine will stand proud of the fuselage.

- The tail cone doesn’t fit either and leaves a nasty joint, running right through the elevator root.

- The rudder itself is way too short, has a wrong angle and leaves a gap at the bottom.

 

I would recommend the SBS kit only to experienced modellers who have completed a couple full-resin kits before.

Having said that, I still believe this is the best detailled 1/72 kit of this type.

 

 

[AaCee26]

Hello Roman,

 

No problem at all! That's why we are discussing here - to learn more about the models and related stuff.

 

I relied on in a review written by an established modeller in local IPMS magazine. Maybe his mileage varies? I checked my kit and without cutting parts from the mould cavities the fuselage was possible to fit to the wing. It needs considerable bending inwards to get a decent fit. So forewarned is forearmed!

 

What I'm still missing are experiences about the new Fly kit and it's buildability.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[72modeler]

AC,

 

I have the Fly kit and the SBS kit, but haven't started either one; I can check the Fly kit against the SBS kit and tape things together to see what I observe, I know that sometime with resin kits, the injection pressure and shrinkage can cause one kit to fit very well and the next one not so good. (Too bad Arma Hobby isn't into WW2 Italian fighters- I can just imagine what a G.50, MC200/202/205, or G.55 would look like if they did them! (Yes, I know I'm delusional!) 

Mike

[Roman Schilhart]

15 hours ago, AaCee26 said:

I relied on in a review written by an established modeller in local IPMS magazine. Maybe his mileage varies? I checked my kit and without cutting parts from the mould cavities the fuselage was possible to fit to the wing. It needs considerable bending inwards to get a decent fit. So forewarned is forearmed!

Well, the problem is, you cannot 'bend' the resin parts as you can bend injection molded plastic - they will simply break apart.

You may try to heat them up. I didn't dare to do so, given the high price tag of the kit.

A full build review of the SBS Fiat G.50 will appear in an upcoming edition of SAMI.

Here's some appetizers:

 

I also have the Fly Models kit, which falls behind in terms of details, but will hopefully be an easier build.

[AaCee26]

On 8/2/2019 at 2:07 PM, Roman Schilhart said:

Well, the problem is, you cannot 'bend' the resin parts as you can bend injection molded plastic - they will simply break apart.

You may try to heat them up. I didn't dare to do so, given the high price tag of the kit.

A full build review of the SBS Fiat G.50 will appear in an upcoming edition of SAMI.

Hello Roman,

 

Mine has much better fit on the wing-fuselage rear seam. And although front part of my fuselage is much wider than in your picture it is soft enough to push in correct width.

 

Look like a quality control issue on the SBS end.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[Roman Schilhart]

AaCee, I sincerely hope you will encounter less problems than I did.

Interestingly, none of the online build reviews I came across mentions the issues I've experienced.

I suspect there may be quality differences between production batches.

 

In favor of SBS, I would like to point out, that the kit parts are among the best I've ever seen, and in the hands of a seasoned resin modeller, this kit will turn into a show-stopper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[72modeler]

42 minutes ago, Roman Schilhart said:

n the hands of a seasoned resin modeller, this kit will turn into a show-stopper.

Oh, great- that lets me out! 😢 Hoping to pull out my Fly and SBS kits to make some comparisons tomorrow-will post my observations if there's interest. Thanks for the heads-up on possible issues with the SBS kit, Roman; maybe I'll be lucky and mine will be OK.

Mike

[MarkoZG]

On 8/3/2019 at 5:14 PM, 72modeler said:

Oh, great- that lets me out! 😢 Hoping to pull out my Fly and SBS kits to make some comparisons tomorrow-will post my observations if there's interest. Thanks for the heads-up on possible issues with the SBS kit, Roman; maybe I'll be lucky and mine will be OK.

Mike

I am waiting and waiting for your promise to materialize...

[72modeler]

@MarkoZG- Jeez, Louise; tough crowd!

 

I hadn't forgotten about my offer to do the kit comparison, but just now had a chance to look at them as we have been doing home improvement projects. The way the SBS resin and Fly injected G.50bis kits are engineered, parts breakdown is not the same, so some dimensions are almost impossible to compare directly. I made measurements of the most important airframe parts as exactly as I could. Please pardon my non-metric measurements in some areas, but my scale rule and calipers are not metric, and I figure most of you can do the conversion. Some general remarks first, and please understand I am no authority on Italian aircraft and do not have the references that some of our resident authorities do, so please check what I have observed against scale drawings,  accepted  dimensions, or better yet, the same kits if you have them, to see if I have gotten close...bottom line, I'm no @Giorgio N or @AaCee26!

 

The Fly kit is actually pretty nice; better detail and more accurate parts than the old Airfix kit; the undercart is very nice, but the fairing doors are too thick and lack detail on the inner surfaces; cockpit is much better detailed than the Airfix kit. The prop is OK in diameter, one-piece, and the hub could use some detailing and the blade profile is not quite correct, but fixable or easily replaced with one from another source. (Zero again!)  The engine is better than the one in the Airfix kit (Hard not to be better than that blob of styrene!) but could be really improved with some detailing. Fabric control surface surface detailing is lame, but easy to fix; cowling is  better than the Airfix kit, but is made of too many parts- reminded me of the 1/48 Airfix Sea Fury. ( I still think the old Hasegawa A6M2/3 cowling is better than either the Fly or Airfix cowling in diameter and especially the shape  of the cowl ring. Conclusion- much better than the Airfix kit and can be made into a nice model with some aftermarket bits or better detail parts from other sources; it is an injected kit so not as difficult as the all-resin SBS kit, at least for me, as I have yet to do an all-resin kit.

 

The SBS kit is very, very nice! All the detail parts are better than the ones in the Fly kit. Parts breakdown for the cowling, fuselage, ands wings are completely different than the SBS kit. Scribing, access panels, and control surfaces are finer; undercart is in white metal, but the wheels are nice and there are options for different tail wheels; engine and prop are very, very nicely done, with a spinner included for the Finnish version; prop blades are separate but appear to have the correct profile; etched parts  supplement an already very nicely detailed cockpit. Cowling is much better than the Fly kit, one piece, whereas the Fly cowling has a separate nose ring. and the intakes/exhausts are very nice. The way the fuselage is engineered, it fits perfectly on top of the wing on one side, but will need to be pinched in on the other side, as if you don't, the fuselage is wider than the root- this was noted by others, and I think if you either glue one side, let dry, then glue the other, or use hot water and squeeze the fuselage sides together so that the fuselage is reduced in width to fit both sides flush with  the root, would be a  pretty easy fix. It's a very nice little kit, and the best in scale, from what I can tell, but it's pretty much all resin and expensive. BTW, @AaCee26 was right- as measured against the Fly kit, the flaps on the SBS kit are a little too narrow in chord,  (See measurements below.) but the aileron chord is the same, so re-scribing should be pretty easy. I don't have scale drawings, so I'm not sure if this is so; FWIW, when I scribed the flap lines on my Airfix kit, I did increase the chord, based on the minimal photos/drawings I had way back then.   S= SBS  F= Fly

 

overall wingspan: F/ 36' 3" (150mm)  S/ 36' 3" (150mm)  (I do notice that the Fly kit has noticeably more dihedral on the outer panels than the SBS kit)

stabilizer span F/ 4' 9" (20mm)  S/ 4' 9" (20mm) measured from the root to the tip along the elevator hinge line

stabilizer chord  F/ 3' 6" ( 16mm)  S/ 3' 6" (16mm)  measured from the TE of the elevator at the root to the LE of the stabilizer

fin height F/ 4' 3" (18mm)  S/ 4' (17mm) measured from the base of the fin to the tip along the rudder hinge line

fin/rudder chord  F/ 4' 9" (20mm)  S/ 4' 9" (20mm)  measured from the TE of the rudder to the base of the fin LE

length F/22' 6"  (95mm)  as measured from the firewall to the tip of the tailcone  (Can't do the SBS kit as it is not engineered the same)

fuselage depth F/ 4' 9" (20mm)  S/ 4' 9" (20mm)  measured from the TE at the root to the top of the fuselage at the rear edge of the cockpit opening

prop diameter  F/10' (21mm)  S/ 10' (21mm)

flap chord F/ 18" ( 7mm)  S/ 15" (6mm) measured from the TE of the flap at the inboard end to the hinge line on the underside of the wing

cowling length F/ 45" (15mm)  S/ 45" (15mm)  measured from the front edge of the cowl ring to the back edge of the cowling

cowling diameter  F/ 3' 9" (17mm)  S/ 3' 9" (17mm) measured from side to side at the rear edge of the cowl ring

 

I don't have either kit on my to do list, but had both of them in the stash, as well as some free time to compare them, so hopefully this information is accurate and will be helpful for somebody contemplating building either one.

Mike

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by 72modeler
added text

[MarkoZG]

Thank you very much for this, great reference!

[Luka]

Great comparison @72modeler ! I don't have the SBS kit, so I wondered how it would compare to the Fly kit.

One thing I noticed on the Fly kit; the headrest bulge curves towards the fuselage before the panel line, making it look somewhat short and curvy. On photos and drawings the bulge looks more straight and reaches all the way to the rear fuselage panel line.
Not shocking, but noticable..

 

Edit; I have added a short review video on this kit on my channel. Feel free to have a look if you don't mind the awkward Dutch accent..

Edited August 9, 2019 by Luka
external review