Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sidders

1/48 - Boeing B-17G by HK Models - Release Oct 19

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nocoolname said:

What if they ‘don’t’ align? Is it worse?

Relax, Nestor... :rolleyes:

If the fuselage halves don't align it won't be the first time an old Monogram kit eats a new-tool one for breakfast shapewise.

Examples abound as of late.

Yeh, they do...

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 28ZComeback said:

Do name names. 

Only build the 1/48 scale aircraft, so those ones off the top of my skull:

1/48 Monogram Tomcat kit vs Hobby Boss, Academy, Hasegawa (and should I say now AMK?)

1/48 Monogram Thunderchief kit vs Hobby Boss kit

1/48 Monogram Phantom kit vs Zoukei-Miura kit

1/48 Monogram Panther kit vs Trumpy kit

1/48 Monogram Eagle vs GWH kit

Enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncle Uncool said:

Only build the 1/48 scale aircraft, so those ones off the top of my skull:

1/48 Monogram Tomcat kit vs Hobby Boss, Academy, Hasegawa (and should I say now AMK?)

1/48 Monogram Thunderchief kit vs Hobby Boss kit

1/48 Monogram Phantom kit vs Zoukei-Miura kit

1/48 Monogram Panther kit vs Trumpy kit

1/48 Monogram Eagle vs GWH kit

Enough?

I've had the Monogram Tomcat and Phantom kits and the modern toolings of the subjects don't just eat the Monogram kits for breakfast they get the Monogram kits to do the cooking then serve themselves up as breakfast! :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Nocoolname said:

I've had the Monogram Tomcat and Phantom kits and the modern toolings of the subjects don't just eat the Monogram kits for breakfast they get the Monogram kits to do the cooking then serve themselves up as breakfast! :rofl:

Couldn't agree more - apart from anything else, the fit of the Monogram efforts (the F-14 in particular) is nothing short of appalling.....in common with pretty much every Monogram kit I've ever attempted (e.g., B-26, F-106, F-104, B-58.....).

Edited by hopkp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for HK to release a 1/48 F!!!:pray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nocoolname said:

I've had the Monogram Tomcat and Phantom kits and the modern toolings of the subjects don't just eat the Monogram kits for breakfast they get the Monogram kits to do the cooking then serve themselves up as breakfast! :rofl:

 

2 hours ago, hopkp said:

Couldn't agree more - apart from anything else, the fit of the Monogram efforts (the F-14 in particular) is nothing short of appalling.....in common with pretty much every Monogram kit I've ever attempted (e.g., B-26, F-106, F-104, B-58.....).

More for me then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Nocoolname said:

I've had the Monogram Tomcat and Phantom kits and the modern toolings of the subjects don't just eat the Monogram kits for breakfast they get the Monogram kits to do the cooking then serve themselves up as breakfast! :rofl:

I think

3 hours ago, hopkp said:

Couldn't agree more - apart from anything else, the fit of the Monogram efforts (the F-14 in particular) is nothing short of appalling.....in common with pretty much every Monogram kit I've ever attempted (e.g., B-26, F-106, F-104, B-58.....).

You did not get the word...

 

SHAPEWISE...!!!well

 

Yeh, you didn't.

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Edited by Uncle Uncool
MultiQuote failure, I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually supporting you “uncle” i like Monogram kits over modern tools. Thus my answer “more for me” if they didn't want them. But the oversize words indicate you didnt understand my point ? 
 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so sorry, Dennis. It's the ghost in my machine. It's not the first time the MultiQuote feature has taken on every reply south of the first I quoted. Let me fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I could make strong argument that the Monogram C-47 is superior to the Trumpeter Li-2 aka C-47.  I don’t like their overscale Mig-15, but they were working from terrible plans and nothing in the way of an actual museum plane. 

Edited by 28ZComeback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Uncle Uncool said:

Oh, so sorry, Dennis. It's the ghost in my machine. It's not the first time the MultiQuote feature has taken on every reply south of the first I quoted. Let me fix it.

Just wanted to clarify things i don't want any animosity. I was simply trying to say i like monogram kits and if i upset you or it was misinterpreted or misunderstood then please forgive me. Im just tired of people trashing monogram as some of us still love there kits. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Just wanted to clarify things i don't want any animosity. I was simply trying to say i like monogram kits and if i upset you or it was misinterpreted or misunderstood then please forgive me. Im just tired of people trashing monogram as some of us still love there kits. 

It's perfectly clear, Dennis, my mate; sincerely. I've been building the 1/48 range of Monogram aircraft kits since I was a toddler, and I've always liked them for their accurate shape. Detail is important, no doubt, but there are times you are better off with shape accuracy than detail. It's obviously much easier to fix the lack of detail in a kit than it's to fix shape issues.

More Monogram kits that I recall being better shapewise than the new-tool ones:

1/48 Monogram Warthog kit vs Tamiya and Hobby Boss ones

1/48 Monogram Mitchell kit vs Accurate Miniatures one

Sure more will come to mind later.

Yeh, me is...

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to add

Me 262

F-100

 

??Mossie?? shapewise the best is still Airfix, BiG T wrong fuselage cross section vs too tall tail with Monogram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hopkp said:

Couldn't agree more - apart from anything else, the fit of the Monogram efforts (the F-14 in particular) is nothing short of appalling.....in common with pretty much every Monogram kit I've ever attempted (e.g., B-26, F-106, F-104, B-58.....).

Yes, but he's right about the shapes, and that was the claim he made.

Always buy early releases of Monogram kits, by the way, and the fit problems are generally non-existent. After 20 or 30 years they do develop fit problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIP said:

…...

Always buy early releases of Monogram kits, by the way, and the fit problems are generally non-existent.  …..

 

yupp!  Recently bought the Tiffy, only for compare . What a nice kit in terms of fit and shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ABeck said:

just to add

Me 262

F-100

1/48 Monogram Schwalbe kit vs... (Hobby Boss, perhaps?). 

1/48 Monogram Super Sabre kit vs... (Hobby Boss again, I guess?). Haven't build either of them.

Incidentally; another 1/48 Monogram kit that is better, shapewise, than the new-tool ones:

1/48 Monogram Delta Dart kit vs Trumpy one

2 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Yes, but he's right about the shapes, and that was the claim he made.

Uh-huh... hadn't you rather work on a kit that is accurate shapewise than it's detailed? I've come to get used to sanding raised panel lines and rescribing on a Monogram kit that I know it's got the correct shape.

Yeh, me has...

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Uncle Uncool said:

I think

You did not get the word...

 

SHAPEWISE...!!!well

 

Yeh, you didn't.

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Oh evidently not.. please enlighten us.. 

 

As I recall the Monogram kits 'looked' like their subjects just like the modern toolings 'look' like their subjects only the latter have far better engineering and greater fidelity. So what am I missing here? Where is the 'academic' or 'scientific' treatise that somehow states that the Monogram example is the 'perfect scale replica' against which all others must be judged? Or is the truth rather more subjective and down to 'individual' interpretation of the end piece? Much like a view of a piece of artwork and therefore 'not' authoritative?

 

Oh and notice... I didn't need words in huge bold font. Have a nice day! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Uncle Uncool said:

1/48 Monogram Schwalbe kit vs... (Hobby Boss, perhaps?). 

1/48 Monogram Super Sabre kit vs... (Hobby Boss again, I guess?). Haven't build either of them.

Incidentally; another 1/48 Monogram kit that is better, shapewise, than the new-tool ones:

1/48 Monogram Delta Dart kit vs Trumpy one

Uh-huh... hadn't you rather work on a kit that is accurate shapewise than it's detailed? I've come to get used to sanding raised panel lines and rescribing on a Monogram kit that I know it's got the correct shape.

Yeh, me has...

Cheers,

 

Unc2

It's not better shape-wise except in your opinion. You appear to be stating this as an authoritative expression when it is 'your' interpretation of a piece of artwork, nothing else. Where do you derive your claims of 'accuracy' from? Can you show me how you have measured the Monogram kit against every model of the B-17 it is meant to represent (each had its own foibles) to a micromillimeter including variances in how the material would present itself around the structure and how this was replicated on the scale model itself? What about the raised panel lines on the Monogram kit? Can you show me their 'scaled-up' equivalent on the 'accurate' fuselage? On what basis you to feel the right to treat other's interpretations of a kit so dismissively, especially when 'accuracy' (in the scientific sense and I would refer you to my above post about which scientific treatise you refer to) is subjective without scientific support? If you like that approach then that's great, for you. But please don't try and impose it upon me with impressions that I'm making a bad purchasing choice because of the way that 'I' interpret what is in essence a piece of art work. 

Edited by Nocoolname

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Nocoolname said:

So what am I missing here?

Some 20-some years building 1/48 aircraft kits, when you come to the modelling forums and you see the majority of modellers on there agreeing on the fact that the only manufacturor which caught the correct shape on the Phantom hips was Monogram? Here I could replace the subject for just each and every kit that you've read me list above, which new-tool releases seem to go backwards with regard to shape accuracy? Or do you think I ever like buying a Hobby Boss new-tool 1/48 A-6E to find that the old Revellogram kit is much better shape-wise (not to say it's a lot much cheaper by comparison?).

It's not just me saying it; it's also the seasoned modellers who will state it as well, Nestor...  :rolleyes:

22 minutes ago, Nocoolname said:

It's not better shape-wise except in your opinion.  

Again, it's not just my opinion, Nestor. Read the replies above. But be careful, to you this might sound as the Monogram Supremacy Conspiracy theory. :lol:

Incidentally; how many 1/48 Monogram aircraft kits have you built in your life?

Cheers,

 

Unc2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monograms Thunderchief and Voodoo are definitely better shapewise, than their modern counterparts (whether KH and TrupyBoss are competition is for anyone self to judge). For the Voodoo one could also argue the Monogram also builds as easy as the KH. But this is no praise for both. 

 

And now I lay back and wait to see HKMs B17 (and hope for the already rumored earlier version). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mono F-105 along with their A-26 are the worst of the bunch accuracy wise unfortunately. Some once grafted a Revell MiG 25 nose onto the Thud to improve it!

 

The F-105 defo deserves to be done properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping to read about the HK B-17 when I opened this thread but all I find is talk about how good/bad Monogram kits are! Can we get back to the point please. Why not open another thread to discuss Monogram?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scimitar F1 said:

The Mono F-105 [along with their A-26] is the worst of the bunch accuracy wise unfortunately. Some once grafted a Revell MiG 25 nose onto the Thud to improve it!

I agree on that the whole forward fuselage in the Monogram 1/48 F-105 kit is off, but if it's about this issue that we are talking about, then the new-tool Hobby Boss kit is no different. Proof is that there's a DMold correction set for both kit manufacturers. Anyways, the tail, intakes and wings are more faithful to the real thing compared to the new-tool counterpart.

My point is that, if a lifetime later the new-tool kit comes out with the same horrors that we had in the old-tool, what's the merit in it? Also, I'm not saying that every Monogram kit is the best; actually, their 1/48 B-29 kit still holds the swear record amongst the worst kits I've ever built. The 1/48 B-26A is another.

Well, the MiG-25 nose more or less has the oval shape lost in every 1/48 Thud kit in the market. Some modellers affirm that the shape of the forward fuselage in the Monogram Thud kit is correct, while I recognise it's not.

1 hour ago, Richard123 said:

I was hoping to read about the HK B-17 when I opened this thread but all I find is talk about how good/bad Monogram kits are! Can we get back to the point please. Why not open another thread to discuss Monogram?

True, Richard. This is my last post to reply with regard to the Monogram kits on this thread. I apologise to you.

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apologies needed Unc2 (sorry, haven't sorted superscript yet). I find the Monogram chat interesting and didn't know DMold did a correction for the Thud.

 

Does anyone have a release date for the B-17 yet please?

Share this post


Link to post
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...