Jump to content

Opinions on the best 1/72nd Ju52 kit


Heather Kay

Recommended Posts

I have seen the Heller kit described as actually being 1/75th scale in a couple of threads.

But after personally laying it down on plans from CMK Photo Hobby Manual No.1002, I have determined that the only shape flaw are the engine nacelles, which are a bit too close to the fuselage (3-4mm each).

I chose not to correct this on my model, since it would be a waste of time trying to fix the corrugations around the nacelles later:

http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/features/ju52aa72_1.htm

 

Other than that (and the windows being a tad too small), I found no other flaws in shape (length and wingspan are spot-on).

Interior is non-existent, but that is irrelevant unless You plan to open EVERY POSSIBLE door and hatch in the cargo compartment (as i did, and even then it is hard to peek inside).

 

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Seahawk said:

If it was produced by the first team who turned up for the Buccaneer, that might be cause for rejoicing.  Generally, though, I don't think Airfix now are capable of doing as good a job on the corrugations as Heller did 30-odd years ago.  

Don't entirely agree. 

Firstly it isn't Aifix, per se, who produce the corrugations, surface finish, inscribed lines etc: it is one of several companies (mainly in China it would seem) who produce molds for customers.

Secondly, you get what you pay for.  Logically pay more and you get a better result, though there may be other considerations like timescale\availability.  Maybe even 'workability' of the chosen steel vs mold life.

There has been several recent postings (especially on Airfix 2020 - which is why perhaps it was closed) on why can't Airfix produce surface finishes like so and so.  The above may answer these in part.  One contributer even suggested he send Airfix an example of another kit manufacturer's work and ask why they couldn't produce a similar degree of surface finish!

Whether we like it or not, the 'dedicated' modeller for want of a better phrase is only a small part of the market.  Were this not so, and staying strictly with 'surface finishes' then Matchbox kits would be unsaleable!  A mass market requires a low price, and if that means less than optimum surface finish\corrugations etc then so be it.  We should be glad, very glad, with what we have.  Those still dis-satisfied are quite at liberty to carve their own kits from balsa wood which is how I started.

Oh yes: some 30 years ago Heller went bankrupt: maybe it was the (unrecoverable) money they spent on the Ju 52 corrugations....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Heller Ju-52 kit, I believe its based upon a French built AAC-1 Toucan, I bought the KP re-release in the past year and the mould is very, very good.  I think Heller have re-released it recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Denford said:

Don't entirely agree. 

Firstly it isn't Aifix, per se, who produce the corrugations, surface finish, inscribed lines etc: it is one of several companies (mainly in China it would seem) who produce molds for customers.

Secondly, you get what you pay for.  Logically pay more and you get a better result, though there may be other considerations like timescale\availability.  Maybe even 'workability' of the chosen steel vs mold life.

There has been several recent postings (especially on Airfix 2020 - which is why perhaps it was closed) on why can't Airfix produce surface finishes like so and so.  The above may answer these in part.  One contributer even suggested he send Airfix an example of another kit manufacturer's work and ask why they couldn't produce a similar degree of surface finish!

Whether we like it or not, the 'dedicated' modeller for want of a better phrase is only a small part of the market.  Were this not so, and staying strictly with 'surface finishes' then Matchbox kits would be unsaleable!  A mass market requires a low price, and if that means less than optimum surface finish\corrugations etc then so be it.  We should be glad, very glad, with what we have.  Those still dis-satisfied are quite at liberty to carve their own kits from balsa wood which is how I started.

Oh yes: some 30 years ago Heller went bankrupt: maybe it was the (unrecoverable) money they spent on the Ju 52 corrugations....

It may be old-fashioned of me but I like to think that he who pays the piper calls the tune and that therefore Airfix's management would insist that its pattern makers and moulders produce products to a quality that Airfix stipulate.  Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to have said, "Experience of the Hornby era so far has not convinced me that Airfix are prepared to make the investment in tooling, plastic quality, etc to do as good a job on the corrugations as Heller did 30-odd years ago."  Or, come to that, as Airfix themselves were doing in the 1960s (look at the finesse of the old B-24 control yokes for example).  I agree that, if Airfix are content to sit mid-table in the league of kit producers, that's their business decision and we can take it or leave it.  

 

For the record, if Airfix keep producing kits with the surface finish of the Buccaneer, that'll be fine by me.  I do wish they'd sharpen up on the detail parts though (which takes us right back to mould and plastic quality again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Seahawk said:

It may be old-fashioned of me but I like to think that he who pays the piper calls the tune and that therefore Airfix's management would insist that its pattern makers and moulders produce products to a quality that Airfix stipulate.  Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to have said, "Experience of the Hornby era so far has not convinced me that Airfix are prepared to make the investment in tooling, plastic quality, etc to do as good a job on the corrugations as Heller did 30-odd years ago."  Or, come to that, as Airfix themselves were doing in the 1960s (look at the finesse of the old B-24 control yokes for example).  I agree that, if Airfix are content to sit mid-table in the league of kit producers, that's their business decision and we can take it or leave it.  

 

For the record, if Airfix keep producing kits with the surface finish of the Buccaneer, that'll be fine by me.  I do wish they'd sharpen up on the detail parts though (which takes us right back to mould and plastic quality again).

I'll invert your reply, if I may, to say " ....for the money we are prepared to pay, what quality can you offer? "

 

Your quotation "Experience of the Hornby era..." could be reworded "... that Airfix just don't have the funds to invest in tooling to match that of Heller 30 years ago"

 

Airfix are, after all, selling to the mass market: the same one that buys ex Matchbox kits, trenches and all.  That suggests that fineness of surface finish isn't as important as some of us would wish.  The levels of deail to which you refer could doubtless be repeated today, but would it be economic for Airfix to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Hornby is having its money problems, which are inflicting themselves on Airfix, but I don't think that Heller or Italeri were exactly rolling in money then, either.  (Though there were decades between the Ju.52 and their collapse, so any link is false.  And pretty fatuous, to be honest.)  Nor are the smaller companies in eastern Europe who are doing it today.  It is entirely a matter of how much effort is placed where.  Airfix can do it, even today, as the different comments on the Buccaneer and the Phantom demonstrate.  But don't always bother.   

Would it be cheaper to dig deep trenches than to make smaller marks on the surface?  I doubt it. 

Is it cheaper to plan a kit with more smaller parts than a more convincing surface?  I doubt it.

Is it cheaper to fill an entirely enclosed fuselage with detailed parts that cannot be seen after assembly, than be able to distinguish moving controls from fixed panels? I doubt it. 

We, as modellers, do have the nuclear option of simply not buying Airfix kits if they have aspects we don't like, but I don't think that Airfix would prefer that.  Without going to that extreme, those who don't care for some aspects of Airfix's current products are entirely free to criticise those aspects, and here is a good place to do so.  After all, if there is no feedback where is the pressure for Airfix to improve these aspects?  History shows it won't just happen "because".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I appreciate the discussion regarding kit manufacturers, their histories and their present predicaments, may I respectfully suggest this probably isn’t the thread to go over it all again.

 

:thumbsup:

 

My original question has been answered. I shall be seeking out a Heller Ju52 of whatever vintage and markings, as I’m not afraid to source suitable markings after the fact. It would be splendid if a modern tooling appeared, but I’m happy with something that looks sufficiently like what it’s supposed to be under most circumstances. ;) 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me as a modeller who'd love for Airfix to offer a new Ju-52 kit. They offered a new C-47 and B-17, Lancaster, etc. A new one of the Ju-52 is overdue. Whether we'll get it is something else.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Thank you to everyone that answered my query.

 

I spent a happy day at SMW last month, failing to find a single Heller boxing of the Ju52. Loads of old Airfix and Revell ones, a few Italeri ones, but nothing from Heller. I came home and searched online, again without success, even though the kit is listed on Heller's own web site.

 

In the end, searching the Hannants site, I found this...

 

49132566932_2cca78d860_b.jpg

 

I now have it in the stash, and the reasons are it’s actually Heller plastic and it has one of my favourite markings and camo sets for my 1940 period. Happy bunny. :thumbsup:

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great choice.

Please note that the snake in the decal sheet is missing its tongue.

You could just paint it in with a fine brush at the end, or use Montex Super Mask 72002 to mask the whole thing and avoid troubles with decals on corrugated surfaces 

 

51fjGeomyML._AC_.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I’ll get that set. Thanks for spotting it. 👍
 

I don’t think the kit will get built for a fair while, mainly because I don’t have anywhere to display the finished model at the moment! Settling decals over the corrugations is a bit of a worry, I have to admit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/5/2019 at 2:04 PM, Heather Kay said:

I think I’ll get that set. Thanks for spotting it. 👍
 

I don’t think the kit will get built for a fair while, mainly because I don’t have anywhere to display the finished model at the moment! Settling decals over the corrugations is a bit of a worry, I have to admit. 

I think the ground crew doing markings on the Ju-52 during WWII felt the same way, lol. And do keep in mind the markings on the real thing was not always perfectly aligned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 1:04 PM, Heather Kay said:

I think I’ll get that set. Thanks for spotting it. 👍
 

I don’t think the kit will get built for a fair while, mainly because I don’t have anywhere to display the finished model at the moment! Settling decals over the corrugations is a bit of a worry, I have to admit. 

And settling the masks isn't? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

And settling the masks isn't? 

 

It is not, if You always keep Your airbrush far away and exactly perpendicular to it (i.e. for corrugations this 'depth', You can get away with applying them flat over the corrugated surface, without burnishing them in).

I managed to do it, and in 1/72nd scale, the over-spray is virtually invisible.

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

24 minutes ago, warhawk said:

 

It is not, if You always keep Your airbrush far away and exactly perpendicular to it (i.e. for corrugations this 'depth', You can get away with applying them flat over the corrugated surface, without burnishing them in).

I managed to do it, and in 1/72nd scale, the over-spray is virtually invisible.

Interesting, I'd have expected capillary creep under the mask. I guess you are relying on the coat being almost dry on impact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. That is the reason of spraying distance being farther than usual.

Of course, this does mean masking a larger area around the mask, but it prevents the mask (that has been pushed down too tightly into the corrugations) pulling the paint with it, when removed.

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...