Jump to content

1/48 - Junkers F.13 by MikroMir - released


Homebee

Recommended Posts

On 6/17/2020 at 3:34 PM, Admiral Puff said:

Oh dear. A couple of F.13s carried "VH" regos ...

The thing is, the F.13 came in a number of ever-evolving configurations, with changes in vertical and horizontal tail surfaces, wings, ailerons, landing gear, fuselage length, engines, corrugation directions on sides, top and belly, etc.

The VH ones, for example, can't be produced from the Revell 1/72 kit. Revell in fact got it wrong for some of its decal options.

Having experienced through many years and builds the relative meaning of the word "accuracy" for most manufacturers, I don't believe they will take the time to sort all these out.

Manufacturers in general resort to the one-configuration-fits-all solution, just slapping the different decals on, in many cases forcing the modeler to perform surgery, mods and adaptations to obtain something closer to reality in certain cases.

But, who knows, may be manufacturers will start to invest the time needed, and make meaningful efforts to produce more accurate molds.

Sorry, who said "research"?

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told that Revell based their kit on the one in the Berlin Museum, which would seem reasonable enough.  However apparently this was made up of an early fuselage and a very late wing.  I have tried disentangling the story of the F-13 wings but not beyond being convinced that there were early short ones, later (but how much later?) longer ones, and longer (still?) ones with revised ailerons.  The way the ailerons protrude beyond the trailing edge was a characteristic of the type, but the final wing as in the kit didn't..  Which rather spoilt the kit for me, nice though it is.  If anyone has a spare undercarriage for one (wheels or floats) please let me know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I was told that Revell based their kit on the one in the Berlin Museum, which would seem reasonable enough.  However apparently this was made up of an early fuselage and a very late wing. 

That patchwork is the root of the evil, as stated somewhere else by another BMer, not corresponding to a real version.

Why serious companies don't do enough research is beyond understanding. Two hours on the Net, and you access free, easily available information that at least tells you that it's not that easy, and gives you an idea of the differences.

 

The early wing was shorter, the next one had a larger span, ailerons varied on both (sometimes with "ears" and most of times without them) and then a completely different wing with different "eared" ailerons, that was also used on later Junkers types.

There is no easy way around these differences, as they are not minor issues.

All this, again, can be found on the net from reliable sources.

But even for experts (a category I don't belong to, needless to say) the finest points are obscure.

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of original photos on the Net -many at very high resolution- of these planes, you can even get many of the same plane from different angles, and at least determine which type if was and cover it faithfully. Many of the well-covered subjects are from Switzerland.

I have looked at reams upon reams of photos of potential candidates, and I just bought another Revell kit (besides the one already here at BM that is just lacking its decals) to do one of the Argentinian machines that went there with the Junkers Mission in the 20s.

If you put some interest in the subject, is not corrugated science.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only say that I spent considerable time on the net and in publications without ever coming to the same conclusions you have.  Which is certainly not to say you are wrong, but it certainly took me much more than "two hours on the net".   I think that this would suffice to find at least one definitive account, but another two hours would add alternatives.  And as I don't recall actually being particularly interested in Swiss ones, perhaps I was indeed missing many photos, but I do feel that photos act to fill out a properly documented list rather than acting instead of one.  A photo will not tell you what type one was unless you already know the list of alternatives to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Moa. I knew about the problems with the Revell kit (of which I have a couple). I've always thought it better to have something, even if it's not exactly fit for purpose, than to have nothing at all - at least there's some kind of starting point. I'm still trying to work out exactly what went on with the Australian ones.

 

As to what the MikroMir kit may be like, I'll refrain from comment until I have plastic to fondle. At worst, it may be a another case of "something's better than nothing" ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I can only say that I spent considerable time on the net and in publications without ever coming to the same conclusions you have.  Which is certainly not to say you are wrong, but it certainly took me much more than "two hours on the net".   I think that this would suffice to find at least one definitive account, but another two hours would add alternatives.  And as I don't recall actually being particularly interested in Swiss ones, perhaps I was indeed missing many photos, but I do feel that photos act to fill out a properly documented list rather than acting instead of one.  A photo will not tell you what type one was unless you already know the list of alternatives to choose from.

The two hours was a figure of speech, meaning manufacturers won't even spend two hours to find out that reality is more complex than a sole sample.

I have spend many, many hours, through many, many years, gathering info on this type.

As you can see in the pictures below of my computer screen, I have gathered more than 1,300 photos of the F.13, plus plans, schematics, accounts, etc..

I have classified many in folders regarding my personal interest.

The Swiss type was again an example of how you can center on one or a few subjects and do a thorough job as a manufacturer, instead of shotgunning inaccurately.

Lastly, they are not my conclusions, they are the conclusions of very serious historians and researchers, mainly the ones at ADL https://adl-luftfahrthistorik.de/, which wrote extensively on the matter.

The last picture is of a chart that shows to some extent the complexity of the development, just to support part of what I wrote.

50023470723_ff69d815cc_h.jpg

 

50023470683_38baaeec99_h.jpg

 

50023470668_c30e7e7fc3.jpg

 

50024015486_9ce38333ec_b.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Admiral Puff said:

Thanks, Moa. I knew about the problems with the Revell kit (of which I have a couple). I've always thought it better to have something, even if it's not exactly fit for purpose, than to have nothing at all - at least there's some kind of starting point. I'm still trying to work out exactly what went on with the Australian ones.

 

As to what the MikroMir kit may be like, I'll refrain from comment until I have plastic to fondle. At worst, it may be a another case of "something's better than nothing" ...

It is the case indeed.

My question really aims to the fact that if a nobody like me, can do a brief Internet search and find blatant inaccuracies, why can't they, before committing to molding something that will repeat the mistake over and over again.

I am not talking rivet-counting, but serious inaccuracies.

I think the industry just needs better research practices, not going crazy or spend inordinate amounts of time and money, just checking what you are doing as you go.

Internet: a lot of information is out there free for the taking (and for the sorting out and vetoing too, no doubt)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

If anyone has a spare undercarriage for one (wheels or floats) please let me know.

I do, please PM me with a postal address.

I am in California, and with the Post Office current shenanigans it may take a while, but I can send you the wheeled undercarriage, as this new model will be built as a seaplane.

Not sure how customs works on England, but I would declare as what it is, a gift.

Just let me know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moa said:

It is the case indeed.

My question really aims to the fact that if a nobody like me, can do a brief Internet search and find blatant inaccuracies, why can't they, before committing to molding something that will repeat the mistake over and over again.

I am not talking rivet-counting, but serious inaccuracies.

I think the industry just needs better research practices, not going crazy or spend inordinate amounts of time and money, just checking what you are doing as you go.

Internet: a lot of information is out there free for the taking (and for the sorting out and vetoing too, no doubt)

No argument from me on that! I've lost count of the number of new kits that have come out where I've looked at it and said something like "Why in hell did they do THAT? It wouldn't have taken more than five minutes' work to discover that it was wrong!" And, as you say, usually not just a "rivet-counter" matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Moa May I suggest sending MikroMir a message offering assistance? They have been very good at making 'adjustments' to their projects to the benefit of all concerned. @whitestar12chris can certainly confirm that regarding submarines.

12 hours ago, Admiral Puff said:

As to what the MikroMir kit may be like, I'll refrain from comment until I have plastic to fondle. At worst, it may be a another case of "something's better than nothing" ...

They are short-run but among the best of that breed, their AMP line is, IMHO, very good indeed. Because they listen to advice offered during CAD consultation major errors are rare and you are free to detail as you wish. The exception that proves the rule was their BI-1 based off a museum example claimed to be a painstaking restoration. I think that is why they listen nowadays. One warning though, you may find yourself drawn into other build interests by their range. I have an urge to build early helicopters now....   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SleeperService said:

They are short-run but among the best of that breed, their AMP line is, IMHO, very good indeed. Because they listen to advice offered during CAD consultation major errors are rare and you are free to detail as you wish. The exception that proves the rule was their BI-1 based off a museum example claimed to be a painstaking restoration. I think that is why they listen nowadays. One warning though, you may find yourself drawn into other build interests by their range. I have an urge to build early helicopters now....   

I'm not worried about that aspect (I've encountered MikroMir before, and have a couple of their kits in the stash) so much as whether the variant they produce is appropriate for the ones that were used out here. Time will tell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SleeperService said:

They are short-run but among the best of that breed

I like many of their subjects, and applaud their civil releases, and found a few to be really nicely molded, but I don't think they are the bees' knees. This is, of course always subjective and has to do with level of skills, type of kit, and many other factors.

I would rather favor other short-run manufacturers, but again, some kits may be good and some may not.

I have built their Fanera:

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235050717-niai-1-fanera-2-1933-mikro-mir-172/

And found many glitches.

With their Aerovan I found a number of issues too:

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235030026-miles-aerovan-mikro-mir-172nd-completed/

Still, I bought others: Kharkiv, Tupolev G-1, Avia VR-3, etc.

The Kharkiv again has also a number of issues, but the Tupolev and the Avia definitely look like a step beyond and above.

 

12 hours ago, SleeperService said:

May I suggest sending MikroMir a message offering assistance?

Hum, I rather spend my time on earth doing other things that I enjoy more.

I know that what you say is absolutely well meant, though, and would be a nice thing to do.

But, if you are a kit maker, research, I think, is part of your job. And again: much is there on the Internet, no need to visit dungeons or access high-security vaults, or consult bearded experts that live in towers in the mountains (or unbearably grouchy fellows like me).

 

Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2020 at 7:14 PM, Moa said:

 

Hum, I rather spend my time on earth doing other things that I enjoy more.

I know that what you say is absolutely well meant, though, and would be a nice thing to do.

But, if you are a kit maker, research, I think, is part of your job. And again: much is there on the Internet, no need to visit dungeons or access high-security vaults, or consult bearded experts that live in towers in the mountains (or unbearably grouchy fellows like me).

 

Cheers

You seem to have spent a considerable amount of time researching one plane, already. If you are concerned with how you spend your time, wouldn't sending them an email of your findings tack on additional meaning to your due diligence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kopperhed said:

You seem to have spent a considerable amount of time researching one plane, already. If you are concerned with how you spend your time, wouldn't sending them an email of your findings tack on additional meaning to your due diligence?

Sending 1,300 photos and several folders with additional information is just the tip of the iceberg (shall I say "the wingtip"? 😄 ) of all the work needed to sort them out, establish a chronology, track modifications, pair registrations with types, etc.

I did what I needed for my projects, and just that, the rest is raw material. I haven't the time nor the disposition to do it.

Many of those images were passed to me by people that don't want them circulated, for whatever reasons, valid or not to others.

I rather help fellow modelers when possible, if possible, which I do; and have been helped by fellow modelers in turn more times than I could count.

But if you are in the business of kit making, again, part of your job description includes -should include- research, as you are (and fairly so, as it should be) receiving compensation for your work.

I have helped -with whatever I could- close friends that have "cottage industries", from the bottom of my heart, because those friends are one-person endeavors that hardly make half a buck after a ton of work.

They do a work of love, and they are helped in kind.

Now those, I help gladly. Established manufacturers have other kind of resources they can use and apply.

And again, I am no institution or museum or scholar, I am just an average modeler with a computer. I don't even have a decent aviation library. I don't posses information otherwise unavailable (like airplane manufacturer archives, for example).

What I do, anyone can do.

Going back to the example of the 1/72nd Revell kit: if you are Revell, of Germany, and you are doing a German plane, and you get it only 75% right...

And yet I buy a great number of the civil kits that these manufacturers produce, to support them in my own little way, even when they are inaccurate, but I am not necessarily happy with all of them, for the reasons explained.

And I actually build them, and share them to hopefully show other modelers that out there are interesting, uncommon, sometimes extraordinary types, which in turn I hope helps the manufacturer of those types. But hey, I won't do their job.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Homebee changed the title to 1/48 - Junkers F.13 by MikroMir - 3D renders+test build
  • Homebee changed the title to 1/48 - Junkers F.13 by MikroMir - 3D renders+test build+box art+schemes+sprues - release in 2023
  • Homebee changed the title to 1/48 - Junkers F.13 by MikroMir - released

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...