Walter Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 (edited) Some quick and dirty kits to look forward to building when I need a change. Here's a link to the finished build as I go. Edited February 21, 2021 by Walter 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Duvalier Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Nobody will be able to credibly gainsay whatever paint schemes you choose. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigster Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Do I see Huma kits re-boxed? Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mottlemaster Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Snap! I bet the Flitter provides a challenge to get everything lined up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 48 minutes ago, Mottlemaster said: Snap! I bet the Flitter provides a challenge to get everything lined up I think they will provide challenges i had quick look inside 2 boxes and it ain't pretty! At least there aren't many parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 2 hours ago, zigster said: Do I see Huma kits re-boxed? Z I don't think they are reboxings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 46 is post-WWII though. Those are MPM kits from the starting days of SH. So they're bound to be a bit rough around the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 6 hours ago, Walter said: Some quick and dirty kits to look forward to building when I need a change. I have B.V.211, B.V.212 & F.W. P.II....B.V.212 I build....and exchange on some as unbuild B.V.212 ..😁 So I have a couple of pennies on these models: - B.V. 211 not bad but have problem with section fuselage where the rear of the engine ends and the tail boom begins; - B.V.212 have only problem with uncorrect view main wheel bay; - F.W. P.II - it's catastrophic model, because as I think this project have tail, fin and adapted wing as on FW-190D or Ta-152H, in addition, the nose section with canopy was most likely like Flitzer, engine nacell was probably closer to Me-262 nacell....what is left of the model of a Special Hobby? That's right - nothing!!! - FW Flitzer unlike Revell probable have correct fuselage dimension ( not one of the German engines, scaled down to 1:72, will not fit inside the Revell fuselage!) but have uncorrect nose section with canopy - here Revel is more accurate. In general all this model have poor intake, exhaust, cockpit and wheel bay interior e.t.c. Objections that this is Luft'46 are not accepted, because, with the exception of P.II, a lot of original design documentation (including mock-up) for these projects has been published on the Internet. According to P.II, but not enough, as far as I remember, only the original cutaway is published. B.R. Serge 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 But there's many a step between paper drawings, and even mock-ups, to the flying example, and even further (sometimes) to the in-service type. Remember that the Me.262 started as the Bf.109TL, and gradually changed until it reached the fighter in JG 7's hands. So by all means say that these models don't match some of the project drawings, but project drawings of these types show progressive differences anyway, As for suggesting that the interior wheel bay is incorrect - are you being serious here? Or juts pointing out that the kits lack detail 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Graham Boak said: But there's many a step between paper drawings, and even mock-ups, to the flying example, and even further (sometimes) to the in-service type. Remember that the Me.262 started as the Bf.109TL, and gradually changed until it reached the fighter in JG 7's hands. So by all means say that these models don't match some of the project drawings, but project drawings of these types show progressive differences anyway, Bf.109TL & Me.262 these are structurally different aircraft, while Bf.109TL is a project and Me.262 is its evolutionary development embodied in metal. In the case of the aircraft shown here, their projects were not embodied in real samples, so do I understand correctly that You are proposing to go not to conformity with real paper projects, but to conformity with a certain ephemeral fantasy that exists only in the heads of model manufacturers developers, and does this fantasy of modelers exist only because they were too lazy to collect and study documentation on these projects? Or should I believe that the Turks from Pioneer-2 did not make the wrong and crooked-oblique Ta-183 that did not correspond to any known factory drawings, but good only because maybe, probably, it could someday be so? 1 hour ago, Graham Boak said: As for suggesting that the interior wheel bay is incorrect - are you being serious here? O.K. Let's take what we know from B.V.211. This is the only known real part from B.V. 211: http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-01.JPG http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-02.JPG and its drawings: http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-06.JPG it is she who determines the entire internal filling of this aircraft: http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-04.JPG now we take the BMW-003 engine (for example, from the He-162 Dragon model) and try to install it according to this cutaway: http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-05.JPG inside the BV.211 model from Special Hobby ....does not work? And it cannot work, because the Special Hobby wheel bay are wrong! Exists the laws of internal layout, which depend on the external aerodynamic structure, besides, You can never cram more into less, i.e. You will never be able to shove wheels from the Ju-88, for example, into the wheel bay of the Me-109. Only that. What structural could the main wheel bay be? From the side of the canopy, they are limited by a partition that is visible on the cutaway , from above they are limited by a power part, most likely the front part of the BMW 003 engine is visible there, which is logical, since in this way the engine is convenient to maintain and inspect. B.w. Graham are You have in collection models B.V.211, B.V.212, FW.P.II and FW.Flitzer or not? B.R. Serge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 The point I am making is that many things will change between the paper and the metal, and that being strongly dogmatic about what is "right" and "wrong" cannot be justified. I obviously except examples where the physical geometry of the model parts are inconsistent with themselves, but I would also point out that many kit wheels will not fit into kit wheelwells, even on models of real aircraft and with acceptably correct dimensions, because of the limitations introduced by the modelling process. You might consider the different shapes of those actual aircraft claimed to have their origins in late-war Germany. MiG 15 vs J-29, for an example. Is one person or company's journey from paper to metal therefore somehow right and the other wrong? No. Had Tank continued on to develop his work, the end result would have looked different to the paper. Do you know what this would have looked like? No-one does. The entire principle of the Luftwaffe 46 mania is not to reproduce examples of paper studies, but to represent how such designs might have appeared in real life (even when Luftwaffe '56 might seem more appropriate...) As such these models are indeed ephemeral fantasy. Which is ok - I don't have these particular kits but have made (for example) the Treibflugel. Though I must admit to generally preferring the idea of more realistic possibilities than the frenzy of early jets drawn by people determined to show their productivity and inventiveness for fear of conscription for the Eastern Front should they flag. Now whether some of these kits actually represent legitimate engineering possibilities is another matter. But then the basic concept is pure fantasy. Paying too much attention to detail is like pinning mist to a wall. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Aardvark said: Now we take the BMW-003 engine (for example, from the He-162 Dragon model) and try to install it according to this cutaway: http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-05.JPG inside the BV.211 model from Special Hobby ....does not work? And it cannot work, because the Special Hobby wheel bay are wrong! There's a lot more wrong besides the wheel bay for that matter. Where's the fuel pump? Oxygen? Or is this some mythical EV/tesla variant? Doesn't show in the sketch. Quote Exists the laws of internal layout, which depend on the external aerodynamic structure, besides, You can never cram more into less, i.e. You will never be able to shove wheels from the Ju-88, for example, into the wheel bay of the Me-109. Quite. Which is why I don't like the whole '46 to begin with but that's a completely other discussion. Fun, whimsical plane-shaped objects. Perfect WHIF material. 1 hour ago, Graham Boak said: Had Tank continued on to develop his work, the end result would have looked different to the paper. Do you know what this would have looked like? No-one does. The Pulqui II is a good indicator however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted November 27, 2020 Author Share Posted November 27, 2020 (edited) My take on this subject is that it would be nice if the manufacturer would pay more attention to engineering accuracy like how a BMW 003 fits inside the fuselage. I would certainly choose the better engineered model to build. Any way ts a bit of fun and I need a break from the fw190 I'm trying to finish at the moment 🥵 Edited November 27, 2020 by Walter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSTON Posted November 27, 2020 Share Posted November 27, 2020 Walter...Nice haul. look forward to your builds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOCKNEY Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 Looking forward to what you are going to do with these ones @Walter I do like the look of the B.V.212 Best of luck Cheers Pat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted December 27, 2020 Author Share Posted December 27, 2020 Yes that's my favourite too Pat. Will post up 2 of them soon. They haven't been easy builds unfortunately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOCKNEY Posted December 27, 2020 Share Posted December 27, 2020 Sorry to hear that Walter, but I've got every confidence in you. Could be a lot worse, I'm wrestling with a unicraft kit in a Blitzen Group build, see link below. See, I told you, you have nothing to worry about ! Cheers Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted December 28, 2020 Author Share Posted December 28, 2020 Ahh indeed, I'm not alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top turret toddler Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 While this is a bridge too far for my liking, some Luft -46 items do hold more appeal than others. My favourite has to be the Amerikabomber (Me 264) I got mine on ebay and was missing one full sprue ! but Special Hobby was kind enough to send a replacement my way. Lucky me they had it in store, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 Making the same point as above: the Me264 was a real aircraft that was cancelled. Not an early paper project with next-to-nil chance of getting through the design process with its more "imaginative" features retained, let alone making it into service in 1946! Better drawing something exciting than being posted to the Russian Front. Nothing wrong with making models of paper projects, or indeed production versions of aircraft that were cancelled in the prototype stage. But for some of these examples fantasy takes over from 1946. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 There is a whole forum on BM for this kind of thing which, I must admit, is pretty well hidden away. Even though I knew it existed, it's just taken me a couple of minutes to track it down, but here it is at: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/151-what-if/ There are some interesting projects and discussions in it, it's well worth a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 We really need more of this sort of thing in 1:48, although it was nice to see Amusing Hobby have some plans to do a few in the coming year. @Walter following you reporting your own thread, what would you like me to do with your topic? Leave it WWII, put it in What-If, or C) neither of the above? I realise the issue with Whiff getting a little less exposure where it is (I've forgotten where it is right now ), but then again where would be better for it without putting a stick in the organisational spokes of the forum wheels? We're open to suggestions as always, but reserve the right to ignore silly ideas completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OttovonLindberg Posted January 5, 2021 Share Posted January 5, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Mike said: We really need more of this sort of thing in 1:48, although it was nice to see Amusing Hobby have some plans to do a few in the coming year. @Walter following you reporting your own thread, what would you like me to do with your topic? Leave it WWII, put it in What-If, or C) neither of the above? I realise the issue with Whiff getting a little less exposure where it is (I've forgotten where it is right now ), but then again where would be better for it without putting a stick in the organisational spokes of the forum wheels? We're open to suggestions as always, but reserve the right to ignore silly ideas completely It looks like Modelcollect is planning to break into 1/48 Luftwaffe ‘46: Edited January 5, 2021 by OttovonLindberg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DStewart Posted January 5, 2021 Share Posted January 5, 2021 Each to their own, but not currently for me. I did the Revell Flitzer 20 years ago and although I quite enjoyed it at the time, I wouldn't do another one as I can't see the point of modelling something that never existed. It's not like I need a concept model to persuade the RLM to give me money to move a project on. I can see the point in modelling things that were seriously considered for development, as modelling has a long and venerable tradition of being used as a design or promotional tool to explain a concept or idea that somebody is trying to advance, but do these ideas qualify? I wish you good luck, but I won't be investing. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadway Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 11 hours ago, 3DStewart said: Each to their own, but not currently for me. I did the Revell Flitzer 20 years ago and although I quite enjoyed it at the time, I wouldn't do another one as I can't see the point of modelling something that never existed. It's not like I need a concept model to persuade the RLM to give me money to move a project on. I can see the point in modelling things that were seriously considered for development, as modelling has a long and venerable tradition of being used as a design or promotional tool to explain a concept or idea that somebody is trying to advance, but do these ideas qualify? I'm not interested either, but many modellers make things that never existed. 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