Fw190D Best Model in 72nd Scale

[fishplanebeer]

I've always wanted a Fw190D since seeing the Airfix one on sale in Woolies back in the 60's so wondered if the new Fw190D Cottbus from IBG is worth considering please? I can't find any reviews on it and as it's quite pricey for a 72nd scale fighter I thought I'd better check before taking the plunge.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. what is 'Cottbus'?

[Chuck1945]

Cottbus was a Fw production site. The kit is quite new, very few people have actually got one in their hands so reviews are rather scarce. The various comments here in the Rumourmonger forum, as well as other places all suggest it will be the best 190D yet, including such details as different upper cowls from various contractors. It is no doubt not a ‘shake and bake’ kit. Mine are now winging their way across the Atlantic from Hannants.

[MarkoZG]

I bought the IBG kit and immediately sold it further. It is literally infested with rivets, something that looks horrible in this scale. You will find many fans of rivets in this forum and elsewhere, so I expect many attacks on my viewpoint. Most of those people claim it is quite easy to remove them by covering with Surfacer and gently sanding. However, in most of the modern kits, rivets are not the only surface detail and aside from them, there are many necessary and required details on parts surface.  Sanding between them without collateral damage is impossible tasks and I bet whoever suggests this has never tried it. It is MUCH easier to rivet the model by yourself if you want it than to remove rivets if you don't.

However, rivets are not the only issue of IBG kit. It has a shape error in vertical tail root and some other small goofs better described on other forums.

Do we have a definite Fw 190D in 1/72nd scale - NO!

Is it the best Fw 190D in this scale - NO, it is only the latest one

Which Fw 190D is best - each of the top contenders has pluses and minuses (Hasegawa, Tamiya, IBG), but I would say that you could get better result and in easier way with Japanese kits than with Polish one. And surely for less money.

 

[TAG]

12 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

I've always wanted a Fw190D since seeing the Airfix one on sale in Woolies back in the 60's so wondered if the new Fw190D Cottbus from IBG is worth considering please? I can't find any reviews on it and as it's quite pricey for a 72nd scale fighter I thought I'd better check before taking the plunge.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. what is 'Cottbus'?

Here's Brett Green's review on Hyperscale:

 

https://hyperscale.com/2022/reviews/kits/ibg72531reviewbg_1.htm

 

Here's the unboxing video:

 

[72modeler]

@fishplanebeer Colin,

 

See if these articles help!

Mike

 

https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/2021/08/13/focke-wulf-fw-190d-9-comparison-build-part-i/

https://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2006/02/stuff_eng_isaksson_fw190d9.htm

Edited January 23, 2022 by 72modeler
added link

[fishplanebeer]

Thank you all for getting back to me.

 

Having looked at the parts in this kit, especially all the PE that's involved, I've decided to try and find the Tamiya kit instead as I have issues with any 72nd scale fighter being £20+. A good example being the excellent SH kits of the 'Emil' and P40 which are state of the art but considerably cheaper. OK, I pushed the boat out with Arma's P-51B/C but now slightly regret it when compared with the alternatives (KP etc.).

 

My skills and eye sight are at best average so this makes sense to me although I fully appreciate that those who are far more discerning and gifted may be tempted.

 

Regards

Colin.

Edited January 24, 2022 by fishplanebeer

[Icedtea]

14 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

I bought the IBG kit and immediately sold it further. It is literally infested with rivets, something that looks horrible in this scale. You will find many fans of rivets in this forum and elsewhere, so I expect many attacks on my viewpoint. Most of those people claim it is quite easy to remove them by covering with Surfacer and gently sanding. However, in most of the modern kits, rivets are not the only surface detail and aside from them, there are many necessary and required details on parts surface.  Sanding between them without collateral damage is impossible tasks and I bet whoever suggests this has never tried it. It is MUCH easier to rivet the model by yourself if you want it than to remove rivets if you don't.

However, rivets are not the only issue of IBG kit. It has a shape error in vertical tail root and some other small goofs better described on other forums.

Do we have a definite Fw 190D in 1/72nd scale - NO!

Is it the best Fw 190D in this scale - NO, it is only the latest one

Which Fw 190D is best - each of the top contenders has pluses and minuses (Hasegawa, Tamiya, IBG), but I would say that you could get better result and in easier way with Japanese kits than with Polish one. And surely for less money.

 

Having looked at Mr Greens review I think the rivets would be much reduced under a coat or two of RLM, and of course the camera can tend to exaggerate detail so I'll risk it and any later marks IBG see fit to produce. I'm all for encouraging kit makers especially when they produce my favourite aircraft.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Icedtea
to avoid misunderstandings

[Icedtea]

19 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

Cottbus was a Fw production site. The kit is quite new, very few people have actually got one in their hands so reviews are rather scarce. The various comments here in the Rumourmonger forum, as well as other places all suggest it will be the best 190D yet, including such details as different upper cowls from various contractors. It is no doubt not a ‘shake and bake’ kit. Mine are now winging their way across the Atlantic from Hannants.

I have a couple on pre-order here in Oz. I hope they progress to the D 11 and onwards...

[fishplanebeer]

My reasons for not buying are partly the issues raised by Marko, which Mr Green also highlights, but also the fact that in it's laudable attempt to better anything that has gone before it has included a considerable number of pe parts which my modest skills would find difficult to use successfully. These are fine for those more accomplished than myself, of which there are many, and it also goes some way to justifying the £20+ price tag (?) but for me they would be wasted and are just unnecessary given the fine level of detail and finesse SH have achieved with simple plastic, and at a much lower price.

 

If SH ever do a Fw190 (along with quite a few other kits I'm hoping for) I'd definitely take the plunge but for me as of now the Tamiya kit is a far more buildable and affordable option, always assuming I can find one.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Chuck1945]

39 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Thank you all for getting back to me.

 

Having looked at the parts in this kit, especially all the PE that's involved, I've decided to try and find the Tamiya kit instead as I have issues with any 72nd scale fighter being £20+. A good example being the excellent SH kits of the 'Emil' and P40 which are state of the art but considerably cheaper. OK, I pushed the boat out with Arma's P-51B/C but now slightly regret it when compared with the alternatives (KP etc.).

…

 

Regards

Colin.

FWIW, the Arma P-51B is the most accurately shaped 1/72 kit of that aircraft. All others have messed up some combination of wing shape (usually P-51D wings), nose shape (couldn’t fit a Merlin inside)and or tail. Off the top of my head, Hasegawa has a good front, but D wings, Academy’s wings are ok, kinda like B, but the front end and canopy fit are off. KP is pretty much a copy of the Revell kit, but according to some has the fin/rudder misaligned and perhaps more importantly considering the usual P-51 role, no wing racks for tanks; fuselage and wings are average, again, no Merlin would fit. They will all build into something that looks much more like a P-51B, then a Spitfire, but if shape matters, they all have problems. Fitting Revell wings to the Hasegawa kit will probably be the better outcome using those kits.

 

I hear you on the probable PE and complexity issue with the IBG 190s, personally I’ll try to avoid the PE as much as possible.

[Icedtea]

2 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

My reasons for not buying are partly the issues raised by Marko, which Mr Green also highlights, but also the fact that in it's laudable attempt to better anything that has gone before it has included a considerable number of pe parts which my modest skills would find difficult to use successfully. These are fine for those more accomplished than myself, of which there are many, and it also goes some way to justifying the £20+ price tag (?) but for me they would be wasted and are just unnecessary given the fine level of detail and finesse SH have achieved with simple plastic, and at a much lower price.

 

If SH ever do a Fw190 (along with quite a few other kits I'm hoping for) I'd definitely take the plunge but for me as of now the Tamiya kit is a far more buildable and affordable option, always assuming I can find one.

 

Regards

Colin.

Lets hope IBG follow the lead of Eduard and others in offering "weekend" type editions as I wouldn't miss the PE either tbh.

[MDriskill]

Well...take these comments for what they are worth. My IBG Doras are still enroute to hillbilly land, and I am prejudiced by a lifelong obsession with this aircraft, as well as knowing one of the VERY knowledgeable gents that helped research the new kits! I am confident IBG's accuracy and detail are solid advancements over previous 1/72 190D kits.

 

IBG has researched dimensional and section data in great detail. Besides the gun cover variations, there are accurate engine and prop for each version, proper open wheel well detail, the correct aerodynamic form of the radiator cowl, the small underside recess between the wheel wells, "open" and "closed" versions of the canopies, engineering to help achieve the correct landing gear angles, and other subtleties not in older kits. Here's a test-shot build:

https://aeroscale.net/news/fw-190-d-9-test-build

 

Among legacy kits, I prefer Hasegawa over Tamiya, but both have their pluses and minuses. Hasegawa's flat-sided nose cowl could use some re-contouring, and cockpit detail is sparse. Tamiya would benefit from a Hasegawa prop to replace its too-flat one, and aftermarket wheels (or the late-style leftovers from your Eduard A-5 kit) in lieu of the kit's very undersized ones. Japanese master modeler Jumpei Temma did an analysis and build of each kit:

http://soyuyo.main.jp/fw190/fw190-4.html (Tamiya)

http://soyuyo.main.jp/fw190/fw190-2.html (Hasegawa)

Edited January 28, 2022 by MDriskill

[Graham Boak]

The recessed rivets don't appeal, but don't violently detract either.   It looks as though most if not all of the PE parts, like the huge number of stencils, are unnecessary for a reasonable model in 1/72 scale.  However, all this and the multiplicity of options does seem to follow the  latest trend of over-complication.  All in the interest of super-modellers with much better vision than average and greater dexterity, with more time to spend on a single kit.  Good luck to them.  All this can only result in a kit taking longer to design, costing more to produce, and hence selling at a higher price. 

 

Excuse me for my ordinariness, but something to admire rather than buy.

[FinnAndersen]

Agree more or less with Graham that newer kits tend to be complicated and in a broad sense perhaps over engineered.

 

My take on "rivets" is that they are really unnecessary and spoil rather that adding depth and detail, but each to his own.

 

However, and this I consider a major advance and one that suits me perfectly, at least some of these new kits can be build without adding 1/3 filler to the plastic. Carefully put together they fit perfectly and without gaps.

 

/Finn

[fishplanebeer]

I'm sure I read in IBG's marketing blurb that they (in their opinion) have produced a totally accurate kit which may not agree with the various plans that have been published hitherto. As my knowledge of the Fw190D is very limited indeed they may well be true but they are rather setting themselves up for a a fall by suggesting that much of the previous analysis is flawed. Of course there is another way of interpreting this in that it covers any perceived inaccuracies with the kit that may be raised by those far more learned than myself, so I will wait and see.

 

Returning to my previous point I still feel that it is perfectly possible to produce a highly detailed kit with plastic, as SH and others have admirably demonstrated, without the need to employ a plethora of tiny pe parts and then charge £20+ for a 6 inch (150mm metric) fighter. I now realise just what a bargain my Tamiya F4U-1A Corsair was as it's quite superb with no pe, and considered generally to be spot on.

 

Just my thoughts as an ageing modeller with modest skills so I'm clearly not IBG's target market.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Graham Boak]

As the various plans available of the Fw.190D do not agree with each other, it is undeniably true that any new model will not agree with most of them.  A more useful comment might be to describe why and where their's is more accurate.

 

Given that IBG's 1/72 military kits do not have a reputation for supreme accuracy, and do have a reputation for over-engineering with tiny parts that are difficult to release from the frames without breaking, perhaps let's withhold full praise until the kit is more widely available..  It looks great on the pretty pictures of the parts layout, but so too did Dragon and many Special Hobby kits.  Other manufacturers/kits may be mentioned.

[KITCAT]

Well I've got one ordered from my lms but wether I buy any others will be open to question and that is the big issue I think as the makers are surely looking for multiple purchases from interested modellers. My big gripe is the odd markings on the later version so yet again I plead for photo evidence.

[tempestfan]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

As the various plans available of the Fw.190D do not agree with each other, it is undeniably true that any new model will not agree with most of them.  A more useful comment might be to describe why and where their's is more accurate.

Have you kept track which drawings are currently considered gold standard, Graham (or anyone else for hat matter)? I assume Arthur Bentley ranks near the top; but what else is considered at least good? I recently good the original JaPo booklet from the 90s (Czech only) and the AJ Press Monografia Lotnicze (English version) - any ideas how they are regarded?

 

Soon after I got the last-mentioned, I did something utterly unscientific and placed the 1958 Airfix kit on the JaPo drawings. To my big surprise, the basic outlines were more than acceptably close, but the wing mislocated by a margin of something like 3mm.

[Graham Boak]

I think it fair to assume that someone has, but not me.  The Bentley drawings I'm aware of were for the A series, and I would still consider them gold.  I have the Monogram monograph and the first two of the projected trilogy from JaPo.

 

I still have an unfinished Airfix kit - must make that before buying any other.  Of course?  But I do have the Dragon Ta.172C and Aosima Ta.152H should I feel drawn to better models of the long-nose family.

[MDriskill]

Jerry Crandall's twin-volume magnum opus on the Dora has 1/48 plans by Koichiro Abe that are the best yet published in my opinion (although the IBG team uncovered some minor panel errors that are corrected on their kits). The D-9 is in volume one, and the D-11/13 in volume two.

 

The Japanese-published 1/48 drawings in the AeroDetail volume, and the 1/72 versions in various Koku-Fan publications, are generally good but repeat an error that makes the rear fuselage a little short (illustrated in the Temma builds I linked above). 

 

I haven't bought them yet, but Mr. Bentley himself has a much more detailed set on his site (as well as revised and expanded versions of his famous radial-engined 190 drawings).

 

https://www.albentley-drawings.com/drawings/german-aircraft/focke-wulf-fw190d-9/focke-wulf-fw190d-9/

Edited January 25, 2022 by MDriskill

[fishplanebeer]

Thanks for the link to the Bentley drawings which I never knew about.

 

I suppose if you are happy to spend £20+ on the kit then you may be tempted to buy these plans as well but they are quite expensive from what I can see, at £36+ for the Fw190D-9, so will add considerably to the overall cost. There again as the kit has the all the pe and masks at least you won't need to spend anything on 'extras', but there again would you be happy with the kits decals or feel the need invest in a new set instead?

 

For those who seek absolute accuracy cost is possibly less of a consideration/issue but for me £56+ for a 72nd scale fighter is completely off the scale (no pun intended).

 

Regards

Colin.

[tempestfan]

On 1/25/2022 at 1:42 PM, Graham Boak said:

I think it fair to assume that someone has, but not me.  The Bentley drawings I'm aware of were for the A series, and I would still consider them gold.  I have the Monogram monograph and the first two of the projected trilogy from JaPo.

 

I still have an unfinished Airfix kit - must make that before buying any other.  Of course?  But I do have the Dragon Ta.172C and Aosima Ta.152H should I feel drawn to better models of the long-nose family.

As @MDriskill states below, Mr Bentley's D drawings may be found (only) on his website, that's where I noticed them. So far they apparently have not been published in print, and I assume they were done for the mythical proposed Classic Volume 4. 

On 1/25/2022 at 2:07 PM, MDriskill said:

Jerry Crandall's twin-volume magnum opus on the Dora has 1/48 plans by Koichiro Abe that are the best yet published in my opinion (although the IBG team uncovered some minor panel errors that are corrected on their kits). The D-9 is in volume one, and the D-11/13 in volume two.

 

The Japanese-published 1/48 drawings in the AeroDetail volume, and the 1/72 versions in various Koku-Fan publications, are generally good but repeat an error that makes the rear fuselage a little short (illustrated in the Temma builds I linked above). 

 

I haven't bought them yet, but Mr. Bentley himself has a much more detailed set on his site (as well as revised and expanded versions of his famous radial-engined 190 drawings).

 

https://www.albentley-drawings.com/drawings/german-aircraft/focke-wulf-fw190d-9/focke-wulf-fw190d-9/

Thanks for the heads-up - the problem is that the Crandall books are as much Unobtainium as the JaPo's are, and just about as expensive. So you need a lot of luck to find any of them at all, and even more luck for an acceptable price. I forked out 250€ for JaPo Vol 1 and 2 as a set, something I would not normally consider paying. It took a lot of alcohol to pink my glasses to an "acceptable" rating for that one 😉

[tempestfan]

On 1/25/2022 at 3:37 PM, fishplanebeer said:

For those who seek absolute accuracy cost is possibly less of a consideration/issue but for me £56+ for a 72nd scale fighter is completely off the scale (no pun intended).

 

Regards

Colin.

If it's an offscale kit you looked for, I could recommend the 1/50 (nominal) Fujimi.😜 You may possibly get another kit on top from someone wanting to get rid of it, and that one probably needs all help it can get from the Bentley drawings. Joking aside, the price definitely was a consideration in not yet buying them, because if the Classic Vol 4 actually gets released one day, it will probably "only" cost some 15 to 20 quid more.

[Kari Lumppio]

On 1/25/2022 at 1:53 PM, tempestfan said:

...

Soon after I got the last-mentioned, I did something utterly unscientific and placed the 1958 Airfix kit on the JaPo drawings. To my big surprise, the basic outlines were more than acceptably close, but the wing mislocated by a margin of something like 3mm.

 

Hi!

 

Airfix 1/72 Fw 190D wing does also have the correct wash-out (geometric twist). An aerodynamic detail often missing even otherwise extremely accurate kits. I've built one as JV 44 "Parrot" aircraft. The kit looks quite good with shut cooling gills (filing, scraping, sanding and scribing) and main landing gear robbed somewhere else (like Italeri 1/72 Dora where MLG is the most useable part).

IIRC Airfix Dora tail wheel had excellent hub detail (or was it the old A-8 kit from Airfix?)

 

All in all very good model can be built out of Airfix 1/72 Dora. In my opinion. Do-it-yourself scribed panel lines needed.

 

Cheers,

Kari

 

PS I am talking about 1972 kit most likely. Did not know there was some jurassic Airfix Dora, too.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Kari Lumppio

[tempestfan]

Hi Kari,

 

do you mean the 1958 or the 1979 kit? The 1958 kit's tailwheel can hardly be called as such 😉 The 1977 A-8 had a very fine tailwheel - I don't think they carried it over to the D-9, 2nd attempt.