Giorgio N Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 30 minutes ago, MDriskill said: FWIW, one advantage of the HB kit is the very simple parts breakdown, especially in molding the wing in one piece - guaranteeing correct dihedral and no root joints to fill. The ancient Lindberg kit also has the wings molded together, fitting through slots in the fuselage. Given how tiny the 162 is in 1/72, this would seem fairly easy to do. I'm surprised none of the conventional newer kits did something similar. The problem with the one-piece approach taken by Hobbyboss is that the parts often suffer from variations in thickness, something that most of their easy-kits suffer from. Now others may sure do it better but in general thick plastic parts can be tricky to mould properly all the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denford Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 (edited) Many years ago, encouraged by the box art, I bought a Dragon He162 for ‘only’ £20 £15! Seemingly a good kit with PE and a detailed engine. True, the transparencies look a little ‘smoky’ and the rudders lacked trim tabs. Over the years it acquired accessories and, for a song, I even bought a Frog 162 to provide the correct rudders with trim tabs! I’m therefore mortified to read the initial comments. Breaking my new year resolution not to start any new kit until at least 2 have been completed, I have opened the box. I have to say that the fit is nowhere as bad as the earlier posts suggests. Yes, a touch of filler is needed at the wing roots (mainly above), the panel lines a little 'soft'. The wings will need careful alignment but the fuselage halves match well. All in all, nothing that the average modeller couldn't manage. I have my doubts about the colour of the internal surfaces on which I'll make a separate posting. Edited January 19, 2023 by Denford Error in price: was £20! Spelling errors corrected too! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDriskill Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) Back to the issue of tailplane span...recently on another forum, a very detailed Russian drawing of the He 162's tailplane - from their post-war "reverse engineering" of a captured example - was posted. It confirmed the 2400 mm span in the drawing linked above is correct. ("Shorty84's" drawing is repeated below; the Russians showed the outboard ends of the elevators were shortened to avoid striking the rudders at least!). One assumes (um...see tag line 🙄) that this was measured from a production machine and not a prototype, so seems to settle the matter. And note exactly what is being measured: the horizontal distance between the intersections of the tailplane and fin structural datum lines - an easy thing to misinterpret. I'd be willing to bet the erroneous longer dimension came from a kit designer's thinking it measured between the upper tips of the fins! Edited February 1, 2023 by MDriskill 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 And the link to this other discussion? Or to the Russian drawing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDriskill Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) It's on the Luftwaffe Resources Group (LRG) forum: https://www.luftwaffe-research-group.com The thread is here: https://www.luftwaffe-research-group.com/threads/basic-he162a-question.31262/ The tail span on the Dragon 1/72 kit is almost 3 scale FEET too wide...wow. Edited February 1, 2023 by MDriskill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 Well, I couldn't figure out how to register, and I couldn't see anything without doing so. Still would like to see that drawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatG Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 I have the plans by A A P Lloyd published by Argos Books in their Aircraft Archive series and they look pretty comprehensive although I can't vouch for their absolute accuracy. Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 On 1/13/2023 at 12:08 AM, John Thompson said: I'm curious which is the better He-162A kit, Special Hobby or AZ. I'm just interested in the real He-162, not the various Luft '46 and What-if versions that AZ is offering. I Googled He-162 1/72 comparison, but all I came up with was a review from 2009 which included only the kits available at that time - Lindberg, Frog, DML, and HobbyBoss. Has anyone compared the two more recent offerings? I'm leaning toward SH as possibly the better of the two, but I really don't if that's true, and if so, better in what ways? Thanks in advance! John I have SH kit and it is miles ahead of the AZ one from what I have seen (I don't have the AZ kit, but seen online photos and maybe a review). I can't comment on dimensions as I haven't measured the SH kit up. It 'looks' correct. The quality of surface details is very far advanced on the SH kit, the engine intake and exhaust is very well done, cockpit is nicely appointed, u/c bay well enough detailed, nice legs and wheels. The AZ kit looks, in photos I've seen, really primitive. Scribing and rivet detail looks like a kit from years ago... Maybe a rush job to get it released??? I wouldn't touch it, except maybe as parts for planned versions to use on the SH kit. As you only want to do an A-1/A-2 then that doesn't factor in. There's one part on the SH kit that is, in my view, quite poor. In the main u/c bay there's a structural element through which a coupe of pipes and control rods run (it is an etched part in the Dragon kit). SH have made it a single part that just doesn't replicate the original at all well, it felt like a weird choice, given how nicely everything else is done. So, unless there's some major dimensional issue with SH kit, that's the one I would recommend.SH are also offering gun bays and an engine as aftermarket parts if you want to go to extremes... Matt 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thompson Posted February 4, 2023 Author Share Posted February 4, 2023 11 minutes ago, Mattlow said: So, unless there's some major dimensional issue with SH kit, that's the one I would recommend.SH are also offering gun bays and an engine as aftermarket parts if you want to go to extremes... Matt Thank you very much - that's exactly what I was looking for! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 I just re-found the YouTube video review... this was what really put me off the AZ kit... I shan't say anything... let the images speak for themselves.. Matt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 Compare and contrast: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKinksFan Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 3 hours ago, Mattlow said: I just re-found the YouTube video review... this was what really put me off the AZ kit... I shan't say anything... let the images speak for themselves.. Sometime ago modelforum.cz someone commented how awful the AZ kit was. After watching that video I understood what he meant. I wasn't planning on getting one, as I too have the SH kit, but I must say that I was disgusted by the crudeness. AZ / KP kits sell partly because often the buyer is not aware what kind of quality the kit has, there are not so many reviews, not to mention build reviews. And even when there are photographs, often the parts don't look as awful as in real life. There's some aftermarket available for the SH kit, I think that CMK has some resin, and then there's Eduard PE & Quinta 3D. And an Yahu IP, which although for Dragon probably will fit. And masks from Special Hobby also available. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 I have a lot of AZ kits, but don't recognise them from your description. However, I don't have that particular one. Not the finest kits on the market, true enough, but nothing that should frighten anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKinksFan Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said: I have a lot of AZ kits, but don't recognise them from your description. However, I don't have that particular one. Not the finest kits on the market, true enough, but nothing that should frighten anyone. If many of your kits are their Spitfires, Tempests, Mustangs etc, they are of higher quality. But most of their kits are rather crude, and not only by today's standards. Did you watch that video? Many AZ kits that I have built, or have in my stash are closer to that quality, than to their Spitfires that are quite sophisticated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 The only He.162 I have is a Frog one. I doubt that I'll ever get to make it, I certainly won't want to make any other, and don't intend to waste the time searching the net for You-Tubers making models I never will. However, I can't help coming across "modellers" bad-mouthing companies that I know produce perfectly acceptable kits, and so feel the urge to speak out in their defence at times. If this this particular example is poor, it's not as though the world is empty of decent He.162 kits. If you want the subject don't waste your time with it but go find a better one. I have, and have had, kits in my collection that are a whole lot worse than any produced by AZ or RS, another company which seems to have fallen foul of "shake and bake" modellers. I've even made some of them. I've also thrown away kits from companies at the top of the game, if not on that particular product. I'd rather have - and do have - KP/AZ early Spitfires in preference to Tamiya ones. I'm much more likely to make a basic AZ or RS kit than some superperfect kit with tiny details that will never be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thompson Posted February 4, 2023 Author Share Posted February 4, 2023 I seem to recall that AZ obtained a lot of (all?) the masters from CMK, which I think explains the goodness of AZ's Spitfire kits (I bought multiples of their marks VIII and XIV) possibly among others I'm not familiar with. I found KP's La-5 series to be excellent as well, although I don't think there's any connection with CMK on those. In other words, AZ/KP's quality can be like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 The KP and Sword Spitfires share the same shortfall in span: I'd assumed that AZ got theirs from Sword. Were the CMK kits short in span? However, let's close this digression and let the He.162 subject run on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattlow Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 @Graham Boak I wasn't 'bad mouthing' AZ. I was responding to the original request which was for a comparison between two kits. If you didn't look at the video, you won't see that the AZ kit looks like it was mastered in chocolate, scribed with a nail and then left out in the sun for a while. Some of their kits are good, this isn't one of them... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKinksFan Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 35 minutes ago, Mattlow said: I wasn't 'bad mouthing' AZ. I was responding to the original request which was for a comparison between two kits. If you didn't look at the video, you won't see that the AZ kit looks like it was mastered in chocolate, scribed with a nail and then left out in the sun for a while. Some of their kits are good, this isn't one of them... Well said, criticizing a kit is not bad mouthing, these are products of companies that are made for profit. It's not like we are criticizing a person whose feelings might get hurt, these are inanimate objects. 1 hour ago, John Thompson said: In other words, AZ/KP's quality can be like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates... That's AZ/KP in a nutshell. Sword, Fly etc seem to have more even quality. The more kits a company releases, the more likely it is that some of them are of lower quality. Seems like AZ/KP are rushing to be first to release a kit before the competition does. Clear Prop announced their Airco DH.9a in February 2022, KP in March. Maybe just a coincidence, maybe not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt-92 Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 44 minutes ago, TheKinksFan said: Seems like AZ/KP are rushing to be first to release a kit before the competition does. Maybe the rent was due. - Yes, their resin (?) based moulds aren't pretty, compared to the metal moulds (not steel) they use for other stuff. Then again, they do the weirder variants as well so there's that. If it makes them a bit of money so they can re-invest that in a decent mould for something else, good on them. If it is a good, accurate He-162A you're after, then the choice is clear. Pick the company that sometimes takes an inordinate time to release a product, but mostly dots the i's and crosses their t's. 5 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