Best 1/72 Me-262?

[Herb]

Seems like there's more than enough choices, and repops by various companies are confusing the topic for me. What does the Britmodeller brain trust feel is the most accurate option out there right now? 

[Work In Progress]

Quick answer: Airfix followed by Hasegawa IMO

Longer answer: 

Airfix is good for accuracy and detail but is expensive and some people will find the surface detailing a bit heavy

Hasegawa is good for shape but light on detail

I personally like the Heller kit. Not the same plastic as the Airfix two-seater kit. Good alternative to the Hasegawa if you want a two-seater

Revell is good for accuracy but you will probably need to replace the canopy with a vac-form one. 

 

Edited September 4 by Work In Progress

[Ed Russell]

The Airfix kit is very nice. The only small problem is that the engine-wing joint can be a bit tricky. The trainer needs a small mod.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235082679-messerschmitt-me262-b-1a-airfix-kgj-54-trainer/

The Heller two seater is also quite a nice kit.

[Chuck1945]

Not sure if I can find it, but there was a WIP thread here several weeks ago that had a solution for the Airfix jet nacelle to wing fit

[Chuck1945]

Here’s the link 

 

[PatG]

Definitely the latest Airfix  kit which you can pick up on E-bay etc. for around £7 as I did a couple of weeks ago - so not too expensive.

 

I always thought the Revell kit was nicely molded but can't comment on its overall accuracy though.

 

Pat.

[Ed Russell]

2 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

a solution for the Airfix jet nacelle to wing fit

That is pretty much what I did - sanding a bit off everwhere until it fits. It's probably better than having to add a bit on everwhere!

[PatG]

Just to add that I was able to pick the Airfix kit up for a bargain price (two others sold for around £6 at the same time) as I suspect most people were on holiday so the auctions attracted fewer views. The kits are now selling for around the £15 mark again so I guess I was lucky for once!

 

Pat.

[Duncan B]

The Academy kit (if it is still available?) has decent surface detail but the nose is a bit bulbous so needs shaping (which then spoils the detail of course). The Revell 2 seater I built was full of sink marks and poor fitting and the canopy couldn't have been any thicker without becoming solid. It's amazing that I actually finished it but it turned out ok with a lot of effort (the bin looked like a better option on many days). I think the Hasegawa kits are still worth considering if you can get them at a good price, they have decent detail with better surface details than the Airfix and are simple enough to build.

I think Airfix actually missed the opportunity to produce the best 1/72 scale Me262, if only they had concentrated on the fit.

 

Duncan B

[Jinxman]

Aren't the engine pods on the Hasegawa kit of an early version and therefore slightly smaller in overall dimensions than production versions?

[Phantome]

With the caveat that there's no perfect kit of this aircraft in this scale, the Academy is miles ahead of the others IMHO if you can live with the nose issue... which frankly is only noticeable if you're looking at it from the top.

 

Here's a German site which has the comparison with the Revell kit. The Revell could have been great, and cheap, but its canopy is so poorly molded it's useless (a recurrent problem with Revell).

 

https://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=29928.0

[PatG]

Rob Taurus do a replacement canopy for the Revell kit which is still in stock at Hannants for £3.60 and the kit can be picked up for around £7 so overall not a bad price for an accurate model compared to the Airfix.

 

Pat.

[Karearea]

One nice aspect of the Airfix kit is that the underside of the cockpit tub in the fuselage cavity is correct when looking up through the wheel wells. I’m not sure if other 1/72 kits capture this detail correctly.

I’ve found it an ok kit to build- I thought I’d ameliorated the infamous nacelle to wing fit but still had to do quite a lot of fettling. Looks nice when built up at least.

[Chuck1945]

The Revell 262 also has the detailed exterior of the cockpit tub, unfortunately the main gear bay is molded with a roof?? 

[Bejay53]

32 minutes ago, Chuck1945 said:

The Revell 262 also has the detailed exterior of the cockpit tub, unfortunately the main gear bay is molded with a roof?? 

Which is easily removed. I built this a short time ago, but it is sitting the unfinished pile because of the canopy…a very poor fit (too narrow).

I had a true details vac, but it had its own problems.

[Adam Poultney]

The Airfix kit's fit issues can largely be resolved with finesse rather than brute force. You must take the time to understand why parts aren't fitting and that the error lies in the incorrect match of the wing roots (basically there's halls a mm or so too much wing on the upper wing halves or on the wing root of the fuselage parts). Once that is resolved, the fix at the nacelles is much easier and you can get them to the point that they barely need filler. 

[Adam Poultney]

On 06/09/2024 at 21:55, Phantome said:

With the caveat that there's no perfect kit of this aircraft in this scale, the Academy is miles ahead of the others IMHO if you can live with the nose issue... which frankly is only noticeable if you're looking at it from the top.

 

Here's a German site which has the comparison with the Revell kit. The Revell could have been great, and cheap, but its canopy is so poorly molded it's useless (a recurrent problem with Revell).

 

https://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=29928.0

If Revell simply retooled JUST the canopy, I'd be picking up quite a few!

[Chuck1945]

1 hour ago, Bejay53 said:

Which is easily removed. I built this a short time ago, but it is sitting the unfinished pile because of the canopy…a very poor fit (too narrow).

I had a true details vac, but it had its own problems.

Yeah, I know. Built one almost 25 years ago, opened the wheel bay and used a vac canopy. Don’t really understand why RoG did a pretty good job providing a reasonable looking cockpit tub exterior and then closed off the gear bay. The 109G-10 they did around the same time was also nicely done but, again, with a terrible canopy.

[MilneBay]

17 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

Yeah, I know. Built one almost 25 years ago, opened the wheel bay and used a vac canopy. Don’t really understand why RoG did a pretty good job providing a reasonable looking cockpit tub exterior and then closed off the gear bay. The 109G-10 they did around the same time was also nicely done but, again, with a terrible canopy.

 

Yes the RoG gear well was a puzzle. As you said a very good job of providing proper detail then offering that piece to blank it off. The rest of the kit is quite nice also.

[PatG]

Is the Rob Taurus replacement canopy a good replacement for the Revell kit or does this also have issues I wonder other than it being molded as one piece/closed?

 

Also, do me 262's have a head rest/armour protection or not as all the war time photos I've seen suggest 'no' but all the Eduard photo etch sets include one?

 

Pat.

Edited September 9 by PatG
typo

[tempestfan]

On 9/6/2024 at 10:55 PM, Phantome said:

With the caveat that there's no perfect kit of this aircraft in this scale, the Academy is miles ahead of the others IMHO if you can live with the nose issue... which frankly is only noticeable if you're looking at it from the top.

 

Here's a German site which has the comparison with the Revell kit. The Revell could have been great, and cheap, but its canopy is so poorly molded it's useless (a recurrent problem with Revell).

 

https://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=29928.0

If I understand this reviewer correctly, he has a lot of issues with the Academy - and makes a point that early issues of the Revell had a very good canopy. Good that I have a number of the Revell small-box issues stashed away that will sufficient for my lifetime 🙂 The problem with the Revell kit seems to be a QA issue - a mould having become defective that no one cares about.

[fanrizio1969]

my favourite is academy

[3DStewart]

How would you rate the Matchbox Me 262 for general accuracy?  It's big advantage for me is that I have one in the stash, so no new purchase necessary.

[tempestfan]

6 minutes ago, 3DStewart said:

How would you rate the Matchbox Me 262 for general accuracy?  It's big advantage for me is that I have one in the stash, so no new purchase necessary.

I think I put it on the Aeromodeller drawings some decades ago, and it was pretty good in shapes. It's not one of their overly trenchy kits, and altogether moulded sharper than some of their other contemporary kits. On the other hand it is typical of a pocket money kit of its time, no cockpit, shallow wheel wells without details, and I think the inlet cones are undernourished. Definitely superior to Airfix (original) and Revell (original), not sure how it compares with Frog and Jo-Han.

[J.C. Bahr]

One thing about the Airfix I did not see mentioned... for some reason they did not include the two rows of little vents around the rear of the engine nacelles, just forward of the exhaust.