Jerry Crandall Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Hi guys; It was a lot of work to post these comparisons, it is much appreciated. I have also been going over the test shot of the new Revell F-8 and the old stand by Hasegawa. They are both very nice kits, but both could use a little tweaking. In addition to what has already been posted, I found a couple of things on the Revell kit that might be of interest. 1. There should be no oval panels on the forward portion of the port side of the fuselage as on the Revell kit. 2. My old pet peeve - gun cowls - getting better but still not quite right. 3. In order to accommodate the modelers who want to have their model on a pedestal, the landing gear legs have been supplied fully extended but they should be compressed depending the load of the aircraft to make a more realistic stance with the gear down. 4. The flap settings on the Fw 190 for landing are 58 degrees and 13 degrees for take off. 5. The upper wings' 30 mm canon fairings are included in the kit, parts no. 115 and 116, and should be installed on most F-8s as they were part of the universal wing concept. Check your reference. 6. The armored engine cowl ring appears to be closer to the late 10 mm ring supplied with the BMW 801 TS or TU motor rather than the 6.5 mm ring that is normal with the 801 D-2. However there are variations. This is similar to the choices of three authorized propellers and the introduction of the blown canopy. The canopy choices of open or closed is a very nice touch - kudos to Revell for that. Cheers, Jerry Tnarg, Rick Griewski, John1 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Griewski Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Thanks for the comparison. Rick D Bellis and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 It seems that every kit in all the various scales has a slightly different interpretation of the Fw 190 spinner. Here are some photos of the real thing for those preoccupied (like me) with these issues. mpk, D.B. Andrus, BiggTim and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick K Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I gots Hasegawa A5's, A8's, D9's. A few "Late" D9's are on the way. I caved on 3 Revell F8's. At $27 a pop it a great deal. The detail looks great. Will get some AM stuff. The Hasegawa FW's can also benefit from plenty of AM stuff as well. A great comparison of 2 really good kits. Anxious to see ZM Wurger offerings. D Bellis and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Howie Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Thanks for the excellent comparison pics and write up. Great work. Looking at those very thin axles on those gear legs I am very happy I have a Eduard sets to replace them. Thanks! D Bellis and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Hi guys; It was a lot of work to post these comparisons, it is much appreciated. I have also been going over the test shot of the new Revell F-8 and the old stand by Hasegawa. They are both very nice kits, but both could use a little tweaking. In addition to what has already been posted, I found a couple of things on the Revell kit that might be of interest. 1. There should be no oval panels on the forward portion of the port side of the fuselage as on the Revell kit. 2. My old pet peeve - gun cowls - getting better but still not quite right. 3. In order to accommodate the modelers who want to have their model on a pedestal, the landing gear legs have been supplied fully extended but they should be compressed depending the load of the aircraft to make a more realistic stance with the gear down. 4. The flap settings on the Fw 190 for landing are 58 degrees and 13 degrees for take off. 5. The upper wings' 30 mm canon fairings are included in the kit, parts no. 115 and 116, and should be installed on most F-8s as they were part of the universal wing concept. Check your reference. 6. The armored engine cowl ring appears to be closer to the late 10 mm ring supplied with the BMW 801 TS or TU motor rather than the 6.5 mm ring that is normal with the 801 D-2. However there are variations. This is similar to the choices of three authorized propellers and the introduction of the blown canopy. The canopy choices of open or closed is a very nice touch - kudos to Revell for that. Cheers, Jerry 1. Looks like they've gone with a couple of additional embellishments as far as panel lines are concerned (ref D's OP) ?! 2. I was thinking earlier when I looked at this thread - the gun cowls don't look all that different in shape ... except of course with the fictitious scribing on the Revell kit ... 3. Now ... this one is interesting! ... There was another thread going on here somewhere with a rather heated discussion on this very topic ... I thought the consensus was, that the extended gear was meant to look that way - I may have that all mixed up though!! Cheers Rog Edited May 28, 2015 by Artful69 mpk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Hog Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Personally, I like the Revell Plastic better. The Hasegwa plastic feels "heavy" and is very brittle and the fuselage moldings feel "thick". To me, the Revell kit feels more "to scale". Any excellent example is the moulding of the cooling louvers. Seems no kit is perfect. Myself, I'm a TLAR (that looks about right) and for under thirty bucks the Revell kit suits my requirements to a "tee" This is not to malign those of you who strive for absolute accuracy. Some of the builds on LSP are awesome. I would single out Mal from Sweden for excellence. mpk and BiggTim 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Bellis Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 Wow! Far more of a response than I would have thought. Thanks for your kind words and support! (can we have the measurements in mm too, pls?) Sorry. All in 1/32: Spinner diameter is supposed to be .599" (15.2146mm). Revell spinner diameter is .656" (16.6624mm). Prop blade width (max) is supposed to be .39" (9.9mm) - Revell is .295" (7.493mm), Hasegawa is .431" (10.9474mm). Wing trailing edge of 1/32" is .03125 in decimal, and works out to .79375mm. There is an excellent online conversion calculator HERE. The last pic could be the Muzzle Flash Supressors for the Nightfighter. bad pic of them here http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-190A/NJG10/pages/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190A-I.NJG10-(W9+)-Gunther-Migge-1944-04.html There is a much better pic in Kagero Fw190 vol 3 Have a look here: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/08/bretschneiders-fug-217-neptun-radar.html Thanks! The photographs I have suggest that nighfighters used flash suppressors there, while others suggest that the guns were removed and G style fairing used, and still others clearly show no changes at all to the standard muzzles. I guess I'll have to get a copy of the Kagero book. in the meantime, it looks like Revell might be planning a nightfighter boxing at some point. 3. In order to accommodate the modelers who want to have their model on a pedestal, the landing gear legs have been supplied fully extended but they should be compressed depending the load of the aircraft to make a more realistic stance with the gear down. If that is indeed the case, then the same would true for the Hasegawa gear legs as well since they are nearly identical in length (including how they both sit in their respective attachment lugs): Until someone measures an actual Fw 190F gear leg at max takeoff weight, normal loaded and empty, we'll probably never know for sure what length the oleo portion of the leg and what its actual range of motion are really supposed to be. I'm also very curious why this was never a complaint with the Hasegawa kit over the years. I have two of those built on the shelf, and they appear to have exactly the right 'sit'. The gear legs are identical on the two kits, yet for some inexplicable reason there are complaints about Revell kit's leg length. I'd also be curious to see if the widely hyped Eduard legs are actually shorter in reality, or if that is also just more hype. We've all seen how Eduard products get hyped up only to fall flat when scrutinized (see their 1/48 Bf 109G kits for a prime example). Thanks again for everyone's kind words and support. D D.B. Andrus, mpk, BGB and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGB Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Hello, Didn't even notice the cowl with the muzzle flash supressors in the kit until you posted that pic, and now I have been looking at 1000 pics and can't find any with the panel lines on the engine bulge as depicted on Hasegawa kit,should it really be there? any body have some clear pics. Cheers Boris mpk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Bellis Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 ...and now I have been looking at 1000 pics and can't find any with the panel lines on the engine bulge as depicted on Hasegawa kit,should it really be there? any body have some clear pics. Yep, they are supposed to be there. There are some clear shots of this detail in Classic Publications' Fw 190 vol.2. This shot also shows that panel's outline pretty clearly (to the far left on this rusty, original relic): http://www.toredgarolsen.net/fockepic/cowling.jpg HTH, D BGB and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnarg Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Thank you for a review that shows exactly what a review should show. We can make a good decision about these two kits and build one, both or a Frankenstein amalgamation of the two.... plus a better spinner and prop... and "legs"... and on and on, but that is the fun of this hobby. Tnarg mpk and D Bellis 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 ... If that is indeed the case, then the same would true for the Hasegawa gear legs as well since they are nearly identical in length (including how they both sit in their respective attachment lugs): Until someone measures an actual Fw 190F gear leg at max takeoff weight, normal loaded and empty, we'll probably never know for sure what length the oleo portion of the leg and what its actual range of motion are really supposed to be. I'm also very curious why this was never a complaint with the Hasegawa kit over the years. I have two of those built on the shelf, and they appear to have exactly the right 'sit'. The gear legs are identical on the two kits, yet for some inexplicable reason there are complaints about Revell kit's leg length. I'd also be curious to see if the widely hyped Eduard legs are actually shorter in reality, or if that is also just more hype. We've all seen how Eduard products get hyped up only to fall flat when scrutinized (see their 1/48 Bf 109G kits for a prime example) ... Yep ... no idea why anyone comparing the two struts would think they were different in length ... As for the Eduard gear ... James (Hatch) has them to hand and provides a review here: http://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/3740-132-fw-190-undercarriage-and-wheels/ I'm not sure if there is any huge dimensional difference in length or stance - although they might be a little thicker ... not having a side by side comparison with the kit legs makes it a difficult judgement ... ... but hearing the various reports on review builds about the 'axle trouble' - I intended to buy the metal gear for that reason alone (I don't think the extra 'weight' of AM would trouble the vertical sections too much) Rog mpk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBrown Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Hello, Didn't even notice the cowl with the muzzle flash supressors in the kit until you posted that pic, and now I have been looking at 1000 pics and can't find any with the panel lines on the engine bulge as depicted on Hasegawa kit,should it really be there? any body have some clear pics. Cheers Boris The panel line is faintly visible in some photos.... Edited May 28, 2015 by RBrown D Bellis, D.B. Andrus, Uncarina and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGB Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Hello, Thanks guys now I can see the light some scribing then. And I must say that I actually don't belive that stuff with the"axle trouble" and I have never read anything about problems in review builds, that started when Eduard realesed their very nice gear legs for this kit . Cheers Boris D Bellis and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 ... And I must say that I actually don't believe that stuff with the"axle trouble" and I have never read anything about problems in review builds ... Cheers Boris Boris ... Read the review in the link I listed above ... apparently James had trouble with the axle 'melting'? ... Not sure, but I get that idea from what he wrote. Maybe it was the glue used? As far as the axle goes - I can only go off what I've read It may be the case ... OR - it may not be? ... Either way I'll consider the Eduard gear an 'insurance policy' - 'cause there's NO way those suckers are melting! Rog mpk 1 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