Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Artful69

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 07/22/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia
  • Interests
    WW2 German Armed forces, military history in general, Reading, Writing ... Scale Models? lol :)

Recent Profile Visitors

573 profile views
  1. The Sheridan is a new tool ... I think the decals bit was referring to the comment about the 'new' A-6A Intruder from Trumpeter? I agree - I'd rather they'd picked a different subject ... Like a Pz.Kpfw.III or StuG.III ... when that chassis finally gets released in 1/16 I'll be all over it!! In relation to the OP ... I don't think Tamiya doing (or not-doing) anything now will have any bearing on what is done in the future ... I've been hoping for a while that they'd upscale their Mk.1 Spit or their Bf.109G-6 ... ... But we've seen nothing in 1/32 for quite some time and rumour has it that they've taken a breather in that scale. Rog
  2. Artful69

    1/32 B-29?

    As much as I'm happy to see a few of WWII bombers being kitted in IM ... including the four engined Heavies currently in production ... or slated for release in the near future, I'd have to say I agree! ... The main 3 most popular (4's) Lanc, B.17 and B.24 are now being kitted ... There's probably room, popularity wise, for between about 3 and 6 larger twins in IM ... and even then the demand for these in IM is debatable (Wellington, Do.17 or 217, B.26 etc) Don't get me wrong ... I'll shell out the cash for the Ju.52 when it appears as well as any of the above with the exception of the B.26. But there has to be a point where the market as a whole just says "are you kidding? - Nope, not for me" Rog
  3. No worries Bevan ... I agree ... a straight up A-8 kit would have made life a lot easier ... and they're common enough that pricing can still be pretty low (Ex O/Seas) Still ... if your friend is keen I suppose anything can happen!! Rog
  4. Differences? ... There are plenty!! I'm assuming here that you're talking about a Hasegawa newer tool kit? ... If so I will also assume that it's being assembled as a buttoned-up display so the main 'differences' are going to be external ... Rather than provide a list ... Heres a couple of links I've used regularly that show the evolution from the A-0 onward ... Parts 1 & 2. It's a pretty good basic reference. Just remember that it's an evolution ... so you can't just compare the A-5 to A-8 ... The changes to the A-6/7 will come into reckoning as well. http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/12/stuff_eng_fw190_02.htm HTH Rog
  5. True ... this would go a long way to fixing a few of the accuracy issues ... but not so much the engineering issues - such as the overly complex landing gear. Rog
  6. Yeah Mike ... I'm aware of the choice made by Revell to ignore the plethora of experts willing to contribute to the G-6 project (as well as the Spitfire Mk.IIa and the Erla G-10) - It really was a shame!! ... I'm hoping that with the change of management they revert back to the era that brought us the Ju.88, He.111 and the Ar.196. Definitely it was an opportunity missed - yet, I doubt sales revenue will tell them that, given the pricing point it was released at. All of which means that ZM ... who have a passion for the kits they are making ... have that golden opportunity to get it right!! Whether the P.51B arrives in Standard SWS format or Basic Series ... I'm sure the kit will be fantastic ... hopefully we get RAF Mk.III Malcolm Hood options ... In any case ... yes, I know you would rather it be in Basic format as stated previously, I'm just not sure how much cheaper it will be - or whether the retail pricing reduction (if any) will be significant enough to sway purchase of one over another in the market place. With the Fw.190's: On the one hand, we all know (or should do by now) that ZM have had the feedback about producing a run of 'simpler' kits - which inspired the idea behind the Basic Series ... On the other hand we all know that people putting money where their mouths are is an entirely different matter. Expecting a Basic Series kit to hit the market at 20% (or even 60%) of the price of an SWS kit is beyond ridiculous ... and yet a lot of those providing such feedback will have this very expectation. Feedback v's Actual sales is the gripping hand here ... Adding to the confusion in generating accurate statistical sales data in order to assess the demand of the Basic Series - will be a number of issues ... From last news I had on the release schedule ... The A-4 was supposed to be the designated as the first sale in the line up ... followed shortly by the A-3. The lack of a simultaneous release means that the A-4 may outsell the A-3 regardless, based on availability alone? Then there's marking options - One kit might have a particularly attractive option to the bulk of the market causing people to purchase that kit over the other regardless of build complexity? Variant preference - Does the bulk of the market (choosing one option only) prefer the A-3 ... or the A-4? What about the section of the market who will buy all, regardless of build complexity (like me ) - just because it may be either the most accessible option to them, or the most accurate option (or hopefully, both!) ... Personally I think it might have been a more successful marketing strategy to just design the kits to be built as SWS ... then box a run of the slightly cheaper Basic Series with a load of parts missing for a simpler build ... wherever your sales end up (demand wise) determines your production run of each kit type for the next release. In the current release format, it's interesting to see that they plan the A-5 thru A-7 in Basic. Although visually, external differences fill the bulk of factory changes to these 3 variants, field mods were extensive and varied as pilots changed any number of things (such as armament fit and load outs) to suit their particular tastes ... the SWS system would enable the modeller to highlight such changes beautifully. Either way ... with the recent releases (that still surprise me to think about!), the Fw.190's ... and now these three announcements, it's obvious that ZM are selling well enough to ramp up their production considerably. Good signs for the years to come! Rog
  7. Heya ... Just a quick quiz to all about the Ki.45 ... Apparently 2 versions can be built OOB. With the heavy inclusion of clear sprues as well as opaque counterparts ... does anyone have an exact read on the additional sprues required (and amount/multiples of) in order to build a second A/C from the one boxing? ... I'm seriously considering biting the bullet! Rog
  8. No worries Nige ... I know how much you like details I'd say you could purchase practically any ZM kit with confidence, really ... but then again, the smaller inaccuracies on any kit never bothered me. There's no indicated release timeframe for any of these recently announced kits ... so you might be waiting a few years. The Fw.190 kits (complete series) are still in various stages of production and the recently announced to-be-released Ki.45 and Hs.129 came as a total shock! Rog
  9. Dan ... I'd really advise checking in with Nick beforehand - he may have seen these drawings previously and there are contradictory sources everywhere ... Drawings for all variants are all over the place and I'd suggest that Revell made their design blues due to using the wrong ones ... Even the Classics Publication of the He.111 book is dodgy on info (which is why I didn't buy it) ... I built my initial Ju.88 and He.111 kits OOB and didn't care really, as they assembled well ... but there are some accuracy issues with both kits - and if that's your bag ... Nick is your man! Rog
  10. Nick (nmayhew) has done a fair whack of research on the He.111 (all types) and can provide you with a list of accuracy issues with both the He.111-P & H kits. Although ... like the information he's drawn from ... his comments are scattered all over the place (no offence Nick) ... I don't know if a tweak list has been completed?? Anyhoo check with him!! For mine, both are still very buildable and hark back to the era when Revell was not as Trumpeter-like on the hit-and-miss scale as they are today. Rog
  11. ... Which ... from the pictures in the link ... is definitely NOT a Mk.II ??? Rog
  12. Hey Nige ... Happy New Year! .. Still haven't gotten around to watching your Lanc' review - but I do have it queued to watch at some point ... I just don't have the financial capacity to invest in the kit yet!! I'm guessing that the Trumpeter P-51B kit was handed off to the 'B' team from inception as the 'A' team were either 1/ probably working on something else or 2/ were on holiday at the time. At any rate ... the 'B' team must have lost interest and handed the project over to the interns ... Aside from the accuracy issues and 'fake' detail, which are pretty much beyond fixable - I believe (from build reviews I've seen) that the kit has some really awful engineering/fit issues reminiscent of some poor kits created 3-4 decades earlier. So ... even if you weren't an accuracy nut - the build would frustrate you no end (probably?) ... I know engineering/fit/finish are weighted higher than accuracy in my 'buy or burn' index which is why i selected the Trumpeter P-47D over the Hasegawa kit. The Revell G-6 ... If Revell's A team had worked on this kit (let's face it - they're becoming as hit-and-miss as Trumpeter is these days, albeit cheaper in Europe) then we probably would have ended up with the definitive 109G kit ... as it was we ended up with a kit that had some questionable engineering choices in assembly ... annnnnnd a few accuracy issues. Nothing, of course, like the Trumpeter P-51B above and most fall under the 'fixable' banner ... But it made the individuals 'buy-or-burn' decision between the Hasegawa, Trumpeter and Revell kits (leaving out the product fanboy factor) one of: which issues/inaccuracies can you live with? ... and what price you were willing to pay? ... In short, they all have issues - do your review research - and select based on personal taste. There is, of course, a plethora of AM detail and correction stuff available also. The Fly Ar-234 represents a decent bang-for-buck kit ... and like most kits being issued from the Czeck Republic these days is a clever mixture of media to achieve the end result - which looks pretty decent. The IM components cover the basics and are fashioned in the typical limited or short run style ... yet the detail is well above average expected for this medium, really! Resin fills in the details in the outstanding way that resin usually does. it's not without the odd inaccuracy - which is really a take-it-or-leave-it proposition (wing and nacelle sweep/angle of attack I think??) ... and the only other option in this scale is Radu's resin kit design released through MDC - which IS accurate (as most - if not all - of his stuff is) - yet pricey in comparison. It depends on what your definition of 'better' means in relation to the above ... In terms of the P-51B, it's hard to imagine anyone NOT putting together a kit better than the Trumpeter offering. So I'd say that, however ZM's kit turns out, it's bound to be better in just about every aspect ... although HKM has one in the pipeline also (announced a while back) so if both products make it to market in similar timeframes it'll be a case of making a comparison similar to the Do-335 I'd expect. In short - I'd say almost a definite yes! Given that Tamiya haven't released a 1/32 kit for some time now - and the scuttlebutt is that they are shying away from 1/32 for a while ... I doubt we'll see an upscaling for the excellent 1/48 109G-6 that they released a little while back (though I still live in hope!). This presents ZM with an excellent opportunity to print currency ... Though a couple of their past kits have lacked some finesse in detail and have been slightly off in some (minimal) areas of accuracy - they seem to be improving exponentially and their later releases are (dare I say it) becoming Tamiya-esque in quality (they weren't too far off the mark with their first few releases anyway!). If they can get the accuracy part with the 109G-6 right (which no-one else seems to have done) ... then I'd expect we'll finally end up with a (close to) definitive 109G-6 - with the usual great detail given by ZM and very little quibbles. In short - More than likely, yes - but wait to see plastic/reviews. As far as the Ar-234 is concerned ... With ZM IM plastic throughout (regardless of which drawings they use for wing/nacelle) I'd say the the answer is pretty much: As Above. Of course the same caveat will determine whether Radu's resin kit remains king of the mountain in the accuracy department. To be honest - and using my criteria for kit selection - the Fly Model kit is a satisfactory representation as it stands ... but I'd love to see what ZM come up with! As far as the last two kits mentioned are concerned ... again, better is a highly subjective term. Personally I'd say that, if you have the cash available, the ZM He.219 is a no-brainer selection over the Revell kit ... it's far more detailed, has a unique build style (as all ZM products do) and is a far more accurate representation than it's Revell counterpart. It's not 100% (as no kit ever is) ... but the overall difference in just about every 'buy-or-burn' selection criteria (excepting price) is fairly substantial in comparison to the difference between the HKM and ZM Do.335 releases. With these two being more or less the same end result accuracy/external detail wise, I'd suggest the decision would ultimately come down to preferred build type (the usual IM kit style vs the unique ZM option) and price (which will depend on where in the world you are and what you can have your product delivered for). Rog
  13. That ... I think ... remains to be seen. Originally HpH designed the masters for HGW to produce the kit in resin only ... and at that stage, they announced that the G variant (and the block build with the powered turret at that!) was the only one being mastered and prepared for production. But ... now that they've decided to commit to IM plastic ... I'm wondering if we won't see a more modular layout - similar to the Fly Hurricane? That would definitely explain the amount of delays into production at present ... a reconfiguring of parts. Certainly, the A/C evolutionary differences between variants are not all that visibly huge. Simply altering the front end of the kit to have different nose plugs for solid and glazed variants is one easy option. The dorsal area and change from the G powered turret to the fixed rear glazing may present more issues as the fuselage width was widened to allow for the inclusion of the powered turret and I'm not sure how extensive that was ... localised or full length? If localised it may only required those sections to be altered by a solid plug - plus the glazed canopy. I, for one hope they give themselves the option ... as there are so many varied marking options and theatres of operation for this A/C. Rog
  14. Ok ... So first ... You just asked for some feed back in relation to the consumer market ... and I just gave you one point of view ... only one ... and only mine. While I'm sure that many, many others will agree with me ... I'm also sure that many others will have a different point of view. So here's a few fun facts of my own ... I have clear resin parts for quite a few kits (Fisher, HpH and AIMS - just to mention a few) ... and never experienced an issue with any of them (some are over 7 years old) ... I DO however have some yellowed clear vac parts!! ... and while it seems to me that some vac parts made these days are light years ahead of what used to be around - they cannot compete with resin for crispness of detail ... which is why resin is such a popular medium for corrections - the product is very close to the original IM plastic for texture and detail. So it seems to me that ANY product, made by anyone, can go awry. Also ... I've been around long enough now to understand that in any process, there are equipment costs, processing costs, time etc ... and failure rates ... it's all just a part of production. So as you can see ... there are clearly not just two choices. What (I think?) you were trying to say here - is that there's only one viable option FOR YOU as manufacturer ... correct? ... and that's ok ... I just gave you my criteria list ... that is all ... and I'm quite sure that someone out there will produce replacements in clear resin, moulded plastic or 3D print in time. I'm in no hurry ... but I'd rather pay more for something that looks like it was supposed to be a part of the kit than something that looks (to me) to be an obvious substitution or add-on. Rog
  • Create New...