Revel and Hasegawa Fw 190F-8 kits - a comparison

[D Bellis]

Having read posting 136 and the link to the 109 prop there, seen how the spinner has been measured etc, I can only say that someone here is completely missing the point.

The point is that we only have someone claiming that Henri did this, with no actual proof of it, nor the actual results.

 

Anyone can claim anything and attribute it to anyone they want. But, that doesn't make it fact.

 

D

[Artful69]

The point is that we only have someone claiming that Henri did this, with no actual proof of it, nor the actual results.

 

Anyone can claim anything and attribute it to anyone they want. But, that doesn't make it fact.

 

D

 

D ...

 

Apologies if this comes out the wrong way ... it's not intended to.

 

But the claims, to me, are the same ...

 

Someone says he's measured it ... posts on a thread in another forum ... you elect to take those measurements as your reference. You weren't there to watch him do it - but you take his word for it ... why? - Reputation!! (or at least thats what you seem to have alluded to in your post) ... In other words: He said he did it, and that's good enough for you!

 

Henri say's he's measured it (according to someone on here who has discussed it with him, apparently) ... He doesn't make posts on threads, neither does he run his own web page - he just has his e-bay site ... I'm electing to take his (Henri's) assessment as my reference. Why? - Reputation! Henri is renowned for making excellent AM props & spinners - both highly detailed and highly accurate.

 

Proof of his methods, proof of his work and the effort that goes into it have been provided ... and still you claim that this is all invalid?

 

Now ... please note, I'm not saying your claims are invalid either ... to me, both offer food for thought ... and for those here that are extremely worried about the shape of their Revell Fw-190 spinner and prop shape/size etc - Well ... it just encourages them to do additional research, really, doesn't it? For the rest of us, who aren't that concerned ... we've seen the differences between the two kits as per your photos - great and thanks!! Seriously, I mean it ... anyone who takes the time and effort to do some investigative comparison work and report their findings for general use deserves as such.

 

However ... Sweeping and general statements of opinion - represented as fact - are actually open to dispute. Further, those sorts of statements will probably attract said dispute, especially when phrased in a dismissive tone toward the findings of others.

 

The same can be said for the underwing 'plates' (who cares what they're for?!?!) ... they're definitely not fictitious ... they do exist (or at least did on some aircraft) as per the myriad of photos supplied ... you stand corrected ... yet, instead of then posing the logical question: "ok, why on some aircraft and not on others?" - you (for what reason, I don't know), still claim them as fictitious simply because they are not to scale (good grief!!! - has any kit in recent memory, been prefect? - just use some sandpaper! ... or cut them off and do without.

 

Ok ... so ... given that your references don't have them (I assume that you do have references and this is, therefore, where the "fictitious" term originated) - actually caring what they are for, now, proves useful. Would it be completely silly to suggest that this might have been some sort of field modification or retrofitting or something ... some of them appear, to me, to be different in size. Was it discovered that hot exhaust gases were blowing onto the ordinance, fuel tank or even the tyres? 

 

Just my thoughts on the caper ... be they right or wrong 

 

Rog

Edited June 7, 2015 by Artful69

[D Bellis]

You weren't there to watch him do it - but you take his word for it ... why?

Because he claims to have personally measured it.

 

... (according to someone on here who has discussed it with him, apparently) ...

Precisely the problem.

 

Proof of his methods, proof of his work and the effort that goes into it have been provided ...

However, there is no proof that Henri actually came to the conclusions clamed.

 

There' is nothing to show the measurements of Henri's Fw 190A/F/G spinner (does he make one in scale based on his own measurements?), which would be at least some kind of proof that the information posted by "fockewings" actually comes from Henri.

 

I took the word of a man who both 1) has access to an Fw 190F, and 2) publicly published the results of his measurements under his own name.

 

I will not change that for someone registered under an anonymous name claiming that someone reputable told him the measurements are different (exactly what those claimed measurements are/were we still do not know).

 

You can do whatever you want with any of it.

 

D

[Artful69]

The link shows the same method Henri use to measure the spinner on the D-9 and A-8.

 

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/reviews/review.php?rid=1257

BTW -

AM are similar to our believes, everyone has it own favourite. That is good so and no reason for a new crusader trip - amen

 

Ralph ... Being the OP for his postings here, you are in touch with Henri are you not?

I know his English is not the best, but is there any way you can have him type up an email of his conclusions?

 

Personally I'd like to see what he came up with on this particular spinner and prop combo

 

Cheers

Rog

Edited June 7, 2015 by Artful69

[D Bellis]

Personally I'd like to see what he came up with on this particular spinner and prop combo

We all would.

 

D

[Artful69]

We all would.

 

D

 

Well he (Henri) can't post on here (under his own name), D ... and he might not have any pictures ...

 

So ... I'm sorry, but ... what ever conclusions Ralph gets (from him) - assuming he has the time to reply - are not going to satisfy your requirements, are they?!

 

Ergo ... I doubt you'd be interested in the conclusions presented ... except to comment that they have no value, as before

 

I wish we could all do better ... but we can't

 

Rog  

[BGB]

Hello Rog,

 

Go for it!! I am  wey interested in those numbers  mm or inch doesn't matter.

 

Cheers

Boris

[Artful69]

How many angels can be measured dancing on the head of a pin?

 

Am I alone in finding the needed to find the "correct" dimensions of the Fw190 spinner - in 1/32 scale - rather irrelevant? I mean, I'm all for accuracy, but there are times when it appears to cross the boundary between accuracy & obsessiveness.

 

No, you're not - I agree ... The new kit looks fine to me ... and with the exception of some turned brass barrels (as I use with most kits I build) and possibly some Eduard coloured sticky IP gear - is likely to be good enough for me out of box.

 

Since the discussion was raised ... now I'm just curious as to what prompted Henri to draw his conclusion.

 

Rog

[Andreas Beck]

Before everybody going nuts:

 

I just had a tel-chat with Henri Daehne. He had measured an A-9 spinner which is identical to that of the F-8. The base diameter is 520 mm.

Henri follows the forums but he hasn´t got an account yet. He promised to create one  soon....

 

Cheers from Charlottengrad

 

Andreas Beck

[BGB]

Hello,

 

thanks a lot.

 

Cheers

Boris

[D Bellis]

The base diameter is 520 mm.

Thank you! I hope Henri chimes in on this as well.

 

Going by that measurement (and working under the assumption that it is correct), a quick recap:

 

Actual spinner diameter = 520mm (20.47"), or 16.25mm (.639") in 1/32 scale.

Hasegawa spinner diameter = 15.21mm (.599") which would be 6.3% too small.

Revell spinner diameter = 16.66mm (.656") which would be 2.5% too large.

 

Even with the new information, the Revell spinner comes out to be too large, but by a smaller percentage than when using the other information.

 

D

[scvrobeson]

Thank you! I hope Henri chimes in on this as well.

 

Going by that measurement (and working under the assumption that it is correct), a quick recap:

 

Actual spinner diameter = 520mm (20.47"), or 16.25mm (.639") in 1/32 scale.

Hasegawa spinner diameter = 15.21mm (.599") which would be 6.3% too small.

Revell spinner diameter = 16.66mm (.656") which would be 2.5% too large.

 

Even with the new information, the Revell spinner comes out to be too large, but by a smaller percentage than when using the other information.

 

D

 

 

Yes, but it's closer to accurate than the Hasegawa spinner. And it looks like the Revell one also has the correct curves on it.

[fockewings]

Thank you! I hope Henri chimes in on this as well.

 

Going by that measurement (and working under the assumption that it is correct), a quick recap:

 

Actual spinner diameter = 520mm (20.47"), or 16.25mm (.639") in 1/32 scale.

Hasegawa spinner diameter = 15.21mm (.599") which would be 6.3% too small.

Revell spinner diameter = 16.66mm (.656") which would be 2.5% too large.

 

Even with the new information, the Revell spinner comes out to be too large, but by a smaller percentage than when using the other information.

 

D

it think its enough now. Take a drill machine sand it off and be happy. As mentioned earlier there are tolerances with measuring and resin casting and everbody can built his bird as he likes. I offered useful info which wasnt accepted as it was stated through me, trying to help Henri out. If one cant live with it so be it. There are too many middle-quality-products from various guys around and typically the ones who do best and for zero profit they need to explain themselves to whoever... I got enough for my part and keep using Henris masterful parts-may the best looking Bird win the contest. Cheers

[Hardcore]

I can add the final consideration: the paint and varnish will add to the dimensions too:p

[Radub]

Thank you! I hope Henri chimes in on this as well.

 

Going by that measurement (and working under the assumption that it is correct), a quick recap:

 

Actual spinner diameter = 520mm (20.47"), or 16.25mm (.639") in 1/32 scale.

Hasegawa spinner diameter = 15.21mm (.599") which would be 6.3% too small.

Revell spinner diameter = 16.66mm (.656") which would be 2.5% too large.

 

Even with the new information, the Revell spinner comes out to be too large, but by a smaller percentage than when using the other information.

 

D

 

I have a drawing given to me by Arthur Bentley, marked with "not for redistribution by any means", so I cannot share it here (or anywhere). It is a page of factory drawings bearing the Focke Wulf data block, dated 1944. This drawing contains dimensional data of the engine cowl. I know for a fact that this is a drawing used by Arthur for his drawings of the FW 190, which are still the best available (no matter what anyone says). Whatever I am going to write below will have to be accepted at face value. If you think that unless I post that drawing here, that invalidates anything I will say from now on, please stop reading here and feel free to believe whatever you wish, no quibble or upset from me. ;-) 

The spinner radius given in that drawing is 262.5 mm, which gives a diameter of 525 mm. Considering that Henri Daehne quoted a dimension of 520 mm, that is within a "tolerance" I am willing to accept - that 5 mm is not a problem and anyone who ever worked with genuine WW2 parts will tell you that sometimes a 5 mm deviation from a drawing dimension is not uncommon, therefore I am not going to dwell on that. In scale 1/32 that converts to 16.40 mm and we are told that the Revell spinner has a diameter of 16.66 mm, which gives an overall difference of 0.26 mm, respectively 0.13 mm in radius (basically a coat of paint...a couple of swipes with a sander). Now, let us put this into perspective: 0.26 mm is the thickness of 3 sheets of printer paper. To me, that is really not worth filling so many pages of internet forums. I am more than willing to live with that. I will build the model with the kit spinner or Henri Daehne's spinner (as a customer of his, I am perfectly happy with his work) and be satisfied that the model is good enough.

Radu