Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

unbelievable...

What is unbelievable is that folks don't seem to understand that stating "this guy said this, and that guy said that" is utterly useless. Name dropping is also useless.

 

Show proof of what Henri measured and you have undeniable proof. Don't show it and the words are just hearsay.

 

Otherwise, Bill Strandberg has stated that he personally measured an Fw 190F-8 spinner and posted the results HERE. Not hearsay. Not rumor. First hand information. Is Bill Strandberg's information incorrect? Maybe. But, no one has offered up any actual proof of that, yet.

 

"I know a guy that knows a guy that said he measured..." isn't proof of anything.

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to post my measurements from the Fw 190F-8 I came across in Kissimmee Florida but, without knowing the provenance of the spinner, what's the point?

Fw190F8Spinner.jpg

 

Still an interesting pic, though. No spinner back plate. No fan. Non-standard prop blades (US? Brit?). That spinner itself also looks quite a bit different from those originals posted by RBrown HERE.

 

Still wouldn't mind having any dimensions you had taken of it, particularly the overall diameter at the base. This spinner's measurements might not apply to an Fw 190, but it might be useful for sorting out Ju 88 or possibly other spinners.

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fw 190A spinner is composed of two parts riveted together. The parts can be described as the cone and the drum which accommodates the prop itself. The cone is obviously tapered, but apparently so is the drum. The taper on the drum is subtle, but it is evident on photographs and it is also documented on the Bentley plans.  When Mr. S measured the circumference of the spinner he measured it at point in front of the prop and not at the base plate.  

 

This would result in error because it does not allow for the taper.   Although S. assumed that the this portion of the spinner was of constant diameter, and even mentions this in the post, I think he was mistaken.  Clearly S. made a honest attempt, and I commend him for his efforts,  but I now have doubts about the accuracy of the figures he provided with respect to the circumference of the spinner. 

 

0000fw190-spinner-1.jpg

Edited by RBrown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

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. If that's how Henri Daehne does his research I for one will stand up and say I trust his work. Look how many points he's clocked to get the curve of the spinner correctly. It's not a quick eyeball job, is it? His prop kits have photos of the original full scale parts, the actual ones he had modelled, scale drawings, dimensions, part numbers from the actual items, etc. I've got most of Henri's props and they all have references, drawings, photos. Not just bits of resin in a bag. He's done the leg work doing the research properly. His mastering skills are stunning. If you haven't got one of Henri's models you really aren't in a position to comment about accuracy.

 

Now throw in RBrown's comments in 142 and compare the difference in measuring technique. Not quite in the same league I'm afraid.

 

There's only one other person I'd trust with mastering parts, having done research with him for armour kits many, many moons ago. The same "hands on" skill set, the same eye for detail, the same desire to get it perfect. If we could get them together..........

 

Step forward Wunwinglow!

 

Regards,

 

Bruce Crosby

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Artful69
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D

 

Cheers

Rog :)

Edited by Artful69
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...