Revell, Hasegawa Henri D. Fw 190F-8 spinner, fan and prop blades

[RBrown]

Here are two of the Life Magazine photos.

 

Edited June 14, 2015 by RBrown

[RBrown]

The aircraft was assigned Evaluation Branch number EB-104 and made an appearance at a foreign aircraft display at the Army Technical Command Center Wright Field, October 1945.

 

Edited June 14, 2015 by RBrown

[fockewings]

Never seen some of the pics and the markings were for sure attached before they went for public display in the states. They are no standard markings. But thanks again for these pics.

[fockewings]

OK, found some time again to dig a bit more into the REV-HASE topic. I focused now on the landing-gear since I wanted to share some of my points. Reason for this is the newly made Brassin Landing Gear by EDUARD.

 

I will try not to rant   but state the obvious.  I will try to make some explanations so anybody can choose what he likes.

 

OK, here are some pics from all the landing gear covers:

 

1. to the left is my modified Hasegawa one with Aber etched parts    the length is taken from a picture showing an A-4 on a runway without ETC!

2.the original HASE being too short in the upper part missing quite a bit to go into the wing

3.the Revell intented to be used in upper/closed position during flight - there is a minor difference in length towards the next one - visible on the mounting holes towards the triangular gauge/indicator on the right side of the landinggear-cover - this one appears to be a bit oversized when compared to pictures - I also noted that the mounting holes have the same distance towards the forward and aft edge of the cover.

4.Gearcover for extended gear with aircraft sitting on ground

5. Eduards newly cast gear cover

 

 

Be aware that aircraft-examples from museums might have lost a part of the tension/pressure since being stored in museums standing or hanging, having received maybe the third coating of paint, and removal of all fluids which can affect the reliability.

 

Only valid would be the newly airworthy A-5 as an comparison

http://img10.deviantart.net/8944/i/2011/219/c/3/focke_wulf_fw_190a_5_taxi_by_shelbs2-d45syrl.jpg

 

other fantastic pics are these showing an A5 without ETC:

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-A5-JG54-(W4+-)-ImmolaFinland-1944-3+.jpg

 

the lowest two mounting points for the gear cover towards the leg are still visible as on the gear covers from Revell or my modified example shown.

Keep in mind there is no ETC or any other bombs attached on my example of an A-4!

 

Now to the Hasegawa cover:

this shows only one lower mounting point visible.

That means this would be more valid for an aircraft which is armed up with either ETC and full droptank or maybe a 250 bomb. Reasonable for me but needs to be extended in the top as stated before.

 

Here a wikipedia picture of an heavily loaded G-1

 

Also this one showing a late version like an F-8 with outward guns even visible both of the lower mounting points

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

this one shows the same aircraft
 

 

and this one I think is the cracker :

 

Showing an A-5 with lots of "load" mounted the indicator is not showing as much compression as one would think

 

source: internet/wikipedia

 

 

here is the last one even with an Bv 246: source of picture cutout the fantastic book: Fw190 Volume three 1944-1945 Smith/Creek ISBN 978-1-906537-31-9

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

So none of these aircraft-pics, even heavily armed, showes that much compression

source of picture cutout: Fw190 Volume three 1944-1945 Smith/Creek ISBN

 978-1-906537-31-9

 

 

there is another one from the same book with the Eduard Cover next to it. Note how much the indicator is placed towards the top of the cover with almost full compression whereas the picture with the heavy load shows more room above

 

 

another shot taken for comparison between the extended Revell and Eduard. The length difference is immense

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

My point:

Eduard has made those fantastic detailed legs and covers way to short to picture a normal F-8 with load, based on the presumption that the Museum F-8 is authentic in terms of compression. All the other pictures, I have seen, do not show that much compression. The only one valid weight would be, in my eyes, a 7m long torpedo...

Note:

1.G-Factor landing gears

2.Hasegawa

3. Revell

4. Eduard

 

at last a shot from the museum showing the Museum F-8 in the States. My guess is that Eduard took that picture and just copied it... Again: Long term compression, lack of hydraulic/spring-pressure and so on...

 

 

Note: to me it seems that the indicator on the Gear-cover was positioned to high considering the upper &last pressure readings since the 7th line (partly coverd by the bomb sits already on the tapered part of the cover whereas this one does not:

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

Another thing that I found is the lower wing half of the revell bird compared to Hasegawa.

 

See for yourself:

 

 

there is a step-down from left towards right in all panel lines covering the tank/fuselage-center. Just look at the shadows

 

 

one more

 

funny detail but not really disturbing. I found those on the Revell He-219 as well.

 

But there is one more detail revell has covered properly while missing some otheres at the same time

The small edge Hasegawa moulded doesnt need to be there... Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also I noticed on the Revell (light grey) the jacking point  (small circular engraving to the left underneath the gear opening) is missing -the last pic in this post shows it also on the original

 

picture cutout source: Aero Detail 6 Fw190A/F ISBN4-499-22603-1

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

Another pic of some funny details Revell has done obviously due to lack of quality control:

Panel-lines only partly scribed whereas the other side shows them properly.

 

 

 

this is the place on the original:

Source: Aero Detail 6 FW190 A/F

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

I hope this was not too confusing with hopping around between pictures and model parts and everybody can judge for himself what parts/model he is using. Thinking of some Kit-bashing, I am looking forward to try that out. Taking the best of each kit and combining them. I will, of course, change the Eduard gear-parts so, so that those fit my expectations. In my eyes an effort that could have been prevented.

 

Again:

 

This is only due to my interest in technical details and transformations during history and not to be considered as NP.

[Out2gtcha]

Great comparison!  It appears for as nice as the Brassin kit is, the gear/doors appear to be short. No matter how well something is molded/produced, if its not accurate, I guess one has to balance the cost VS fixing what ever is wrong, and if it is worth it VS other options.

 

For me, the G-Factor stuff worked a TREAT, and didnt need much work to get ready, but I am by NO means a 190 expert. 

[fockewings]

Thank you and you are welcome. Yes, I forgot to mention the G-Factor legs. They are intented to be used with the the Hasegawa but I am sure they would fit for the Revell as well, some tweaking applied.

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[LSP_Mike]

Thank you for the informative comparisons. An enthusiast such as yourself can shed a great amount of light on a variety of details that help other modellers make more informed purchases. In addition, each can decide for themselves how far they want to go to get a model that is to their standard.

[fockewings]

Yes indeed. I wish I could have had the info before I purchased stuff for conversions. It isnt so that only one AM-Supplier or Model-Company makes splendid models. They all have their minor or big faults. THink only of the Gustav from Eduard. DIscussion has been going on since the first model came up. Or the FW 190 from the same supplier. Think of the He-219 from Revell or Zoukei. Even Tamiya has their wrondoings.

 

Here is just one example of the seats for this FW190. I have now at least 4 versions.

1. to the left is Hasegawas

2.Revells bare seat -  nice seat cushion seperately included

3.a nice but not 100% perfect by Eagle Parts it extents too much to the rear

4.Eduards newly casted seat from their F-8 cockpit set - for me according to pictures and evaluation the best of the lot in terms of details and dimensions

 

 

 

As far as it concerns the cockpit-tub I have to read a bit more before I make some statements here. There are hundreds of small changes and even after war productions could have varied such as FW190/NC900 or Siebel 204-D/Aero C-3A.

I only can post this pic for now since it shows the big effort I made to copy an A-4 cockpit....

 

 

 

 

 

Note that all changes are made to the Hasegawa-kit:

the engraving I did free-handed with that tool

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by fockewings

[D.B. Andrus]

Thanks, fockewings, for interesting and helpful examination of the existing FW 190 kits and AM. Really love this stuff.

 

Cheers,

 

D.B.