HK Models 1/32 JU52!

[LSP_K2]

21 minutes ago, CATCplSlade said:

Which kit? The vacu form? Context would be nice. There have been plenty in plastic, albeit not 1/32 but big plane kits weren't as common 25 years ago. I've bought a couple in the smaller scales and I would love the opportunity for one to match my other big planes, but this release isn't a Ju 52 so the point is moot.

 

I suspect he's referring to the 1:48 Monogram kit.

[Archimedes]

2 hours ago, Darren Howie said:

No matter that at least a few people like the Ju-52 it simply doesnt sell.

When i was working in a large well stocked heavily frequented big selling shop when released we got in 6 Ju52’s.

2 sold i bought one.

4 sat in the shop for a year until we sold a third.

That was 25 years ago the other 3 are probably still sitting there.
Any manufacturer that thinks investing huge cash in tooling highly unpopular aircraft is smart is simply tearing up $100 notes in a cold shower.

 

 

Well, I for one would be delighted with a Ju52.  I bought and built the 1/48 kit in the 1936 Olympics markings and I enjoyed what is a well researched and impressive kit.  

[LSP_Ron]

I would definitely buy at least one.

[quang]

On 7/10/2020 at 2:43 PM, cbk57 said:

Same here, neat plane but too big in 1/32.

Did anyone complain that the B-17 was too big? You guys are a funny lot.

[CATCplSlade]

6 hours ago, LSP_K2 said:

 

I suspect he's referring to the 1:48 Monogram kit.

 

Yeah, I had one of those. I also had a couple in 1/72 to go with my Airfix soldiers.

[Paul2660]

5 hours ago, quang said:

Did anyone complain that the B-17 was too big? You guys are a funny lot.

I sure did. Way too big. At least for display 

 

Sure glad they did the 1/48 version. 
 

Paul C 

[cbk57]

6 hours ago, quang said:

Did anyone complain that the B-17 was too big? You guys are a funny lot.

I have consistently said that giant LSP's are not for me.  I like the HK B-17 but have never purchased one and never will.  I am happy for those that have one but they are not for me.  

[Propwash]

In my opinion, aircraft from the so-called "Golden Age of Aviation" are sadly under-represented as subjects for modelers.  Speaking for myself, I would love a 1/32 Ju-52.  I like the blunt, angular lines, the corrugated skin, and I think it would be a spectacular-looking build in 1/32.  It kind of reminds me of an old, reliable workhorse of a pickup.  I'd probably buy at least two kits, one for a military build and one in bright civil aviation colors.  I'd probably push everything else on my workbench to the side and start work on it shortly after opening the box.  I know it's not a popular subject with many modelers, but for me, it's one of my dream kits.  Not interested in adding fuel to the debate about the pros and cons of such a kit, just giving an opinion.

[Tony T]

 

37 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Actually yes.  I've said that from the time the 1/32 large aircraft craze started.  They're simply too big for the vast majority of modelers.  I know of nobody - not a single person - who has the kind of space in their house that's required to display a monster like a 1/32 B-17 or Lancaster.  Neil even flirted with the idea of a B-29, which I told him was a HUGE mistake (acres of shiny natural metal?).  He changed his mind.

 

That's why I dream of living in a chateau with tall ceilings. 

 

I have Ikea Ivar units which can sit everything except the vier motors. 

 

Tony 

[quang]

1 hour ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Actually yes.  I've said that from the time the 1/32 large aircraft craze started.  They're simply too big for the vast majority of modelers.  I know of nobody - not a single person - who has the kind of space in their house that's required to display a monster like a 1/32 B-17 or Lancaster.  Neil even flirted with the idea of a B-29, which I told him was a HUGE mistake (acres of shiny natural metal?).  He changed his mind.

 

I always thought that sticking to a particular scale is ridiculous in itself.

To me 1/32 is inappropriate for large, multi-engine aircraft whose whatever elaborate detail would be buried inside the fuselage and remain unseen in final. For those I prefer smaller scales like 1/48 or even 1/72 like with the recent Airfix B-17.
Modern 3-D technology can impart the tiniest details in the smaller scales. The only restriction is the power of the current magnifying glasses and the steadiness of one’s own hand.

[Out2gtcha]

I just cant seem to help it. I'm a scale snob.

Or more realistically, someone who can't STAND the look of two models that may go together in some way, and knowing they are not that size in relation to each other IRL.

Right, wrong or indifferent, its simply how I'm wired.

I have mild OCD and some ADD (seriously) and the difference in scale relation to models in my disolay cabinet SERIOUSLY bothers me, hence I only build in 1/32. Same reason I cant put unbalanced loadouts on my models.

 

That and the fact that I %*#$ing really dislike 1/48. Maybe it's the condescending 1/48 builders I've met personally, but it really bugs me. More to the point those who know me, now how UTTERLY bothered I am for whatever reason by the description of 1/48 as "quarter scale." Holy jamole that bugs the you-know-what out of me, and even more so when used by people who use the metric system. Rant over.

[chrish]

1 hour ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Actually yes.  I've said that from the time the 1/32 large aircraft craze started.  They're simply too big for the vast majority of modelers.  I know of nobody - not a single person - who has the kind of space in their house that's required to display a monster like a 1/32 B-17 or Lancaster.  Neil even flirted with the idea of a B-29, which I told him was a HUGE mistake (acres of shiny natural metal?).  He changed his mind.

Well....you do now. I've got two B-17's built a B-25 and the Lancaster working it's way to the top of the stash 

[LSP_K2]

4 hours ago, cbk57 said:

I have consistently said that giant LSP's are not for me.  I like the HK B-17 but have never purchased one and never will.  I am happy for those that have one but they are not for me.  

 

Me too. While the idea of the Fortress was really appealing to me when first announced, the subsequent photos that gave a realistic depiction of their size, just killed it for me; same with the Lancaster (which I was never really a fan of anyway) and the B-24.

[LSP_K2]

1 hour ago, Out2gtcha said:

Same reason I cant put unbalanced loadouts on my models.

 

That and the fact that I %*#$ing really dislike 1/48. Maybe it's the condescending 1/48 builders I've met personally, but it really bugs me. More to the point those who know me, now how UTTERLY bothered I am for whatever reason by the description of 1/48 as "quarter scale." Holy jamole that bugs the you-know-what out of me, and even more so when used by people who use the metric system. Rant over.

 

If a load is asymmetrical but balanced, I'm OK with it, same with any other symmetrical vs asymmetrical balance. Asymmetrical but unbalanced loads though, do tend to make me want to rip the thing apart, even if it's not my kit. 

 

And yes, the "quarter scale" thing (3"=1'-0") annoys me endlessly as well. It's sort of like nucular vs nuclear to me.

[tomprobert]

3 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Actually yes.  I've said that from the time the 1/32 large aircraft craze started.  They're simply too big for the vast majority of modelers.  I know of nobody - not a single person - who has the kind of space in their house that's required to display a monster like a 1/32 B-17 or Lancaster.  Neil even flirted with the idea of a B-29, which I told him was a HUGE mistake (acres of shiny natural metal?).  He changed his mind.

You need to come to my house... in 1/32nd scale I’ve got 2 x B-17s, a Lancaster, a Halifax, a B-29 and a He-111 on all display - admittedly in my attic. A Shackleton is well on the way to being done, and I’ve got a 1/32nd Sunderland started too. I’ve also got a B-24 waiting in the wings. I love the big models!