Tamiya 1/48th IL-2 Shturmovik

[gocoogs]

I like it a lot better than the ones from Hasegawa. That's for sure. At leastt he fabric covering looks like it is suposed to and there is a lot of nice detail and the fit is quite good. I don't require a snap together model. a littyle of work is quite fun.

Hmm...you must have gotten a different version than the utter crap that was in the box I received.

Ark's Hurri is a dog. I knew I was in trouble when I discovered that the fuselage halves weren't the same length. Someone who has the time and patience to deal with several serious (and in this day and age, inexcusable) fit issues could produce a fairly nice Hurri from the kit. As Tom Cleaver might say, "I am not that modeler". B)

I'll take the Italeri/Tamiya Mk I FTW.

Edited April 16, 2012 by gocoogs

[Abakan]

The Fujimi G14 is exquisite. I had four and just sold two on eBay. The UM Models and Hasegawa are also at the top of their game. I also have a couple each of those as well.

I dont have a Fujimi G14, but several G6 and K4. Also I have 5 or 6 Hasegaga G14's

Still..can't have too many 109G14's ( as long as they have the tall tail )

[John Thompson]

Just to be gramatically correct - it's 'Il-2' - not 'IL-2' - in English 'Ill two' not 'eye ell two'

From the first two letters of the design bureau founder's name - Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyushin.

Here's a few pics of 'eel dva's' taken at various sites in Russia....

Good point, and, I suspect, a detail not widely known in "the West". At the risk of being pedantic, easy ones like "Yak" and "MiG" are no problem for most, but:

Sukhoi = Su = "soo"

Lavochkin = La = "law"

Lavochkin/Gorbunov/Gudkov = LaGG = "lag"

Ilyushin = Il = "eel"

...and so on.

Blame the video game for the common usage of "IL-2", or those trying to compensate for a text font where upper case "I/i" looks the same as lower case "L/l". Like the one on this forum!

John

[sharkmouth]

Hmm...you must have gotten a different version than the utter crap that was in the box I received.

Ark's Hurri is a dog. I knew I was in trouble when I discovered that the fuselage halves weren't the same length.

This is my close friend's ARK Hurricane:

This is his description:

"Model.

I built model from a set provided by ARK ... I heard that this is a copy of the Hasegawa – but for me it's a copy of copy took from very poor homemade copy . Anyway, this model looks barely tolerably in a box, cut out parts from the frames and to attempt to fit them together exposes the coming horror. The term "fit" does not apply here - files, putty, polystyrene belts and sandpaper was a main tools. I strongly recommend (for mental health) bonding model during the absence of other family members – you will often use offensive vocabulary ... When I was watching the molding before buying, I was knew that it would not be easy - but reality was devastating . Why, against so many flaws, I decided to buy it - for the few, but very strong advantages: the model allows you to build one of the following versions: Mk.I, Mk.I Trop, Mk.II, Mk.II Trop, SeaHurricane IA, SeaHurricane IB, PR), has an interesting decals (version WWS), and it was cheap - ~12$.

Gaps between fuselage and the wings was from each side by a good 1.5 - 2 mm – I fulfill them by adding a polystyrene strips, a strange fault in both halves of the fuselage before the horizontal stabilizer also miss on a good 2mm. Gluing the upper and lower parts of wings took a few days and was a real "alpine combination". Propeller assembly according to instruction is impossible - without the interference gap between fuselage and propeller is 2-3mm. Propeller itself also requires intervention of file, hole fixing the position of the propeller blades are not useful (they are moved against proper position)…"

He is Polish so the command of English isn't the best but he certainly conveyed the quality he encountered. I guess you could say he IS that modeler as the result looks very good but he has admitted to not wanting to buy another.

Regards,

Edited April 16, 2012 by sharkmouth

[Otto]

I don't understand how he could say that you can build a Mk-II from it since the Mk-II is longer in the nose than the Mk-I??????? you would have to chop the nose off and ad a spacer to do so.

[sharkmouth]

I don't understand how he could say that you can build a Mk-II from it since the Mk-II is longer in the nose than the Mk-I??????? you would have to chop the nose off and ad a spacer to do so.

Not having the kit, I don't know. I know he simply builds for the pleasure of it so a longer nose may not concern him but, does the kit mention the variants he lists in the instructions?

My point is that each person has their own standards. Hubert explained WHY he bought the kit and the trouble he had building it. In the end, he did a respectable job, in MY opinion. He isn't happy with his weathering but that is HIS opinion. So, when you state you really like the ARK kits, I took it as YOUR opinion and you can probably turn out a model as well as Hubert did from that kit. After reading what some wrote about the ARK kit, I will not get it.

To return to the subject at hand, I respect the opinion of others and the choices Tamiya makes with THEIR company. Will I buy this kit? No, simply because I have one AM kit left with all the aftermarket goodies I bought. No slight on Tamiya, I simply don't need it, What I would buy from Tamiya, even though there are nice examples around, are scaled down copies of Tamiya's 32nd scale Spitfire (I want different marks for sharkmouth schemes) and P-51D (for the same reason since there are many schemes but only a limited amount of space. Note that I did not state the scale to scale down to as I explained display space is a factor.

Personally, I won't express my disdain over a new release since that opinion is simply mine just as I am OVERTLY interested in sharmkouth schemes and others won't be! There are those who would enjoy such a release and I do not begrudge them their happiness and/or excitement. Eventually, my turn will come to celebrate. It's not like my stash is down to a few kits.

:)

Regards,

[Berkut]

Remember people.

Whenever Otto says it is great kit, reality is that it is horrible kit. Fit, detail and accuracy wise. Proven time after time.

PS: Academy is rereleasing Il-2M3 with cartograph decals.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Berkut

[ChesshireCat]

For all of you who are complaining about nice Yak-9 kits ARK Models has very nice kits I own a bunch of their Hurricane kits and I love them. They have a whole series of Yak 9s. They have Jak-9, Jak-9T, Jak-9DD and Jak-9K. Yes it is spelled Jak not Yak. Just like Iosif and not Joseph. Hence the IS series of tanks and NOT JS.

I just learned something new today! And to slightly change the trane of thought, but still keep it inline with the Russian folks. I'd just love to have a high tech P63 in Russian markings! We may have hated them in this side of Berlin, but our Russian friends had a love affair for them. We can build a nice T34 in 1/48th, but we can't build a nice P63 King Cobra!!

gary

[ChesshireCat]

Remember people.

Whenever Otto says it is great kit, reality is that it is horrible kit. Fit, detail and accuracy wise. Proven time after time.

PS: Academy is rereleasing Il-2M3 with cartograph decals.

I may have seen that kit Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Berkut, you seem to be the resident expert on WWII Russian aircraft around here (hell pretty much all Russian equipment). Can you recommend a couple books to glean data off of (please be writen in English)? Down the road I want to do a series of Russian birds from the "great war". I do plan on doing a B25 and an A20 Lend Lease birds, and of course the always loved P39's.

gary

[Tbolt]

Good point, and, I suspect, a detail not widely known in "the West". At the risk of being pedantic, easy ones like "Yak" and "MiG" are no problem for most, but:

Sukhoi = Su = "soo"

Lavochkin = La = "law"

Lavochkin/Gorbunov/Gudkov = LaGG = "lag"

Ilyushin = Il = "eel"

...and so on.

Blame the video game for the common usage of "IL-2", or those trying to compensate for a text font where upper case "I/i" looks the same as lower case "L/l". Like the one on this forum!

John

Yes it is a good point. The famous Russian Aircraft book on the IL-2/IL-10 (as they say!) uses IL-2 throughout. The Jakab book is incorrectly titled IL-2 but the text inside is all Il-2! The 4+ book is the most correct and uses Il-2 in the book and the title. Most people split it into the two letters where being the first two letters of a name it should be said together.

So with the 109, if you like to call it Me 109, then it should be "me" 109 and if you use Bf 109 it is correctly said B then f, but is it Bf 109? If Bf stands is for Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, shouldn't it be written BF 109? And the 190, FW 190 not fw 190?

[Berkut]

I may have seen that kit Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Berkut, you seem to be the resident expert on WWII Russian aircraft around here (hell pretty much all Russian equipment). Can you recommend a couple books to glean data off of (please be writen in English)? Down the road I want to do a series of Russian birds from the "great war". I do plan on doing a B25 and an A20 Lend Lease birds, and of course the always loved P39's.

gary

I am sorry Gary, even tho I like WW2 planes, my main interest is modern jets, and that is what I mostly know about. The books I have about Russian WW2 planes are in Russian, so those would not help you much. I am sure there is others here that know. One thing is for sure, steer away from Eric Pilawski books!

[Otto]

Remember people.

Whenever Otto says it is great kit, reality is that it is horrible kit. Fit, detail and accuracy wise. Proven time after time.

PS: Academy is rereleasing Il-2M3 with cartograph decals.

Or maybe its just that you can't build a model that offers any type of challenge. You have to have them fall together. I have absolutely no problems with these kits. I can dish it out just as well, if you want to throw insults around.

[Berkut]

Or maybe its just that you can't build a model that offers any type of challenge. You have to have them fall together. I have absolutely no problems with these kits. I can dish it out just as well, if you want to throw insults around.

Well, I am sorry that you are under impression my YF-23 and Su-24 are "falling together" and are not a "challenge". Don't want my opinion of Streem Su-24? Ask Jan for example. :D Funny comment tho, i give you that. Not as good as "Viperski" but good nonetheless.

PS: Nice PM btw. :D (seriously)

PS 2: It wasn't really aimed as an insult (because it is actually true). And with you being proud of building "hard" kits that comment should hardly be a problem really?

Edited April 16, 2012 by Berkut

[John Thompson]

So with the 109, if you like to call it Me 109, then it should be "me" 109 and if you use Bf 109 it is correctly said B then f, but is it Bf 109? If Bf stands is for Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, shouldn't it be written BF 109? And the 190, FW 190 not fw 190?

I don't know about that - maybe someone who speaks German could chime in on those examples. I always thought Ju for Junkers was spoken as "you" as in "you-88", so the same tradition seems to apply as for Russian aircraft, but for Bf and FW I have no idea what's "correct".

(Quite a wide-ranging thread this one, isn't it? :D )

John

[vince14]

This will end well.

Vince

[WymanV]

Indeed.

Ken

[ChesshireCat]

I am sorry Gary, even tho I like WW2 planes, my main interest is modern jets, and that is what I mostly know about. The books I have about Russian WW2 planes are in Russian, so those would not help you much. I am sure there is others here that know. One thing is for sure, steer away from Eric Pilawski books!

well thanks anyway!

I too am a fan of Russian jets. Don't know a lot about them; which of course is my own fault. Especially like the MIG 15 thru MIG 21's. Perhaps others might have a suggestion or two to help us uneducated folks.

gary

[AlCZ]

Where is problem ? Sturmovik is one of most imporant aircraft in history (Best attack plane of WW-II.), 37 000 Il-2 all versions were made. Germans nicknamed Il-2 "Black death" - and Ilyushins really erassed PanzerWaffe in Eastern Front ! And we have only ONE kit in 1/48 - and this is inACCURATE ! This discussion is really a joke... Tamyia made after 15 years from relase Accurate a new tool Il-2 and you cry ?! And another and another Bf 109, Spitfires, Mustangs or FW-190 are OK ? Strange...

[John Thompson]

well thanks anyway!

I too am a fan of Russian jets. Don't know a lot about them; which of course is my own fault. Especially like the MIG 15 thru MIG 21's. Perhaps others might have a suggestion or two to help us uneducated folks.

gary

There's tons of stuff available in English, although obviously not the variety that's available in Russian.

For starters, Yefim Gordon has written numerous books on WWII (Great Patriotic War) types as well as jets:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/18102.Yefim_Gordon

In particular, the books in his "Red Star" series, published by Midland Press, are widely available and worth looking for.

The Squadron "In Action" series includes many titles on Russian aircraft, most of them authored by Hans-Heiri Stapfer.

Also look for the Mushroom Press books published by Roger Wallsgrove, especially Massimo Tessitori's "MiG-1/MiG-3".

Massimo Tessitori's sovietwarplanes.com web site is an excellent on-line resource:

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/

...and obviously your favourite search engine will turn up lots more. Russian-language web sites can be translated with reasonable results by using Babel Fish or Google Translate. Enjoy!

John

Oh - almost forgot the Osprey "Aces" series - several titles there, too, most of them authored by George Mellinger.

Edited April 17, 2012 by John Thompson

[Oryx]

-

Edited May 16, 2012 by Oryx

[Floggerman]

I always thought Ju for Junkers was spoken as "you" as in "you-88", so the same tradition seems to apply as for Russian aircraft, but for Bf and FW I have no idea what's "correct".

It's correct, John. All german planes had names coming from factory (as Bf-109 Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, i.e Bavarian Airplane Factories, speak "bay-eff") or Fw-190 (Focke-Wulf speak "eff-way". I can't explain why they always use a capital and a small letter - seems to be just the tradition. Same is in Russia, always capital and small letter, if possible speak as a word (Yak, in russian "yuk") or two letters (Il, speak "e-ell")

Regards

Tom

[Berkut]

It's correct, John. All german planes had names coming from factory (as Bf-109 Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, i.e Bavarian Airplane Factories, speak "bay-eff") or Fw-190 (Focke-Wulf speak "eff-way". I can't explain why they always use a capital and a small letter - seems to be just the tradition. Same is in Russia, always capital and small letter, if possible speak as a word (Yak, in russian "yuk") or two letters (Il, speak "e-ell")

Regards

Tom

Well, as has been explained earlier, Su = Sukhoi which is one word and someones last name. Focke Wulf is however two words and it would be logical to have FW-. MiG is for example also two names of those persons, Mikoyan i (and) Gurevich. In "german" way it would be "Mig" for some reason. :P "Il" = Ilushin, also just one word and a last name. So, Russians make sense in this case, Germans does not!

[Tbolt]

It's correct, John. All german planes had names coming from factory (as Bf-109 Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, i.e Bavarian Airplane Factories, speak "bay-eff") or Fw-190 (Focke-Wulf speak "eff-way". I can't explain why they always use a capital and a small letter - seems to be just the tradition. Same is in Russia, always capital and small letter, if possible speak as a word (Yak, in russian "yuk") or two letters (Il, speak "e-ell")

Regards

Tom

Thanks for the info.

[CorsairMan]

Well, at least its something new and not another 109 or 190. If its available at a show for $15, I might bite but I don't have much of an interest in it.

[Otto]

I started this Jak/IS thing as a jest and it grew a life of it's own. Sorry guys. That was not my intention. I never thought it would go farther than my posting and never intended it to.