Otto Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Do we need this kit? I like the subject but is the DML Revell kit wrong? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G.R.Morrison Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The A-5 preceded the A-4 (the one Dragon used for their 88A-4 and C-6). The A-5 had different cowls, props and fin/rudder, and there were canopy and lower gondola variations as well. The photo-recon version of the A-5 was the D-2. If someone wanted a 1/48 Battle of Britain Ju 88 in this anniversary year, then an A-5 would fill the bill. The A-5s served from the deserts of N. Africa to the North Cape and White Sea, from the North Atlantic to Black Sea. With so much styrene to choose from, I'd still like to see an A-5 in 1/48. GRM Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) OK, pretty much a different aircraft. I got it. This would be a BOB aircraft variant. Any one ever do a decent Ju-88S? That is my favorite of the JU-88ts. The old HobbyCraft kit is junk. Edited September 12, 2015 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) The DML Ju88 is from a time (early 1990s) when the over-engineering fad caused MAJOR fit problems. It's one of those kits you have to wrestle to the ground and pin down in a full Nelson to get anywhere with it. It can be done, but it's far from easy. I remember the wing tips being like 2-3 mm different in depth than the end of the wing they were supposed to fit. Awful. Edited September 12, 2015 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 I think, that is the answer I was looking for. I have been looking on the web and trying to see the visual difference between them, I can't see any. The Ju-88 is a beautiful aircraft but I am not an expert in it. I was just looking for an early Ju-88(A) I would also like to build an "S" and a C-6C with all the large antennas. I like all the early ones with the "classic" rudder and fin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LanceB Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I think, that is the answer I was looking for. I have been looking on the web and trying to see the visual difference between them, I can't see any. The Ju-88 is a beautiful aircraft but I am not an expert in it. I was just looking for an early Ju-88(A) I would also like to build an "S" and a C-6C with all the large antennas. I like all the early ones with the "classic" rudder and fin. This shows the differences between the A-4 and A-5. A-5 did not have the mass balance at the top of the rudder, nor the intercooler bulge under the engine, and there were differences in the radiators, props and vents just aft of the engine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 There's a lot of problems with the Dragon Ju-88s, particularly the inline engine ones which have ridiculous bulbous spinners: The radial engined variants are much better models. Curiously, resin makers have offered prop replacements, but never the much more obvious spinners... The bomber version canopies were poor, with inaccurate and ill-defined smaller windscreen windows. The 188 canopy was excellent. By far the best of the entire series was the radial engined Ju-188, but the kit still suffers from a serious lack of wing thickness taper in the outer wing panels. This is very, very, VERY obvious when looking at the thinness of the real thing's wingtips...: The most depressing symptom of that issue is the separate ailerons, which are forced to be enormously thick slabs of concrete by the errors in the wing profile... Revell's Dornier 217 carries this wingtip theme to the absolute extreme among twin engines, and for single engines the prize has to go to the Hasegawa Hurricane... This issue is quite endemic in 1/48th scale WWII subjects, less so on jets and in 1/32. One wonders if some of these pattern makers ever look at the actual aircrafts... To their credit, Tamiya usually does better on that issue. Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 So has anyone bought an ICM kit? I've seen a couple of online video reviews. Looks nice, but they didn't do much more than show you what's in the box. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GazzaS Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) I have an ICM Dornier Do-215 in 1/72 scale. It was the first 215 I'd ever seen, so I grabbed it like it was the only one on the planet. I'll give you my in-box, out-of-plastic sleeves review. It's my next kit to build. 1. Clear plastic parts - too many textures in the window areas. I'm hoping a Future dip will fix this. I've heard other ICM kits have the same problem. 2. Panel lines are very fine and very shallow. Some don't look very sharp. Hope I don't have to sand too much. 3. MG 15's look like MG 15's, though very fine. They'll require careful removal from the sprue. 4. These people aren't afraid to mold fine, long, skinny pieces. The Do has many more fine landing gear parts than the JU. Some are broken already and will have to be replaced by fine brass rod or built gear-up. 5. No swastikas on the decal sheet. 6. A few sunken marks and textures in the mouldings. 7. Some fine flash on most of the larger pieces. 8. They went to a lot of work to make fabric covered control surfaces look like fabric covered control surfaces. Probably a bit overdone. 9. Directions appear useful, though cheaply made. Part numbers are not on the sprue. Overall Impression: Lot's of extra work for anyone who doesn't mind it. Canopy glass the biggest disappointment. Pretty well detailed for the scale. Good Luck, Gary Edited November 24, 2015 by GazzaS Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joerg Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Otto, I have bought the Ju 88A-5 kit at Telford and am happy to report that ICM has improved a lot in the last 8 years and only one of the findings for the 1/72 Dornier is applicable for the Junkers: There are no swastikas on the decal sheet - no big deal! Other than that the kit looks beautiful in the box: Flash-free moldings, crisp panel lines, super transparent and distortion free clear parts, lots of detail, excellent instructions, no broken parts in the box,... I haven´t started it yet, so I cannot comment on fit. Cheers, Joerg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dragonlance Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Any one ever do a decent Ju-88S? That is my favorite of the JU-88ts. Otto, I have an old Airmodel/Frank Modelbau vac conversion set for the S - the clear parts have not yellowed. PM me if you're interested, perhaps we can arrange something. Vedran The milimeter brigade Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Troy Smith Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) .. Revell's Dornier 217 carries this wingtip theme to the absolute extreme among twin engines, and for single engines the prize has to go to the Hasegawa Hurricane... This issue is quite endemic in 1/48th scale WWII subjects, less so on jets and in 1/32. One wonders if some of these pattern makers ever look at the actual aircrafts... To their credit, Tamiya usually does better on that issue. Robertson sorry, off Ju-88 topic...but may pet subject.. Robertson (Sherwood? Gaston?) I pulled out Hasegawa Hurricane, the wings look OK to me, and I've not ever heard anyone ever mention a wing problem on these before. Hurricanes have pretty thick wings, this shot with aileron out shows what I mean. Just for the record, The Hase Hurricanes biggest flaw is the weird edges to the fabric access panels, as this is really hard to fix, or at least I have not seen a reasonable easy fix or worked one out. From this http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234967342-best-148-hurricane-kit/#entry1735571 note stringer lines run uninterrupted in this panel and fuselage the upper cowling is flat too. the other problems are easier to fix, the wheel hubs are too small, drill out with 6mm drill and use Eduard Spit hubs, as they are the same hubs. Underwing join is oft commented on, annoying, but unless you turn your models over....not the biggest flaw. For this, I suggest cut out fabric on wing, cut in half, attach each half to fuselage part before try to mate wings to fuselage, to allow a chance of aligning the fabric stringers, This will allow the join to be worked on, as the main problem is a small misalignment of wings to fuse will be hard to fill without destroying this detail. Also add plastic card to make new place for fuse to rest on inside wing. the new Airfix kit is better overall but has it's problems. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234986216-148-airfix-new-tool-hurricane-mki-p3039-from-no229-squadron-completed-on-31-10-at-1150-pm/ Edited November 27, 2015 by Troy Smith Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) Real Hawker Hurricane: And the inimitable Hasegawa Hurricane, yes not exactly the same angle, but the same idea from any angle...: If that doesn't send you running in sweat-drenched fear, check your pulse... Here are a few unrelated angles, just for good measure...: The effect of the unspeakable wing thickness is so atrocious it even distorts the entire model completely, creating a top wing surface with a pronounced anhedral: Even world-class modellers I have seen completely ignore this issue when building theirs, and the result is truly hard to watch....: Here is Scott Van Aken's model, who I am sure won't hold it against me, as every top class modeller seems completely unaware of the issue: The Dragon Ju-88 series is almost as bad, but the Revell Do-217 probably takes the cake, although it is such a hotly contested field there is probably a hundred major candidates I am glibly forgetting... This alone is a large part why I mostly build ships now, as the modifications required are so severe they affect the entire engineering of the whole kit, and this has to be "winged" with perfect symmetry when the actual plastic is not... Hasegawa's 7 year old 1/48th FW-190A-5 requires completely separate fixes from the right wing to the left wing, with a complex web of individual slivers of plastic to equalize things, after a study of several years over five different attempts... ICM, Tamiya, Zvezda are 3 companies that seem to have some notion on how to deal with this issue in a vaguely plausible manner. Old Monogram was unfortunately terrible at this, and so are most of the others... Robertson Edited November 28, 2015 by Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GazzaS Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I find this wing tip thickness conversation interesting. But I can't imagine how I would even start to fix it if I felt like it. Has anybody done it and left a tutorial? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Troy Smith Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) Real Hawker Hurricane: And the inimitable Hasegawa Hurricane, yes not exactly the same angle, but the same idea from any angle...: If that doesn't send you running in sweat-drenched fear, check your pulse... Here are a few unrelated angles, just for good measure...: The effect of the unspeakable wing thickness is so atrocious it even distorts the entire model completely, creating a top wing surface with a pronounced anhedral: Even world-class modellers I have seen completely ignore this issue when building theirs, and the result is truly hard to watch....: Here is Scott Van Ayken's model, who I am sure won't hold it against me, as every top class modeller seems completely unaware of the issue You are talking out of your hat. This confirms it. 'from any angle' Really? Actually, Hurricane wings can appear awfully thick from some angles, and your examples takes no account that models tend to be shot close up with wide angles lenses etc etc. Hurricane have thick wings, with separate tips, which have pronounced anhedral. a quick check with some calipers, a hase kit and the Bentley plans shows no discernable difference. Glad you found the ships, but what I don't understand is if plastic kits get it so wrong, why not scratch build? Why bother trying to even fix them? Edited November 28, 2015 by Troy Smith Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 What about the Classic Airframes wings? And, how they all compare to the new Airfix Hurricane? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 What about the Classic Airframes wings? And, how they all compare to the new Airfix Hurricane? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Troy Smith Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 What about the Classic Airframes wings? And, how they all compare to the new Airfix Hurricane? the CA kit is based on the Hase kit, and has the same fuselage fabric access panel effect (this Hase invention has been copied by other manufacturers :(/> ) So CA wings are pretty much the same as the Hase ones, but fabric covered. The CA kit has a few issues of it's own, discussed and corrected here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234958668-classic-airframes-hurricane-mk-1-fabric-wing/ the new Airfix Hurricane is discussed and accurised in this build http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234986216-148-airfix-new-tool-hurricane-mki-p3039-from-no229-squadron-completed-on-31-10-at-1150-pm/ Overall the new Airfix kit is best in scale, but does have a few issues which grate on a Hurricane obsessive like myself... Interestingly apart from the ancient Monogram kit, all the 1/48th Hurricanes are pretty good shapewise, unlike 1/72nd where many are very poor shapewise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 If that doesn't send you running in sweat-drenched fear, check your pulse... Robertson Man, you are beyond help. Running in fear from a kit? Give up modeling. You hate it. Good grief you are miserable! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I'm curious what the Hurricane has to do with the Ju88A-5? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I was curious too... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Troy Smith Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) By far the best of the entire series was the radial engined Ju-188, but the kit still suffers from a serious lack of wing thickness taper in the outer wing panels. This is very, very, VERY obvious when looking at the thinness of the real thing's wingtips...: The most depressing symptom of that issue is the separate ailerons, which are forced to be enormously thick slabs of concrete by the errors in the wing profile... Revell's Dornier 217 carries this wingtip theme to the absolute extreme among twin engines, and for single engines the prize has to go to the Hasegawa Hurricane... Robertson I'm curious what the Hurricane has to do with the Ju88A-5? nothing, apart from being adversaries, and the thread drift started above. Anyone have know if the statements about the Ju-88 kit wings are as wrong as the ones about Hurricane wings? Edited November 28, 2015 by Troy Smith Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 You are talking out of your hat. This confirms it. 'from any angle' Really? Actually, Hurricane wings can appear awfully thick from some angles, and your examples takes no account that models tend to be shot close up with wide angles lenses etc etc. with separate tips, which have pronounced anhedral. Wingtips? Did I even talk of the wingtips? You sound confused... Quote: "and your examples takes no account that models tend to be shot close up with wide angles lenses etc etc" Look at the wingtip light and please go see an eye doctor. Immediately. Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) What am I missing? A model of a hurricane and a picture of a hurricane. How far off is it? Enlighten me. Edited November 28, 2015 by jester292 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Troy Smith Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Wingtips? Did I even talk of the wingtips? You sound confused... Quote: "and your examples takes no account that models tend to be shot close up with wide angles lenses etc etc" Look at the wingtip light and please go see an eye doctor. Immediately. Robertson slightly different angles, note the amount of underside colour visible. As the shots I posted demonstrate, the wing can appear thick, it can also appear slim. Regarding the wing tip light... this in error, but does not mean the rest of the wing is... Right, off an image hunt, the link takes you to a superb head on shot. http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/613785/pz865-royal-air-force-quot-battle-of-britain-memorial-flight-quot-hawker-hurricane-iic/ the wing shape and thickness is fine, the tip light is too deep, because Hase have made the top side of the tip a curve, it's actually flat. It's a minor, but useful point, but, really, not difficult to correct. Anyone with a Hase Hurricane, hold the wing up to match the linked pic and decide for yourself. it also shows the correct triangular shape of the tip light. No comment on the real problems with the kit I pointed out though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.