K&C's Focke Wolfe wrong type? (5 Viewers)

[uksubs]

We all have the right to focus on the negative or positive aspects in any post ( and the ensuing debate is often very informative ) but I find it interesting that generally its the same posters that usually fall into those two categories.

Specifically on the FW-190 Eazy brings up a key issue. As these models get more expensive should we expect something approaching perfection? I mean if I'm not a rivet counter then some low end manufacturers product will suffice. However K&C, Figarti, and CS are all quickly approaching the connoisseur level ( and corresponding significant cost ) of the Russian manufacturers and FL pieces. IMHO at the price point that their products have climbed too it is reasonable that collectors should definitely hold the manufacturer accountable for an outstandingly historically accurate and "cool" product. The "buy what you like" philosophy doesn't seem acceptable to me at this price point anymore.

Think you have a point + now it been pointed out that the rear tail wheel is not right it now putting me of from buying

 

[Phantom Warrior]

We all have the right to focus on the negative or positive aspects in any post ( and the ensuing debate is often very informative ) but I find it interesting that generally its the same posters that usually fall into those two categories.

Specifically on the FW-190 Eazy brings up a key issue. As these models get more expensive should we expect something approaching perfection? I mean if I'm not a rivet counter then some low end manufacturers product will suffice. However K&C, Figarti, and CS are all quickly approaching the connoisseur level ( and corresponding significant cost ) of the Russian manufacturers and FL pieces. IMHO at the price point that their products have climbed too it is reasonable that collectors should definitely hold the manufacturer accountable for an outstandingly historically accurate and "cool" product. The "buy what you like" philosophy doesn't seem acceptable to me at this price point anymore.

I have to agree that some features are more important than others and really should be correct. The main identifying feature of the A-7/A-8 is the double bubble cowling to house the larger MG. I don't know that it can be fixed. Gluing 2 bumps on won't work as the access panels are different on the 2 cowlings.

The spinner can be painted - there may even be time for K&C to do it. Same for the black rectangle outline on the red band.

I don't see a problem with the blister on the wings - different variants had them, often under the wing. I really can't see a problem with the tail wheel the way it is.

The painting and weathering are superb.

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

Great post & think your right about the Spitfire Mark XIV only thing is it had a Griffon engine & not a Merlin

Yes of course it did, I was referring to the Mark IX and the P-51 B/C, to which the Merlin notation was made.

Since you bring it up, both were made by Rolls Royce and the Griffon replaced the Merlin in the later Spitfires (starting with the Mark XII) primarily because the Air Ministry wanted all its new generation engines to be generally interchangeable and hence to rotate in the counter clockwise direction of the Bristol, Napier and Armstrong-Siddley engines. This was opposite the way the Merlin and all US engines rotated. There is a great story about a Spitfire Mark IX ace who was shot down and returned to his unit after they had upgraded to Mark XIVs. He apparently jumped in the cockpit of one of the new birds, thinking a Spitfire is a Spitfire and took off with full right rudder trim ending up in the air (miraculously) at nearly 90 degrees from his initial direction, scattering mechanics, other pilots and ground crew along the way.

Interestingly enough, the Mk XIV Griffon engine produced 2035 HP and the best post war Griffon maxed out at 2455 HP at low level with water/methanol injection into the supercharger and 25lb boost. Interestingly enough, in 1944, a Merlin 130 was run for 15 minutes at 2640 HP. Imagine if that had been fitted into a Mk XIV.

 

[uksubs]

Yes of course it did, I was referring to the Mark IX and the P-51 B/C, to which the Merlin notation was made.

Since you bring it up, both were made by Rolls Royce and the Griffon replaced the Merlin in the later Spitfires (starting with the Mark XII) primarily because the Air Ministry wanted all its new generation engines to be generally interchangeable and hence to rotate in the counter clockwise direction of the Bristol, Napier and Armstrong-Siddley engines. This was opposite the way the Merlin and all US engines rotated. There is a great story about a Spitfire Mark IX ace who was shot down and returned to his unit after they had upgraded to Mark XIVs. He apparently jumped in the cockpit of one of the new birds, thinking a Spitfire is a Spitfire and took off with full right rudder trim ending up in the air (miraculously) at nearly 90 degrees from his initial direction, scattering mechanics, other pilots and ground crew along the way.

Interestingly enough, the Mk XIV Griffon engine produced 2035 HP and the best post war Griffon maxed out at 2455 HP at low level with water/methanol injection into the supercharger and 25lb boost. Interestingly enough, in 1944, a Merlin 130 was run for 15 minutes at 2640 HP. Imagine if that had been fitted into a Mk XIV.

I read that a Spitfire IX done over 600mph in a dive & the pilot had to land less is prop
The Merlin 130 was used in the de Havilland Hornet.
Spiteful F Mk 16 Max Speed: 494 mph with a Griffon 101 - 2,420 hp

 

[Spitfrnd]

I read that a Spitfire IX done over 600mph in a dive & the pilot had to land less is prop
The Merlin 130 was used in the de Havilland Hornet.
Spiteful F Mk 16 Max Speed: 494 mph with a Griffon 101 - 2,420 hp

Yes that is apparently a true story. It is not so hard to land without a prop so long as the rest of your ship is entact but it is indeed a "focusing experience"; I have some experience in that sort of thing.

On the issue of relative fighter performance, here is a link to some official RAF comparative testing and conclusions on the Mark XIV
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
Here is another fun link on the Mark XIV versus the 109G/K and some actual engaugement reports against various German fighters, including the 190 and the 262.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

[unglesbeemj]

We all have the right to focus on the negative or positive aspects in any post ( and the ensuing debate is often very informative ) but I find it interesting that generally its the same posters that usually fall into those two categories.

Specifically on the FW-190 Eazy brings up a key issue. As these models get more expensive should we expect something approaching perfection? I mean if I'm not a rivet counter then some low end manufacturers product will suffice. However K&C, Figarti, and CS are all quickly approaching the connoisseur level ( and corresponding significant cost ) of the Russian manufacturers and FL pieces. IMHO at the price point that their products have climbed too it is reasonable that collectors should definitely hold the manufacturer accountable for an outstandingly historically accurate and "cool" product. The "buy what you like" philosophy doesn't seem acceptable to me at this price point anymore.

It becomes even more of a concern when you consider the wooden warbird series. For example, the Ju 87 Stuka (desert version) appeared in correct identification markings on the side of the plane shown in the photo on the website. But afterwards it was discovered that white unit ID number on the side shown in the photo (correct) did not match the other side (incorrect).

I can understand how that could happen, perhaps the person applying the numbers did not understand what they meant and copied one side over to the other - this is understandable mistake. But someone in the production/design process should ask the question why a discrepency exists between the two sides of the airplane, and have it corrected.

That was a $1000+ model after shipping. Not sure I would even classify myself as a "rivet counter", but even a cursory level of research on the internet is all one needs to be informed to prevent such fundamental mistakes, especially when you consider you are purchasing a museum quality aircraft at 1/30 scale. I will admit that with certain topics, i.e. Luftwaffe colors, a certain amount of interpretation is understandable given lack of evidence available to us.

As Combat stated earlier, not much you can do here, it just is what it is. Otherwise these are indeed fantastic models - and I have already purchased the Fw 190 myself. Its just a shame to me that such fundamental errors are not caught earlier in the process and simply corrected before production.

 

[Gustavflyer]

Bottom line it is wonderful model!!!! It will be a very desirable item as is, if you want to have the actual model that Bar flew then buy a kit and build yourself one. The technical data many of you have presented is awesome, you guys know your stuff!! It is what it is so enjoy it!

 

[IXEC]

" I really can't see a problem with the tail wheel the way it is. "

Terry, this is the MOST disturbing aspect of all the errors.

The Fw's tail wheel is semi-retractable. Please look closer and you will see that it is retracted, not extended for landing....and it sure looks like this plane has landed and will lay 700 eggs if it's not corrected.

All kidding aside......the Butcher Bird has a Classic rake.....that MUST not be 'butchered'.....

I'll pass on this release....and many in the plane collecting community are as well, and to bad to...this could have been a KILLER release of a Fw-190.

MAYBE...a "improved" version will be down the road from a different manufacturer.....

 

[uksubs]

Yes that is apparently a true story. It is not so hard to land without a prop so long as the rest of your ship is entact but it is indeed a "focusing experience"; I have some experience in that sort of thing.

On the issue of relative fighter performance, here is a link to some official RAF comparative testing and conclusions on the Mark XIV
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
Here is another fun link on the Mark XIV versus the 109G/K and some actual engaugement reports against various German fighters, including the 190 and the 262.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Was going to post the same link

 

[Rob]

" I really can't see a problem with the tail wheel the way it is. "

Terry, this is the MOST disturbing aspect of all the errors.

The Fw's tail wheel is semi-retractable. Please look closer and you will see that it is retracted, not extended for landing....and it sure looks like this plane has landed and will lay 700 eggs if it's not corrected.

All kidding aside......the Butcher Bird has a Classic rake.....that MUST not be 'butchered'.....

I'll pass on this release....and many in the plane collecting community are as well, and to bad to...this could have been a KILLER release of a Fw-190.

MAYBE...a "improved" version will be down the road from a different manufacturer.....

Well theres a hint as subtle as a train crash....I wonder who you could mean?!

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

" I really can't see a problem with the tail wheel the way it is. "

Terry, this is the MOST disturbing aspect of all the errors.

The Fw's tail wheel is semi-retractable. Please look closer and you will see that it is retracted, not extended for landing....and it sure looks like this plane has landed and will lay 700 eggs if it's not corrected.

Sorry - I see what you mean. I wonder if that was a breakage issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNj3OM-e3ds

Terry

 

[lancer]

I wonder if KC can fix that tailwheel gaff before issue? It shouldn't be much more than yanking out the incorrect wheel and inserting the correct replacement. Of all the "problems", this is the only one that bothers me. -- Al

 

[uksubs]

Are the planes made of wood ?

 

[Rob]

Are the planes made of wood ?

Polystone I believe.

Rob

 

[uksubs]

Polystone I believe.

Rob

Thanks for the intell Rob

 

[jazzeum]

The planes are made of polystone and as far as fixing the landing gear, I'm sure that with production schedules (anticipated July release), the planes are already made.

 

[HAWKEYE]

IT IS STILL A HELL OF A NICE PLANE, ALTHOUGH I KNOW WHERE YOU GUYS ARE COMING FROM WHEN YOU WANT EVERYTHING EXACT. I MYSELF GET OUT OF JOINT WHEN THE WRONG CAMO PATTERN IS USED ON A TANK OR FIGURE i e the elefant. BUT THIS PLANE STILL LOOKS SHARP

 

[Blowtorch]

That is the reason the P-51D, with some improvements, was still in service in Korea.

Somewhere on the internet there is a good USAF research article on the Mustang post WW2. The Mustang was chosen to remain in service due to it's air to air superiority, but the USAF sorely missed the P-47 ground attacker in Korea. The Mustang's in line engine was useless dog fighting Migs, and vulnerable to ground fire (ground attack was the normal mission in Korea). Lot's of Mustang pilots were lost in Korea that probably wouldn't have if P-47s were being flown instead. The Thunderbolt's radial piston engine could take much more damage & still get the pilot home.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002554880

no wonder it's hard to find

 

[Spitfrnd]

Somewhere on the internet there is a good USAF research article on the Mustang post WW2. The Mustang was chosen to remain in service due to it's air to air superiority, but the USAF sorely missed the P-47 ground attacker in Korea. The Mustang's in line engine was useless dog fighting Migs, and vulnerable to ground fire (ground attack was the normal mission in Korea). Lot's of Mustang pilots were lost in Korea that probably wouldn't have if P-47s were being flown instead. The Thunderbolt's radial piston engine could take much more damage & still get the pilot home.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002554880

no wonder it's hard to find

You are quite right there. That is what happen when you pick an aircraft for one role then change your mind.

Well theres a hint as subtle as a train crash....I wonder who you could mean?!

Rob

I presume he means Hobby Master; their few 1/32 aircraft have had unrivaled detail and features. Mistakes happen in scale modeling and this is by no means one of the largest. Corgi completely messed up the wing dihedral on its 1/32 Spitfires but I still have two of them. I agree that it is just one of the things to consider, however unfortunate.

 

[Rob]

You are quite right there. That is what happen when you pick an aircraft for one role then change your mind.


I presume he means Hobby Master; their few 1/32 aircraft have had unrivaled detail and features. Mistakes happen in scale modeling and this is by no means one of the largest. Corgi completely messed up the wing dihedral on its 1/32 Spitfires but I still have two of them. I agree that it is just one of the things to consider, however unfortunate.

Bill, IXEC is a big fan of another company,so I think it may not be Hobby master

Rob