New He-219 assembled photos
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Monday, July 02, 2012 - 01:46 PM UTC
Here are a couple of photos of the new 1/32 Revell He-219:
http://www.msc-hansgrade-berlin.de/54.437.0.0.1.0.phtml 
Note the tapering spinner of the real aircraft.
Note here the nacelle length on the kit, and again the tapering shape of the spinner on the real aircraft.
One more picture of the actual aircraft:
Tamiya kit by Rian Jones:
Note the thickness of the 1:48th kit nacelle's outboard wingroot, and the size of the wing leading edge intakes compared to the actual. The 1/32 Revell kit's wing leading edge is a lot thinner and apparently more correct in this area. Prop blade shapes differences are also notable in some pictures between the two kits.
Despite its much thicker wing leading edge, and oversized wing leading edge intakes, the Tamiya kit looks more "prototypical" and less odd in the engine nacelles.
Gaston
Georgia, United States
Joined: August 08, 2011
KitMaker: 410 posts
AeroScale: 409 posts
Posted: Monday, July 02, 2012 - 02:13 PM UTC
Three words - early test shot.
Also, you're comparing photos of different versions of the 219...
Doug
Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Monday, July 02, 2012 - 02:27 PM UTC
Gaston never lets the truth get in the way of his witch hunts, Doug.
Looks like a nice kit, although way too big for me.
Sweden
Joined: March 29, 2012
KitMaker: 32 posts
AeroScale: 31 posts
Posted: Monday, July 02, 2012 - 05:06 PM UTC
Sofiya, Bulgaria
Joined: November 08, 2011
KitMaker: 414 posts
AeroScale: 126 posts
Posted: Monday, July 02, 2012 - 08:01 PM UTC
My modeling and news space:
https://redlinemodels.wordpress.com/
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Monday, July 02, 2012 - 09:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Three words - early test shot.
Also, you're comparing photos of different versions of the 219...
Doug
Ah, but you are forgetting Gastons unique approach to judging the worth of a toy plastic-airplane... 'Never let a lack of knowledge of the real thing get in the way of posting some Googled pics and making pronouncements about accuracy'.
Russia
Joined: February 12, 2009
KitMaker: 91 posts
AeroScale: 90 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 - 04:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Note the tapering spinner of the real aircraft.
There were two kind of the spinners, here is the one Revell made:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f170/KosachevSergey/He219PK-AufnahmeXS.jpgSBS even makes both spinners for Tamiya kit:
http://www.sbsmodel.com/resinsetsQuoted Text
Despite its much thicker wing leading edge, and oversized wing leading edge intakes, the Tamiya kit looks more "prototypical" and less odd in the engine nacelles.
In fact Tamiya's nacelles are about 3mm too long
.
Sergey.
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Friday, July 06, 2012 - 11:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Note the tapering spinner of the real aircraft.
There were two kind of the spinners, here is the one Revell made:
Quoted Text
Despite its much thicker wing leading edge, and oversized wing leading edge intakes, the Tamiya kit looks more "prototypical" and less odd in the engine nacelles.
In fact Tamiya's nacelles are about 3mm too long .
Sergey.
Good to know about the bulged spinner (seems rare in pictures)...
The 1/32 Revell engine nacelles, with open cowl flaps, also look a lot better from this angle:
If the Tamiya 1/48th engine nacelles are 3 mm too long, it must be in the rear, or they must be 1 mm+ too deep as well... In any case, I did not know about the Tamiya kit's way too deep wing leading edges until I made the post...
Dragon's 1/48th Ta-152 also has the same wing leading edge thickness issue (if even a bit worse), which the Zoukei Mura 1/32 kit similarly avoids.
There's nothing like a new 1/32 release to make you realize how poorly executed are a lot of things in 1/48...
Gaston
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 05:35 AM UTC
More pictures have surfaced of the kit, from a build by Dieter Wiegmann, and the impression of "slimfast" nacelles is definitely confirmed...:
There's just no comparison with the Tamiya 1/48th nacelles, which look way better... Where does the data come from that they are 3 mm too long? The Revell nacelles look just badly off...
Fortunately for me, this is not my scale.
Gaston
Russia
Joined: February 12, 2009
KitMaker: 91 posts
AeroScale: 90 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 08:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Where does the data come from that they are 3 mm too long? The Revell nacelles look just badly off...
Tamiya has extra 3-3.5mm in the rear of the nacelles.
Sergey.
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 01:16 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Where does the data come from that they are 3 mm too long? The Revell nacelles look just badly off...
Tamiya has extra 3-3.5mm in the rear of the nacelles.
Sergey.
That explains the more acceptable appearance of the Tamiya nacelles at the front, because 3 mm is a lot in 1/48th scale, and this would be very obvious if present in the front of the nacelles... But the Revell 1/32 nacelles seem to have worse issues, and issues of depth as well, so they seem like they will be much harder to improve...
Gaston
Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Friday, July 13, 2012 - 02:33 AM UTC
Gaston
The issue of nacelle depth isn't clear looking at the photos you have posted, as the built kit shows the exhaust dampers, while the photo of the actual aircraft has no dampers.
Perhaps this has lead you to believe that the nacelle depth is out?
Either way, I wouldn't argue about millimetre perfect accuracy as that is near on impossible to achieve.
Gaston, with your well known gripes with all things 1/48th scale and your seemingly high praise for this kit in 1/32nd scale, may I suggest that you start building kits in the larger scale as you have pointed out that it looks like they are more accurate in the larger scale?
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Friday, July 13, 2012 - 02:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Gaston
The issue of nacelle depth isn't clear looking at the photos you have posted, as the built kit shows the exhaust dampers, while the photo of the actual aircraft has no dampers.
Perhaps this has lead you to believe that the nacelle depth is out?
Either way, I wouldn't argue about millimetre perfect accuracy as that is near on impossible to achieve.
Gaston, with your well known gripes with all things 1/48th scale and your seemingly high praise for this kit in 1/32nd scale, may I suggest that you start building kits in the larger scale as you have pointed out that it looks like they are more accurate in the larger scale?
1:32 scale always looked unpleasant to me, no matter how good the kit is... It's a subjective thing. Yes 1/32 kits are usually a lot more accurate than the trash we get get in 1/48th, but they're just the wrong scale for me.
I don't see what the exhaust dampers have to do with the fact the Revell He-219 nacelles are gross...
Plenty of models have never had any problems of looking exactly like the real thing: I just got a 30+ year old Monogram Me-262 for $11, and it looks spot on, with absolutely flawless clear parts. In fact it is probably slightly better in the nose profile shape than the recent Tamiya 262. It even has the gear brake lines moulded-in...
Gaston
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: August 27, 2007
KitMaker: 277 posts
AeroScale: 64 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2012 - 10:53 AM UTC
Good grief you guys...what would happen if a model kit manufacturer put out an aircraft kit that was absolutely, positively, 100% correct in every single area...??? Every dimension was spot on, all widths, lengths, and radii were correct, and the panel lines were perfect, and the rivets(or lack thereof) were correctly done(or NOT done), the props were the correct shape, and all and sundry add-on parts were correct for the version presented in the the box...?
What would everyone DO...??!!! The forums would be empty...! There would be no arguments, friendly or otherwise. The kit would slide into oblivion as there would be no superlatives left to post...!!
Just sayin...
"To err is human...to airbrush is devine..!"
Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2012 - 11:22 AM UTC
Laurie
There is a big difference between what some people want/need in a kit and what Gaston demands.
In my post I was trying to point out to him that his interpretation of a photo MAY have lead to him looking at the nacelle shape wrongly.
In my point of view they look OK, but as I stated earlier in this thread, the kit is the wrong scale for me, I mean where do you put a 1/32nd scale He-219?
Unlike some others here, I can live with the errors that may be present in kits.
Unlike others I don't slam kits using poorly reproduced photos to back up my view of the kit, that in all likelihood isn't in that person's possession.
Some people have the view that by pointing out every small error in a kit they are doing us all a favour. I see that as rivet counting and that to me is the worst type of modeller out there.
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: August 27, 2007
KitMaker: 277 posts
AeroScale: 64 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2012 - 11:39 AM UTC
Matt
"Some people have the view that by pointing out every small error in a kit they are doing us all a favour. I see that as rivet counting and that to me is the worst type of modeller out there".
I am in yer corner mate with the above quote. I know the ol sayi..."to each their own...", but in the end as you say these types are doing somewhat of a diservice to potential builders of a kit that may indeed be quite sufficient as a finished "represetation" of a "real" bird. Some guys seem to forget this fact and drone on and on about the nit picky little things that in years gone by NOBODY and I mean NOBODY would EVER see much less complain about...!!
These days we are fortunate to have quite a few really excellent manufacturers out there, giving us kits we would never DREAM of when I started modelling. I say stop bellyaching and give the model companies more ideas for new kits and how to correct some errors that may in FACT be REALLY out to lunch...!
STOP THE RIVET COUNTING...GET BUILDING, and lets see just how good these whiners are with something they have actually put together...in plastic...not in diatribe...!!!
Just sayin...
"To err is human...to airbrush is devine..!"
United States
Joined: May 17, 2011
KitMaker: 65 posts
AeroScale: 44 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 09:38 PM UTC
Wait a minute. Those two "profile" shots aren't even at the same angle? How can you possibly claim shape errors when the two things you're comparing aren't even lined up?
Do you even look at the pictures you're using to compare stuff before you post them?
Matt
Queensland, Australia
Joined: January 23, 2012
KitMaker: 66 posts
AeroScale: 47 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2012 - 10:50 PM UTC
Matt, don't bother trying to use facts, figures, logic or even truth when dealing with GAstonMarty. He is happy to make stuff up, use totally different angled images to 'prove' his points and will deny everything if you point out the fault in his 'arguement'. He has done this on just about every other modelling forum in existance and been banned from most of them for the exact same thing. He does not make real constructive critisism and will happily claim all kits have a 'fatal flaw'.
David Harvey
www.aussiemodeller.com.au
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 05:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Wait a minute. Those two "profile" shots aren't even at the same angle? How can you possibly claim shape errors when the two things you're comparing aren't even lined up?
Do you even look at the pictures you're using to compare stuff before you post them?
Matt
Matt, please do not confuse the Gaston with facts and logic; he'll just ignore them. You may wish to consider becoming part of the "hide user button" fan club instead.
When once you have tasted flight you will walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you will always long to return.
-Leonardo Da Vinci
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 07:11 AM UTC
The argument here is that the difference in angle will change what the crappy Revell nacelles look like...
Btw, I highly recommend "What the internet is doing to our brains" by Nicholas Carr: It has a lot of fascinating insights based on the latest brain research.
Quote p.148: "We're trained from infancy to put things into categories, to solve puzzles, to think in terms of symbols in space."
p.140: "You become, he argues, more likely to rely on conventional ideas and solutions rather than challenging them with original lines of thought."
It's a great read, if you can manage the attention span...
Gaston
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 08:40 AM UTC
Can't stop the personal insults, can you? And when can we expect you to withdraw your lie about Peter Cooke?
Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium
Joined: August 05, 2005
KitMaker: 1,503 posts
AeroScale: 44 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 09:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Revell nacelles look just badly off...
Quoted Text
But the Revell 1/32 nacelles seem to have worse issues
Quoted Text
what the crappy Revell nacelles look like...
Obvious not a Revell fan.
Washington, United States
Joined: January 15, 2011
KitMaker: 224 posts
AeroScale: 223 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 11:24 AM UTC
Gaston, Let me summarize what the rest of us are likely thinking but are just too polite to say. First, you are a droning moron. Second, NOBODY cares what you have to say. For arguments sake, this is just a hobby. Further, if indeed you were accurate in your criticism then solving ALL of your endless complaints would make this fine hobby simply unaffordable because of your expectations for accuracy. Good bye.
Jim Whitbread
Washington State, USA
AussieReg
Associate Editor
#007
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 03:25 PM UTC
ON the bench
Revell 1/24 '53 Corvette (building as '54)
Revell 1/24 BMW 507 Coupe and Cabrio
Italeri 1/48 Me262 B-1a/U1 Nightfighter
Monogram 1/24 '57 Chevy Nomad
Dragon 1/350 USS Frank Knox DD-742
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 04:31 PM UTC
Not to mention the size of the pigment particles in the paint. They'd be 32 times the size of truly accurate pigment particles and if you really want to divide rabbits, the mollecules of the paint's suspension medium would also be 32 times too big. Now that's a fatal flaw if I ever heard of one. Totally inaccurate!
But the worst sin of all is that the whole thing is made of plastic! Not like the original at all! Shock! Horror!
Sarcasm ends. We now return you to your original browsing, already in progress.
When once you have tasted flight you will walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you will always long to return.
-Leonardo Da Vinci
