 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / January 2006Wanting to buy a 1/72scale Boeing 737. Does anybody have a kit to spare?
Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by aurora perferably. Does anyone have one for sale? Thanks, Erik > Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by > aurora perferably. Does anyone have one for sale? > Thanks, > Erik Ebay. Aurora/Monogram kit is there regularly. > Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by > aurora perferably. Does anyone have one for sale? > Thanks, > Erik Aurora has been dead for decades > Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by > aurora perferably. Unless you're a collector, don't waste your time with the Aurora kit. There are serious shape problems everywhere. Instead, go to http://www.welshmodels.co.uk/Classicairliners.html Their kit is expen$ive, but excellent. There are also many other fine models available there.  SignatureJess If you have your heart set on the Aurora kit don't ignore the Monogram kit. It's just a reboxed Aurora kit. Transport Wings also does a vacuformed 737. Tom >If you have your heart set on the Aurora kit don't ignore the Monogram >kit. It's just a reboxed Aurora kit. Actually it's a little bit better since Monogram added the flap track fairings which were missing from the original Aurora kit. Unfortunately they didn't correct any of its shape problems or update the engines. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." > Actually it's a little bit better since Monogram added the flap > track fairings which were missing from the original Aurora kit. > Unfortunately they didn't correct any of its shape problems or update > the engines. Which is why I recommend the Welsh kits. They do a -200 and -500 and will soon offer a -3/400 kit as well. They also have a series of DC-9s in the works, a Comet 1, and a series of Convair twins in the Proteus range. SignatureJess Farther to the Aurora or Monogram kits. Both are the same kit. As mentioned before, Monogram cleaned it up a bit and added a few items but it is still a very poor representation of the airplane. I was working on the 737 program when Aurora came to Seattle to gather information for their 737 model. We were at such an early stage of the program that the only thing we had to show them was the mockup and drawings. A lot of changes happened between that point and the actual aircraft rollout. Needless to say, a lot more has happened between the 737-100 rollout and what flies with the airlines today. The kit was never much good in the way of accuracy in the first place. To short for any version still flying today, wrong engines with the thrust reverser actuators all wrong, and probably the worst problem is a complete lack of any wing/body fairing. The Welsh kit is not cheap, but at least it represents an accurate 737. Norm > Farther to the Aurora or Monogram kits. Both are the same kit. As > mentioned before, Monogram cleaned it up a bit and added a few items [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Norm Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know. > Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And > east is east and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them > like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, > uh... Now you tell me what you know. Um, ingest some bad herbage? Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. No, just another aficianado of the world's greatest raconteur and dadaist- (see my sig) SignatureJim Atkins Twentynine Palms, CA USA Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho Marx > No, just another aficianado of the world's greatest raconteur and > dadaist- (see my sig) Indeed. Even my son gets it and he's only 11. He's got no cultural reference at all, yet he rolls on the floor. No modern "comedy" affects him like that. It's amazing. Frank And that is one of my favorite all time lines. > Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by > aurora perferably. Unless you're going for the collector's value, you really don't want it. It's grossly inaccurate. Try this one instead: http://www.welshmodels.co.uk/CLS72-8.html It's a limited edition resin/vac kit, very expen$ive but worth every penny. Go here http://www.welshmodels.co.uk/ then look under "Listings" then "Classic airliners" There are other nice kits on the site as well. SignatureJess > Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by > aurora perferably. Unless you're a collector, the Aurora kit is not worth wasting your time on. There are serious shape issues everywhere. Try http://www.welshmodels.co.uk/ instead. Go to http://www.welshmodels.co.uk/Classicairliners.html to find an accurate 737. Warning: this kit is not cheap, but it's very good. You'll find many other good kits there as well. SignatureJess >> Does anybody have a kit to spare??? I'm looking for a kit made by >> aurora perferably. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You'll find many other good kits there as well. Yes, well it looks more like a 737 than a Mustang. Get over yourself. Not everyone wants to spend vast sums of money for a vac kit, nor do they want to build a vac kit. Some people built the old Aurora kits many years ago and would simply like to replay the experience with thier many years on improved abilities. Not everyone is anal retentive. Not everyone can devote large sums of money and time to a hobby. Some people have families which demeand thier attention and command thier paychecks. These people sometimes just need a hobby that is not to stressful to RELAX!!!! Get over yourself. I deal with enough blowhards in my professional life, I prefer to avoid them in my hobby. My local club for the most part is sans snobs. This makes it a pleasure to attend. I have now won two firsts with kits that were 40+ years old. Maybe not $40+, 500 piece magnificinces but I had FUN building them, and scratchbuilt most of the improvements. My God I can't be hip, not a touch of PE or resin anywhere!. Just good technique, imagination, manual skills and paint. Yeah I gues the $30 DML T-34 with it's link to link tracks and exquisite detail requiring many hours to build is a much nicer kit, but the $10 Revell 1/40 T-34 is actually pretty accurate in outline and easy to build and paint. Brass tubing exhausts, bent wire handholds, scratched end pieces and straps for the fuel tanks, chop off the awful muzzle brake and drill out the barrel, yeah OK I ain't the coolest geek in the club. But apparently I do have some skill. And I got it done in the short periods of time the rest of my life permits me to have for my hobby. Yeah, the Aurora 737 isn't right the engines being wrong. But if you checked the dimensions of a 737 and measured the kit you might find that it appears to be a 737-200 in 1/78 scale. (measure it and compare to specs on Airliners.Net, I did). My decals were trash and 2 big shot decal makers have turned me down on resizing existing 737 decals, I guess if it isn't cookie cutter they can't handle it. So I'll make my own by resizing 1/144 decals. And then I'll do a fine job on it, take it to a show and you can tell me how inaccurate it is. And then you can show me the one you built. Erik, go to eBay. The Aurora and the Monogram repop are there all the time. The Monogram is probably a better deal as a builder, Monogram cleaned and somewhat improved the molds, the decals will be newer and probably better and the Mongrams command less money since they aren't collectors. Get one and have a good time with it, not to many parts, put your effort into the paint job and tell every one of the know-it-alls to blow it out their thrust reverser. AND HAVE A FUN TIME!!! Frank > Yes, well it looks more like a 737 than a Mustang. Get over yourself. I think you need to take your own advice. The OP wanted a 737 model, so I pointed out the best one I know about. You assume I'm anal retentive and you call me a blowhard in a post at least 8 times longer than mine was. You insult me, you insult our hobby and you insult Erik. By doing so, you have managed to also insult yourself worse. Go step away from the glue fumes now, okay? Frank, As I think I mentioned some time back here. The old Aurora 737 was done before the real one was done. They came to Seattle and the only thing we had to show them was the mock up. Also of course the various sales literature and stuff like that. By the time we rolled out the first 737-100, there had been some significant changes made. These are some of the most noticeable changes from the Aurora kit. It was supposed to be a 737-100 as that was the only one we were working on at that time. I don't think there are many -100 series birds flying anymore. For that matter, I am not sure there are many -200s either. The fact they got the length wrong is a pretty good indication of the rest of the kit as well. The kit does not have a wing body fairing. This is a noticeable omission as it is quite noticeable. I think this might be the biggest problem with the kit. The thrust reverser actuator fairings on the sides of the engines are horizontal. We found during flight test that they blew a large bubble of air under the A/C and reduced braking efficiency. The simple fix of rotating the reversers about 45 degrees fixed the problem. So the actuators are only accurate for a couple of the flight test birds for a short time. If Erik's intent is to model anything he sees at the local airport, then the suggestion to look at the Welsh kit is a good one, or perhaps to consider changing to 144th scale. there are an excellent selection of 737s in that scale. Of course there are a lot of fiddly little stuff to be added but I'll pass on that. While I think I agree with the basic premise you had in your post, I sure didn't care for the harsh manner. Norm > While I think I agree with the basic premise you had in your post, I sure > didn't care for the harsh manner. Perhaps a bit to harsh. It just grinds me to hear people griping all the time about a hobby. I deal in precision calculations every day. My hobby is to relax. I agree many kits aren't accurate but if you have someone fairly new lookinmg for something to have a go don't discourage them. I do think people get turned away by the carping sometimes. I know the 737 ain't right. But it does scale as a -200 in 1/78, can't help that it just does. Ask Ron Smith about ship models and how inaccurate modern molds cut this year are. Yet somehow they sell them. I just know I'm not making 100% accurate copies of the prototype. Maybe on some things I'll try harder, but jeez everyone take a break. Didn't mean to come across so harsh. Everybody off the internet and go build a model rather than kibbitz about it. Frank, Now were on the same page. There are some rather disturbing trends happening in this modeling hobby. At least the way I see it. Your absolutely right about the constant barrage of bad vibes and bitching about every little thing. But the depth of interest is so varied that I think the bad needs to be pointed out in constructive ways so that those out there who want to go the extra mile at least have some idea what they are doing. To me the key here is "constructive ways" I think the ideal is to try to point out what is not accurate (within reason), provide some documentation of how you came to that conclusion, and maybe even try to suggest some ways to correct that. To just ignore these things and assume everyone is a casual builder and doesn't care would be a disservice to those who do. But again, the key for me is credibility and politeness. Yes, I do visit the ship forums. I have seen Ron's tirades about the efforts by Trumpeter. I am pretty new to the ship world so don't have a lot of depth there. I am pretty sure when I get down into the nuts and bolts of Ron's post that he is 100% right, but the intensity he displays bothers me. Not much different than trying to avoid someone that is clearly angry and out of control in the real world. Like you, this is a hobby. That implies enjoyment, and I do enjoy it. But too often the heat prevents me from enjoying the warmth. Regards, Norm > Yes, I do visit the ship forums. I have seen Ron's tirades about the > efforts by Trumpeter. I am pretty new to the ship world so don't have a lot > of depth there. I am pretty sure when I get down into the nuts and bolts of > Ron's post that he is 100% right, but the intensity he displays bothers me. Norm, I'm just sick and tired of people claiming Trumpeter should be thanked for producing shoddy kits. It gripes me even more when they had the proper research available and blew it off. The poor engineering of some of them is inexcusable as well. Every 1/350 kit since the Franklin has been a step or three backwards in quality and accuracy...it's like they almost hit the mark and now that they have market recognition they don't care anymore. If they want to charge Tamiya prices, they better keep the quality up or they'll get hammered. Ron, I can't disagree with any of that. I have some personal reservations about sending my money there and encouraging them, but they are for sure into this market big time. The reality is that a lot of our modeling associates apparently have been working with them for some time trying to help them do good stuff. As you say, some of it is being ignored. But the Tamiya and Revell and other companies are not free of errors either. But one thing is very clear. Trumpeter is paying attention to the modeling desires and trying to fill most of them in a couple of years apparently. Nobody else in the world is doing the volume of new stuff in popular scales like they are. Anybody else done a 1/350th carrier lately? I did not buy the Tico. and South Carolina kit for several reasons, but Tracy White's comments regarding the Tico. and yours on the S.C. did play a part. But I do have four of their carriers sitting around here and I suspect that is a lifetime of ships for me. I find it interesting that Trumpeter figured out the pricing thing very quickly. Their first few kits were very competitively priced to say the least. That changed in about three or four months. Now they seem to have figured out that they can sell their stuff at premium prices. And it is not the US importer getting rich either. If you look at the on-line hobby retailers in Hong Kong, or Japan the prices, while somewhat lower, are not going to save you much money by the time you pay the freight. Ron, I think we are pretty much on the same page here, where I take exception is the heat in the messages. I doubt if either of us will have much impact on the Trumpeter market share, so perhaps the better way is to try to encourage those who have bought the models to do a bit of research and provide constructive advice on what they can do to improve both the model and their modeling skills. Norm > Ron, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > working with them for some time trying to help them do good stuff. As you > say, some of it is being ignored. I know quite a bit more about that than I'm willing to state in public. > But the Tamiya and Revell and other companies are not free of errors either. > But one thing is very clear. Trumpeter is paying attention to the modeling > desires and trying to fill most of them in a couple of years apparently. > Nobody else in the world is doing the volume of new stuff in popular scales > like they are. Anybody else done a 1/350th carrier lately? No real argument that Tamiya and Revell also have quality issues but they're consistent and haven't let it lapse not that Trumpeter is producing a lot but then so does my cat. The backslide in quality does concern me, if they produce a plastic kit and it's crap nobody else will want to risk the capital and we're stuck with crap or nothing. > Ron, I think we are pretty much on the same page here, where I take > exception is the heat in the messages. Most of that is directed at the idiots who insist on using secondary or tertiary sources to argue against primary sources. The same idiots will also insist "put up or shut up" yet they aren't willing to pay for the privilege....guess what? I don't work for free and I sure as hell will not just give away information that has cost me serious time and/or money to acquire. It the same basic group of idiots in both cases. What really sets me off is constant claims "X has never been found" yet copies of X sit right in this very room....of course they aren't willing to pay for copies of X, they want it free. > I doubt if either of us will have > much impact on the Trumpeter market share, so perhaps the better way is to > try to encourage those who have bought the models to do a bit of research > and provide constructive advice on what they can do to improve both the > model and their modeling skills. In some cases that involves spending as much or more on aftermarket replacement parts than the kit cost or spending so many hours of labor fixing the kit's errors (mostly stupid engineering)that the average modeller ends up sticking it back in the box and on the shelf (a few will finish it and refer to it as the kit from hell....this has been applied by various modellers to Hornet, Lexington, the original Essex release and North Carolina; multiple times each). The Liberty is just about the only kit that doesn't need much in the way of accuracy correction and major amounts of working around stupid engineering. Not one of the kits has a lower hull that fits the upper hull without fiddling, about half actually need surgery to get that fit close. Later tonight after I finish putting all the extra computer bits away I'll post a list of the various stupidities for the North Carolina, with part numbers if applicable. All the carriers are currently in storage or were built long enough ago I can't clearly remember all the errors. And yes, I've built 2 Horents and 2 Essex class on commission and swore a bluestreak through most of each build. I recently began buying 1/32 or so wooden display models on eBay. There's one outfit advertising an "F4U-5N", when it's actually a -1. It has no radar pod or 4 blade prop, so it's not even a straight -5. I can't tell from the pic if it has the correct cowl shape, but I doubt it. It is in -5N markings, IIRC. I wrote them & asked if I were to buy it, would it be a proper -5N, with correct cowl & prop & radar pod & surely this was just a representative pic. I was told that it would be identical to the pic. I wrote them again & explained the diffs in a -5N & what appeared was a -1 in -5N markings. They responded that if I provided them drawings & pics, they would model any a/c. I told them there was plenty of available documentation on -5Ns & if they were going to sell a Corsair as a -5N, it should certainly look like one, especially the most obvious details. I bought a -7 in French markings from the same seller earlier & upon its arrival, where I could see it better, it didn't have the hump behind the canopy & had basically a -1 cowl with a chin scoop added, not nearly deep enough. I told them had it not been for the excellent finish & French markings, as well as my low buying price, I would have returned it as being misrepresented. > Frank, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Norm Despite Ron's, err, curmudgeonly ways he really is a good guy and a fount of knowledge. I watched a demo he did once and was quite inspired. He also does a lot of research on commision for resin modelmakers. I think his point is quite simply that the material is there and there is no excuse for gross accuracy issues nor boneheaded engineering given todays technology. And I agree with him. I choose to build plastic while he prefers resin. He makes a good case that you can spend as much on aftermarket to bring a plastic kit up to resin kit standards and still not have as good a kit as the resin one. Of course it depends on how much time and money we choose to spend and the level of "accuracy" we can accept. Frankly I am blown away by many of the really nice jobs done by the experten, but I haven't the time or money to emulate them. I'd rather do what I can and achieve a reasonable copy of the original. Others crave the nuts and bolts accuracy and work to achieve it. I think the problem tends to be that guys like me look at the experten for advice and inspiration, but I get the impression that (some of) the experten tend to look down on those more tolerant. I can live with a 30 to 40 year old kit because I can accept the limitations of the time without obsessing over the errors. And given the errors pointed out by Ron, and other modern problems (check out the DML Pz IV E, there is some kind of serious fit problem with some major components which in my mind combined with the many, many, many parts says to me this kit will take forever to build) does tend to put one off considering the prices. It's called perspective. Everything is a give and take. Let's just have fun. Frank > Despite Ron's, err, curmudgeonly ways he really is a good guy and a fount of > knowledge. I watched a demo he did once and was quite inspired. He also does > a lot of research on commision for resin modelmakers. I think his point is > quite simply that the material is there and there is no excuse for gross > accuracy issues nor boneheaded engineering given todays technology. And I > agree with him. Thanks Frank! You're pretty much right, the point is they've routinely turned down the research materials, from several sources, that were offered at more than reasonable prices. They've consistently ignored free advice about engineering the kits. They keep making the same mistakes and/or inventing newer stupider mistakes and have let their quality slip badly since they now have a dominant share of the injected plastic market. I won't even touch some of the known pirating issues. > I choose to build plastic while he prefers resin. He makes a good case that > you can spend as much on aftermarket to bring a plastic kit up to resin kit > standards and still not have as good a kit as the resin one. Of course it > depends on how much time and money we choose to spend and the level of > "accuracy" we can accept. Carriers I do prefer injected kits. For commissions I prefer resin since I can do a better job with more detail in much less time. Part of what pisses me off about the "Trumpeter Is the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread and Central AC" crowd is the fact enough of their kits have enough stupid engineering to turn off first time casual ship builders. > Frankly I am blown away by many of the really nice > jobs done by the experten, but I haven't the time or money to emulate them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inspiration, but I get the impression that (some of) the experten tend to > look down on those more tolerant. They're a.sholes then. I only look down on the pompous a.ses that pick apart everyone else's models yet never have one of their own on the table....well OK I do rag the overly anal and hygienically challenged.... > I can live with a 30 to 40 year old kit because I can accept the limitations > of the time without obsessing over the errors. And given the errors pointed > out by Ron, and other modern problems (check out the DML Pz IV E, there is > some kind of serious fit problem with some major components which in my mind > combined with the many, many, many parts says to me this kit will take > forever to build) does tend to put one off considering the prices. Actually the PzIV E only has two fit problems. The first is the armored covers for the final drives, the two piece ones fit lousy, the single piece ones fit great but then you need to add the bolt heads and those are teeny! The second fit problem is the cone shaped widget that engages the lugs on the turret bottom, leave it out and the turret sits right. I slammed that puppy together in a week and did a heavily weathered winter camo job and 4 riders too. The tracks are a bit fiddly and I admit to hosing them up a bit arouns the idlers. For some of the assemblies you do have to think them through before committing to glue. > It's called perspective. Everything is a give and take. Let's just have fun. LOL, it's better than half business for me now. >> Despite Ron's, err, curmudgeonly ways he really is a good guy and a >> fount of knowledge. I watched a demo he did once and was quite [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > LOL, it's better than half business for me now. In truth I had not heard all that about the Trump ships. I know that the more recent tanks have been regarded very nicely. I have some of Trumps armor, planes and the 1/144 subs. I did not anticipate a 1/350 ship as I don't have room to display the Tamiya ones I have, thought the Liberty is enticing to go with the Fletcher. That's is a disapointment, nothing sucks more than a kit you simply cannot build because of fit and because noone at the factory even tried to build the thing to see how hard it would be. Have you seen the Trump 1/700 heavy cruisers? I know your preference for resin here but I have representatives of most US WWII classes in plastic and they fill a void only partially filled by the Indianapolis for CAs. Imagine the US 3rd fleet at anchor, or the famous "Murderer's Row" photo in 1/700. I will probably spring for the DML Essexs to complement the Tami and Hase CVs I have, just to round it out. > In truth I had not heard all that about the Trump ships. I know that the > more recent tanks have been regarded very nicely. I have some of Trumps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more than a kit you simply cannot build because of fit and because noone at > the factory even tried to build the thing to see how hard it would be. The Liberty is buildable with only slightly more problems than a Tamiya 1/350 BB. Add GMM's PE, I'm not real keen on Tom's for this one. Just don't try to rig the booms, either have them down and stowed or up and stowed if you value your sanity. If Trumpeter could keep the level of quality shown in the Liberty and improve it slightly their BB and recently released CV kits would be worth what they charge. > Have you seen the Trump 1/700 heavy cruisers? I know your preference for > resin here but I have representatives of most US WWII classes in plastic and > they fill a void only partially filled by the Indianapolis for CAs. Imagine > the US 3rd fleet at anchor, or the famous "Murderer's Row" photo in 1/700. I > will probably spring for the DML Essexs to complement the Tami and Hase CVs > I have, just to round it out. I pretty much don't look at 1/700 kits because I don't build the scale. I have a dozen or so photos of "Murderer's Row" and the famous photo is not the best of the bunch. You'll need some DD's and assorted auxilliaries too. > that it just does. Ask Ron Smith about ship models and how inaccurate modern > molds cut this year are. Yet somehow they sell them. I just know I'm not > making 100% accurate copies of the prototype. Maybe on some things I'll try > harder, but jeez everyone take a break. It just pisses me off when the information is there and the manufacturer doesn't care. There are several reliable sources for the correct infomation that have offered it at reasonable prices too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.