 |
 | 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 / May 2008Dragon Ta 154
I see that this kit is being reviewed as a new tool kit. Is this a fact and is not the Promodeler kit? We know that the Promodeler Ju 88A-4 and the Dragon Ju 88 kits are related. Not having the Dragon kit I can't compare it with my Monogram kit. Does anyone know? Thanks Mike >I see that this kit is being reviewed as a new tool kit. Is this a >fact and is not the Promodeler kit? We know that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Mike i don't get why that no-go waste of resources is so popular. i've heard miraculous claims for what it could have done from post war yahoos, but the reichslufts guys passed on it after testing. it's not a interseting design and not very original. > >I see that this kit is being reviewed as a new tool kit. Is this a > >fact and is not the Promodeler kit? We know that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reichslufts guys passed on it after testing. > it's not a interseting design and not very original. I think it's kind of cool looking myself. I had a lot of fun correcting the PM kit a few years back. I printed out a list of 'what's wrong with the kit' that was posted here and addressed most of the problems. I ditched the nightfighter persona and went for a zerstörer prototype. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> In article > <2142ba3d-1c7a-4c1a-93b3-c366e118e364@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, MQM107 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. still have that list? please send if ya do, ok? > I think it's kind of cool looking myself. I had a lot of fun correcting > the PM kit a few years back. I printed out a list of 'what's wrong with > the kit' that was posted here and addressed most of the problems. > I ditched the nightfighter persona and went for a zerstörer prototype. > People really hate that kit, but it can be made into a presentable model...and is no worse than a lot of injection molded models by garage kit manufacturers. Pat >> I think it's kind of cool looking myself. I had a lot of fun correcting >> the PM kit a few years back. I printed out a list of 'what's wrong with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Pat even their bare me 163 can be brought up. i had lots of practice on the lindberg 163....which can also look good with a little fanatical detailing and scratching. the only 163 kit i haven't built is the heller. can't find one cheap. > >> I think it's kind of cool looking myself. I had a lot of fun correcting > >> the PM kit a few years back. I printed out a list of 'what's wrong with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > scratching. > the only 163 kit i haven't built is the heller. can't find one cheap. It's worth finding since it has a carrier and tractor included. I painted mine in the red scheme. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> In article <zsSdnYfFg_9o2IfVnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. so is the jap kit with those a repop? academy, i think it is. > >> In article <zsSdnYfFg_9o2IfVnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, > > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > so is the jap kit with those a repop? > academy, i think it is. Never owned one so I can't say. IIRC, Academy's kit was for the 2-seater. I wanted one for the family portrait but never found one at the right time. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> >> In article <zsSdnYfFg_9o2IfVnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, >> > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. in it's latest run it's an either of two or one seat. it's a neat little kit and has good guts so you don't need extensive scratching. i got it for the tractor to use with the lindberg i spen endless hours correcting and detailing. they make quite the couple. > even their bare me 163 can be brought up. i had lots of practice on the > lindberg 163....which can also look good with a little fanatical detailing and > scratching. > the only 163 kit i haven't built is the heller. can't find one cheap. > It's quite nice, and even includes the little towing tractor and trailer that lifts the Me-163 up and takes it back to the hanger. Pat >> even their bare me 163 can be brought up. i had lots of practice on the >> lindberg 163....which can also look good with a little fanatical detailing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Pat i'm guessing my academy is a repop. it's nice and does the samething. it is a lot less than the heller, fer sher. > >> even their bare me 163 can be brought up. i had lots of practice on the > >> lindberg 163....which can also look good with a little fanatical detailing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > i'm guessing my academy is a repop. it's nice and does the samething. > it is a lot less than the heller, fer sher. I'll have to try and get #2 computer to stay online long enough to send you a copy of my 'Rocket Fighter Family' pic. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> In article <6smdnbO8VZ9oKIbVnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. if it has 6-7 me 163's and a 263, you sent it years ago. so don't go whoopie looking for it. thanks a bunch. why not burn those pics to dvd and run them from #1? > if it has 6-7 me 163's and a 263, > Huma did the Me-163D/Ju-248; okay kit, but the one they hit their apex with was the DFS-346. Pat > > if it has 6-7 me 163's and a 263, > > Huma did the Me-163D/Ju-248; okay kit, but the one they hit their apex > with was the DFS-346. > > Pat Yep, the 263 was in the pic. The DFS never got bought but a Condor Me 163A was bought and built as was the Amodel I-270. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > >> In article <6smdnbO8VZ9oKIbVnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, > > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > looking for it. thanks a bunch. > why not burn those pics to dvd and run them from #1? Sounds like the pic I'm thinking of. As to your posit, I just hadn't thought of doing something like that. I'm still running behind. I haven't enough computer smarts to move out ahead of the curve. It could be done since #2 has a CD burner installed. I seem to have currently disabled the Zip drive on #2. Two of my bargains wouldn't format and they seem to have thrown a wrench in the works. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> >> In article <6smdnbO8VZ9oKIbVnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, >> > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. need another burner? hate zip drives....never had a good backup from one. > >> >> In article <6smdnbO8VZ9oKIbVnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@northdakotatelephone>, > >> > flanner@daktel.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > need another burner? > hate zip drives....never had a good backup from one. Generally I haven't had any problems with ol' #1. It would be the new improved model that would die first. I don't think #1 has the capability to run a burner. I don't want to overtax it anyway. I'll have the kid standing around gloating if it crashes. Currently there are four CD racks just about full of Zip discs. If I switched memory storage systems I might look into those little sticks. They seem to have a tremendous storage capability whilst still being amenable to additions and subtractions. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > I'll have to try and get #2 computer to stay online long enough to send > you a copy of my 'Rocket Fighter Family' pic. > > I've got the Me-163A, Me163B, and Me-263/Ju-248...as well as the Lippisch DFS-194, all in 1/72 scale. The canopy on the Condor Me-163A appears to be way too small, although I don't know how one would fix it. Those rockets on it don't look much like R4M's either. There's a interesting article on beating one of these things into shape here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/model009.htm Pat > > I'll have to try and get #2 computer to stay online long enough to send > > you a copy of my 'Rocket Fighter Family' pic. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pat Wish I'd known of that page when I built the kit. There's a lot of names there who used to post here. I think Rob is the only one still looking in here occasionally. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Wish I'd known of that page when I built the kit. There's a lot of > names there who used to post here. I think Rob is the only one still > looking in here occasionally. > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. I check occasionally, but rarely post anymore. Rob and I couldn't believe the similarities between the Victoria Products and the Condor kit. And they both suck - it's amazing how much effort Rob put into that model, just to get it to look vaguely like an Me-163A. Frank  SignatureFrank Henriquez Programmer/Analyst Jules Stein Eye Institute, UCLA frank@ucla.edu http://frank.bol.ucla.edu/index.htm > Wish I'd known of that page when I built the kit. I didn't know specifically everything that was wrong with the kit when I built it, but the R4M's looked like milk jugs, and the canopy looked so small that the pilot would have a hell of a time getting into the aircraft. Pat > > Wish I'd known of that page when I built the kit. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat I suppose I figured that the designers wouldn't have worried about pilot comfort when they designed it. It did seem to be smaller than the hole left for it to fill. I have an early TS-11 Iskra kit that has the same problem. It's moulded in a lovely light chartreuse. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> > Wish I'd known of that page when I built the kit. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. har! : I see that this kit is being reviewed as a new tool kit. I doubt it is actually new. Squander had the Natter listed as "NEW", which it clearly is not. It seems the guy who owns Squadron/MMD is not conversant on his models as JLC was. Well, okay, probably Haransky, but, still... Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > : I see that this kit is being reviewed as a new tool kit. > : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The Power and the Prophet > Robert Don Hughes Well, actually JC really liked to use the "new" moniker, even when Squadron knew it wasn't true. As to the Ta 154, from what I've read, it's got some parts that the Monogram/Promodeler kit doesn't have. Altho, essentially it's the same kit. I think the one to buy would come down to your wallet… I disagree with some.some, IMHO it is a interesting aircraft. Yes, it was a "no-go" aircraft, but IIRC that had more to do with the plywood construction and poor performing glues rather than the capabilities of the aircraft itself. Very racy-loooking… Don't blame Squardon. Even Dragon USA says it's "new tool" on their web page. http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRA5522 In reality, I think tit's basically the same Promodeler plastic with a few new parts like the nose and antennas to make different versions that what was in the PM kit. Dave On Apr 27, 10:50 pm, bruc...@realtime.net (Bruce Burden) wrote: > MQM107 <mrbis...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The Power and the Prophet > Robert Don Hughes Well, actually JC really liked to use the "new" moniker, even when Squadron knew it wasn't true. As to the Ta 154, from what I've read, it's got some parts that the Monogram/Promodeler kit doesn't have. Altho, essentially it's the same kit. I think the one to buy would come down to your wallet… I disagree with some.some, IMHO it is a interesting aircraft. Yes, it was a "no-go" aircraft, but IIRC that had more to do with the plywood construction and poor performing glues rather than the capabilities of the aircraft itself. Very racy-loooking… > Don't blame Squardon. Even Dragon USA says it's "new tool" on their web > page. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > plywood construction and poor performing glues rather than the > capabilities of the aircraft itself. Very racy-loooking… Thanks for the input. I suspected that this was basically the same kit with additions to make it a 3 IN 1 kit. I couldn't believe that it was a actual new tool kit. But then with what we have seen from Trumpeter and some of the other companies from the left side of the world (this remark is based on where you live or would leave from to get there) anything is possible. This tells me I can save my money. Thanks Mike |
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
|
©2008 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.