1/72 C-130 Hercules kits - which one is the best ???
CHECK SIX !!!
perfect or extremely high detailed kit, but it has engraved
surface-lines, a clear canopy, good decals (for one a/c) and
the details are also o.k.
It is my secound 1/72 "Herc" in nearly 20 years now - the
other one is the old Airfix C-130. In between several other
C-130 kits appeared on the market: A new (?) AC-130 by
Airfix, a lot of Hercs by Italeri (also the new 'Jay') and
(as mentioned above) ESCIs C-130s (I don't remember if there
is also an AMT C-130 kit, which could be ESCIs Hercules).
So:
Which kit is the best? Has anyone ever compared them? Does
the ESCI kit also have engraved surface-lines, especially
the C-130 J ?
CHECK SIX !!!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
CHECK SIX !!!
It's no the ESCI but the ITALERI C-130 J !!!
So: Which kit is the best? Has anyone ever compared them?
Does the ITALERI kit also have engraved surface-lines,
Ken Durling
>
IMHO, the Italeri C-130 IS the best in 1/72.
HowEVER -
It's not a true "J" - just an H (I think) with a glass cockpit and 6-blade
screws. I believe there's a resin conversion (new fuse fairings and some
other bits) to make a true "J" - available from . . . someone will know.
HTH
Ken Durling
IPMS NorCal
PPSEL
Just Plane Crazy
Dave Williams
> Ooops!
>
> It's no the ESCI but the ITALERI C-130 J !!!
>
> So: Which kit is the best? Has anyone ever compared them?
> Does the ITALERI kit also have engraved surface-lines,
> especially the C-130 J ?
>
> CHECK SIX !!!
>
All the Italeri C-130s I've seen have raised panel lines. Even with that,
though, I'd rate the Italeri kits above the AMT/ERTL kits, or even the Airfix
kit.
Dave
Cathead232
postage. Thanks!
Tyler
Scott Hemsley
I whol;e-heartedly concure! True the panel lines are raised, but if outline,
details & accuracy are more important than scribed panel lines, it's got to be
(IMO) Italeri's Hercs. It is possible to re-scibe the Italeri kit's panel lines
- I speak from experiance. My effort can be seen in the IPMS 'Buzz' Beurling
(1/72) gallery, http://hedgehoghollow.com/ipms/img/ac019.html - to be precise.
> It's not a true "J" - just an H (I think) with a glass cockpit and 6-blade
> screws. I believe there's a resin conversion (new fuse fairings and some
> other bits) to make a true "J" - available from . . . someone will know.
Very true, Ken. Actually, the Italeri Hercs, regardless of marketing, are the
same C-130E molds (except their AC-130A which does make fuselage concessions).
The "H" comes from a early production "H" (C-130H-1??), which was virtually
externally identical to an "E". Their "H" is basically a 'decal change' & a few
extra parts that apply to the individual a/c to be modelled. Thus it applies
that the C-130J is actually an "E" with an engine change & re-done instrument
panel (but not the flight deck to reflect the revise number of crew (2 isn't
it?).
Ron's Resins (I got mine from Meteor Productions), an Australian outfit, do a
lovely resin set that will allow one to accurately model a late production "H"
(C-130H-3) which are identical to the fuselage changes for a C-130J. To model
the RAF C-130J's, you'd also have to stretch the fuselage.
Scott
Donald Harstad
C-130J's are the normal length, with half being stretched. I believe they
are the Mk. 4 and 5? Or something like that.
Flightpath makes some great nacelles for the later model H. Very nice.
Don H.
Scott Hemsley <has...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:37EAFBEC...@globalserve.net...
Jonathan Mock
remember being impressed by the recessed panel lines, but not impressed by
some of the sketchy moulding and fit of parts. Some of the canopy frame
lines are inaccurate and the refuelling probe for the RAF version was
hopeless, as were the decals.
Nice kit, but the Italeri one is better, raised lines and all...
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
Tigger899
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember someone telling me that on a C-130
raised panel lines are actualy more acurate that scribed. This is due to the
sealant used on the panels. It actualy sticks up at the seems. Can anyone
confirm this?
Lloyd Curtis
Call the ball
Donald Harstad
seen the upper surfaces.) I remember being struck by that, and thinking it
was a lot like the fuselage seam on a Bf-109 kit. I sanded and sanded, and
then somebody told me that the real 109 was assembled in left and right
halves, and that the real ones had a seam down the center of the
fuselage....
Don H.
Tigger899 <tigg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990924123703...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Scott Hemsley
> raised panel lines are actualy more acurate that scribed. This is due to the
> sealant used on the panels. It actualy sticks up at the seems. Can anyone
> confirm this?
You could very well be correct, Lloyd. Although I haven't really noticed on
the C-130's, I did pay attention to that very feature on CP-140 Aurora (Canadian
P-3 Orions). The ONLY reason I scribed my Herc was due to the amount of sanding
(due to all the added external details, etc.). It stood to reason that scribed
detail was easier to restore, for the large amounts of it.
Scott