Dragon Ta 154

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.

MQM107 wrote: : 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

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=85 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=85

Don't blame Squardon. Even Dragon USA says it's "new tool" on their web page.

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

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?

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

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.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

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

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.

so is the jap kit with those a repop? academy, i think it is.

It's worth finding since it has a carrier and tractor included. I painted mine in the red scheme.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

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 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.

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

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.

need another burner? hate zip drives....never had a good backup from one.

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.

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.