Wanting 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ebay. Aurora/Monogram kit is there regularly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aurora has been dead for decades
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:13:29 -0800, Erik B. wrote:

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.
--
Jess

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:13:29 -0800, Erik B. wrote:

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.
--
Jess

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:05:28 -0600, Gray Ghost wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norm Filer wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norm Filer wrote:

I know quite a bit more about that than I'm willing to state in public.

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.

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.