WTB C-45 "F" EXPIDITER BY HOBBYCRAFT

That's the worst of the three C-45 kits available in 1/72. The other injection-molded kit is by Pioneer 2 but neither of these is really worth a crap. You'd be far better off with the Rareplanes vac kit - it's much more accurate.

So what's wrong with it then.........

Well I'm glad to hear about more kit's out there, BUT I NEED the hobbycraft "c-45 F" to compleat a flight line I have started. besides I'm giving two away and the people who are getting them love the ones I did already. But I'll look out for the other kit's you posted. Thanks Bill.

The Hobbycraft kit's fuselage isn't deep enough except for where the wing mounts in which case it's too deep. The nose is too pointed and the passenger windows are mounted too low and too far forward. The stabilizers are mounted too far forward, and the windshield is too long and slants rearward at too great an angle.

The Pioneer 2 kit has a much better general outline but it's slightly too short. Its passenger windows are also too low but are even further forward than Hobbycraft's, and the entire cockpit glass area is both too low and misshapen.

The Rareplanes kit matches plans and photos quite closely and while not an easy build it's easier than correcting the mistakes of either injection molded kit.

That said, all three look a lot like C-45s when they're done so whether or not it's worthwhile to make the corrections or tackle a vac kit is, as always, a decision for the individual modeler and what pleases his/her eye. I'd never recommend against building any kit just because of accuracy issues. This *is* supposed to be fun, after all.

"Al Superczynski" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Where does this information come from? Is this your own wisdom or someone else's?

That sounds quite differently from: "That's the worst of the three C-45 kits available in 1/72. The other injection-molded kit is by Pioneer 2 but neither of these is really worth a crap." So, should one buy the Hobbycraft kit or not?

I have built two of the Hobbycraft kit, have a bunch of photos taken of the real airplane just for reference to help with the builds, and still have a couple Bug Smashers (SNB/C-45/Beech Model 18) here in the local area.

Also used the very well done large scale drawings Paul Matt did many years ago. I know, drawings are always questionable, but Paul had a very good reputation, and his drawings match my photos much better than the kit.

Al was not blowing smoke. What he said was very accurate.

If all you want is a "representation" that generally looks like a Bug Smasher, find and build the HobbyCraft kits. If you are seeking a very accurate model, then the hard to find Rareplanes is the way to go.

Norm

I was not so much questioning the accuracy of Al's story, but rather whether he researched and built the kits himself, or giving his interpretation from other's findings he had found on the internet.

What is a very accurate model?

See Norm Filer's reply. I used the same sources he did, along with personal observations of the real thing at the N. Little Rock airport.

I wouldn't but that's for the individual modeler to decide, isn't it?

I didn't realize that one had to build a kit to determine its accuracy.

"Al Superczynski" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Ah, someone else's wisdom it was. That's all I was asking.

Bassie, for goodness sake. You asked a simple question that both Al and I attempted to answer. Now you want to argue about that answer. Why?

The question clearly required someone to express their opinions. We did that and you apparently disagree. That's fine with me but why the insults?

Norm

Norm,

Bassie/Pipo/R>

Probably because he doesn't like my politics. Pretty sad, isn't it?

You obviously overlooked the part about my personal observations of C-45s at the N. Little Rock airport. Offhand I can't think of a better primary reference source than the real thing.....

"Norm Filer" schreef in bericht news:dApAb.3877$% snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

I asked a simple question indeed. No arguing, no insults and no disagreements from my side. So I don't see what your problem is.

"Al Superczynski" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Your politics have nothing to do with it. Your judgement of the kits in question came across as somewhat definite while on the other hand I had some doubts whether you researched the kits yourself or not. Since one nowadays has to beware of unverified bullshit I therefore simply asked you where your information came from. Then I got an answer from your spokesman Norm where

*he* got his information from. And finally it appears that you are quoting someone else's research as well. Is that so hard to admit?

What, no tape measure with you, Al? ;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Bullshit. You're utterly transparent.

on the other hand I had some

Why haven't you questioned anybody else's comments relative to the accuracy of kits? In fact, why haven't you ever questioned *me* before? I've made similar remarks about other kits in my years on this newsgroup.

asked you where your

It was a blatant attempt to embarrass me, nothing less.

Norm is not my 'spokesman'. He's a long-time friend but I did not solicit his response or support.

You apparently don't understand the English language as well as I thought you did. Saying that I used similar sources doesn't mean that I was quoting anyone else's research - the Matt drawings are the best there are of the C-45 and as for pictures I don't have the same ones that Norm has. He and I came to the same conclusions independently. What's so hard to understand about that?

Nah. I've got one of those new laser doohickey thingies......