[Black 6]

Having checked out the sale at BadCat on the FM planes, does anyone have comments about the Graf Fw-190 and the Ju-52? Accurate? Funky? Not worth the trouble?

I have only owned one FM/Armour model to this point (Gabreski F-86 - which I stupidly sold when freakin' Corgi announced they were making the same one in 1:72. NEVER AGAIN! BAD DOG!!) and it was decent. It lacked any real detail, but looked nice on the shelf. The 190 looks good (I think Pappy has one), but did Graf have one like it (I have the CH 1:72 version and it is much different). The Ju-52 looks off too, but I can't discern if it is the pic or the model that makes me feel that way. Did the Luftwaffe field 52s like this one?

Comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

[chiefs70]

I have the Graf 190 and I am quite happy with it. I admit I am not educated enough to be a major rivet counter but it is very nice with a solid construction - no gaps - well done paint and a great overall presentation. I have recently decided to focus on 1/48 and above and I am very satisfied with the model.

[aeroeng]

I'm giving the Graf 190 to my oldest son for Christmas this year. I think it looks great but I'm also not sure of the accuracy .

"image used with permission from The Flying Mule"

I've got this Ju-52 and it's one of my favorite die-cast. You'll need a lot of space to display it though .

"image used with permission from The Flying Mule"

[Captain Eddie]

Is it just me, (or maybe the pic), but doesn't the body of that 190 look a little too thick? Looks a bit closer to the P 47 than a 190.

[weiwencheng]

According to one of my books Graf had a 190 like this, but it was sort of his trophy plane. The book states it was never flown in combat.

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

Is it just me, (or maybe the pic), but doesn't the body of that 190 look a little too thick? Looks a bit closer to the P 47 than a 190.

The cowling looks to be a bit off also and the model is supposed to be an Fw 190A-5 so that would make the rudder incorrect (Should have aerial attachment mast). Rudder would also be incorrect for Fw 190A-3 and earlier variants.

[hworth18]

The landing gear angle is also incorrect as the gear should angle in and these are straight..

[Ara1]

Originally Posted by hworth18

The landing gear angle is also incorrect as the gear should angle in and these are straight.

My icon will vouch for this.

The Ju 52, though, is one of my best models and a great job was done on that mold. I agree with aeroeng, she is big, a real hanger-spanner. You really get a good impression of the Junkers with that FM model. Black 6, whatcha gonna do?

[Black 6]

Thanks guys for putting in your two cents as all you're comments are very helpful.

I have been VERY bad this past month on purchases (with a bunch of models due to be delivered next week - PLEASE die cast gods, let thy deliveries be when I am home alone lest I be smote by my beloved spouse ) so I need to choose wisely as the coffers are all but depleted. The 190 would look nice of a shelf, but I think I will pass.

So that leaves the Ju-52. I want one badly and this is a great price, but I am somewhat lukewarm about this particular scheme. I would much rather have the model in the pic that Aeroeng included in his post, or that which Ara has (if it had the Swazi on the tail). For you in the know, is the one offered at BadCat a good representation of that version of the real plane? It otherwise sounds like this is a decent mold by FM/Armour, but is it correct?

Thanks again guys!

[Ara1]

Wait for your Ju 52, Black 6. Hold off for the right model. When it comes down to it, you'll long forget the $40.00 you saved if the scheme isn't what you prefer. Yes, Aeoeng's looks classy, as does the civil and other versions. But the model that's on sale doesn't seem to say "buy me" to you. Chances are, you'll only get one 1/48 Ju 52, so maybe you should wait for the best?

My 2 cents for a buddy.