[Phantom Phan1200]

I just noticed something when comparing pics of the Hobby Masters David Cambpell Hellcat & the Corgi Predators version on TFM site. First the Predator versions color seems to be off, also the models lacks some small detail found on the HM version such as prop & other small markings as well as exhaust marks. This also applies to the new Predators USAF F104 when compared to HM's Really George F-104. Really George as tons of tiny details such as no step sings on the wings & wording on the drop tank fuel caps just to name a few. The corgi is void of all those details. Last I know some people have been critical of HM's panels lines & weathering. But I have to say after spending the afternoon with some real FLYING examples of warbirds at Fantasy of Flight yesterday. The HM look is more spot on to real aircraft than Corgi's factory fresh look. Fantasy of Flight as some the best flying examples of wabirds found in the US as well as the most original flying Spitfire in the world. What really stuck out to me when looking at these aircraft is that no matter how well they were restored the ones that had a good amount of flying time had dirty/pronounced panel lines, paint chips, oil & grease marks. Even with that these aircraft are still 100% better looking than anything that saw action in WWII. If you look at old photos to WWII aircraft in action you will see these aircraft for the most part were dirty as hell, had faded paint, chips, grease & exhaust marks & the panel/rivet lines were pretty noticeable. Also IMO non flying museum aircraft do not reflect the real thing as much as flying examples because they have never turned a piston after restoration. A lot are almost over restored to better than what they were new, almost like some cars in the classic car market today. In short I feel both the HM & Corgi Predator products are nice. But IMO the HM products better reflect how real world aircraft would have looked in the theater. What do you guys think?

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Phantom Phan1200

[Phantom Phan1200]

Hey Cardinal
I posted side by side pics under the same topic on my FDA forums that show the difference between both models.
I was not sure if I could post the pics here because they had a dealer logo on them.
Here is the link with the the side by side shots on my forum.
http://www.forumsvibe.com/cfldiecast...fldiecastmodel

If the link does not follow forum rules just let me know.
If not I would like to post the pics here so people can see the difference.

[FROGGY]

Agree with you guy's HM is better and less expansive.

[flyXwire]

I couldn't agree more with PhantomPhan. HM's F-104 has set the benchmark for what small scale models ought to be, imho.

[HotTrap429]

Originally Posted by FROGGY

Agree with you guy's HM is better and less expansive.

Have to agree - I happen to love panel lines on my diecast MODELS and enjoy HM's efforts. Price is more than reasonable for the better quality that HM serves up over Corgi. As to packaging, boxes are not worth an extra 10 spot no matter how much anyone tries to convince me otherwise.

[pulqui]

Originally Posted by HotTrap429

As to packaging, boxes are not worth an extra 10 spot no matter how much anyone tries to convince me otherwise.

Words of a real sage.....

[easy8]

Thanks for the insight and review Phantom, the pics do tell the story and I'm glad I went with the HM Minis III!

easy8

[hworth18]

Honestly, After looking at all 3 different Minsi's.. I think I prefer Dragons version....

[Canucklehead]

I like my Matchbox one...