[hworth18]

Originally Posted by PappyB

Ah, thanks Harry -- I see what you mean now in regard to the paint... I'll weigh all this a big more and note it all in the online review. These slideshows are kind of my "quick-hit, first impressions.." In the future, I probably won't label them as reviews or post scores, we shall see. They're also a chance to solicit input and feedback from those, such as yourself, that are more knowledgable about particular aircraft. So thanks for posting those pics. One of the many reasons this is such a great place to hang out!

Pappy...
If you like the model then that is all that matters.. I apologize for being overly critical as I have accused others for "rivet-counting", and me pointing out its flaws serves only to influence your opinion to the point that it isn't the model you once thought it was.. I know I have loved planes in the past and been criticized because I didn't care to point out obvious errors just because I liked it so much...
Its not like these are $300 "museum-quality" replicas that should be 100% accurate, they are mass made "adult-collectibles" and I don't expect them to be totally accurate for $35-$50..

[PappyB]

Originally Posted by hworth18

Pappy...
If you like the model then that is all that matters.. I apologize for being overly critical as I have accused others for "rivet-counting", and me pointing out its flaws serves only to influence your opinion to the point that it isn't the model you once thought it was.. I know I have loved planes in the past and been criticized because I didn't care to point out obvious errors just because I liked it so much...
Its not like these are $300 "museum-quality" replicas that should be 100% accurate, they are mass made "adult-collectibles" and I don't expect them to be totally accurate for $35-$50..

Seriously, no worries -- these are things I do WANT to know. Very few times have such discussions ruined a model for me, but it has happened I admit. Most issues I can overlook if the sum of the parts are good enough for me. I do agree with your overall point though, we shouldn't take this all too seriously.

I still think the HM 110 is the best option, at least for the moment -- I do hope Corgi's is better! And I hope HM improves future releases.

[Celtic]

Wonderful photos and great effects (I kept my air sick bags handy, but no need! ) IMHO, the model suffers from two things: it is a late-war model, and so has those bumps and humps added to well-developed war machines; and, it has been photographed close-up by a good photographer with a sharp lens (or maybe, a sharp photographer with a good lens -- whichever). Please note that when you triple the image of a 1/72 model, you see things no mortal man with mortal eyes should be exposed too! Anyway, I'm fairly confident that with a 8 3/4" wingspan, the actual 1/72 model is going to look just fine. So, I'm looking forward to getting one (when it finally arrives).

[PappyB]

Originally Posted by Celtic

Wonderful photos and great effects (I kept my air sick bags handy, but no need! ) IMHO, the model suffers from two things: it is a late-war model, and so has those bumps and humps added to well-developed war machines; and, it has been photographed close-up by a good photographer with a sharp lens (or maybe, a sharp photographer with a good lens -- whichever). Please note that when you triple the image of a 1/72 model, you see things no mortal man with mortal eyes should be exposed too! Anyway, I'm fairly confident that with a 8 3/4" wingspan, the actual 1/72 model is going to look just fine. So, I'm looking forward to getting one (when it finally arrives).

Thanks Celt -- means much coming from you! AS for your point about the close ups, you are absolutely right -- flaws are magnified a bit. The gap with the canopy for instance.... looks obvious in the pics but at normal viewing distance you really can't tell unless you really look for it. The close ups are meant to expose the flaws though to the discerning collector so few surprises hit when the money is shelled out... I may not know everything about the 110, nor do I endeavor to, but I want the pics to be detailed enough that people who do know everything about 'em can look for the things that are important to them...

That's the goal anyways!

[lanslide]

Why...that "backwards horn" is nothing but a big hunk-a-plastic! At this scale, I'd rather see no balance horn than this plastic glob. In fact, the plastic gear doors and air scoops look overly thick too - or is this just magnified in the 3X photo.
BTW - I don't like the "finger pulls" cast in the engine nacelles for the gear doors - very toy-like. But I'm still get'n one! The pluses out way the minuses IMHO.

Originally Posted by PappyB

They do look backwards don't they -- this what you wanted?

[Epapazian]

Now that I can see closeup pictures like these, I'm glad that I waited for the second HM BF-110G due out in February. Perhaps by then they will improve the canopy and gun pack fit problems and turn the stabilizers around under the wings. I guess my biggest issue with both BF-110Gs as pictured so far, concerns the way they are mottled. HM seems to have a problem in this area. The masks may not be cut correctly to produce the desired "sprayed on" look and they may be fitted too close to the model, which also produces harder edged rather than more feathered results. Overall, the BF-110G, as depicted by HM is not what I was hoping for. HM's overly thick canopy frames are a surprise compared to those IXO turned out and the stubby radar antennae on Martin Drewes' HA1802 make this plane look unrealistic.

I happen to be a big supporter of Hobby Master and welcome this company's contributions in the diecast field---especially in view of Corgi's recent problems and Dragon's evident pullback in new product development. Perhaps HM made a mistake by tackling the more complex late model BF-110,G rather than going the easier BF-110 C route. I hope that this decision wasn't part of some deal with Corgi---as rumored on the UK forum--- whereby the two companies decided to divvy up their BF-110 production, with Corgi taking the easier early marks while HM took on the later models.

In any event, I hope that HM can improve its BF-110Gs and will continue to put out the qualitatively superior diecast replicas that we have come to expect from this company.

[Cruver Collecter]

The Hobby Master Bf 110G will look nice sitting on the shelf, even though it may not be perfect. But wait, nobody has a perfect model out there, so I guess that makes it kind of ok. To a point it also comes down to taste. I have read several threads praising Gemin Aces models, but they have their oops factors too. Their Spitfire has an inacurate wind screen (This pretty much writes that one off for me), and their less than acurate antennas are another factor for consideration (Their Bf 109Fs do look nice and with a little tweeking to the antenna, just fine.). The mottled camoflauge pattern on the Bf 110 could have been done a better, but does appear to be their first shot at it. Feather paint edges in 1/72nd scale can be hit or miss, over feathering kind of takes it out of scale where as in their cast looks to be none at all (Personally I like the way Dragon has handled it on some of their models). So all in all will have to wait till I have one in hand to make call on both pros and cons of the model.

[flyXwire]

Nice slideshow as usual, PappyB! I'm glad I've erred on the side of caution and wait till HM have ironed out these issues by the time the third issue of the One-one-Os are out!

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Love the slideshow Pappy..Great Job....
As for the 110 i'll pass on this one because i want a different looking scheme.
Canopy looks to be a little off but i'm sure in time as each release is made it will be corrected.
JP
I WANT ONE LIKE THIS:

IF and I do mean if, I get one. I agree, this is the one to get. I don't get the p*ssing and moaning about this one. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Make your own from a model, we'll see how well yours turns out. It looks like a 110, the Corgi Mustang is a dog yet several of you own them. Whats the difference? Its a flippin toy afterall.

[lanslide]

Shawn, did you really just say "its a flippin toy"? Nah - you don't mean that do ya? I have way too much invested in my collection for them to be considered toys!