|
|
Post by nito74 on Jan 30, 2024 21:47:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jan 30, 2024 21:49:13 GMT
A 1/35th Flying Fortress!!!!!! 
Puma looks nice  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul B on Jan 31, 2024 6:24:38 GMT
Never heard of the IAR 80, but I like the look of it  . Boots I don't think anyone here will ever get the 35th scale Fortress  . As for the Puma, yes it does look nice but the reviews say it full of mistakes  . |
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jan 31, 2024 9:58:28 GMT
I think your right there mucker.........she be a bit big for the average mancave I did think that about the PUMA when i saw it.........sure i did hear elsewhere the same comment, still LOOKS nice tho  |
|
|
|
Post by bwilt on Jan 31, 2024 11:43:25 GMT
still LOOKS nice tho Isn't that the main thing? No model will ever be 100% exact... |
|
|
|
Post by The Kernel on Jan 31, 2024 13:58:35 GMT
still LOOKS nice tho Isn't that the main thing? No model will ever be 100% exact... I agree that are many reasons why a kit has errors; could be constraints on moulding possibilities or lack of information but errors have been posted which were obvious to those who know. There isn't a Puma to copy but there are 234s in existence so in this scale and this price point hull errors should not be present. Many will build it and not care but many will and sales will be lost because of that. Their sdkfz 251 D has many issues but seems to be acceptable to many though again there are prototypes to study and fundamental errors should not exist. If AFV Club and Tamiya can get it right in 1/35 scale then there is no excuse in 1/16 IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by JEFF on Jan 31, 2024 15:16:55 GMT
The camo on the last 234 picture looks very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Armorguy on Jan 31, 2024 19:27:25 GMT
I liked the Puma, but thanks for the info on it guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveM on Feb 1, 2024 20:07:13 GMT
When I win the lotto I'll get that 1/35 B-17 ... So that's never then  |
|
.
.
.
