Has anybody had experience with the Hasegawa (or even Frog) H8K2 flying boat?
I’ve just acquired the Frog version of the kit which is so very similar to the old Airfix Sunderland. It’s obviously a later kit than the venerable Sunderland but nonetheless it’s age is still apparent.
I can’t find any reviews of this kit on the web so if anyone knows of one I’d appreciate the information.
Michael
Michael,
I am currently building the Hasegawa H8K2 Emily and all I can say is if you don’t have to, don’t! The kit is terrible and not very accurate. I am using the Aero Detail 31 as a reference and the kit does not match any of the drawings in the book. There is no interior detail and the exterior detail is raised panel lines and rivets the size of pin heads. I had to build bulkheads and most of the interior detail in order to keep ti from having that “see through” look. The wings are the worst, nothing fits and I have used a pound of putty on them. Even though this is a Hasegawa kit it is over 30 years old and it really shows it’s age. I have built 30 year old Airfix kits that where better.
I don’t have any experience with the Frog kit but right now, anything has got to be better then the Hasegawa one.
Reddog
Thanks Reddog, I reckon that answers my question quite comprehensively. The Frog issue is definitely the Hasegawa kit reboxed so anything that applies to one applies equally to the other.
I’ve always been attracted to flying boats and thought this would be a nice companion for my Sunderland.
I had no worries about the surface detail, pretty much par for the course in a kit of this vintage, but your comments about the wings worry me. I had already noted the sink marks scattered willy-nilly about the fuselage.
I shall put it aside and consider the matter further.
Michael
Michael,
I grew up around NAS Norfolk when the last H8K was stored there, remember playing around it many of times so I have always wanted a model of it but the Hasegawa kit really let me down. The kit isn’t a total write off but it will take lots of work to get it to look right. I just keep hoping that someone comes out with a better kit before too long so I can end the torture.[banghead]
I have to admit that I love old kits, as much because of their obvious faults as despite them. The Airfix Sunderland is certainly far from perfect and even this Emily is better, technically speaking, but the Sunderland has enormous sentimental attraction. My father used to work on them in the RAF post-war and he built the kit in about 1959. I can still remember playing with it (after he’d gone to work of course!).
Therefore I’m interested in the Emily as a kit more than as a scale model if that makes sense. Nonetheless your comments have made me think again and I’ll have to decide whether to keep it for building or sell it on.
Michael
That’s interesting, because you would think that a Japanese kit of a Japanese airplane would be the best you could get.
On the other hand, if someone like Revell or Trumpeter put out a kit to your exhaustive detail requirements, we would have to pay over $100 for it, and considering you can get the re-issue Hase for under $40, which is under the collectors price for the origional, I don’t quiet see where all of your bellyaching is completely justified. [%-)]
I mean frankly, if you are one of those who would rather pay the current inflated prices for the typical new-release you see nowadays then have to do some extra work, then maybe you should stop buying kits where you are paying less then $100 for your kits. [:-^]
Tom [C):-)]
Waiting for something better to come along could most likely mean you’ll never build one. If you have it now I say build it. Lightly sand down the rivet detail to make it less pronounced (I saw a builder do it with the Airfix Sunderland kit with great effect) and you could spruce up the cockpit with just a little effort (in 1/72, you can’t get a real good look in the cockpit any way with the windows in place). If you don’t mean to make it a show piece and like flying boats that much, take it for what it is and have fun with the build.
I have the Hasegawa kit on my workbench now and it’s been sitting at the back of the bench for 2 years now, as spend a bit at a time puttying gaps and filling sink holes and sand. But I like flying boats too and I like the look of the ‘Emily’.
Tom,
You have your opinion and I have mine. However, I will say that I don’t appreciate your comments and will leave it at that.
Reddog
Michael;
I built this kit about 10 years ago. It was my first Hasegawa kit and almost soured me to that company. As Redddog and others have said the fit is poor. If you want a challenge you got it. The worse part for me was the wings mounting to the fuselage. Its almost impossible to believe that someone did any quality control on the original mould.
Mike T.
An online build can be found here…
http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/j/spahremily.htm
I built one over 30 years ago and yes it was a tough build and yes my standards were probably lower then but I was still happy with the overall appearance when it was done. At the time it was the most heavily weathered aircraft model I had ever done. It still exists today and if you stand back and blur your vision a bit and don’t look for warts it’s still not a bad looking model.
Gentlemen;
Firstly, I’d like to think we can conduct these discussions in an atmosphere of mutual respect for each others preferences and skill levels.
Thank you for those insights into the Kawanishi kit! The review is useful and certainly improves my opinion of the kit and my chances of doing it reasonably well (or at any rate to my own standards!). On that basis I shall place it in the stash for probable eventual construction.
The comment about souring someone in relation to a particular kit manufacturer touches a chord with me. Since the 70’s, about the time this kit was produced in fact, I have not built a Revell kit, and you won’t find many, if any, in my stash. A little later Heller joined them in my unconscious embargo list - both for reasons of bad experiences. It’s surprising how long one holds such prejudices and it is significant that there’s no Blohm & Voss Bv222 in the pile while there is a Matchbox Stranraer and Dornier 18, and even an Entex Dornier Do-X.
On the other hand, if I were wanting a new you-beaut kit with all mod cons I wouldn’t regard price as my first criteria, second maybe.
Michael
I had similar feelings about the 1/72 Do-24 kit and hoped and prayed for a better kit in 1/48. When FM came along with their 1/48 Do-24 I got right to the front of the line to shell out my $100.00 and start building. While it did have interior details it was a real PIA to build. When complete I wondered if maybe I would have been better off to just take the 1/72 scale kit and put the effort into making it a good model. As for the Emily, I have the Hasegawa kit sitting in the stash and have seen other modelers do a real nice job on it. It just takes some extra effort and when you are done you’ll feel like you accomplished something. I’ve not seen the FROG version but based on other FROG kits I’ve built I would not put it on the top of my to-do list.
The Frog kit is identical, only the box is different. The main problem with this particular example is the decals, to say they’ve aged badly is to understate the case by a wide margin.
I love Frog kits warts ‘n’ all!
Michael
Sorry, Reddog, I didn’t mean to “ruffle your feathers”.[bow]
What I am getting at is if you subscribe to FineScale mag, you will see detailed kit builds when a modeler takes and old kit, such as you have and makes the proverbial “silk purse from the sow’s ear” as feature articles.
What I am gettng at is that I think you may be missing an opportunity here.
If you havn’t gotten too far, I suggest that you photograph the “added innerds”, showing how you made the various items and then also submit it as an article to FSM.
You see, what you are doing is usually considered to be “advanced skill work” by a scale modeller, and that kind of thing is very often saught after for such articles, and in addition to seeing your name and subject in print, you also get a nice little check in the mail.
I just feel in your grumbling, you are possibly missing or overlooking not only a good opportunity for yourself, but sharing info with those of us who would appreciate seeing what you did in case we feel we might want to do the same thing.
I am sure that I am not the only one with an “Emily” in his stash (I bought it in 1975 when it was first issued, and it is still in the sealed bags, etc.) who would like to see what you did in a “step-by-step” fashion.
Sorry if you were not up to the teasing Reddy.[BH]
I hope you get to feeling better soon and will consider my suggestion. [;)]
Tom [C):-)]
Tom,
The scratchbuilding I did is no where near the quality of work that grace’s the pages of FSM. I’m not up to that caliber of a modeler, I just added simple bulkheads so you couldn’t look down the nose of the plane right through it’s rear.
I like building OOB without having to add a ton of interior details or using a pound of putty to make things look smooth. The models in FSM are way out of my league and as far as doing “advanced skills work”, I’m not that good and would most likely be embarressed if anyone outside my local model club ever saw the finished project.
As Dirty Harry once said, “A man has got to know his limitations” and I know mine.
Reddog
Hear, hear Reddog, I concur completely!
Michael
Personally, I believe that you are selling yourself short, as well as being too critical, Reddy.
A recent issue of FSM included a simple OOB assembly of an old Aurora Fock-Wulf, unpainted in it’s all-black plastic color (including the pilot), with no details changed or added whatsoever, and including an explanation about the markings (which had a cross, not a swastika on the tail), although they were totally incorrect, historically.
In another issue they showed how a modeller had to stiffen the interior of a vacu-formed kit by adding all kind of odds and ends from his scrap pile so the fuselage would at least stay one shape as he finished the kit.
And, really the finished kit did not look all that great, it was simply a review on building that kit, not how to make a show-stopping mastepiece.
And if you read the review about the re-issue of the old Revell R3Y Tradewind, I believe that you would find that you have gone further then the article reviewer did with your Kawanishi.
Really, if I took your list of complaints, and built my “Emily” per your comments, I believe that I could turn them into a nice appearing kit for a decent review, as good as, if not better then the Revell Tradewind, and generally, I do not airbursh.
Now, say that I did that, would you get angry about me “borrowing” your observations? [:-^]
Tom [C):-)]
Actually, Michael, here is a brief review of the kit in question, and this builder does not seem to have a “major malfunction” with the kit:
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/j/spahremilypreview.htm
Notice his remark about the wings, etc is:
“Well, fit is adequate and you´ll need careful dryfitting, puttying and some consideration to retain the rivets - mostly as expected.”
It seems his main issue is Part #28, the stepped bottom.
OK?
Tom [C):-)]
Tom,
If you want to write an article then go for it, I build for fun, not to write articles or for awards. If you use the stuff I provided that’s even better, I put it out there for all to use and didn’t copywrite it. If it helps someone out then it has been used for what I meant it for. I don’t look for ways to make money off of my models, it’s a hobby, not a business adventure.
Reddog
I still wish you would at least post a few pictures here, Reddy.
Actually I would, but before I get into it, since balsa-tissue is an old favorite of mine (I love it as a break from tiny, fiddly dinky little plastic parts, etc) , I want to finish a Guillow’s 1/28th scale PB-Y (45 1/2" wingspan) and hang it from my hobby room ceiling to inspire me to do gerat things with my other plastic flying boat kits. [;)]
We shall see. [:-^]
Tom [C):-)]