Who makes a good Eurofighter in 1/72 diecast..?? I've seen pics of the Corgi, it looks ok I guess, but they seem to be mostly in RAF liveries and I'd really prefer a Luftwaffe version if possible. I seem to remember that Witty was going to release one, but I don't know if they ever did. Suggestions appreciated, thanks.
Witty did release them. There is at least one Luftwaffe version, if not more. They are generally better than Corgi's. I've got a Witty RAF release which I'm happy with.
Theres a few on ebay, sellers are being a bit ambitious with the pricing on all the witty's since they fell though. Probably best to make an offer and see what happens, can only say no and really I dont see it as being disrespectful...the prices they are asking for them is disrespectful
Thanks for the info guys, I'll begin the hunt for a Witty Eurofighter. I've always liked many of Witty's models anyway and have never been much of a Corgi fan, so this is good news.
I am not sure its fair to say Witty Tiffie is better than Corgi's. Both have some pretty bad tooling issues. Corgi the issue is the snout and the colouring is pretty bad on some of thier releases. But I think the finish is much better on Corgi's effort.
In my humble view the best Tiffie release thus far is Corgi's AA36405.
The upcoming AA36406 release (OP ELLAMY), I think will be a good one too.
I am not sure its fair to say Witty Tiffie is better than Corgi's. Both have some pretty bad tooling issues. Corgi the issue is the snout and the colouring is pretty bad on some of thier releases. But I think the finish is much better on Corgi's effort.
In my humble view the best Tiffie release thus far is Corgi's AA36405.
The upcoming AA36406 release (OP ELLAMY), I think will be a good one too.
Thanks for coming in and sharing your views on this. It's becoming a tough choice for me because I think I do prefer many of the Corgi paint schemes over Witty, there's just something about those brightly colored "commemorative" style tail paints on the Witty's I've seen that doesn't really appeal to me. The thing about the Corgi that I'm not crazy about is the deeply cut panel lines, I know some people don't mind the deeper panel lines, and some even prefer it, but the Euro Typhoon is a very smooth skinned AC with subtle panel outlines in real life, and I think I like the Witty better in this regard. It may be a moot point and I'll end up with a Corgi, at least temporarily, because the Witty version is damn near impossible to find, I haven't seen one anywhere, including ebay. BTW, you are spot on about the Corgi nose, it does seem to be a bit too much on the blunt side.
I guess, in a general sense, anything forward of the intake Witty is better (although its far from perfect). From the intake rearwards the Corgi beats Witty. The overall finish is better on Corgi's but other than the two releases I have mentioned the colours are not that flash (maybe the all black one is a good one too).
Overall, I think Corgi's is better and the two releases I already spoke about,...much better (assuming Corgi does a good job with the OP Ellamy release).
Just me of course, its all very subjective and normally, I don't get to wrapped up in accuracy debate (although there are some exceptions ).
Thanks for coming in and sharing your views on this. It's becoming a tough choice for me because I think I do prefer many of the Corgi paint schemes over Witty, there's just something about those brightly colored "commemorative" style tail paints on the Witty's I've seen that doesn't really appeal to me. The thing about the Corgi that I'm not crazy about is the deeply cut panel lines, I know some people don't mind the deeper panel lines, and some even prefer it, but the Euro Typhoon is a very smooth skinned AC with subtle panel outlines in real life, and I think I like the Witty better in this regard. It may be a moot point and I'll end up with a Corgi, at least temporarily, because the Witty version is damn near impossible to find, I haven't seen one anywhere, including ebay. BTW, you are spot on about the Corgi nose, it does seem to be a bit too much on the blunt side.
'Panel Trenches'. I left actively collecting 1:72 a few years back largely due those and the general lack of physical detail. (I do have a modest version of my Corgi RAF WWII collection still on display.)
I'd be happy if manus nixed panel lines altogether.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I gotta admit as much as I want a Eurofighter into my collection, both Corgi and Witty's model missed the mark.
Honestly, the one that captured a great look is Easy model in plastic, it's premade, you might want to look into it.
Oddly enough, I had one years ago, you're right they look pretty good, but they've got no ordnanace, as in zero, so I bought a cheap 1/72 plastic kt and assembled and painted all the ordnance and hung it all on the easy model, plus I replaced the jet nozzle and the undercarriage and wheels on the EM with the kit parts, it all improved the EM's looks quite a bit but involved considerable time and effort.
Anyway, your suggestion is a good one for somebody who just wants a pretty good looking but inexpensive Eurofighter, and doesn't care about the lack of ordnance.
'Panel Trenches'. I left actively collecting 1:72 a few years back largely due those and the general lack of physical detail. (I do have a modest version of my Corgi RAF WWII collection still on display.)
I'd be happy if manus nixed panel lines altogether.
without panel lines, models look bland & under-detailed- not everything that looks right on a real plane carries over properly onto scale models. correct colours often look wrong unless toned down, some aerials etc can't be reproduced unless over scale, & panel lines not visible on a real plane make the model look crude unless visible to at least some degree- although i'll concur that some manu's are worse than others in making the panel lines too visible.
without panel lines, models look bland & under-detailed- not everything that looks right on a real plane carries over properly onto scale models. correct colours often look wrong unless toned down, some aerials etc can't be reproduced unless over scale, & panel lines not visible on a real plane make the model look crude unless visible to at least some degree- although i'll concur that some manu's are worse than others in making the panel lines too visible.
I'll agree to part of what you say. Currently, most manus overscale these panel lines entirely. IMPO, anything that has to be overscaled to appear on the model really should be eliminated. Most of that happens anyhow.
But IMPO, the statement that models look 'bland & under-detailed' due to lack of panel lines one wouldn't even see on a 1:1 aircraft scaled down to 1:72, is a matter of personal taste. Since the industry is all caught up in 'manly-man panel lines', I've moved on.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'll agree to part of what you say. Currently, most manus overscale these panel lines entirely. IMPO, anything that has to be overscaled to appear on the model really should be eliminated. Most of that happens anyhow.
But IMPO, the statement that models look 'bland & under-detailed' due to lack of panel lines one wouldn't even see on a 1:1 aircraft scaled down to 1:72, is a matter of personal taste. Since the industry is all caught up in 'manly-man panel lines', I've moved on.
This has always confused me about what diecast should look like. I always thought the idea was to make it look as close to reality as possible and reality being standing in front of the jet looking at it, not how it looks in the air, nor in photographs. There are plenty of aircraft that look sleek in the air, but standing in front of them there are very clear panel lines and are anything but sleek. Reducing down to 1/72 you would still see them and for it to represent the real thing would have to be there. To have the panel lines lost makes the aircraft not look real anymore as it no longer looks how the real craft is when standing infront of it. To me if its 1/72 or larger you should be able to take that model and hold it next to the real jet and get the sense it is only a smaller version of it. For instance if I took my Witty F-15 and held it up to a real F-15 I know it would not be a proper representation of it. I have no problem with that as I like both of my Witty F-15s and I can forgive such things as a collector to have a certain craft or certain base represented in my collection. Just curious if that is how others feel as well?
This has always confused me about what diecast should look like. I always thought the idea was to make it look as close to reality as possible and reality being standing in front of the jet looking at it, not how it looks in the air, nor in photographs. There are plenty of aircraft that look sleek in the air, but standing in front of them there are very clear panel lines and are anything but sleek. Reducing down to 1/72 you would still see them and for it to represent the real thing would have to be there. To have the panel lines lost makes the aircraft not look real anymore as it no longer looks how the real craft is when standing infront of it. To me if its 1/72 or larger you should be able to take that model and hold it next to the real jet and get the sense it is only a smaller version of it. For instance if I took my Witty F-15 and held it up to a real F-15 I know it would not be a proper representation of it. I have no problem with that as I like both of my Witty F-15s and I can forgive such things as a collector to have a certain craft or certain base represented in my collection. Just curious if that is how others feel as well?
I think much of this question has to do with what one persons eyes perceive when looking at a model from a certain angle or distance, and what kind of appearance that individual prefers to see in those situations. IMHO there is a fine line between having panel lines that are just deep enough to be pleasing to most peoples eyes, and having them so deep it ends up making the model look like a jigsaw puzzle, even from considerable distances. The latter is usually a deal breaker for me, and I much prefer somewhat shallower panel lines. I think Hobbymaster does an excellent job of finding a "happy medium" in this respect with most of their models. Witty's panel lines are more on the subtle side, but I am still quite fond of many of their models. A few others who I won't name have panel lines that are cut very deep and wide, and that's a feature I personally don't care for, but in the end this really boils down to a matter of personal tastes and preference, and choice is a good thing in this regard.
I'll agree to part of what you say. Currently, most manus overscale these panel lines entirely. IMPO, anything that has to be overscaled to appear on the model really should be eliminated. Most of that happens anyhow.
But IMPO, the statement that models look 'bland & under-detailed' due to lack of panel lines one wouldn't even see on a 1:1 aircraft scaled down to 1:72, is a matter of personal taste. Since the industry is all caught up in 'manly-man panel lines', I've moved on.
yes, but as i said- some things that look right on a real plane look wrong on a scaled down model. some colours look wrong on a model even if correct as per the real plane- to look right on a model some colours at least, need to be toned down. & without at least some kind of panel detail, model planes do look underdetailed- the few models on which this has ever been attempted (granted, cheapo chinese ones) are a case in point. & as steveNfl said, once you look at a plane on the ground, there is visible panel detail.
I guess what Im asking is what do we prefer as a whole as the start, without personal preferences added in? Do we want these companies to model off how they look sitting on the ground up close and personal? Or how they look in a picture or from the air? I can tell you alot of jets, as much as they are loved by us, in person look more like they were built in a shed in the back of bobs auto salvage compared to a high end car. They arnt exactly Ferrari looking.
I have a Corgi RAF 1/72 Eurofighter Typhoon and I've always been very fond of it. It's mostly very well done - must better than many models I have from other manufacturers. I also have a 1/48 Franklin Mint German Typhoon which I've always considered it a fine piece of work, though purists seem to nitpick with FM. It's very heavy, but at least there isn't much plastic used in its construction. If you weren't averse to 1/48 the FM Luftwaffe Typhoon would be worth seeking out, though they can be hard to find. Cheers...TonyW
I guess what Im asking is what do we prefer as a whole as the start, without personal preferences added in? Do we want these companies to model off how they look sitting on the ground up close and personal? Or how they look in a picture or from the air? I can tell you alot of jets, as much as they are loved by us, in person look more like they were built in a shed in the back of bobs auto salvage compared to a high end car. They arnt exactly Ferrari looking.
well I have ordered the new corgi eurotyphoon b.o.b mainly because its 75th anniversary of the battle of Britain. may or may not be 100% spot on, but not bothered.
__________________
I BUY WHAT I LIKE. AND LIKE WHAT I BUY!!!
I have a Corgi RAF 1/72 Eurofighter Typhoon and I've always been very fond of it. It's mostly very well done - must better than many models I have from other manufacturers. I also have a 1/48 Franklin Mint German Typhoon which I've always considered it a fine piece of work, though purists seem to nitpick with FM. It's very heavy, but at least there isn't much plastic used in its construction. If you weren't averse to 1/48 the FM Luftwaffe Typhoon would be worth seeking out, though they can be hard to find. Cheers...TonyW
I have two FM 1:48 RAF Tiffies and I think they are rather smart models. I don't know if the shape of FM Tiffies are that much or any worse than the 1:72 versions getting about.
yes, but as i said- some things that look right on a real plane look wrong on a scaled down model. some colours look wrong on a model even if correct as per the real plane- to look right on a model some colours at least, need to be toned down. & without at least some kind of panel detail, model planes do look underdetailed- the few models on which this has ever been attempted (granted, cheapo chinese ones) are a case in point. & as steveNfl said, once you look at a plane on the ground, there is visible panel detail.
I think, Wilkness, we should just chalk it up to personal taste.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Eurofighter Typhoon
). 
Re: Eurofighter Typhoon
love it!
