Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

KRK4m

Members
  • Content count

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

306 Excellent

About KRK4m

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 25/04/57

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Krakow PL

Recent Profile Visitors

1,022 profile views
  1. Warships as desktop pattern

    Being unable to choose my favourite one (battleships shown above vs. flattops featured in the Cold War section) I decided to make the composite desktop wallpaper. The proportions are still close to 2:1 and all the silhouettes are shown in the same scale for comparison purposes. The horizontal rows show the introduction period (pre-1921 at the top, post-1990 at the bottom) while the position within the row depends on nationality with America on the left, Asia on the right and Europe in the centre. Now the picture covers 40 largest (exceeding 35 000 ton displacement) warship classes - ranging from the 1914 HMS Queen Elizabeth to her 2017 namesake. It’s incredible how the US supercarriers have dwarfed such past giants as Bismarck or even Yamato… Cheers Michael
  2. When trying to re-arrange my 1/700 waterline collection in new cabinet I have gathered the topside view silhouettes of the biggest aircraft carrier & amphibious assault ship classes. Then the idea arose to use these silhouettes as the desktop pattern/screen wallpaper. Feel free to use it if you like it - the picture proportions are close to 2:1, so you can still leave some dozen icons in horizontal row above them (on a black or blue stripe added for example) without disturbing the warship gallery. The picture covers 30 largest (exceeding 28 000 ton displacement) carriers and assault ship classes - ranging from the 1920s HMS Courageous to the 2017 HMS Queen Elizabeth. The horizontal rows show the introduction period (oldest at the top, newest at the bottom) while the position within the row depends on nationality with America on the left, Asia on the right and Europe in the centre. Of course all the silhouettes are shown in the same scale for making comparison easy. Cheers Michael
  3. Warships as desktop pattern

    When trying to re-arrange my 1/700 waterline collection in new cabinet I have gathered the topside view silhouettes of the biggest 20th Century battleship/battlecruiser classes. Then the idea arose to use these silhouettes as the desktop pattern/screen wallpaper. Feel free to use it if you like it - the picture proportions are close to 2:1, so you can still leave some dozen icons in horizontal row above them (on a black stripe added for example) without disturbing the warship gallery. The picture covers 30 largest (exceeding 32000 ton displacement in one point of their history) battleship and battlecruiser classes - ranging from the 1913 HMS Queen Mary to the 1946 HMS Vanguard. The horizontal rows show the introduction period (oldest at the top, newest at the bottom) while the position within the row depends on nationality with America on the left, Asia on the right and Europe in the centre. Of course all the silhouettes are shown in the same scale which makes comparison easy. Cheers Michael
  4. Revell 2018

    Hope that US M109 in 1/72 will be the Vietnam-era A2 or A3 and not the omnipresent Paladin... Cheers Michael
  5. Really William Green (or was it Gordon Swanborough) was right saying that in the 1925-35 period any relationship between the aesthetics and the French aircraft was just pure coincidence... Well done, Brother - beautiful miniature of the ugly plane caricature Cheers Michael
  6. Airfix 2018

    I'd like to suggest the 1/72 Miles Master and Martinet - three different engines, two wingspans and two fuselages make 5 various aircraft with many (sometimes exotic) painting schemes to fit. This "more serious" (as opposed to Magister) Miles trainer is the only British WW2 mainstream (>3000 built) aircraft absent from the 1/72 market since the demise of Frog. Cheers Michael
  7. And still one more comparison for those who prefer numbers to drawings. Below you have vertical measurements (in cm) from yesterday's drawings compared with the same dimensions taken from the Fly kit (multiplicated by 72 of course). I have been afraid that the kit follows Muratov drawings (from Krylia Rodiny) - it doesn't... The truth is even worse - it is still more slim Up 0 Up 40 Up 80 Up 120 160 200 240 290 340 Lo 0 Lo 40 Lo 80 Lo 120 o/a 0 o/a 40 o/a 80 o/a 120 KRK 46 63 73 81 85 88 91 95 128 30 43 54 61 76 106 127 142 MOD 47 60 71 79 83 86 88 90 118 28 45 55 61 75 105 126 140 KRY 47 60 70 78 84 88 91 92 131 31 43 51 57 78 103 121 135 FLY 46 59 69 73 77 81 85 90 135 30 39 48 55 76 98 117 128 Up = dimension above the front panel lower hinge line Lo = dimension below the front panel lower hinge line o/a = overall height of fuselage transverse section in given place 0, 40, 80....340 = stations (in cm) with 0 at the fuselage front wall Now it's clearly visible that the kit upper outline falls more than 1 (scale) mm lower than real craft one at stations 120, 160 and 200. The kit canopy protrudes 45 cm (scale) above the fuselage - should be just 33. And the fuselage section o/a height at stations 80 and 120 is respectively 1.4 and 2.0mm too low. Good times for the putty manufacturers Cheers Michael
  8. So here they are. Three sideview drawings of the IL-10 forward fuselage, all to the same scale. Upper horizontal red line is fuselage datum line, lower red line is thrust line (parallel one to another, some 7" apart). Green vertical lines are spaced at 40cm apart (except for the last ones on the right, where "nothing happens", so 50 or 60cm distance is enough). Top row of red numbers is distance in cm from fuselage front wall, middle one is height of fuselage upper contour above the (horizontal) side cowling panel hinge line. Data in parentheses appears in mid-fuselage part, where the horizontal line runs 13cm (~5") higher. Bottom row of red numbers is vertical distance between fuselage lower contour and the mentioned side cowling panel hinge line. First is the drawing by Muratov, published in Soviet Krylia Rodiny aviation monthly and used (perhaps) as the base for vintage KzP and recent Fly 1/72 kits. Next is another Russian drawing, published in Modelist - Konstruktor Soviet modellers monthly. It's incredible how different does the same plane look here. And this is not just a visual illusion - look at the numbers describing the outline shape. This is the drawing I have used in my analysis of the Fly kit last month - I thought it's OK. But it isn't, too... As there's no chance that "good" drawings could differ so much I decided to take the measurements from the real Il-10 myself. Today we (with JWM) went to the Polish Aviation Museum and the effect of our two-hour job is below: Thus neither of these published drawings is good - one nose is too pointed, another has both red lines too high (upper contour too horizontal, lower too convex). In the end I tried (although the result is mediocre) to place the Fly port fuselage half on my laptop screen with my drawing scaled to 1/72. Of course with some help of the software you have you can do it yourself to see it better. Anyway the vertical section of fuselage at stations 80 and 120 is full 1mm too low and the cockpit canopy is a full 1mm too high. And these are only the major faults... For those who like exact numbers: the pilot side window is 26cm long and 30cm high - should be 3.6 and 4.2mm respectively. The kit features 4.1 and 5.8 (!) mm. And there is more than one Il-10 existing till today in Czech Republic. Pity Cheers Michael
  9. Only two 1/72 plastic kits of this standard WarPac APC appeared on the market - one by ACE and another by PST. Both are relatively new tools (10-12 years old, thus 21st century) and ACE is said to be almost faultless. But ACE is unavailable (at least in my country) for last 5 years at least, whereas PST 72054 can be purchased easily. Is it bulidable at all? Can one build a decent model using this kit? Or should I avoid it and look for the ACE one even more desperately? Cheers Michael
  10. Don't you think that the SEAC anti-shipping variant should wear TSS of ED Sea Grey over D Slate Grey (i.e. with "grey" darker than "green") camouflage with Sky Type S undersurfaces and NO roundels under the wings ? I (am trying to) understand whole "what if" idea, but here the inaccuracy looks to be far too serious Cheers Michael
  11. At last I've got it! The 1:72 Fly 72035 Il-10... When you look at the photos you'll se the problem I have been expecting weeks ago when the first pictures of Fly sprues had appeared here. When compared to the Russian drawings the nose in Fly kit is too thin in vertical dimensions (too pointed) - the curvature of both top and lower engine cowling should be more convex. Of course you can live with this - the difference above the exhaust is just about 0.8mm (1/30"), so less than 2.5" (65mm) on the real plane. However the overall shape is disturbed... Under the engine it is more serious - the difference here is some 1.2mm (1/20"), thus 3.5" (90mm) on full size bird... But still not this is the main fault - have a look below: The cockpit canopy of the Fly model is exactly 9.0mm high (4.9mm of this protruding above the nose panel), whereas on Russian drawings I refer to it is just 7.1mm (with 3.9mm above the cowling). And this is something I can't ignore For tomorrow we (with JWM from this site) have the session arranged at the Polish Aviation Museum. We'll try to measure the real aircraft and decide which drawings are good - the Russian ones or the ones used by Fly when designing the kit. Only one of them can be true Cheers Michael
  12. Looks fine, although the rear cockpit canopy - whereas of proper length - should be (in my opinion) lower and less bulbous. Have a look here: http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Duggy009/media/cGF0aDovUC02My10d29zZWF0ZXIuanBn/?ref= Hope that this is the only issue and the single-seaters will be faultless Cheers Michael
  13. Extremely well job for the BRUSH applied silver enamels (4 shades or more?). Chapeau bas ! Michael
  14. Having been looking for the Italeri 1/72 Valentine for several months I just have met the Fujimi 1/76 one for a stupid price. As I never heard about it I'd like to know, whether is it visually much smaller and of lower quality than 1/72 Italeri one. Of course I know that the difference in hull length should be less than 4mm, but how much is it really in this case? Cheers Michael
  15. What was made with wood on the LA-7

    Exactly - La-9 and -11 had laminar-flow wings (the Russians had received a dozen of Allison-Mustangs and 2000+ P-63 Kingcobras during the war :)) that usually mean reduced manoeuvrability... Cheers Michael
×