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. :)

tempestfan

Members
  • Content count

    1,163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

274 Excellent

About tempestfan

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    near Hamburg, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

379 profile views
  1. Not particularly rare, and not particularly good. The range this kit belonged to was rather simplistic, IIRC they do not have undercarriages, no detail in the engine and cockpit areas, and around 10 to 15 parts only. If you want a legacy kit of the Wildcat, I suggest the Revell kit, but look for one of the later boxings which has the correct 14 cylinder twin row instead of a 9 cylinder single, which would only be applicable to the Martlets I and IV and FM-2, neither of which the kit represents.
  2. Hi Jure, the printer may be a question of year of manufacture. I had a look at a pile of Italeri kit an hour ago. All the older boxes had Cartograf decals, up to ca. 1990. A reissue Ju 52 Mausi, box (C) 1998, and a lot of other kits of 90s manufacture had ones by Zancchetti. None in the pile were by G Decal, but I 'm sure Italeri used them, too, especially if yellow paper was their "trademark" - B-58 comes to mind. Would have to find my Esci-Revell F-104C to confirm what's in there. Sorry if this all is slightly o/t... Cheers tempestfan
  3. Cartograf supplied the decals for most of Italeri's and Esci's kits in the 70s and 80s, and usually were matt. Just had a look in an ancient Revell boxing of the 1/48 Jaguar GR.1, and those included are matt, annotated as being by Cartograf and in very good (though not perfect ) register. Printing is extremely fine for decals approaching 40 years. My experience with the kit decals is that they tend to be much, much better in register than Esci's aftermarket sheets. I bought a large batch of them some 25 years ago at something like a Deutschmark each, and the registration varied from good to non existant. They are very thick, and I can confirm some heavy yellowing, though not on all. I'd advise to inspect before buying re register and yellowing. The segregational tendencies and lack of sticking power can probably be overcome. BTW, the Esci aftermarket sheets were marketed under a bazillion of brands including IIRC Lines, Revell and Yeoman, so possibly ***may*** be found easier under those brands in the respective markets.
  4. Unless I missed something, they weren't. . . . About half seem to prefer Esci and Hase for Gen 1 and 2 respectively, the other 50% the respective Airfix new tools. Which goes to show it's a crowded marketplace. And that a kit which isn't top notch may not earn its money easily. ..
  5. Easy way out if you have some largish boxes ***and*** it arrives unnoticed :Spread the contents over one or several boxes. The Sentry one may be just what the doctor ordered 😊
  6. I haven't yet opened any of my new tool Airfix boxes, but the Esci kits - US specific detail issues apart - demonstrate why/ that Esci were right at the top for an all too brief period in the mid 80s. I only have a Fujimi SHar, but with all the similarities the Esci's have (Suntak, I assume? ), I remember the Fujimi to be very slightly chunky compared to the Esci. Similar verdict for Airfix's "1st gen 2nd gen" kits, but I confess I always liked them.
  7. Under the bed will only work if you do the cleaning. I suggest the Hobbyroom or the cellar, somewhere where she hasn't a full overview.
  8. Can't you tell her you're intending to build her a pair of waterproof shoes for the rainy season from the fuselage shells? Won't work if it's a solid casting, of course. In that case, however, you'd have a very powerful weapon of self defence in your hands.
  9. I am not aware of a Revell rebox of the Matchbox TF, apart from possibly in a Matchbox "black box ". Revell' is their own mould based on the early /mid 90s mould. I had a feeling AMT may have done a twin in similar fashion to their F-100F, but a quick Google yielded only a boxing with an orange bird, probably the one I was thinking about. There aren't many possible newer boxings of the Heller kit, as the mould was sold to Argentina ca. 30 years ago. For a time, the Heller kits used to be quite expensive on ebay, at least here in this country where we don't speak English 😆 (sorry, couldn't resist ). Unless found cheap, I'd definitely prefer Hase or Revell.
  10. Sure about the P serial for an airframe lost in June ? My feeling is late P series machines would have appeared later in the year, as the Mk II's took most of the P7xxx range into low P8xxx, and IIRC arrived in the final stages of the BoB. Though of course airframes were not built in chronological sequence with their serials. If I manage to think about it when at home, I 'll look up Air Britain's Park file, which I think I have.
  11. Were all those JaBoG's assigned simultaneously? I ask because I think those are all of them. . .If the info re the removed gun is correct, that would mean each Geschwader would have had to have a certain number of configured airframes available any given time. Sounds like a logistical challenge. If all Geschwader were assigned simultaneously, and used dedicated airframes, pics of "no gun" machines should be around in some numbers. If they aren't, that may indicate standard airframes were used for alert duties. Not much help, I know. ..
  12. And it has the bonus of Airfix having a full set of data to feed their CAD effort.
  13. I always liked the Bronco...
  14. There's /was a Verlinden Lock On on the 5BA (ca. 1988), but from what I've seen on Abe, lock on's are worth their weight in gold.
  15. Apart from that there were no modelling fora 30 years ago, here are pics of the Academy and Frog kits. Apart from the different layout of the wing trailing edges, there's a lot in common. Just look at the engines, turret, aux tanks, thick integral tailpane tip on the fins, etc. Not what I'd call "completely debunked"...