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. :)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

346 Excellent

About tempestfan

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    near Hamburg, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1,128 profile views
  1. Revell 2018

    Considering the Sharp rise in their prices over the past few years, £ 37 for the Mirage sounds like excellent VfM. As I think this size of Box is RRP‘ed at 15€ (might be 20 now), I‘d expect the Hunter in the same ballpark.
  2. Airfix

    There Must be a world conspiracy against Single seat Venoms... I now consider it more likely that someone finds the tool for the old Frog than a mainstreamer bringing out a new mould. The autocomplete function of my new iPhone is abysmal. Yes, I DO want to write in English...
  3. I can fully imagine that - I admit I somewhat prefer a Cross/Huxley/Koike pre-1985 approach, but Komatzutzaki (hope I got the spelling right...) art definitely has a special something. Pity that pre-1975 Japanese stuff is not easy to obtain in Germany, else I may be seduced... Thanks for the pic of the 47, never saw that one before - I think it was hugely expensive and available only for a short period. I always wondered what prompted G-Mark to invest in that kit, the only other kits by them I am aware of are the B-1A which is much more well known as Entex and a series of Japanese tram kits. Actually it was an inspired guess only re the kit, OTOH my chences of failure were slim as there weren't that many 47 kits on the market before Revellogram's MASH kit. Cool, I read something about HobbyTime kits on another forum, but probably I forgot that they started as "mixed" kits like early Monogram. Only others by them I know are their absolutely dreadful Me 109 and P-51 that ended up with Lindberg. That's a nice anecdote, for how long did they produce in that location ? Gosh, I want that 6-Day-Set ! Never seen it before ! However, the only Airfix (copy) by Starfix is their Skyhawk (possibly also the MiG-21), most others are Heller Cadet copies, plus the odd Revell downsized (F-4B) and Aurora (1748 choppers). Not sure if the H-19 is 3/4 size Airfix or half size Revell...
  4. I think there used to be a couple of good model shops in and around Munich, back then. No idea if any have survived. What a jaw-dropping sight, you certainly have some interesting Japanese stuff there - is that the BIG G-Mark Bell 47 in two of the pics ? Hobbytime B-47 is another kit that's not really seen that often. And - you are not ashamed of presenting a Starfix "Dogfight Double" - which has a monstrously large box...
  5. Fairey Battle kits

    Steve brought up the SM/SMI/Aeromodeller drawings - those were by Kenneth Merrick, first published in (then) SM ca. 1971. I do not have those by Mr Caruana, so can't comment whether he received input by Ian Huntley, which would have been logical as they were working for the same stable.
  6. Fairey Battle kits

    I can't comment on their overall accuracy, but comparing them with the picture suggested they have some issues. As Ian Huntley was something like the keeper of the Fairey archives, he seems to have had access to a wealth of original material, so I am inclined to believe his drawings are very close to the truth.
  7. Fairey Battle kits

    SMI reprinted the Merrick drawings in IIRC 1984 along with a number of photos, including a near perfect plan view, that showed the wing tips were wrong, the wing to fuselage as well, the radiator intake shape too... All shape faults immediately noticeable when looking at pics, in contrast to an odd mm here and there. The CA kit followed the drawings to the letter - it was the most expensive kit I had bought at the time, close to 100 Deutschmark, a huge sum for a student, and I was hugely disappointed. I don't know if the MPM is based on the same research, but it's likely. Ian Huntley did drawings for SAMI or a sister publication, and I think there was a booklet similar to the Mod's Datafile but slimmer.
  8. Revell 1/72 Spitfire Vb - new tool ?

    But quite certainly the difference in mating surface doesn't require a completely new fuselage, provided research and design cater for the differing interface - perhaps by including some fuselage with the windscreen ?
  9. Revell 1/72 Spitfire Vb - new tool ?

    Re-reading your first sentence, it seems I did. Still, they could have expanded their options had they done the engine separately. Then basically they could have covered Vc, IXc and VIII when going the extra mile for a c wing without having to do a new fuselage, assuming they did their research on the smaller differences.
  10. Revell 1/72 Spitfire Vb - new tool ?

    They didn't have that forethought as they did the engine integrally, so would require a new fuselage for a XII - about whose appeal I have my doubts... A completely new wing obviously didn't scare them away from the Vb, as their a wing is mono-use except for possible minimal variations like I and Va from their II boxing. And yes, including Zumbach's is really creative - AIrfix at least gave a 31. FG (?) option...
  11. Revell 1/72 Spitfire Vb - new tool ?

    I admitI completely forgot about last year's Mk II, which I had in my hands but decided not to buy, a year ago... What's that structure between the bulkheads - the cockpit tub/pseudo lower interior fuselage ?
  12. Revell 1/72 Spitfire Vb - new tool ?

    You're right, I only looked for the gull wing, but the pic indeed shows an 8-gun wing... I think the b blisters were slimmer than a c double but bigger than the c single blisters, relatively long and further back, but they appear too long, and at least their rear tip too far aft. Also that armoured mounting plate...
  13. Grumman Tiger - prototype/production differences

    IIRC the Detail & Scale on the Tiger had quite comprehensive coverage of the protos, too, though I don't recall whether there were drawings. Mind you, I've never been a big fan of theirs anyway... I also think their verdict on the Lindberg was quite scathing, though that may have had a lot to do with Lindberg marketing the kit as something it simply wasn't, and some of the features of the educational toy like IIRC a opening barn door on the fuselage to view Lindy's Standard Jet Engine (thoug hI admit I never bothered to compare those I have). As their XF8U-1 also is quite accurate shapewise, and I think I have read the same for some of their other protos, it seems likely that it also applies to the Tiger.
  14. Revell 1/72 Spitfire Vb - new tool ?

    Yes, new tool apparently: If you look at the sprue shot here, you will see both the gull wing that Jure mentioned, as well as the separate lower engine section (old one was integral), choice of 4 and 5 slot wheels, and slipper tanks. Probably based on the CAD data for their 32nd kit, but let's see what the jury says.
  15. 1/32 spitfire

    The old Revell should have most controls separate. It has - IMHO - lovely surface detail for its time (everything very finely engraved), but rather terrible wheels, I think somewhat oversized wheel wells ('cos they retract), no proper "gull wing" and probably a host of other problems. At least it has a wing shape basically like a Spitfire, not like Revell's terrible 1/72 attempt from a few years earlier (H-611). I got the Revell/Hase kit when it was fairly new and to be honest, I'd have expected something more. The new parts are somewhat sterile, for lack of a better term.