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. :)

mhaselden

Members
  • Content count

    2,507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

981 Excellent

About mhaselden

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,837 profile views
  1. NEI Curtiss P-6's

    In a word, no. The last 3 Curtiss P-6s that had been used briefly as trainers were broken up in July 1938. Source is Peter Boer's authoritative work on ML-KNIL aircraft 1936-1942...and if Peter says it's so, then it almost certainly is so.
  2. Fairey Battle kits

    Join the queue, Ed. I've had the Battle on my Airfix wishlist for at least 3 years now!
  3. F-35 Question ?

    Despite valiant rearguard actions by SODCAT(*), the Naviguesser's union, the role of Navigator has gone the way of the Dodo. The need for a second seat in fast jet combat aircraft has been steadily diminishing over time. As aircraft computers have become more powerful and systems have become more integrated, the need for a carbon-based life-form to make a decision and throw a switch has, in large part, disappeared. In addition, improvements in human-machine interface techniques have allowed far more information to be displayed in a more readily understandable manner, so much so that one person can monitor far more systems than was previously the case. Frankly, the writing's been on the wall for the Navigator profession for years...the F-35 just happens to be the first incarnation of all those technologies in a platform that was never designed to have a second seat. * SODCAT = Society Of Directional Consultants and Allied Trades
  4. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    I was never trying to convince you of anything Jurek. I was simply expressing my opinion about the fuselage shape issues with the Trumpy kit. Even a brief Googling for "Trumpeter 1/48 Defiant review" provides sprue shots of the fuselage, like the one below: To me, the rear of the turret opening is much too high when compared with images of the original airframe: I also don't like the fixed fairings of the Trumpy kit which don't allow for any real options regarding turret orientation. To me, the turret really is the focal point for the Defiant and so I want it to look right. Again, these are all simply my personal preferences.
  5. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    My mistake...i was trying to listen to the video while other things were happening around me. Clearly I failed in my efforts to multi-task. I'll remove reference to Brett Green.
  6. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    And if all else fails, here's a comparison of the 2 kits (EDIT: as noted in a lower post, the accuracy problems aren't really called out): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-eHZbmNTsI Also, a Britmodeller review of the Trumpy kit here which includes the text quoted below: Unfortunately Trumpeter seem to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory again with some sloppy research. This is particularly noticeable on the fuselage. The nose appears to be the wrong shape, being too deep and not long enough. The shape of the rear fuselage is no better, being too deep and also missing the kink on the lower fuselage between just aft of the turret and the tail. The detail is nicely restrained, but many of the panel lines are spurious at best, many being moulded complete with two lines of rivets where the real aircraft only has a single line of rivets and no panel line. Note the comment about the inaccuracy of the engraved detail in the Trumpy kit. It may look pretty but it's inaccurate. Over to you for your decision...
  7. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    The Trumpy fuselage is too deep, top to bottom, in the area of the turret resulting in an odd upsweep of the turret opening front-to-rear. The whole area looks completely wrong and won't be easy to fix (IMHO).
  8. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    You asked for opinions and I gave you mine. I prefer the overall shape and dimensional accuracy of the Airfix kit. If panel line detail is more important to you and you don't think the Trumpy shape issues are that bad, then go with that kit. It's up to you which kit you build....but I wonder why ask for opinions if you're going to argue with the people who provide them.
  9. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    Perhaps...but scribing a few panel lines is a lot easier than trying to alter the height of the turret rim or change the shape of the fuselage cross-section (plus if you're making those changes to the Trumpy kit, you'll have to redo all the surface detail anyway).
  10. Defiant 1/48 Trumpeter vs Airfix

    I agree with Pete. While I haven't seen the Trumpy kit plastic, sprue shots show some significant shape concerns around the turret and upper fuselage. I think the Airfix kit also provides more options for displaying the turret open and having the fuselage fairings in different positions...assuming that kind of thing floats your boat.
  11. Four Brewster Buffalo's

    Probably no worse than some the nonsense that gets spouted about the poor old Buffalump.
  12. Four Brewster Buffalo's

    Note that the FAA airfames were all ex-Belgian machines and so had the cuffed propeller that was not present on the Far East Buffalos that were directly ordered by the British Government.
  13. Four Brewster Buffalo's

    Here are a few for you:
  14. Four Brewster Buffalo's

    'Cos Buffalos breed given half a chance. Shout if I can be of help with markings suggestions for the RAF airframes.
  15. Four Brewster Buffalo's

    Sorry for the delay. The pics of B-339Bs in RAF/FAA service seem to be ok. The main problem area I detected was in the RAF Far East Buffalos. A number of the photos had been published previously and were reprinted without credit and without seeking permission of the prior authors. There are many captioning errors and at least one image where the serial has been modified: Page 160. Bottom photo allegedly shows Buffalo W8241, an airframe converted by 67 Sqn for fighter-recce work. The actual image is of W8233, also of 67 Sqn, and was first published in Charlie Bond's "Diary of a Flying Tiger." Page 165. Top image is not Blondie Holder of 243 Sqn. It's actually Bill Collyer of 453 Sqn. Page 175. Top image of 'TD-W' claimed as "usually flown" by Flt Lt Vanderfield That airframe does not appear in Vanderfield's logbook. Page 176. Top image Buffalo W8157 was not flown by Congo Kinninmont and Kinninmont never assumed command of 453 Sqn. Tim Vigors, who was Acting CO of 453 Sqn, actually flew the imaged aircraft on 10 Dec 41, the date the image was taken. Page 177. Bottom image actually shows Peter Bingham-Wallis and not Sqn Ldr Allshorn as captioned. Page 179. The imaged aircraft is not AN172. Kinninmont only flew AN172 on one occasion. AN172 was a combat replacement airframe and Kinninmont crashed it trying to fly from Singapore to northern Malaya. It's therefore highly improbable that AN172 ever wore squadron codes let alone nose art. There may be others but the above are just the ones that leap out at me from memory. The number of errors in just the RAF section makes me worry about other sections in which I have less knowledge that people like Jim Maas.
×