Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

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. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.

spitfire

Gold Member
  • Content count

    3,841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

861 Excellent

1 Follower

About spitfire

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 09/02/52

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Great Sutton Wirral
  • Interests
    WW2 aircraft, British WW2 AFV's, Motorbikes

Recent Profile Visitors

6,237 profile views
  1. If you have never used the RB seat belts they are great, I used them on my last 3 builds (all Spitfires) and they are a lot easier to handle and look a lot better that PE belts. Cheers Dennis
  2. I'm retired and enjoying it, so I can wish them all the best, the subjects of PCM kits was groundbreaking and I would like to thank them for bringing us subjects which most main stream manufacturers never would, I just hope that someone takes up the rights to produce the kits. Cheers Dennis
  3. Not sure if this is the whole answer but found these in my Edgar files. Difference between early and Late Spitfire IX The "first" 294 were converted from Vc, and some (maybe not all) can be identified, in photographs, by the "carbuncle-like" excrescences on the upper cowling; the serials, for those, are known. 25-9-42 smooth synthetic paints introduced, with consequent filling of rivet divots, and panel lines over the first 20-25% of the wings,. 12-10-42 oxygen bottle moved to rear of fuselage 24-10-42 gun heating introduced (this appears to mean for the outer Brownings, and involved the heating pipe running alongside the 20mm cannon, in the redundant outer cannon compartment. 23-12-43 armament was standardised as 2 x cannon + 4 x .303", which led, for a short time, to the outer cannon fairing, on the l/e, being removed (cancelled 16-11-43.) 5-3-43 Mk.III I.F.F. introduced (bar aerial under starboard wing, instead of twin fuselage wires.) 7-1-44 single (narrow) blister cannon door introduced 13-9-43 Internal painting of fuselage deleted 13-9-43 increased horn balance elevators introduced. 10-6-43 flush rivetting on rear fuselage 7-2-44 "Mk.XII" (pointed) rudder introduced 26-2-44 gunsight dimming screen deleted 11-8-44 u/c indicator rods deleted 24-5-44 first scheme for bomb-carrying introduced 21-2-44 rudder pedal toe straps deleted 21-4-44 E wing conversions introduced Oct/Nov 43 provision for torque link oleo leg (small triangle removed from the wing by the wheel well.) 27-11-44 extra cowling fasteners fitted Jul/Aug 44 four-spoke wheel introduced (mandatory for bomb carriers) 25-7-44 modify cowling (bulged upper cowling, caused by the Merlin 266, but done to IX & XVI) Jun/Jul 45 bulge introduced over wheel well, due to change of wheel tracking 6-8-46 QS (parachute-style) harness introduced There were plans for bubble-canopy IXs, but no bubble-canopy Spitfires, of any Mark, were passed for Service use before (at least) mid-December 1944. There was no fixed date for the introduction of the gyro gun sight (some pilots didn't like, or want, it.) Apart from the house-brick shape, and size, of the sight, it also had a different style of throttle control, with a pair of cables leading up to the side of the sight; mid -1944 seems the favourite date for its introduction. I think that's basically it. Edgar Posted 24 February 2014 - 06:27 AM wellsprop, on 23 Feb 2014 - 10:44 PM, said: I'm not sure, but he may have meant the outer ports for the 303's that need to be removed? Trevor I stand to be corrected but they were not removed on the XVI but kept empty. I *believe* that the holes in the leading edge were absent though. Posted 24 February 2014 - 08:27 AM Edgar The redundant gun covers, over the .303" compartments, were replaced by plain examples, so no holes or bumps were present. There was a third oxygen bottle in the rear fuselage, and all three were replenished through a connection fitted to the starboard cockpit wall. On the low-back XVI, the l/e holes weren't drilled out, and the outer compartments were far from empty, since they housed two oxygen bottles, and the compressed-air tanks which were removed from the fuselage to make room for the fuel tank behind the pilot. Cheers Dennis
  4. Hi Joe, you have just reminded me that Massimo has been working with Jamie to make sure that the new VVS Colourcoats paints are accurate, I must remember to order some ! Cheers Dennis
  5. I am a dedicated enamel painter as well and use Xtracolor, Colourcoats, Humbrol and MM enamels for Soviet colours, I matched them to the AKAN enamels that I had bought. Here is a link to the Mig-3 build that I did a while ago using enamels. Cheers Dennis
  6. For all things Soviet have a look here. http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/ http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php Cheers Dennis
  7. Nice one, the RAF desert colours look great on any aircraft but on a P-40 they really suit. Cheers Dennis
  8. I have just tried to log in and have been denied as well, so something has gone wrong. Cheers Dennis
  9. It's been invitation only for a long time, drop Nick an email and off you go. Cheers Dennis
  10. That looks great, I have a soft spot for the Defiant. Cheers Dennis
  11. Great job, a lot of people do not like this kit but I found it a fun build and built two, I had a US Spitfires theme going last year and also built one as a desert aircraft. I was a bit wary at first of building a Spitfire in US markings but like yours they do look good. Cheers Dennis
  12. Airwaves made three 1/32nd scale Seafire conversions, Mk.Ib, Mk.IIc and Mk.III for the Hasegawa kit, here's a link to a previous diiscussion. http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=58197 Cheers Dennis
  13. Generally I use pretty much in the same method as Jamie, I start off at 50:50 and adjust from there, Normally I use cheap eBay plastic pipettes for mixing the components in a small glass airbrush bottle where it is further mixed before transferring it to the airbrush. The glass jar also gives me a chance to swirl the mixture up the glass sides, it should leave a pretty dense film on the glass which drains very quickly. I only mix what I need, I can guess the amounts fairly accurately now but just in case I do record the amount and ratios of paint in the build log, so I never store mixed paint and thinners. Cheers Dennis
  14. It would seem to be the Hasegawa "hybrid" kit which had new engraved wings and the old Mk.Vb fuselage (raised panel lines) I have built the Mk.Vb, Mk.VI and the Mk.II and used the kit as a base for a Mk.VIII, Mk.XII and a Mk.XIV, the kits are easy to build are accurate in shape and have a fairly well detailed cockpit though they would benefit from some Barracuda resin parts particularly the seat. Below is Edgar Brooks comparison of the Hasegawa Mk.V kit with the Hobbyboss Mk.V some of which will apply to the kit you are looking at. This is what he had to say This was my appraisal, on another thread, which asked for a comparison with the Hasegawa kit Hasegawa all raised panel lines; Hobbyboss engraved. Hasegawa cockpit (apart from too-wide seat) a pleasure to work with; Hobbyboss, unfortunately, somewhat fictional, plus a seat too short front-to-back. Hasegawa fuselage slab-sided at fuel tanks; Hobbyboss slightly curved; both have a too-square cross-section at the firewall. Hasegawa has no engine; Hobbyboss has an engine which doesn't resemble any Merlin I've seen. Hasegawa wheel wells like frying pans; Hobbyboss straight sided; both kits have wrongly-shaped underside cannon blisters, with Hobbyboss worse of the two. Hasegawa fuselage slightly narrow aft of cockpit; Hobbyboss fuselage matches Cox's drawings in length, height & width. Hasegawa has no armament; Hobbyboss has full gun complement, and an under-fuselage bomb, which would be better dropped. Hasegawa no radio; Hobbyboss radio + tray + pose able hatch. Hasegawa fixed control surfaces & flaps; Hobbyboss has separate surfaces & flaps. Hasegawa choice of internal, or external, armoured windscreen; Hobbyboss external only, and the (separate) armour appears to thin, and wrongly-shaped. Hasegawa's propellor (choice of blades & spinners) looks more realistic than the Hobbyboss effort. Hobbyboss has fictional "ribbing" on the tailplane upper surfaces, but they're nowhere near as prominent as on the 1/24 Trumpeter kit, so can be sanded smooth quite easily. Hobbyboss has finely-done rivet detail, all engraved, when the V had raised rivet heads aft of the cockpit. Difficult to choose between decal sheets; Hobbyboss's red appears over-bright, but their Sky is closer than most other companies' efforts. Edgar There is a build on LSP as well http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=67098&hl=%2Bdouglas+%2Bbader Cheers Dennis
  15. This is looking great, I like the attention to detail and as is known I like the kit and subject. Cheers Dennis