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

      Switched Identities   18/06/17

      If you are still having problems logging in and remaining under your own username following the DDoS attack last week, you need to log off, clear your browser's cache, and restart your browser to ensure you clear all the old files from your temporary area.  Then you should be sorted.

Troy Smith

Gold Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,126 Excellent

1 Follower

About Troy Smith

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    email - jgates@mistral.co.uk
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Sussex by the sea...I can it from the hill at least

Recent Profile Visitors

6,227 profile views
  1. Given all the other bits are there, looking at the sprue shots (and not having the kit) I suspect that for a cowl on build that the B-2 exhausts attach to the existing B-1 cowl sides, have a look at image 31 in the review, there are recesses at either end, I'd have a play with B-2 bits and see if they fit somehow?
  2. Lots of useful advice. Regarding the markings, if you google image "Spitfire 610 squadron " you get a load of shots like this If you want an explanation on the whys of this see http://www.boxartden.com/gallery/index.php/Profiles/Camoflage-Markings/01-Supermarine-Spitfire Regarding the kit, new tool airfix can be very unforgiving in the fit department, and really need careful clean up of sprue nibs. The canopy is a tight fit and some test fitting and careful scraping can solve this, and this maybe the reason for the fuselage/wing fit. I've seen other modellers on here moan about CAD tightness and stuffing things up by not test fitting and checking first. You don't say what kind of paint used, but matt paint drying glossy usually means it's not been stirred properly. Spraying it is neat, but for children brushing maybe better, and you might want to try Vallejo acrylics, they brush well. They don't have exact match for RAF colours it seems. As has been stated, gloss finish works better for decals, they also look over soaked, and so have lost some adhesive. Bedding down into wet Klear/varnish works, and eliminates silvering. I have done a few bits with my daughter, and have picked up some Hobbyboss easy build, they are very simple and will allow you to get to the paint stage fast, though I'm waiting for a slow day to do some. I did some Zvezda snap kits of Disney cars and planes I got cheap, these are excellent, and use coloured plastic and stickers. I was very impressed at the quality of fit. Zvezda do some more advanced snap kits, and these maybe worth looking into. I got a Fw 190A-4 recently and it's very well moulded. I'm maybe too controlling, I know from my own youth I was 8 before I could do a kit completely, and then I was off, but I try to teach her how to paint, I got some model railway figures, you can get ones that are about 1/30th, which are a good size. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/20pcs-Unpainted-Model-Train-Stand-Up-People-Figures-1-30-Scale-/201523896196 they need to be put on bases (i used small bits of plastic card) and are not very exciting, but can be good for girls (you just said 'kids') as they may enjoy being able to 'clothe' them to their own tastes. (I'm not saying girls won't want to a Spitfire, mines got older half sisters so it can be rather too girly round here...) I used these with the vallejo acrylic dropper bottle, which you can shake easily and put a drop of two on a pallete or tile. I know this is slightly off topic, but it can be a good way to help learning to paint. A good set is "Folkestone Basics" Creative Models often do sets of the paint in the weekly specials and they also stock the Hobbyboss easy build http://www.creativemodels.co.uk/hobbyboss-m-20.html?filter_id=28&sort=2a the WW2 fighters are £6.25, and they do freepost over £30 here's a review of one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKMMvs_zwe8 If you ever did Airfix 1/32 toy soldiers figures which for years were made of polythene which didn't paint well, the current ones are made of some kind of styrene and take paint fine now. If they are getting interested, if you have an Aldi they sometimes have Airfix starter kits, as do The Works. Not entirely what you asked, but perhaps of use? HTH
  3. Looks better Rob the first pics there looked to be too much of a gap between spinner backplate and nose. I note the back of box in the background is in focus, so you might be better off drawing your phone back a bit, or if you really want a 'quick and dirty' close up option try holding a lens from a magnifying glass over the phone camera lens. It maybe just an impression, but the insides of the UC doors look grey green, they should be aluminium paint., and dont' forget the yellow prop tips, they are 4 inch, which is 1/12th inch in 1/48th. (or about 2mm) cheers T
  4. couldn't find a top shot (al did was stick 'caldwell spitfire' in search but the lower stripes look good. there maybe more shots in the Aussie Eight book, which I'll check later if I remember.... cheers T
  5. No, the B-1 vs B-2 has thinner blades and a different radiator, though some upgrades were progressively introduced on the B-1 B-1 B-2, note deeper rad with flaps in the linked review pars shots I can see two spinners as well. The siren was easy enough to remove, as always, try to find a pic of the plane you wish to model, or ask here. HTH
  6. Learning patience quickly.. like that Now that is a talent I wish I had! First, don't bin 'failures', keep them for use as paint testers, or refining techniques. I would suggest that if you are new too all this, as opposed to a lot of 'new' members who are middle aged returning to the hobby (wot me?) who had plenty of practice 'back then' I know I can build well, but paint.... well, that's what I'm working up too. Then simpler kits maybe better. The GWH T-33 maybe quite tricky? A lot of options will be a metal finish, and they are tricky to do well. A few other points, the standard of builds here is high, i've seen a few other sites where the standard is quite a bit lower, but that means you may find in comparison your work looks not as good. I'm not trying to be negative, I remember getting very frustrated as a 15 year old reading Scale Models and not being able to achieve what I was seeing in the magazine, though looking at a 72nd Fw190D I did as a tester back then, ( I was into 1/48th) and it's actually decent for a brush painted model. Now we have the perils of the macro lens, which shows up things not visible to the eye (though can be useful for error checking) If you have just started up I presume you are more likely to be brush painting? If so, what kind of paint? (there are some good threads here on brushing BTW) If you have made the jump straight to airbrushing, then that's another learning curve. You could ask here for recommendations of good starter kits in an area you are interested in, something that builds well and has a simple paint scheme, as a confidence builder. I'd also see if there is a local model club, as there is nothing like being able to question a builder on how 'such and such' was done, you an do that here as well, if you see something you like. finally, I have never seen anyone being belittled here for work they post, plenty of folks who will offer advice, support and if you wish, constructive criticism. Don't worry if some of the threads are a bit 'in depth' as there are real experts posting, we have several noted authors here as members, which is a real boon if you really want to know some exacting detail! I find BM a very helpful, friendly community, I hope you find it so as well. cheers T
  7. Jure Mason is 'best' author on Hurricanes, but as has been discussed here, he makes mistakes... or just does not know much about certain areas. The big clunkers are the Mk.IIA series 1 being the same length as a Mk.I, it can't be.(see below) and the Sea Hurricane IC being a cannon armed Mk.I with 100 built and saw combat, all the evidence is that that maybe 2 were built... I have the 1990 edition of Mason's Hawker Hurricane, which has 'drawings' with his name attached which are horrible.. To clarify, the rear of the Merlin supercharger is hard up against the main wing spar, so when the Merlin XX was used, the nose HAS to be longer. to pis Mk.I, lower is IID, note position of firewall is the same, the rear engine bearers are longer. drawings from Marvel, regarding the IIB, this walkround is a IIB (or a Canadian XII) http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_iia/ it says it's a IIA, it not, BUT it is marked as a 111 Squadron IIA from the end of the BoB... you know what...I've done this before.... http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/64364-hurricane-noses-and-the-hasegawa-172-kits/page-2 The Mk II has a Merlin XX engine, it's 4 inches longer than the Merlin III in the supercharger back gubbins. The Merlin III already sits against the main spar. The length is added in the middle of the rear cowling panel. This drawing was part of Peter Cooke's 'Hurricane Veracity' Article in MAM in 1999. he measured up several Hurricanes, and did this drawing. Note position of inserted length. Note also the deeper radiator, which then has almost square section, as opposed to the oval Mk I. The carb intake is also wider, The difference is in the rear engine bearers, they are longer, because the merlin XX is longer. The added length is is in the middle of the panel in front of the cockpit, behind the exhaust panel. The longer engine bearers need a longer leading edge fillet, it's quite subtle unless you look carefully and it's well lit, due to curves, and the camo lines, remember it's only 4 inches, a quick measure of some drawings show the rear panel on the MkI to be 39", so one a MKII it should be 43", about 10% longer. Graham nails this point These pics while not ideal, I hope show this difference. Mk I Mk II Mk I Mk II neat shot of a IIA, this shows the extended root fillet well. compare to this one again. these posted by bob show the extended engine bearers, and lengthened root fillet Mki Radiator and carb intake From http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_mk1_l1592/ L1952, with a DH Hurricane prop. Mk II , also has a circular core added to the radiator. I don't know how original the mesh on the carb intake is. From http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_iia/ This is infact a IIB, note outer wing guns, but is marked as one of the first Mk IIA's, as used by 111 Squadron in the BoB. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234966142-hawker-hurricane-iia-in-battle-of-britain-photographs-date-of-introduction/ The Hobbycraft IIC gets the wider carb intake and has the best Rotol bullet spinner in 1/48th, but misses the deeper radiator Hasegawa get the deeper radiator and moved carb intake, but not the wider carb intake. Italeri get the deeper radiator, and moved carb intake, but not the wider carb intake. So, the conversion either requires spares, (for example the Hasegawa 'Croix De Lorraine' kit has both the Mk i and II parts) or copies of these bits. Later Mk II's have the 'knuckled' tailwheel, and fishtail exhausts. Aeroclub did a white metal Mk II tailwheel. The Ark kit has an OK Rotol bullet spinner (pic on page 1) and both types of tailwheel. Or, some modelling skill. Adjusting the rad and carb intake I think will be the tricky bit. I did make a smash mould for a Rotol bullet spinner, it's not to hard a shape to turn from dowel, and you could (probably) use the kit DH backplate combined with the kit Rotol blades. There is also the business of adjusting the cowl fillet, the conversion will be easier if you have a Hase Mk II to refer to, as they get this right.( I know both Tony and Jonner's have Hase II's about for reference) Note, the Hase kit upper cowling is bit flat. So, not actually an 'easy' conversion unless you are good at scratch building and modifications. This will get you to a IIA, a IIB needs the outer gun bays panels adding. and the leading edge gun ports. one bit of info that came up in discussion here, the guns had to be removed through the leading edge panel! this pic shows what a sod of job that was! http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarounds/aircraft/hurricane/be505%2032.JPG useful walkaround here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71906-hawker-hurricane-mkii/ so... bit tricky... For the IIC/IID/IV you need to fill and change the gun bay panel lines.... HTH T PS note in the drawing there is a note about the canopy rail being curved, here's a warbird photo which shows this detail well, the canopy flexes down a bit as well when shut. This is one of the BBMF planes I think, note also the round review mirror used on later Hurricanes as well...this detail change was pointed out to me in correspondence with a veteran pilot! As has been said before on here, the poor old Hurricane is poorly served in certain areas, and various members here try to correct this, the thread linked on Hurricane propeller and spinners is the best reference on the subject I know of ANYWHERE, when other members added details, like details on the Canadian props,and Graham's observation on the what appears to be 2 kinds of 'bullet' Rotol. Some serious archive digging is called for, I've been meaning to get to Hendon and the IWM, just getting a free day to do so. HTH T
  8. I did answer, last line of linked post above. Note, you did not specify scale, the 72nd options were specified in the thread. other scales In 1/144th Sweet do a superb dual kit, In 1/48th either Hasegawa, though you need to pick the boxing, or Airfix new tool (both have faults) 1/32 Fly, if they have done the specfic boxing 1/24th Trumpeter Mk.I HTH
  9. Hi Jean The photo of Steve's 109 was around for a long time, but the photo had no information, so there were guesses as to the unit from the possibilities available,from the below it JG2, JG51 or JG300 (PS IIRC JG6 and JG 52 were assigned bands but did not apply them) later on information about where and when the photo was taken, Prague I think, and it was realised what units were there and it was a JG300 plane (IIRC...) PPS - some info here http://www.jg300.de/me109g-10erla.html saying there are more photos and the deduction process. Lovely job Steve, has come out really well.
  10. I disagree David the main parts of Academy -4 (APART from the fuselage spine) are the same as Hase/Mania -4... I was pretty surprised when I compared the two kit, given the drubbing the Academy kit gets. If you look at the link you can see the Hase/Acad have the wing too low on fuselage, by nearly 2mm, It's easy enough to trim up, it's not that hard to reshape the fuselage, where I got stuck was doing this makes the belly wrong, as the above mean reworking the centre section, as the belly line is about right. I posted the below here I suspect that fixing the belly will require cutting off the wings and making the centre section parts deeper. This then would require making up a wing spar to see the wing anhedral, and this was the point the bits went into the 'later' box more of my ramblings you can see that the Tamiya rear cockpit bulkhead is this 'egg' shape, try fitting his into the Acad fuselage to see what I mean. What this means is that if you are happy with the Hase/mania, it's not too much work to make the Academy match that by taking out 2mm from the Acad spine. I don't think the wing depth problem screams 'wrong' but I've not seen it mentioned before. The Hobby Boss, for it's faults, is a much better match for the Tamiya fuselage (assuming the Tamiya gets it right) I got the Hobby Boss cheap, but their retail new is too much, and their other versions, apart from the -4, are really not worth the bother. Sorry if this is not the clearest post, it's blinkin' hot at the mo (by English standards) and my brain is melting! But, I certainly agree that a good OOB F4U-4 would be a boon! cheers T
  11. The Bulldog was done well by Inpact/Pyro/Lifelike/Lindberg, and is pretty easy to get (also badly by Merit/Smer) The Hawker Fury Airfix did, but it's not one of their better 1/48th kits, being an ungraded tooling of an unissued Merit kit. Airfix do a decent 1/48th Mosquito, though the 'new bits' done to make a XVI and XXX are a bit crude compared to the original kit. THat said a new tool Mosquito, especially a two stage version, would cover a gap in the market,both in 72nd and 48th The Firefly is an interesting one, but Airfix seem to operate in the reverse of Eduard, and do 72nd first, then 48th. I'd be very surprised if they do a P-51B, apart from Spitfires they don't tend to work on doing multiple variants. Given the 'do 72nd first' idea, an early slat wing F-86 E/F would be a very good idea, given it's wide use, RAF included,, and would sell worldwide. As they have done some 1/48th vehicles, and Tamiya are still popping out kits in this, some UK specific items would be great, M4A4 /Sherman V, (a few new bits, Firefly V) ,only possible now with a lot of work or resin hull. Churchill, with careful planning a III/IV/VI and AVRE, and VII, lots of conversion potential, Centurion, with careful planning many versions, and very widely used, Korea, Vietnam, Israel one less UK orientated, M3 halftrack, major gap in 1/48 AFV, and very widely used, plenty of conversion potential.
  12. "London" is a big place, you may want to be more specific, and see if there is a local model club nearby, hopefully one with members here, who might do some introductions, (I've done this at my club) and as it always good to see builds 'in the flesh' and ask the builder how they did 'such and such' Also, what are you looking at building, the main area on the forum is I think the aviation, but plenty of other areas covered. a few suggestions of how to get the best from the forum, if you do post up a request or start a thread, choose the thread titles carefully, as it's the bit you see when browsing, and specific questions get better answers, Have a search for questions you might have, the site search may have improved, but I use google, and add 'britmodeller' into the search terms, you may find your answer, and if not it's always worth saying you haven't found what you are looking for, or you are confused by conflicting answers... If you have a project in mind, see if some has done a build of the kit, and see what they made of it. Don't worry about posting photos of your work, macro lenses are unforgiving it show glitches, and if you are starting out you will get positive feedback on what you are doing well, and if you ask, suggestions for improvements, There are a lot of very helpful and knowledgeable members here, and the suggestion should help you get the best out of them, Britmodeller at it's best gets a happy balance of being friendly with positive feedback, and helpful criticism, especially if you ask for it. cheers T
  13. this shows the position and side profile the filter is basically flat sides and base the Revell IIC boxing has a trop filter added BTW. there are a load of pics of trop filter's here http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=46603.0 HTH
  14. if you didn't buy it, and given the problems I suggest bypassing OCD and enjoy the practice, as I said, Trumpeter kits are if nothing else usually decent kits. One thing that might be worth investigating is if a spare Eduard canopy would fit, as that Eduard sprue has 3 main canopies see http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/reviews/kits/eduard8231reviewjh_1.htm 3 very similar canopies, somebody will have the right type spare, or even the wrong one would still be better. If you know any fellow modellers who have done an Eduard MiG-21, no idea if an eduard spare would fit, but if it does it's a simple upgrade Or, If you have added a new seat, build it open canopy which might hide the bulge and not worry. cheers T
  15. In short no. it also depends on where and when, some combat aircraft had very short lives, and never got very weathered. Learn to look at photos of the real thing. Moquito IIF, 1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr some staining, burnt of paint on exhaust shroud,. touch up paint on nose, but overall a very smooth airframe apart from the engine nacelles. One excelent resource is Etienne Du PLessis Flickr stream of WW2 colour here's the all the rest of Mosquitos https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=8270787%40N07&q=mosquito Pay attention to the captions, as the really gungy looking one is a test aircraft Again use the real thing hard used Bannf strike wing, note faded paint work, on tail wioth touch ups in fresh paint, this has unshrouded exhausts paint did fade, Loading rockets 1945. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr But, the exhaust deposits are cleaned off regularly on a proper airfield, some residual stain and burnt paint on the exhaust shroud Mosquito line-up by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr lots more photos in the link, well worth spending some time looking through these. You don't say what scheme you are doing, as you can usually find pictures of kit schemes, as they tend to be reasonably famous aircraft. There is loads of info on way to do exhaust stain, I suggest trying some ideas on a scrap kit to see what works. here's a recent discussion on this Or have a look in the ready for inspection, or work in progress sections, you can ask how such an effect was achieved if you wish to know more. HTH PS found this you have posted very small images you have uploaded larger images, (I took the 's' out of the filename) Looks to be post war in overall aluminium dope? OK, Frightdog decals, VP202 of 14 Sq pic in link http://www.14sqn-association.org.uk/Blue_Diamonds/Albums/Pages/Mosquito.html#10 http://www.14sqn-association.org.uk/Blue_Diamonds/Albums/Pages/Mosquito.html#12 These would have been kept clean and tidy, as the photos show. one problem, your model is a B.IV, VP202 is a B.35 From the photos of the real thing, I'd say you model does not need any more weathering.