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. :)

Michael louey

Members
  • Content count

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

166 Excellent

About Michael louey

  • Rank
    Established Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,307 profile views
  1. This is a relatively easy question - Tracking down all the RAF/RAN/ADF aircraft - the missing items are: Junkers G 31 - A Junkers Ju 52 predecessor built in limited quantities, about 1/3 which ended up in New Guinea and one of which was taken up by the RAAF. Avro Cadet - A smaller type of the more common Tutor, once again most of which ended up with the RAAF Cheers Michael
  2. Hi J-W, Good luck getting a RotaChute - Though a dead end, it is cute. I got mine really cheap at the local Hobby Shop (I think it was about AUS $10 about half the price I've seen it online). I had a look at your FA 330 - Well Done! You've added more detail than me however it looks like you used my initial rigging technique with thread. I had real trouble with tension and replaced it with wire! Cheers Michael
  3. Hi J-W, The Rotachute is a kit by "Fly" models. It is 1/72nd however "Fly" also produce this kit in 1/32nd where it is still not very large but the detail will be more visible. One of our club members has this kit. I know of the FA330, I built one alongside this RotaChute - Full details of the build here http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/index.php?showtopic=8975 Thanks for the info Dave. He sounds like the British counterpart of our Fred David, the Austrian Jew who designed the CAC Boomerang. He was interned at the start of the war and had to report to the police fortnightly while designing the Boomerang. Goes to show that immigrants who have experienced persecution show a greater desire to "do their bit" than locals who haven't experienced what they are facing. Thanks for the comments guys. Cheers Michael
  4. So after finishing a couple of Spitfires, this came up on the Production Line. It was going from the sublime to the ridiculous. British inventors are great for innovative ideas and some are quite left field. A number of them have really advanced aviation - In Flight refuelling, Practical VTOL Fighters, mirror landing systems. Sometimes the ideas don't really take on though and this is one of them. The idea was a controllable machine to land agents precisely behind enemy lines. The more practical alternative used was dropping them off with STOL aircraft like the Lysander. I wonder how the agent would hide this thing after landing.... The kit is miniscule and other than handling very small parts, there were no real issues with the kit. There are a couple of items Fly wants you to "scatchbuild" which I found interesting. The main problem is how to stop this being a tail sitter as there is no place to put weights. The only solution is sticking it to a base which is basically the top of a jam jar with a cutout from a cardboard tarmac base. Cheers Michael
  5. Hi Selwyn, Yes, the Blenheims were non operational. They were used as multi engine familiarisation training for the Beaufighter II's being taken up at the time (Previous aircraft were Defiants). The photo shows the airframe with a gunpack so it is possible it was also used for gunnery practice. ADF serials lists the various Blenheims attached to RAAF squadrons. Looks like I may have misread the book (rushing) and the timeframe may be late 41. http://www.adf-serials.com.au/blenheim.htm Cheers Michael
  6. Now I've nearly cleared the deck of "committed" projects (other than one freestyle one), I'm thinking of going back to the Airfix Blenheim 1 I planned about a year ago. The main question I have is the colour of the numeric "20" on the airframe I planning to build. It is a 456 Squadron Blenheim in all black night fighter scheme L4907 and previously operated with 54 OTU. There is a Type A roundel next to it and the colour of the 20 is light off white. The original picture is in Fighter Nights by John Bennett on Page 40. Are there standard colours for the OTU markings during this time scale (late 1940)? The 20 is behind the roundel on the right side. Same for the left? Any help welcome. Regards Michael
  7. Thanks for the comments. I didn't realise the kit was so rare these days. I'd be up to tackling a 2nd airframe with the fixed tail wheel but I think I can wait until a new kit arrives! Cheers Michael
  8. Thanks for all the comments. Jean - As far as I know, I would have used the standard colour Humbrol calls Ocean Grey - It googles up as 106. There is a small chance I used an ancient can of Humbrol Authentics of which I have lots of stock of some colours but I doubt a commonly used colour like Ocean Grey would have lasted this long. I had a quick look at my RAF museum chart this morning and the colour chip didn't have much of a blue tinge - i.e. more like the Humbrol however it's only a small area. Strangely the photo of a Mk IX on the cover seems to show a bluer cast like the Model master Ocean grey but since it's a warbird and colour photography/lighting make judgements a bit of a mine field, it can be taken with a grain of salt. The undersurface colour would be similar - I would just google up Humbrol Medium Sea Grey. The green is not Humbrol. I used Testors Model master. In the past Humbrol's RAF Dark Green was too green and not olive enough. Cheers Michael
  9. Hi Wooksta, Very nice build. I built the 1st Pegasus kit a long time ago. The main things I recall about it were - the really thick canopy, very thick props and radiators that needed a lot of work to open up their faces. I did have the Rareplanes kit at one stage too, not sure if I still do. I picked up the CMR kit a couple of years ago and plan to build it "as is". It belonged to one of our club members who passed away. He used to have 2 parallel themes to me - Spitfires and FW 190's and we used to compare our builds. Since you moulded your own kit - what's wrong with the CMR one? I have vague recollections that maybe it and the later (AZ?) kit may have nose profiles which are too slim in plan to fit a Griffon. Cheers Michael
  10. Thanks for the info! I have a few Eduard Mk IX and Mk XVI's and I did notice they had a lot of spare optional parts. I didn't notice (or remember) that they had spare cockpit parts. As for too many Sptifires, I did think of going on to an Airfix Mk 24 but I had a few items I am "committed" to finish so had to delay that one. Thanks Michael
  11. After building a Mk XIV, I felt like I was on a bit of a run and decided to break open the Xtrakit Mk XII. In general, the kit went together pretty well for a limited run kit. Only a few items to address - 1. The kit supplies some wing bulges to be fitted only to some airframes (including MB882 which I built) however there are no pictures showing these at all - I left them off. 2. Two sets of wheels are supplied - covered and spoked. I saw photos of MB882 with both and I think the "covers' are only temporary when at rest - I used the spoked ones. 3. The antenna is very blobby and I got a pack from Quickboost and used one as a replacement. 4. The sky of the kit decals looks a bit dark to me but the special font/size is pretty hard to find so I just lived with the kit decals. I experimented with a Model Master Ocean Grey compared to the Humbrol version on my Mk XIV. Looks a bit bluer in cast. Not sure which is more accurate as both seem in the ball park of my MAP chips. I noticed a post on "Aces shot down by Spitfires" listed this airframe as having shot down "Bully" Lang which was quite interesting to find out. I really only chose the subject as many of the photos (and this was a well photographed airframe) were taken when flown by Don Smith a RAAF 'ace'. I always try to model an airframe with an Australian connection where possible. Some consider the Mk XII the prettiest of all the Spitfires - Ventura uses it as their logo! Cheers Michael
  12. Hi Rob, Thanks for reminding me. Yes the really odd u shaped cockpit in the kit must be Fujimi's idea of an "easy" fit for the kit though why they chose this and not a more plausible flat floor/rudder arrangement like many Hasegawa kits (even thought not accurate either) is hard to fathom. It was probably one of the reasons not to open the canopy even though I had a nice thin vac canopy. I wonder where I can 'borrow' a cockpit from to do the next kit. Maybe not to hard to scratch something a bit more realistic. Cheers Michael
  13. With all the interesting discussion regarding 1/72 Spitfire XIV kits, I've decided to post the Fujimi kit I built last year. The subject is a RAAF 451 Squadron airframe based at Gatow Germany post war. When I went looking for a low back Mk XIV at the time (probably 2015) they were scarcer than I expected and I ended up buying one from Taiwan. Problems started from Day 1 when I found the brown plastic as brittle as eggshell. (I managed to snap both the wing and fin). The kit looks authentic (box, decals and all) but one of my fellow club members thinks there have been some lower quality counterfeits coming out from Asia. Luckily I also could get high back Mk XIV's relatively easily from a local shop, so I used the couple of low back unique parts (rear spine and some clear parts) from the Taiwan kit as conversion parts. Regarding the Fujimi kit - The main work is filling all the gun panel lines, removing the pressure intake in the cowl and cutting out the rear tail wheel cover. Not all of this is mentioned in the instructions. I also have an AZ kit but the Fujimi is a lot easier to do a good rear camera port option as in the FR version I built. Since then a new Sword kit has come out but I haven't got it yet - I managed to get a twin pack from Fujimi just before it came out, so I am 'right' for XIV's for the time being. The decals are from Red Roo and went down well. The stencils are from Aviaeology from memory. The only hard bit to do were the yellow cut out stencils for the pilot's door which are really prominent in the photos. I got these from a Vampire Xtradecal sheet but not sure where I'll find more of these. The Fujimi kit still looks find but filling the right panels and getting the rear spine to blend in was time consuming. I also eventually used a Falcon canopy as the kit canopy seem to have "crease marks" which I couldn't polish out after sanding them smooth (maybe another side issue with the Taiwan kit). One thing I immediately noticed was the low "sit" of this model compared to various other ones I have on display (Sword Vc, Xtrakit XII, AZ VII). The only other comparable kit was the Airfix Mk I. I wonder which is more correct or whether it is somewhere in between. Cheers Michael
  14. Hi Graham, I used the Red Roo decals for my 1/72 Sptfire XIV last year and from memory, they have the Yellow component of the roundel as a seperate item. The corresponding 1/48th item is probably the same Refer this item in the forum.
  15. Hi Tony, Beautiful model as usual. The Hasegawa kit is still nice after all this time. There was an article on this plane in the ADF serials newsletter with some photos in the last year. I guess the DK instructions didn't call out any medium green blotches on the Olive drab? Hard to tell from the photos in ADF serials. Which resin wheels did you use and where did you get them? The ones I've seen nearly cost as much as the kit when you include postage. Cheers Michael