Chuck1945

You are of course correct, I mentally inserted an extra '2' when I was looking up the serial.

If HV-M is a D-28, it is a bubbletop. The serial number though makes it a D-23 RA which would have been a razorback and from the white codes apparently camouflaged

Part of it may have been 'not invented here', but in the US at least the P-80 was well along with a pre-production example making to Europe by war's end and Republic's P-84 was also in development. The early British jet engines were centrifugal flow resulting in a greater diameter than the podded axial flow Jumos on the Me 262 and not making them particularly suited to be adapted to a 262 airframe even if the British were so inclined. As already mentioned, features of the 262 such as wing sweep back as well as other data from German research was incorporated into later designs, resulting, for instance in North American Aviation cancelling their straight wing fighter design in favor of a swept wing design that became the F-86

There were some pictures posted here (about halfway down the page) from Brengun's Nuremberg display including some sprues. The really obvious clanger is yet again the main gear bay is incorrectly done.

As Troy said, these were not a factory standard,perhaps try a little experiment. Cut a couple strips of tape 2mm wide and perhaps slightly longer than the wing cord, repeat with 3mm strips and perhaps even 4mm wide. Using the pictures Troy linked, try the strips and pick the one that most closely matches the relative width in the pictures

As of now, 1015 Pacific Daylight, not available to me here in the Pacific Northwest

36" codes scale to 0.5" for 1/72 or approx 12-13 mm (12.7mm to be precise). 48" codes scale to 17mm.

For Spring 1940 I think Eduard's color suggestion of 70/71 uppers is correct. The book The Messerschmitt Bf 110 in Color Profile 1939-1945 by Vasco and Estanislau, Schiffer 2005 has quite an assortment of side profiles and B&W photos of the profiled a/c. There are Bf 110C from the ZG 76 (note Eduard's marking are for the ZG 76, not 77) summer 1940 are standard 70/71. While there aren't any ZG 76 Ds from August profiled, there are several D models from Erprobungsgruppe 210 with presumably 71/02 uppers and 65 coming well up the sides of the fuselage from August 1940

Listermann's Allied Wings booklet on the Spitfire XII only shows one 91 Sqd side view photo, the starboard side of EN625/DL-K. Can't tell if there is an inscription or not. The port side profile he has of EN617/DL-E is drawn with the inscription and the aircraft is identified as the normal aircraft flown by FO O'Shaughnessy.

deleted, wrong topic

Yes, off the top of my head I'm not sure which plant(s), but some of the last Fs did have the chin turret

Yes, that Tamiya A-3 is an nice straight forward build

For overall accuracy and detail, the Eduard kits are the best choice. They are however, fiddly to build IMO. I have two at the "ready for decals" stage, the tolerances are quite close so lots of test fitting is needed. There is a topic/thread here on tips, suggestions for building it. Personally I was never too fond of the Hasegawa Fw 190s. While they are generally accurate and easier to build than the Eduard kits, the extremely shallow well bays just put me off. The newish Airfix kits have more detail compared to Hasegawa, especially in the wheel bays but suffer from thick trailing edges and a misplaced access/inspection panel on the vertical fin.

Probably in Scale Models. There is a chapter on the Fortress in Aircraft of 100 Group, including a several pictures. They were Fortress III, a partioal serial number list is included and there were a few with e staggered waist positions and Cheyenne tail as featured in the new Airfix B-17G kit (to be released as a Fortress III anytime now)

There are some comments regarding the kit by a friend who bought one: "I've had one of these for some time now. While the initial viewing makes it look very good, it has issues. As far as the shape goes it is very good. Nice scribing and most of the small parts are done well. Photo etch and masks included and all of the parts for all of the variants are apparently included in all of the kits.However... there's no canopy framing and the engineering of the wing is preposterous. The wing does not for the most part break on panel lines. The wing root is split up the middle, cleaning up this seam will most likely take out the fairings that cover the spar bolts requiring their replacement. At the trailing edge of the wing root are rather wonky keys on the lower surface of the fuselage that are supposed to slot into openings on the lower wing panel. They don't fit. Then there's the join at the trailing edge. Most 109 kits I have seen the lower wing panels aft edge is at the flap/aileron juncture on the underside. Not here, no that would be much too simple. Instead there is a sweeping joint that runs through two panel lines on it's way to the wingtip. In addition the lower wing is too thick to sit flush in it's provided recess adding insult to injury.Then we get to the cowling. I believe there are ten pieces involved in the cowling assembly. It appears that the lower radiator area will fit fairly well, the rest of it looks like it will be a challenge. Another issue with the cowling is that the rather prominent angled vents fore and aft of the exhausts are merely represented with a scribed outline rather than an indentation. This will also be a challenge to rectify.So what do we have at the end of the day? It's got a better shape than the Heller kit. It's got better detail, better fabric surfaces and it's scribed. It also looks to be a bitch to build. The Heller kit, which has just been rereleased, will be an easier build but not as accurate. Which you choose will depend on your priorities and skill level. I was really hoping for a reasonable kit here, but the engineering of the wing has really put me off. Which is a shame as I would have bought about two dozen of these things. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the competition brings out.Now for a little editorial content. I have it on good authority that the 1/48 scale early 109's by AMG do not have the ludicrous engineering around the wing. So why did they do this on the 1/72 scale kit? The only thing I can think of is to leave fingerprints. So that if one of the less principled manufactures tries to copy the AMG kit it will be glaringly obvious that they did so or they have a lot of extra work to do to cover their tracks. I can see their point but the disservice they did to the consumer is appalling.Cheers,Woody" Complete discussion here