MDriskill

Those are nice-looking models! I for one would enjoy seeing some more close-up views.

I appreciate everyone's very kind comments. It's a good feeling to finish one after such a long dry spell... Several have commented on the finish. The basic paint is Aeromaster RLM 76 light blue enamel. The main weathering technique was oil pin washes; starting after overall glossing with clear lacquer, decaling, and another gloss coat to seal the decals. The washes go on in layers with additional gloss coats in between. I started with a dark mix of burnt umber and black to highlight control surface separations, access hatches, and areas around the engine. When that was done, the model still seemed a bit "flat," but I thought repeating this for every panel line on such a pale base color would be over-doing it...a little dirt goes a long way in 1/72! So I used a gray wash--sort of a dark version of the camo color--to more subtly highlight most other panel lines, and was pleased with that. Exhaust stains and other subtle streaking was done with pastel powder, applied with a small brush over the final semi-flat coat. Paint chipping is colored pencils.

You and Tamiya-San are a very impressive team! That is a beautiful model indeed.

This is not only my first completion in a couple years, but this poor old Revell kit has been on my Shelf of Doom so long, there are bits I don’t even remember working on! A friend claims he remembers my starting it in 2005...yikes. I only recall it was the best "refined cowl" 109 around then. The Fine Molds kits had just been announced maybe, but the Hobby Boss and AZ efforts were far in the future. I “converted” it to a, shall we say, "stand-off" G-6AS, which was probably easier than building the intended G-10. Leave the too-shallow-for-a-G-10 oil cooler alone, omit the separately-molded little chin bumps, sand and scribe your way to the early metal tall tail, and you’re most of the way there. Adding small wheel bulges scratched from scrap plastic, surplus wheels from an AZ kit, and reshaped prop blades from a Hasegawa G-6 to replace the kit’s short-shot mess, completed the basics. I did not use the famous Loon landing gear “fixer” set—to my eye, a cure that looks worse than the disease--or otherwise expend much effort addressing the kit’s accuracy issues. I did “animate” control surfaces, and add bits of sheet, sprue, wire, and scraps, to the cockpit and landing gear. The finish represents the well-known “White 1,” an early-build AS from JG 1. Weathering is primarily oil washes, colored pencils, and pastels.

That's a lovely rendering, but the odd bit sticking out between the aileron and flap--possibly "inspired" by the old Nichimo 1/48 kit--is fictitious. The fairing over the wing fold joint did no carry aft beyond the main wing structure.

Is that a fixed surface...or just the last few aileron ribs still hanging on for dear life? It definitely looks like an E13A "Jake" to me.

I use the Flickr app on my iPad. I simply cannot find any way to access an individual photo's URL from it. If someone has an insight into what I'm doing wrong, I'd very much appreciate it.

You may be on the right track! According to Dana Bell's book, the batch of F4F-3's which had the "buried" carb intake used the R-1830-86 engine, same as the F4F-4, so it may simply be a replacement cowl from one of those. Unfortunately I can't make out the cooling flap arrangement in the photo, which would answer the question more authoritatively. It is not a re-painted Martlet II, as you can see one of the angled twin magnetos of the -86 engine. The single-stage R-1830-90 in the Martlet II had a different magneto arrangement. Zooming in, another interesting detail of that aircraft is that the prop tips appear to be in three different-colored stripes, instead of the usual plain yellow. Hmmmmm...

I agree entirely with Red Dog's logic! If you look through the Hobby Boss catalog, they have an interesting habit of covering a wide variety of variants once they pick a general 1/48 subject. They have covered no less than 11 "long-nose" 190's so far, including all the late rare D-11/12/13 variants with 2-stage Jumo engines, 4 iterations of the barely-existent Ta-152C, and even the one-off V18 "Kangaroo" turbo prototype. Their approach to the Me 262 (12 variants so far!), Grumman Wildcat, F4U Corsair, and other types has been similar. "Market demand" may mean something different over at Hobby Boss HQ, than for most of us, LOL... In that light, it would definitely make sense for them to play out the string with a Ta 152H--easily the most striking-looking of the whole FW line, and one that saw squadron service. And I agree it would be nice to have a kit that is less pricey and more accessible than the Zoukei, or various old Trimaster-based kits. We didn't "need" Hobby Boss's D-9 either, but it's proven very popular for the reasons Red Dog mentioned.

There was a good recent thread here on this subject of "Tony" interior colors, which includes Nick Millman's usual superb input: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235019991-ki-61-interior-colour/& (And hey...where are ya Nick...I'm suffering without my daily "Aviation of Japan" fix!) As to dimensions, the "airvectors" link posted here gives the length of the Ki-61-I Tei, which was itself longer than previous "Tony" variants. The first three variants all had the Ho-103 12.7mm machine guns in the nose, but differed in wing armament (the initial Ki-61-I Ko had 7.7 mm guns in the wings; Ki-61-I Otsu another pair of 12.7mm Ho-103's; and the Ki-61-I Hei imported Mauser MG 151 20mm cannon). According to the recent Model Art "Profile" publication, those variants were 8.740m long. The Ki-61-I Tei (variant represented by both the Hasegawa and Tamiya 1/48 kits), used the Japanese 20mm Ho-5 cannon in the nose, and was 20cm longer, or 8.940m total. The Ki-61-II with Ha-140 engine was 9.1565m long, and the radial-engined Ki-100 8.818m long.

Whilst keeping in mind Nick Millman's wise axiom ("logical assumption is the opposite of research"): when you think about it, a fiery yellow orange background makes more sense for a demon, than a pleasant blue sky!

Many years ago, I visited the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio. While standing in front of their 163, a very elderly fellow with very thick glasses walked up, studied it at great length, then said at the top of his lungs, "YA MEAN DAT'S ALL DE PROPELLA DAT THING HAD?!" I had to bite my tongue... If you look closely, you can see that the blades are pitched "backwards" (concave face forward)--designed not to pull air, but to be pushed by the slipstream to drive the generator.

Those two shots illustrate the change perfectly! In the overhead shot of the dark blue Mk I, note how much further the replacement canopy overhangs the rear bulkhead than in the wartime photo. The overhead view also shows very well the distance between the windscreen and the firewall--compare to any similarly angled view of a later Wildcat The idea that the windscreen was moved to make it easier to bail out, makes a lot of sense. The revised location puts the rear frame of the windscreen roughly in line with the instrument panel; i.e., making all the vertical space between there and the rear cockpit bulkhead available to the pilot. Grumman did appear to use quite glossy paint for the insignia--the photos on the FAA Museum's site of AL 246 under restoration have some very good views of the original paint's being uncovered. If my creaky memory is to be trusted, I believe Dana Bell has noted that US-standard markings colors were used on these early examples.

Duly noted...and respectfully disagreed with. The photographer was about half a step closer and one step farther to the right in the Mk IV pic, not enough to cause gross changes in image foreshortening. And I shan't further beat the dead horse of my opinion vis-a-vis Mr. Archer's pics! Here is a nifty film clip of a Martlet Mk I, with, among other things, some superb canopy close-ups. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/american-aircraft-for-raf/query/grumman+martlet The Mk I is my favorite of all Wildcat variants. With the big paddle-blade Hamilton prop, singular lack of bumps and bulges, and yes that rather sporty-looking short canopy--one could darn near call it pretty, LOL...

I don't mean to be contrary, but the difference in canopy proportions is very obvious to my eye. On the Mk IV, each of the two lower side panels in the sliding portion of the canopy looks more or less "square," I.e., width and height about the same. On the Mk I, both panels seem taller than they are wide--slight difference in the front one, but quite noticeable in the rear one. As for factory drawings, they may not exist. Many moons ago in pre-net days, I contacted the history departments at both Grumman and General Motors (Eastern Aircraft) in an effort to find F4F drawings better than the simple diagrams in the Pilot's Handbooks and Erection and Maintenance Manuals, but was told that all wartime documentation had been discarded. I'd love to be proven wrong on that, needless to say! We really need a friend with a tape measure at Yeovilton... Apologies for once again savaging Mr. Archer's photos...Mk I Mk IV