Steve N

Very sharp! I've always loved the Twin Beech, and you've done the old girl proud! Cheers! Steve

I've noticed that the RAF Fortress Is have slightly modified nose glazing compared to the stock B-17C/D/E. The center flat panel is wider, and is split with a solid top section. I've always assumed it was because the Brits used a different bombsight than the Yanks. Standard early B-17 nose (the iconic B-17D "The Swoose.") And an RAF Fortress I Which means of course that if you want to model a truly accurate RAF Fortress I you'll need to modify the nose glazing, and use it as a master to vacuform or plunge mold a new one. Cheers! Steve

It was in production for so long and there have been so many mods over the years, I'm not sure if any two surviving Twin Beeches are alike! I think the craziest one I've seen was the Turbo Tradewind, a rebuilt C-45 with turboprop engines, tricycle undercarriage, and a single swept tail. The first time I saw a photo of one I honestly thought it was mis-captioned. About the only thing that looks still like a Beech 18 is the windshield (and even that has been replaced with a frameless one.) And of course many Beech 18s have had the cabin roof raised to make the cabin roomier (I personally think those so-called "hi-cube" versions look terrible.)

Ah, I knew I had this somewhere on my hard drive. Here's a comparison I put together many years ago of the PM Models and Hobbycraft C-45 wing parts for a discussion on another forum. The Hobbycraft kit may have some issues, but this shows just how much more crude the PM kit is. Cheers! Steve

Wow, you get full marks just for managing to finish that monstrosity! The kit is absolutely terrible. Looks nice in the box and has some impressive detail, but from what I've heard actually building the thing is a nightmare. I've got one and tried dry-fitting a few components, but it quickly became apparent that everything would require massive amounts of trimming, shimming, bending, and filling to go together. Cheers! Steve

Hobbycraft actually issued two iterations of the kit. The one used in this build is the "WWII Version" with a straight leading edge and shorter nacelle tops. They also did a "Postwar" version with the increased sweep on the inner wings and longer nacelle tops. You're definitely right about the PM kit. I eagerly bought one when it first came out and was thoroughly disappointed by how crude it was. I have no idea why so many of them still get built. I have tinkered with adapting the Hobbycraft wings (and canopy) to the PM AT-11 fuselage, but getting the wings to mate properly with the fuselage is proving difficult. The HC wings seem to have a bit too much airfoil curve on the underside. I've taken a ton of photos of the AT-11 at the USAF Museum over the years, and it looks like the underside of the wings aft of the main spar is pretty much flat. Steve

Interesting project. The biggest issue with the Hobbycraft Beech 18/C-45 that I've heard about is the nose. I don't recall the specifics, but I think it slopes down too much in front of the windshield. Cheers! Steve

Found myself in a similar situation last fall. After 16 years, my entire department (five people) was eliminated. Newer computer systems allowed my employer to consolidate operations in fewer, centralized locations. At 61, the prospect of starting over (most likely in an entirely new field) was terrifying. Fortunately, there just happened to be a position open in another department. Three of us bid on it, and I got it. I'm back on the overnight shift for the first time in over a decade..not ideal, but it certainly beats unemployment, and I can grind it out for a few more years. I figure six to eight before I can hang it up for good. Hang in there! Steve

Not so much the spacing, the cowls and indeed the entire nacelles are noticeably undersized (and the kit engines and props aren't particularly good in any case.) There is at least one correction set out there, but requires major surgery to the kit. The big blisters on the aft fuselage have simplified and inaccurate framing, and as mentioned above the interior is rather sparse. That said, I rather doubt we'll actually see a new-tool Cat from Airfix, at least any time soon. Steve

I'd love a new-tool Catalina... 😉

The Italeri Harvard is a reboxing of the Ocidental kit, and does appear to have the correct canopy for the Harvard with the longer rear section. I believe postwar CCF-built Harvard 4 was very similar to the T-6G, with less framing on the canopies and I think they may have deleted the landing gear doors (most restored examples seem to lack them.) I don't know if the canopy frames on the kit are raised or engraved. If they're raised, it shouldn't be that much of a problem to just sand off the extra ones and polish the canopies clear again. From what I've seen, the kit appears reasonably accurate, although to me the windscreen has always looked a bit "off," with a bit to much aft "rake." I understand the cowl is a bit misshapen, being just a simple cylinder rather than the more complex shape of the real thing. Neither of these are really major issues. Cheers! Steve

American Association of Retired Persons. You actually become eligible at age 50. My wife and I have gotten some great hotel discounts with our membership. 😎 Cheers! Steve (who just turned 62 this week)

"Precision in every details?" I presume maybe English isn't their first language, but a slogan like that doesn't inspire confidence.... Steve

Looks pretty good to me! I've got the Airfix Lanc in The Stash. If I ever get around to building it, I plan to cut the wing spars just inboard of the wheel wells, so I can build up and paint the wings separately. Cheers! Steve

Great work! I've heard those Anigrand kits can be a real challenge. Of course, like most people (of my generation anyway) I can't look at a C-82 and not think of the original "Flight Of The Phoenix" with Jimmy Stewart. SN