Jump to content
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. :)

Mfezi

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mfezi


  1. Yes, I understand that. But the correct English transliteration is 'shturmovik', not sturmovik. The initial letter in the Cyrillic is a 'sha', which is the 'sh' sound. This is represented quite nicely in English by 'sh'. I realise that in Czech, for example, an 's' with a diacritical mark over it is the correct transliteration, but not in English. This is an English-speaking forum. Therefore, it should be spelled 'shturmovik', not 'sturmovik'.

    There are actually several standards on cyrillic transliteration and although the ones that use the "ลก" (a "s" with a caron) have their roots in the Czech language, they can be used in other languages also, including English. For example, someone working in linguistics would probably use it that way. There is actually a pretty good Wikepedia article on the various cyrillic transliteration standards:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian

    However, I agree fully that without the caron, writing a "s" in place of the Russian "sh" letter is simply wrong. So any use of "Sturmovik" (as written here) cannot be correct. Either you have to add the caron or you have to write it "sh" instead.

    Transliteration is full of pitfalls: I am fairly fluent in Russian but when I see a piece of Russian text written in transliterated form it usually confuses the heck out of me. It is easier for me to read Russian handwriting than it is to read transliterated text (cursive Russian looks quite different than cyrillic block letters and takes considerably longer to get used to). In fact, I am quite happy that my Russian teacher insisted that I do all my written homework using cursive writing: Because of that I can actually decipher the slogans on Soviet WWII aircraft, which often used cursive letters! Transliteration, on the other hand, has very little use when learning the language.

    • Like 1

  2. Originally, I didn't like the Aubergine, but after seeing the Su-30SM and Su-35S in action, the "dark Flanker" scheme sort-of started to grow on me. At least to the point where I started accepting it. However, I must say, I am not at all disappointed that they decided to revert back to the old colours.

    It also looks particularly smart on the new Yak-130's. At least, I hope they do he rest also in this scheme:

    145466.jpg


  3. I wonder where they got the inspiration from for this one...

    Yup, and before that we also used that "diamond scheme" on our Cheetah Cs and Ds. Unlike the Gripen, on the Cheetahs the darker diamond was also repeated on the bottom.

    I must admit I really like the strong contrast made by the two colours used on the T-50. I think it looks great! I liked the earlier splinter scheme, but I think this looks even better.


  4. I still think it is extremely unlikely that MiG-15s during Korea were painted according to BS 381C. In fact, also looking at the discussion on scalemodels.ru to which Kari referred, there is some acknowledgement that Soviet manufacturers would possibly have tried to accommodate foreign clients if they specified a colour based on BS 381C, but that is about the only case where such standards would come into play - and that probably only in later years, not the 1950s. In fact, unless someone comes up with Soviet-era instructions referring to BS 381C for domestic use or factory workers stating unequivocally that they did indeed use it as a standard, I seriously doubt this new "revelation".


  5. Flankerman - on what day(s) were you at MAKS? I was there on the Friday, and it rained a lot in the afternoon. Several of the displays had to stick to their bad-weather versions, we only saw one T-50 flying, and I think several displays got cancelled because I have seen many photographs on the internet of aircraft that did not fly on the Friday. My photographs are all pretty average because of the weather. In 2011 I was there on two days, which ended up in about 1/2 a day of good weather and one almost completely rained out. I am starting to think Zhukovskiy has it in for me... I go to Russia quite regularly and often experience good weather (such as the entire two weeks leading up to MAKS this year), and then I go to the airshow...


  6. Yes sir, typical colors for RAF day fighters. Gunze C paints from RAF colors set, dont remember the numbers.

    Ah, that's what I thought. Thanks for the answer. Lucky Model never seems to have that set in stock, so I was hoping you found some alternative from the main Mr Color range that works this well... I guess I'll just have to keep my eyes open for the RAF sets - I really like the way these colours look on the model.


  7. Apparently, not all hardware store lacquer or cellulose thinners are the same. I had exactly the same problem when thinning Mr Surfacer with my local hardware store lacquer thinner. When I got it thin enough to stop the candy floss, it would dry partially in mid-air resulting in a powdery finish on the surface.

    All my problems went away when I started using Mr Leveling thinners. However, I believe Tamiya lacquer thinner also work well with Mr Surfacer. Just be careful: Tamiya makes three types of thinner - Lacquer, Enamel and Acrylic. You want the lacquer thinner. My first choice will still be the Mr Levelling Thinner though. It results in a beautiful, smooth painted surface, yet it dries more than fast enough.

×
×
  • Create New...