Scott Hemsley

AZmodels did a couple of A.O.P releases. I know they did a Mk.3 and a Mk.6. Not sure if they did a Mk.9, however. Scott

The Fujimi kit you're thing about Jennings, is the KV-107 II-4 (kit #H-1). Kit decals ar for 2 JGSDF examples. Not sure how available they still are after all these years. Scott

I did a M.III from the Heller kit, years ago (pre-resin wingtips) and I found that the separate tips from a Spitfire's eliptical wing made a very good base for the Mk.III wingtips. Just attach and sand to shape. The airfoil x-section between the two was remarkably close. Scott

Don't confuse this Revell Voodoo with the ex-Matchbox Voodoo - also sold under the Revell banner ... or was. There's no similarity other than they both propose to represent the same aircraft type. This Voodoo (Revell - Germany) was originally issued in the early 90's for a period, along with ROG's excellent F-89 Scorpion, then withdrawn, only to be re-issued. This is the 2nd re-issue of that kit. It's almost like (some still maintain it is) the Monogram 48th F-101B, shrunk down to 72nd - with scribed panel lines. It's accruacy and quality means it can still hold it's head high with more recent releases, even done OOB. As for RCAF markings, it was originally released with a 409 Sqn. option as well as a USAF option. In the past, Leading Edge has done an excellent CF-101B sheet (#72.006) covering 414; 410 and 416 squadrons, plus the ADC "William Tell" weapons meet;in the late 'Symetrical' operational scheme (now OOP, but reissued at least once and can probably still be found in private sales or Ebay). Currently, Canuck Decals (http://www.canuckmodels.com) have 2 sheets out, each coverng multiple squadrons. Of those, one sheet covers the early 'RCAF+3' operational scheme and the other one covers the later 'Symetrical' scheme, They've also released a sheet that covers all the one-off anniversary or special schemes applied to the CF-101B. Scott

Hepster.. The problem of the F-101B's canopy seals has been solved. Checkout 'Canuck Decals'. Look under their 'decals' link & you'll find the link to the canopy seals, as well as canopy masks for the Voodoo. http://www.canuckmodels.com/ Scott

Thanks Jennings. That's what I thought it was, but hoping otherwise. Now, where did I put that scriber? Scott

In the interest of doing a C-130 with scribed panel lines, I was interested to see that Italeri have released a 1/72 AC-130H, that according to a label on the box, has scribed panel lines. Does anyone know if this is the former AMT/ESCI tooling or have Italeri actually released a C-130 based on their own tooling, with scribed lines? Scott

I noticed that the flaps on your commemorative build weren't dropped and I wonder if this is an option with the 'Dambuster' version of their re-tooled Lanc? After reading the kit description on the Airfix site, I wonder if the kit provides an optional set of inboard naclles for the dropped flap option, or does the modeller have to separate the rear of the nacelle? Your build doesn't appear to show any 'hinge' line on rear of the nacelle. Scott

CF-118 or CF-18 is correct! The "C" in all our designations (CF; CH; CC; CE, etc.) stands for 'Canada' or 'Canadian' - depending on the documentation you read. The 2nd letter in the designation describes the role/type of aircraft (Fighter, Helicopter, Cargo, Electronic [warfare], etc). Some examples: CF-101B Voodoo, CF-104 Starfighter, CC-130H Hercules, CP-107 Argus, CH-113 Labrador, CH146 Cormorant, CH-118 Iroquious, CP-121 Tracker ... etc. Scott

CanMilAir decals offer no less than 12 sheets for the CF-104 (Canada) & yes, you can use the Revell F-104G for this. http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=65 Scott

Back in the early days of my modelling, Humbrol released 6 tinlet sets of "Camouflage Colours" targeted for specific uses (RAF ETO; RAF MTO, Luftwaffe, etc) and each set was accompanied by some fairly comprehensive instructions on their use. I vivdly recall their sets for WW2 RAF/Commonwealth a/c, specified that the wheel wells were to be the underside colour UNLESS the entire wheel well was covered by the l/g doors when the gear was retracted. IE; Spitfire/Hurricane vs P-47, P-51, Typhoon, Tempest. Scott

Chuck1945... The Academy prop/spinner look ok on the Revell. In fact ... when placed back-to-back, the two spinner bases are the same diameter. Scott

Thanks, Graham. I'm not including the bomber option, so I'll tuck that advice away for my IIb whenever I get to it and although I've heard of the cord issue before, I don't have a good set of Hurricane drawings to go by, so I'll have tp pass and concentrate on correcting the cockpit. The more I look at the kit, the more I really want to get to the point of closing up the fuselage & shorten that antenna mast! Scott

I'm comtiplating on starting Revell's 72nd Hurricane IIc (trop). Looking at the sprues, that prop looked a 'bit' suspect. I also have the Academy Hurricane IIc which I know is 'flawed', so it's available as a doner if required - which maybe sooner than later. That prop & spinner look a lot closer to period photos of IIc's than the Revell kit. However, before I commit to anything... any suggestions? Comments on the Academy prop/spinner? Scott

More food for thought. Scott

All great information ... thanks guys! That bit about the Aluminum framing was unexpected and a bonus! Scott

I'm contemplating a build of the 1/72 Revell Hurricane Mk.IIb with the CMK Hurricane detail set (#7046). I don't know if I'll go so far as to open the gun bays, but I would like to open the canopy and thus, detail the cockpit. The CMK set gives a nice pair of cockpit sidewalls in resin and therein lies the question. On the starboard side (right side), there is what appears to be a cockpit access door ala Spitfire. CMK supply the sidewall interior for this 'door' as a separate piece to the rest of the starboard sidewall. I don't recall ever seeing an operational photo showing this 'door' open and I don't think the pilot entered the aircraft from the starboard side, so what was the purpose of this panel? Scott

PR.XVI = Paddle Blade props Scott

"We should be in for some colourful markings: the Canadians were big users of the Mk.II and had few inhibitions about nose art.. " Back in 2005, Zotz Decals revised their 1/72 'Sexy Lancs' sheet (ZTZ72-015). Along with 5 other Lanc options (including 2 6Grp Lancaster B.I's and 2 B.X's - 424, 427, 428 & 434 Sqns, respectively), it featured a 408 Sqn. B.II - 'EQ*Z', 'Zombie'; LL725. I didn't see it listed in the current catalog of decal sheets on their web page, but possibly Ebay or a private seller may turn one up. Scott

The Lancaster 10AR had a 3 foot nose extension compared to the standard Lanc. At one time, Paragon did a 12 foot resin insert for the extended nose for a RAAF(?) Lincoln. However, since that's OOP, probably your best bet is to graft a 2nd Lanc nose or at least 3 feet of it, forward of the windscreen and build up the top profile to fair it in with the kit's nose. If you're thinking of using the Airfix kit (IMO, preferred for a RCAF post-war Lanc), the 'Lancaster B.I Special' release is what you should try to get as it contains the solid fairing that replaced the nose turret for this version (as well as no dorsal turret). This part could then be used to vac a clear replacement to form the 'observation' glazing that replaced the nose turret. You'd still have to modify the canopy at the extreme rear, with a clear fairing - as the 10AR's didn't have the astrodome ... as well as the various hump's n' bumps (not to mention the large scoop each side, above the wings) that were featured on the 10AR's. Scott

While not a C-54, a while ago I was asked to do a 1/72 North Star for a Korean War exhibit (it was not the FSM conversion). Below is the link to the build article that I wrote up for it's entry in the IPMS 'Buzz' Buerling 1/72 Gallery. As I said, it's not a C-54, but appart from the engines and the MLG (the C-54 and the North Star used different MLG), it may be of help. http://hedgehoghollo...buzz/North_Star Scott

I've also got a set of John's replacement cowls , but they are only replacements for the cowlings, not the upper nacelles which Foxfriend was originally commenting on. Scott

48th or 72nd, we certainly can use a new 'tooling of these aircraft - hopefully a bit more 'accurate' than the existing kits and the way Airfix have been going lately, it might be a good choice for future consideration. Scott

Be careful, here. Your choice of options depends on the version you're planning to do. In terms of kits, both the Rareplanes and PM versions represent the war-time variant with the short nacelles. Hobbycraft (if you can find them) released two kits of the C-45 - the war-time short nacelle version and the post-war varient with the longer nacelles. Going by Foxfriend's comments about the 'horribly wrong' nacelles, it sounds as if he might've been expecting the post-war version with the longer nacelles. Scott

Jennings..... Sorry, I missed that exchange. So we're then saying that all the other 1/72 kits are wrong, in that their wings have a greater chord than the Heller kit??? A short answer to your question, would be "yes". Some time back, I was planning a Sabre Mk.2 build based on the Heller kit, but I wanted to depict the slats deployed as it would be on the ground. Therefore, I compared the Fujimi and Hobbycraft Sabre wings against the specs as printed in Milberry's book on the Sabre - to see if I could modify the wing to a narrow-cord wing while retaining the slats and basically use them with the Heller fuselage... and that's when I came across the 'wing root' cord and overall span dimension issues. I admit I never had an Academy wing to measure, but considering the kit's similarity to the Fujimi tooling - I wouldn't be surprised if it had the same issues. I also would imagine the same issues would be found in any other 72nd Sabre kit that was heavily influenced by the Fujimi tooling - unless the mfgrs.first addressed the shortcomings of the Fujimi tooling.. It's like the problem that permiates 'scale drawings' and 'profiles' - an error is made in one & instead of others doing their own research, they base their work upon the previous drawings - thus perpetuating the error until it becomes so entrenched that over time, the initial error is readily accepted as fact by many in the modelling community. Scott