Jump to content

Pappy

Members
  • Posts

    2,754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Pappy last won the day on October 1 2015

Pappy had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brisneyland, Oz
  • Interests
    Pina Colada's and long walks in the rain

Recent Profile Visitors

6,455 profile views

Pappy's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

4.9k

Reputation

  1. G'day DA, I don't mind the rubber tyres if done crisply, although I still have memories of the 'realistic' rubber tyres included in some older Hasegawa aircraft kits that ended up crumbling or breaking down with age. I have seen that realistic 'sagged' resin replacement tyres are available which I will likely buy with the money saved on purchase price. I am leaning towards the Trumpy kit mainly for the operators cabin, cheers, Pappy
  2. G'day people, help for a jet builder please from the BM massif. I am an experienced builder and have built some armor before but I mainly do jets. I have been offered the choice of either the Trumpeter or Zvezda 1/35 Pantsir kits for a very reasonable price. I only want to build one and would like to know which one is the 'better' kit - I know Meng also make a kit and that they have a reputation for being very good but that is not under consideration. I actually hate the "Which is the best kit?" question as the term best will be different for each person. In my case price and availability are the same so that is not a factor so my criteria are: Which is the most accurate out of the box, e.g. shape, included details etc Which builds the most easily? Do either (or both) have any known flaws? I have had a poke around on Scalemates and looked at the kit instructions, both kits follow a similar assembly sequence starting with a detailed engine and chassis, suspension etc. The only real difference I can see is that the Trumpy kit offers an interior to the control cabin and Zvezda does not? Thanks in advance cheers, Pappy
  3. Please tell me that the daggers were gripped firmly between your teeth in best Commando comics style Pappy
  4. Too bad, but nobody else noticed it either. I think you are right, your dad won't notice it unless you tell him. You could cut out the notch and file back to shape but you would also be missing an additional vortex generator per wing and the wing fences but at this sage being so close to the end I would advise against it as the difference will likely go unnoticed as you say. It is funny, both yourself and DaveJL made the same error, same kit, same Group Build. I was following along with Dave's build so was able to alert him before he attached his wing assembly to the fuselage but sadly I was too late for your build. I don't think the instructions are to blame as they clearly identify the correct part both of you seemed to have adequate reference material on hand. I think the issue is that upper wing parts for both variants (FRS.1 and FA.2) are included in the box which a first glace appear to be the same. It would be easy to select the wrong part if you did not look at the sprue number. I typically go through the box when multiple options are offered, or if there are parts 'Not for use" and I will remove these parts and set them aside. I try and keep them on their sprue if possible and place then in a separate bag (or re-use the resealable bags from the kit) and keep this bag within the kit box just in case I need something that I overleooked but otherwise, these are separate form the other sprues to prevent the chance of using the wrong part. It also cuts down the part count and makes me think I have made greater progress than I actually have! cheers, Pappy
  5. G'day Icarus, I hope that I am wrong but it looks like you have used the wrong wing. From the pics it seems you have used the (later) FA.2 main wing found on the "B" sprue instead of the earlier wing (Part I2). The FRS.1 wing has two dog-tooth notches in the leading edge as well as two corresponding wing fences which are absent on the latter FA.2 wing? cheers, Pappy
  6. Have you used PE and other multimedia accessories before? If not, my advice would be to build a few cheaper, smaller kits and practice using PE, rigging and wooden decks on these before making the Titanic your first attempt, unless you intend this to be warm up kit for something bigger cheers, Pappy
  7. BZ Stuart, a fine effort! cheers, Pappy
  8. I just realised that SS also has a WIP for the same kit. It seems that he has accidentally posted into Steve's WIP, hence the double take, Pappy
  9. Maybe it is old age catching up with me but I am confused, whose build is this? I thought that Stevej60 was the author but it seems that SoftScience is also contributing to the WIP? Pappy
  10. G'day Steve, If it wasn't for the 3D printed parts (which are excellent) I would say that this is too beautiful to paint, but the grey throws off the look. If they were cast in brass and polished, I would just throw some varnish over the wooden areas and it would look great. I am very much looking forward to the finished article, cheers, Pappy
  11. Lovely job on the office Steve. These old Mono kits really had nicely done cockpits and undercarriage bays. Can't wait to see more, cheers, Pappy
  12. Luv the Pig! Like the bare bones strip as well, I think Ex Bright White could catch on! cheers, Pappy
  13. I had a look on-line for WE.177 images and it turns out that the WE.177 designation is just one component of a very complex weapons system with lots of additional designations depending on the various warheads and appplication but the ejection warning traingle markings are a thing! cheers, Pappy
×
×
  • Create New...