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. :)

Bigglesof266

Members
  • Content Count

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

247 Excellent

About Bigglesof266

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Too many to list, but these days cycling, astronomy, model railways and plastics modelling take up much of my time.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,182 profile views
  1. Did the kit come supplied with any crew figures?
  2. Your Tamiya (presumably) acrylic paints will work just fine. Still one of the easiest and all round best paints to apply by airbrush in my book. Just use the right thinners & retarder when if applicable. The downside of Tamiya's range is the absence of a hand holding range of shades out of the jar. To obtain authentic shade fidelity in many cases, they require mixing which in the absence of a predetermined formulaic guide, is experimental hit 'n miss until you get right. Vallejo and its ilk (I use them too) also work well, but are less forgiving. Same thinning Medium and additive rules apply. Vallejo, MiG, AK Interactive market a far wider no-brainer camo out of the dropper bottle colour range and in themed sets, but you pay for it.
  3. Nice. I built this kit in either late 1966 or early '67 during a childhood which increasingly now, seems a time as far off and different as that "foreign country" Hartley wrote of. Painted it from Humbrol tinlets with a hairy stick too. I always loved the D.520's aesthetic. Recall notes that I was particularly proud of the finished job I made of it, which wasn't always so. It stood on my dresser in pride of place alongside Airfix's new tool 1/72 Bf 109G-6 which had released the previous year. I liked Frog kits and the range of subjects they offered, when I could get them.
  4. Not really sure where this question should go/fits, but here was best I could figure out. Mods please move if errant. Hasegawa have a dominant emphasis on aircraft models, and this question relates to their releases in that genre. I'm puzzled by Hasegawa's unavailability for so many of their extant regular edition moulds, and wonder as to the genuine reason behind it. Can anyone who's traveled this path of enquiry previously offer informed enlightenment beyond self-apparent marketing or kits which are understandable SE/LE batch runs? Is it a deliberate manipulation to maximise price. Is there some other reason behind it. i.e. Facility production capacity? Or...? It's already observably apparent to me Hasegawa keep in production a selection of what I'll refer to as 'standard re-release' version kits within their 1/48 range. e.g. JT14 09114 Ki-61-I or JT-76 09076 B5N2. But try to buy e.g. a torpedo carrying 1/48 Hasegawa "Kate", and there's a dearth, each of which appears to be an irregular Limited Release. I understand the marketing purpose behind LE releases and obvious batch production demanded of different new decal or parts releases suggesting why availability is limited to until sold out. But what I don't understand is why for instance both torpedo and bomber versions aren't available as standard re-issue, or why 1/32 kits such as their Junkers Ju 87G 08075 which also appears a regular standard reissue appears to be a scant batch produced too so as to remain in general unavailability or on persistent backorder status even with HLJ? Very different from Tamiya availability. Thanks.
  5. Per poll. Having trouble finding either in stock ATM. Thanks.
  6. Positively inspirational work. I especially like that you resurrected the long languishing build, as we've all done at some time or at least I certainly have, to complete it...eventually.
  7. Much as I appreciate the Ki-84's performance, from mine your perspective of its aesthetic beauty is a case of beauty in the eyes of the beholder, a position no doubt others might fairly consider me equally 'guilty' of. For me aesthetically, unquestionably it's the K-61-I, although in that odd way that things do, there's something particular in that je ne sais quoi sense about the Ki-43 I & II that pulls me in. And of course, not aesthetically but otherwise, I have a love affair with all the Type 0s, not for how they looked but what they represented in terms of pilot handling & performance before they became obsoleted by the rapid advances of technology, pilot cadre attrition, and overwhelmed by sheer weight of opposing numbers conspiring placing it at a both tactical and strategic disadvantage. Thanks for that reference. I'll try to check it out. Unfortunately so many reference sources on this kind of subject go out of print once the initial print run is exhausted thereafter becoming either absurdly expensive in the second hand market if not simply unavailable. My erudition on the specific subject (powerplants) isn't of sufficient depth to debate authoritatively qualitatively, but some of the above does contradict what I have read in for instance "Zero!" Caidin's collaboration with Horikoshi & Okumiya, and remarks elsewhere or deduced by observational logic. Regardless of power/weight/diameter/capacity ratio of the engines, my understanding is that pre and early war Japanese then state of their art powerplants suffered from severe power limitations resultant in subsequent airframe design and implementation, other factors such as IJN & IJA range, speed and climb specifications taken into consideration. Some technical being metallurgy, the skilled personal and machinery to achieve necessary machining tolerances, tech and facilities limiting refining of high octane fuels, without being exhaustingly inclusive. British and German aero engine development in the 1930s is well documented, so it's noteworthy that the Japanese never enthusiastically embraced implementation whether by design or manufacture, liquid cooled engines, and the few they did with mediocre results considering the developments right through the 1930s in Britain by Rolls Royce, and in the late 1930s in Germany freed of the shackles of Versailles, Junkers and Daimler Benz in line series. Thank you for those. Insofar as I can make out in the resolution of those seen through my aged eyes, prima facie those images suggest to me by the seeming sprayed application with such cleanly defined lines that the Toryu's disruptive pattern camouflage was factory rather than field applied. Can you shed light on this? Finally thanks for you reply. You and I could chat enthusiastically for hours on this topic for sure. .
  8. Sorry not required Brad, and I didn't mean to sound harsh just honest in my singular criticism as well as equally so in my praise otherwise. As iterated, you made a splendid job of turning it into a silk purse short of major surgery, but it was neither OOTB simple fun build as I had expected from the original intro spin, nor just the result of a oouple or even "few refinements".
  9. When did you complete your (pictured) Nichimo Toryu? Very nice. I like your addition of ground crew figures. Still to build, I have Hasegawa's 1/48 regular release 1919 Ki-45Kai Tei in the stash. I do wish Hasegawa would start including IJM flight crew figures in their new tool 1/48 kits as they do in their 1/32 and as Tamiya has done in their 1/48 'since forever' though. In your research, did you come across any original colour photographs of the type, not colourised or colour plates? Agree with you that the "Nick" had the most aesthetically pleasing lines, particularly the long nosed variant. Although to be fair, though conceived for different roles, it's not aesthetically dissimilar from the step nosed "Dinahs" about which I think the same. Once can see in the two of them the prevailing design philosophy married to restrictive Japanese powerplant technology/availablity of the time. Interesting to note that the two Japanese aircraft of arguably the most aesthetically beautiful lines produced during that period came from Kawasaki in their Ki-45 & later Ki-61. Thanks for sharing your Nichimo story Toryu.
  10. Disingenuous clickbait sums it up for me. Otherwise, congratulations on splendid sow's ear to silk purse transition result.
  11. So true. I think it bears to remember very different times materially -which I wouldn't swap for quids. For instance although I did finally get that B-17, it wasn't untiI was 12 going on 13 years old. However it was always either or all or even both. I'd lusted after Airfix's B-24 since spotting it at the age of 8 playing with a friend who built one he'd received as a gift. I never managed it. By the time I could finally start to afford the occasional Series 4 or 5 occasionally, control-line flying had usurped plastic modelling and became the recipient of any available funds.
  12. For your consideration. This one is worth a look IMV. While I think the splash new entrant Border Models have made with their product at a equally impressive price point is probably very hard to beat from what we've seen, Zvezda's very recent AFV range new toolings aren't exactly shabby. Albeit requiring a higher degree of old school modelling skill in assembly, they build into accurate, detailed models OOTB, and the price point permits the addition of gobs of aftermarket goodies within the equivalent budget of a Dragon kit should that be the direction one is inclined to go. Having recently researched, bought and inspected their Ferdinand kit, I am most impressed comparing it against Tamiya's not very old tooling Elefant kit. It exceeded my expectation from my other recent Zvezda new tool build experiences. e.g. 2018 new tool Factory 183 T-34/85 - built, 2019 tooled SU-85 (3690) -currently under construction. T-34/76 Uralmash -stash, waiting in the wings alongside that Ferdinand. I'll likely be buying Zvezda's Ausf. G myself when I get around to another Pz.Kpfw IV. For basis of perspective, only other Panzer IVs I have in 1/35 are Dragon's (6315) short barreled Ausf F(1) Smart Kit, and a venerable Tamiya Ausf. H I built a 'zillion' years ago. Caveats. 1. I wouldn't buy Zvezda's Ausf. H generally, but only because I wouldn't buy any manufacturer's model in 2020 requiring Zimmerit without it being intrinsically slide moulded in as Dragon now does so well hence my favouring the Ausf. G over the H in Zvezda as a modelling subject. Yes, a limited range of Ausf. H scenarios sans Zimmerit, and Zvezda's Ausf. H kit does come with decal Zimmerit supplied in the box, 2. Whilst I demand reasonable accuracy in scale and form, in my dotage I'm satisfied with a level of detail unconcerned about a proverbial absent rivet my eyesight would be challenged to even see, or fingers frustrated to form of PE and apply. respecting YMMV. Overwhelming majority of my 1/35 armour is Dragon or Tamiya, a couple of Academy (I'm afflicted with a Hetzer obsession), Trumpeter and Italeri. Who doesn't love Tamiya fit and their new tool detail, or Dragon Smart Kit fit & detail too? Retired now, I don't like their pricing in 2020. Zvezda have lifted their game over the past decade to a point I am increasingly favouring their kits, and enjoying building them. Current count I have four Zvezda armour kits alongside all but two of their newer tool Great Patriotic War era aircraft kits in 1/48, and they won't be my last by a long shot. I'm excited about their forthcoming new tool 1/48 IL-2. Fingers crossed it's up to their Pe-2 release standard. I was going to wait until they released the later war two seater, but I think its a certainty I won't be able to resist buying and building the initial release single seater when it does.
  13. Nice result. Have to agree. That particular original box art by Roy Cross arguably represents the epitome of his work for Airfix. It made me lust so hard for that kit, I saved up and bought it either in 1967 or early 1968 which was no mean feat as even twin engined mediums in 1/72 featured sparsely during my childhood and adolescent modelling due their relative cost, and Series 5 (?) multi-engined heavies were only acquired through either the very rare occasional gift or even rarer, a great deal of desire inspired willpower and saving of pocket money for months without a model on my part.
  14. Roy Cross box art. Boys Own stuff! If I had to pick a favourite from those, and that's a tough call, it was the Stirling being bombed up. Built the Airfix Wellington, Halifax and Lancaster during the period 1965 to '70 as an child/adolescent. Ugh! 'orrible black plastic. I couldn't afford the Stirling. Don't know if that has something subliminal to do with its artwork being my favourite, but I don't think so. I picked it up with the last iteration of that box art about a decade ago and still love it just as much. Back then, the Stirling was in an Airfix price niche of its own as a top tier Series 7 kit as I recall. ICR how I afforded the Halifax circa 1966? I didn't get the Lancaster until 1970, and that was as a Xmas gift. No doubt Roy Cross' artwork sold loads of models for Airfix.
×
×
  • Create New...