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. :)

dad's lad

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Good

About dad's lad

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday 01/16/1959

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,582 profile views
  1. As had been mentioned there are a number of faults with the Heller kit but I've always liked it and with raised panel lines is easy to sand down to convert to other Mark's like the Mk.IId or the Mk.iV. One thing that always bugs me though is that Heller in their wisdom only provided one landing light and even that is in the wrong place (approximately too far inboard by it's own width). At the very least you might want to add one to the other wing. Clive
  2. Yes I remember the old baggie well, silver plastic if I recall. I just can't fathom why, when they made this new mould, they then made a retrograde step of removing detail in later releases.
  3. I liked this version of Airfix's Stuka, I never understood why but in subsequent mouldings, the mainwheel halves were moulded as part of the spats rather than separate as you have here. Clive
  4. Thanks Mike, funny thing is that I can't find any mention of this in any reviews or builds previously.
  5. Cheers Jure, that confirms my suspicion that Airfix have them in a VERY wrong place. I'll leave them off until the gear doors are on then attach them. Clive
  6. Yes I know that the Eduard kits are better but being in the possession of 2 Airfix Bf110's I'm determined to build them but I've always been bothered by parts 61D and 62D. These are staple shaped bits that fit across the undercarriage legs and are VERY visible on the finished model. I think they're meant to be in contact with the gear doors and that Airfix have them too low but can't find anyone mentioning this before. I do have both Eduard and Italeri kits and these seem to have them where I would expect. Can anyone confirm that I need to locate these parts higher please? Clive.
  7. Wow from that angle it really looks the part. I don't know why but I always find this variant of the Do17 family to be the most elegant before the front end was turned into a greenhouse.
  8. One thing that will need correcting if you're of a mind to do so, the aileron lines inboard do not align on the top and bottom surfaces of the wings by quite a substantial margin but given some of the other challenges that this kit offers that's probably the least of your worries.. Clive
  9. I find the mk.v interesting as you can clearly see that the designers were trying to clean up the Blenheim aerodynamically; fully retracted undercarriage, streamlined nose etc. From some angles it looks quite purposeful but from others looks like it fell from the ugly tree
  10. Must be an optical illusion but in that overhead view, it looks like the rear fuselage is twisted to starboard...
  11. Thet yellow looks great. Which Halfords one was it? Clive.
  12. This was the first kit that I actually used Humbrol authentic paint on. I can still remember the dead smooth and dead matt finish. Finished with helgrau and dunkelgrau I probably painted the best brush-applied mottle that I have ever done.
  13. Actually I have a set of vacformed transparencies for the Airfix so it might get built after all...
  14. Thanks Rob, so my Minicraft Venturas (Venturi?) and Revell/Italeri Hudsons are ok (setting aside any buildability issues) but trash the Airfix Hudson. Clive.
  15. Yes I'm easily confused and as I reach my golden years, the little grey cells are not as accommodating as they used to be; but having read this thread a few times, with all the to-ing and fro-ing, what please is the definitive answer regarding elevators on Hudson's, Venturas and other Lockheed twins? Single or split? Clive the (constantly) confused.
  • Create New...