Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

93 Good

About OneEighthBit

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I just got my kit and I must say it's very good. There are some minor details that are incorrect but nothing you cant fix with a scalpel and plasticard. The Hotspur can be quite tricky to get completely correct due to the weird hybrid Mk.II/III phase where there's a lot of partial conversions. The second paint scheme with the black underside is incorrect though - the Hotspur Mk.II/III only had the "target-tug" stripe scheme. The photo they've used for reference look black because the entire underside of the glider is in shadow. My only complaint would be the thickness
  2. It's an optical illusion cause by the underside of the wings being almost flat and the the bottom of the fuselage being so curved. View straight on from the bottom the lines, well, line up. Training gliders followed the RAF regs. for tug aircraft in terms of how the bottom was painted. I wasn't meaning to be critical or unfair. I'm very excited for the kit and have been looking forward to it for ages. The Hotspur just happens to be an aircraft I'm very knowledgeable about. I'd be curious which photo you're referring to for comparison. I don't have a cl
  3. The Dark Earth/Green is correct but they were never painted black on the underside. They photo they've used in reference they've misinterpreted the underside being in shadow. The stripe on the centre fuselage is incorrect. I believe they've referenced one of the prototypes which has a slightly incorrect application but was rectified in the others. The fuselage stripes should be in line with the stripes on the wings. also the stripes aren't aligned with the port underside roundel which is the starting point. No.1 Service Flying Training School is incorrect, it's Glider Pilots Exerci
  4. Just ordered mine. Curious to take a closer look but that paint scheme sheet is already alarmingly incorrect.
  5. Sorry to dreg this out of the depths again but am getting close to be able to tackle making a model of this. I just wanted some opinion on something i read in the AMO's on marking - I noticed this is from 1942 but don't know if it's relevant: "(ii) Special markings may not be carried, except- (a) by aircraft of allied air forces operating under R.A.F. control or when it is desired to distinguish particular or presentation aircraft. In such cases a marking not larger than 9 in. by 6 in. or an inscription in 2 in. grey letters, may be carried on the sides of the fuselage forward of t
  6. I've got myself a bit of a challenge... I want to add some text to a model with gold lettering outlined in red. Fox Transfers make a nice set but only in 9mm and I need it in 2mm. This leaves me with two issues: 1. I need to use a 2mm letter set and assemble the text letter by letter. 2. If I want to create a read drop-shadow I need to put the letters down first in red and then gold on top slightly offset. As that scale it's going to be laborious. Are there any pro-tips on solving this? For example, can I somehow cut-out the letters and asse
  7. Have to admit, I always used meths (T-Röd here in Sweden) and it worked fine.
  8. Funnily enough it mentions in the article that accompanied the photo that the town was going to try and buy a Spitfire next.
  9. Wow. Thanks all for the input. This is indeed "Cheltenham Queen" so glad to get the confirmation of the V7774 serial. I'm thinking to pass the time at Christmas I might have a go at making a 1:48 scale model. It's most for my own amusement so I thought I'd use the Airfrix Mk.I kit. Not being a Hurricane expert I just wanted to check - going off the photo and date I'm guessing the dark earth, dark green and sky colour scheme? I noticed it didn't have the sky tail band either. It also looks to me like it's painted in the "B" Scheme? (I'm going off the Bridgewater/Combat C
  10. Think the picture is sharing now. Sorry about that.
  11. Found this picture (hope it embeds) in an old local paper dated March 1941 stating that the Hurricane which had been bought during a "Wings Week" collection was now in service use. Any consensus on the mark and serial? I read it as V7774 which was lost in Egypt, September 1941: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16997722 What little I've been able to figure out, if it is, V7774 is that it's a Mk.I built at Brooklands/Langley with a Merlin. III engine. I would assume if it went to Egypt it would have been repainted and fitted with a Volkes f
  12. Thanks all for the great replies. I wrote the extract as written in the translated report do the capitialisation of MUSTER through me off. I think an HE 46 towing a FW.56 seems about the most likely candidate in this case.
  13. All, I've been reading a translated French document from 1940 that describes some Luftwaffe experiments with towed gliders. There are no pictures but there is an interesting description that I'd love to see if anyone can identify the aircraft types from. "The Jarhbuch des deutschen Luftfahrtforschung draws attention to the towing of a FOLKE WULF [sic] by a MUSTER HE 46 [sic] aircraft. the FOLKE WULF, with it's propeller removed and weighing 850kk was towed at a height of several thousand of metres..." I'm taking a guess that the tow aircraft was an Heinkel
  14. That's an amazing result considering what a difficult kit it is to start with in terms of technical accuracy! You've done a great job and added some really nice details and the finish is excellent. I can't believe it's been almost 8 years since I gave you some details - I wish I'd known you were still working on it as I've uncovered so much more about the glider since then I could of given you so much more help! Regardless, excellent result!
  15. Didn't Edgar find the official wartime instructions on the factory paint finish? I remember it saying something about making sure everything was smoothed over to help reduce drag. I would assume this gave it some sort of "sheen" though I guess in most service pictures their a bit mucky and look more matt.
  • Create New...