Jump to content

SleeperService

Gold Member
  • Posts

    4,263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SleeperService last won the day on August 27 2017

SleeperService had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About SleeperService

  • Birthday 08/19/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Derbyshire
  • Interests
    Getting Worse as I age

Recent Profile Visitors

8,695 profile views

SleeperService's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

3.9k

Reputation

  1. Thanks for the suggestion but the style I'm after as the kit isn't on that sheet. They must be out there somewhere.
  2. Going a little bit off-piste here but does anybody know where I can find those distinctive P markings in 1/48 please? Glad to hear that as my turret plonked on another hull build is OK. I feel a lot more 'included' now. I'd love to follow a 5-way build. A very beautiful aircraft but full of traps for the unwary/poorly informed.
  3. Well it's been fun but I've finally got the top surfaces of the booms all nice and smooth. After a period where grey primer seemed to have vanished I've had a note from Halfords that it's in stock. I tried photographing the thing without but no joy. Tomorrow will see a quick trip out. I'm a bit miffed to find that the much raved about True Details wheels are the full width of the wheel bay and rather wider than they should be. Ultracast do them but the cost of getting them from Canada terrifies me. I've got the sprue numbers and am getting a price for spare sprues so I have the option for the next build opportunity.
  4. To make a Blenheim IV from a I means replacing all of the fuselage forward of the wing root. The cockpit changed completely with the change of mark unless you're building a Bolingbroke which kept the Mk.I cockpit with the longer Mk.IV nose although that means other changes elsewhere. Hopefully the Blackbird Conversion appears soon.
  5. That's some progress and no mistake. I had keyhole for my right shoulder - loved the painkillers - may need more when I see the physio in a couple of weeks. You may find it difficult to concentrate at times, I've got stuff at different stages so always something for the mood I'm in. That 6-wheeler camo looks very good and rather different from the usual nice choice.
  6. Bit quiet recently as I've been waiting for this The Soviet Soldier volume is very good and this seems pretty decent too. All needed because I have decided on the figures The idea is that the intrepid crew are heading out (or back) and keeping a watch for pesky Soviet aircraft. The engine deck guy will have the Fliegerfaust when I can make the tiny disks that hold the barrels aligned. For light relief I returned to the Mountain of Doom and recovered something mentioned HERE way back in April 2019 where does the time go? At that time I foolishly believed I had overcome the stompy feet issue. I was wrong. The stompy feet were first for attention with the side pieces made (more) symmetrical and the pin holes filled and redrilled as needed. But the triple-damned parts still didn't line up right. Words may have occurred. I went through the Rossagraph book yet again and then hit the Interweb more in hope than expectation. But I found this This is in the Rossagraph book but is very dark. See that black triangle at 4 o'clock? That's the key. The slack means that the shoe approaches the ground at a slightly shallower angle. It also explains the byzantine wheel arrangement. With renewed hope I made another set of links for one front wheel this time and this happened The links aren't sitting quite right as I moved the wheel while taking the pic and the slack moved. But I need to widen the feet slightly to match the photo. I'm hopeful of a real result. Another 280 pieces (7 per link) has me here While I was on the Web I did a bit of digging and, after cutting out some dubious claims repeated ad nauseum due to the wonder of circular sourcing, I think the story is this The machine was a co-production of Krupp, Daimler Benz and Alkett (presumably to share the blame when it didn't work out?). The Alkett plant in Borsigwalde (NW of the city centre and in the French zone Post-War) was responsible for assembly. Components are date stamped in the second half of 1941 so it must have been ready for trials in late '41/early '42. As such it would be in Panzer Grey. Trials were likely held at Kummersdorf 25km south of Berlin in Brandenburg State which was in the Soviet Zone Post_war with the Soviet Military Administration headquarters in Karlshorst Lichtenburg/Berlin. After trials it was likely sent back to Alkett where it festered until the Red Army arrived, with the end of the German War in May the Russians stripped West Berlin as reparations for the war moving equipment into the Soviet zone. The list of equipment found at Kummersdorf doesn't list this vehicle but it does appear in a 1946 'Report on interesting experimental armament found in Germany'. It was tested by the Soviets in Germany before being sent to Kubinka. They gave it a short test reporting on 31 July 1947 that it was basically obsolete and never fit for task, they then shoved it into a shed as part of the armour collection. It is certain that the Post-War trip to Kubinka was the first time it left Germany and action at Kursk is a myth. The 'production' version with a Panzer II turret is unlikely as it failed on the first trials and so would have been dropped as a project and just left with the company. As it was government property they wouldn't have been able to scrap the thing without permission and just got forgotten. So there we are. While my shoulder continues to improve I have; figures to paint, two link&shoe sets to finish, get to learn Panzer I (or maybe even Neubaufahrzug) turret details, and work out how to do the front wheel centres. Smoke me a kipper I'll be back for breakfast.
  7. I'm up for this. I have a couple of suitable ideas and, more important, the bits I need to build them. I'd really like to do the Aires from Steven Baxter's voyage book. I don't think the Mercury Little Joe tests will qualify. Err no they won't 4.5km apogee doesn't quite cut it...
  8. I think most of the time the 'issues' with a particular kit are sort of noticed by many but they are unable to pin down what's wrong. Then along comes somebody who points out the issue and offers photos etc as proof. Then everybody can see the problem and decide what to do. Seems like you are very similar. When KH released their Twogar I was a very happy bunny but nagging issues meant I got one to see. IMHO the canopy is too narrow at the front and lacks the slight bulge on the sides. This pinches the windscreen and the nose shape. I posted my thoughts and others chimed in with other observations. Accepting the fault is far easier than living with one you didn't notice. But this isn't about that kit. I really hope Meng get this right and, TBH their track record is pretty decent. The team seem capable and careful and their product is way ahead of other ranges made in the same building. I have high hopes and believe that an RF-4C would follow an F-105 nicely
  9. ICM show the clear parts with a mist of white paint to show the detail. Personally I'm happy that they haven't lowered their quality.
  10. I consider my first attempt as a major factor in my madness. Feeling much more confident now. I think this defines 'minimum effort' for a prototype, literally an unmodified turret dropped onto an unmodified hull as a proof of concept. Hunnicutt has a couple of pages including a handful of photos, that's it. After thinking I'll be removing the hull mg mount as the 75mm ammo would take up more space than the 37mm.
  11. My entry will be this beauty Sort of a prototype for a support armoured car in British Recce units with regular Staghounds. Basically an M8HMC turret dropped onto a Staghound hull with no alterations to either. Photos in Hunnicutt's Armored Car show the standard 37mm ammo racks still fitted and the track grousers on the M8 turret are obvious. I'll be starting with this From the Mountain of Doom I'm not sure what I was planning (Sawn-off Command Car?) but I know where it's going. I'll be adding the tyre chain stowage between the exhausts, 75mm ammo stowage, scratching a turret without track grousers and likely marking it as an in service vehicle. BTW there are profile drawings showing this with the USA registration in yellow. Very unlikely as insignia blue was standard USMC vehicles apart. White was ETO approved only. The Bronco kit is very nice but can be tricky to build, hopefully not this time round.
  12. People have knocked the film but I thought it was very entertaining and my nephews who I took to see it had eyes like saucers after and that's OK by me too. A great choice of subject which I'm sure you'll enjoy building and I'll enjoy watching.
  13. I think we're all hoping both statements there come true. I'm constantly amazed by these companies who are carrying on working. Utter respect to them all. After waiting so long for a Beaufort a few more weeks is bearable.
  14. Thanks for that Stefan. I wasn't aware of that as the reviews I saw at the time never mentioned them, now I'm a much happier bunny. A friend (sadly an early covid victim ) built several and then tried Academy. He was quite 'emotional' about how much easier the Academy one is to build. I've just taped the major bits together and the fit is very good and the wing seems very strong. The only tricky bit is the front lower boom to the underside of the wing joint. I think leaving the undercarriage bay loose while one fits the boom edges to the wing will be the way ahead. My plastic shows several cold flow seams in the plastic - they're smooth but, in my experience, can make a NMF tricky. I run MEK on the inside surface to prevent the join splitting later. The cockpit is a little basic so I'm getting the Aires 'pit which will also need a British seat harness. Not too big a deal.
  15. From what I've found the P-38E is the same as the F except for the stores that could be carried.
×
×
  • Create New...