Jump to content

ChristianK

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    71

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ChristianK

  1. ChristianK
    I was referring to their Fw 190 D-9 kit, which had these features..
  2. ChristianK
    They did move backwards in one aspect from their Fw 190 D-9 though - no separate ailerons and rudders. That's a little disappointing. But everything else looks great!
  3. ChristianK
    Ok nevermind, found the answer myself. The lead marker used a green flare and had the red T.I. on board only as a backup (in case of not arriving first over the target).
  4. ChristianK
    Thanks a lot Dave, already got the file from the National Archives But the file is a little cryptic (at least to me) in a certain regard - did DZ631 plane drop its target indicator or not? Here's what the file says: DZ 631/Marker Leader: "Load 1 x 1000 lb Red T.I. returned to base not required. Primary Greens fell on time and also flares making the M/P immediately visible. A/C dropped T.I. which was assessed by Marker 2 at 100 yds E. This was passed to the Controller who requested backing up by all Markers. This was well carried out the resulting concentration was 400 yds E to W across the M/P. Markers were visible through the cloud. The Markers were called off and the Main Force told to bomb the Red T.I.'s ..." Irritating to me is the quote at the beginning "T.I. returned to base not required", but later: "A/C dropped T.I." So, what happened? Is this simply a mistake in the file? And who dropped those "Primary Greens"? Also DZ631? Or was there another kind of pathfinder/target marker preceding the Mosquitos of 627 Squadron? Cheers, Christian
  5. ChristianK
    Gentlemen, my question is a short one: Is it known which particular Mosquito had been used for this mission? Apparently it was flown (or commanded) by Wing-Commander Maurice Smith and belonged to 627 Squadron (?). Cheers, Christian
  6. ChristianK
    Woah...what a risky decision businesswise (I assume), but a very welcome kit for me personally.
  7. ChristianK
    Sure you didn't get the Italeri one?
  8. ChristianK
    In this case the white fuselage band was the marking of ZG 26. In 1944 this Geschwader belonged to Luftflotte Reich (aka "Reichsverteidigung"). No relation to the theater markings on the Eastern Front or in the Mediterranean. Also, the "Königsberg" this Me 410 was based in was not Königsberg (nowadays Kaliningrad) in East Prussia, but Königsberg in der Neumark (nowadays Chojna), south of Stettin.
  9. ChristianK
    Yeah, the livery of the Cosford 410 is a post-war fantasy. This one holds no reference value at all.
  10. ChristianK
    Where there any photos from second Gruppe among them? As I said, I have seen the "reversed" practice only on planes of I./ZG 26. Not on II. and III. Gruppe aircraft...
  11. ChristianK
    It's difficult to say in this case. Yes, normally the unit code was applied to the left of the Balkenkreuz (both sides of the fuselage). But some units, especially Zerstörers, switched it around. One of these units seemed to have been I./ZG 26 - but not II./ZG 26 (to which 3U+CC would have belonged to). I just browsed trough the books by Meyer and Stipdonk on German night fighter and destroyer units and they have some photos of I./ZG 26 showing this practice. There also is a photo of 3U+CC (said there to be a B-variant because of the ZFR gunsight in the front canopy - which Airfix also doesn't represent), but only from the starboard side. Other photos of port sides of Me 410s from II./ZG 26 only show the standard practice (unit code to the left of the Balkenkreuz). So make of this what you will. My gut feeling would be that Airfix is wrong here, but you can easily modify the decal and fix this. Cheers, Christian
  12. ChristianK
    Wouldn't be suprised if they didn't name it at all. Don't know exactly if this is also the case here, but there is a tendency to invent names for German weapons which they never actually carried..
  13. ChristianK
    So, does this newsletter announcement mean: Woopsies, you get nothing? Is this another case of what Eduard did last month? 🤔😅 Errr..I mean: "the Czechs"
  14. ChristianK
    Not that I'm aware of. The B-series was supposed to use different engines but this never materialized. It also was supposed to have a different oxygen system and a "strengthened undercarriage" - But I have no information if the latter lead to any visible differences. Can someone here answer this question?
  15. ChristianK
    First to Fight - that's actually the name of the manufacturer
  16. ChristianK
    Model companies normally don't put stuff they don't sell in their display cabinets just for the fun of it
  17. ChristianK
    Fantastic news! The main problem of the Fine Molds kit isn't so much the size of the engines but that they were placed perpendicular to the ground, while they should be slanted inwards (don't know if I have explained this correctly in English but I hope you get what I mean). A mistake which was almost impossible to correct. Airfix seems to have gotten this right. Also they managed to avoid their usual "trench" panel lines here. Very excited! Looks like we've got the first correct Me 410 in 1/72, yay
  18. ChristianK
    Were talking about 1/72 here. Just paint the "thick" part of the wire (or stretched sprue) with sligthly less-thinned paint. This will be more than enough..
  19. ChristianK
    Ok thanks, good to know. Will test this out too!
  20. ChristianK
    Giampiero, great work as usual! One question: Your clear parts always seem so very transparent. Do you do anything special to them (Polishing/Thinning/Future?) or is the lighting in your photos? Or a combination of different things? Cheers, Christian
  21. ChristianK
    Thanks Dave! Of course I have everyone one of these books but volume 4 😅
  22. ChristianK
    Thanks Robert! - On this sheet they use a red-white spinner on one of the post-war Tempests, though. But the squadron color should be green...Which is correct?
  23. ChristianK
    Gentlemen, I want to build Tempest J5-J visible in the fourth photo in the second post here: https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/54728-gatow-1947-48 and have some questions about it. This aircraft is said to be SN344 and with some deliberate staring at this photo it sure looks like the serial starts with "34" - So far so good, could indeed be SN344. 1. The starboard landing gear cover definitely has the numbers 9 and 5 on it. Could this be a replacement part from SN295 which had also belonged to 3 Squadron? 2. Which were the spinner colors for 3 Squadron around 1946/47? I have green and white in my notes, but can this be confirmed? 3. I would be extremely grateful for any other shot of this plane (or other Tempest Vs of this unit during this time frame - except the "silver" J5-H, which was kitted to death already). Can anyone help? Cheers, Christian
  24. ChristianK
    Quite sure none did 🤔
  25. ChristianK
    https://unomag.ru/dms-35112-sbornaya-model-ctz-3-shtz-nati-ranniy They use it without the "Z" on their vk page though, but that's to off topic here..
×
×
  • Create New...