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. :)

AMStreet

Members
  • Content Count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About AMStreet

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

538 profile views
  1. I unearthed my Airfix Dornier 17Z recently as I now have space on my worktable. Opening the box I was pleased to see that there appeared to be a lot of detail in the cockpit and bomb bay areas. That is when my disillusion with this kit started. Now I am by no means what one would call a star modeller, I'm a journeyman but with over fifty years with making models I feel able to take on most of what the manufacturers throw at us. I have to say that this kit is one of the most frustrating I have come across. I thought that the ICM I16 was a challenge but this one has it beat. With some kits I find that I am able to follow the designer's thoughts and understand how and why the kit was produced. Not with this one. The first thing that struck me was the way that parts were placed, seemingly at random, on the runners. Parts that were to be joined were placed on different runners with no seeming logic and in the absence of a parts map I found I had to hunt for the part on the four runners. Not fatal but annoying. I then started to fit out the cockpit. The pilots seat was a challenge but it did seem to go together and I moved on. I had invested in the Eduard cockpit set and apart from a few problems actually getting the brass to stick firmly all was well and really improved the level of detail. So all in all I was quite happy. Happy until I tried to fit it all in place. Now Airfix have used very tight tolerances in this kit, a little too tight if my experience is anything to go by. That and the tiny location points and the somewhat fragile nature of a lot of the fittings. The two seats with the wicker effect being a good example, made fitting the cockpit difficult what with the location points being hard to use and the danger of breaking the parts whilst trying to fit them. I did get it to go together eventually but I am far from satisfied and that has lessened my enthusiasm for this project. I feel that I am going through the motions and not getting the best out of what I have to hand. That is a shame. I have always liked the look of the Dornier 17 and made a Frog example many years ago which I still have. To cut a long story short I have now got to the stage of assembling the rest of the kit. There seems to be a lot of flash in the mating surfaces which requires you to be really careful in making sure that all the parts are true. They do not fit at all well if you skip this. and again shows that the tolerances would have been better if they had been a bit looser. All that said with a bit of care and some juggling I think that this kit will make into the best Dornier 17Z I have come across. The kit seems to me to try too hard. It may be that I am not up to the job but I found that the Airfix Heinkel 111 to be joy to make. Sorry there won't be any pictures at this stage. Maybe when the dust has settled and I have painted it I might be tempted to share what I managed to do with this "curate's egg" of a model.
  2. Thanks for the replies. The photo I have is the one in the Aircam book and as you say it's not that forthcoming on the details of the tailplane. The Franklin Mint model is not correct. Iit shows a dark band on the port wing and as can be seen in the photo above that's not right and some of the other colours are suspect as well. I'll keep looking in my collection and hope that I can find the photo of the other side.
  3. I am currently making an Academy 1/72 P-47 razorback. I intend to finish it as 42-27773 The Flying Abortion 1st Air Commando Group. Now I have been able to lay my hands on a port side photo of the a/c and I did have another showing more of the starboard side but I can't remember where it was or where I put it. If anyone knows of any other references to this a/c I would be most grateful as working from just one photo is often a route to disaster. In this case the internet has not been able to come up with the goods. I even overcame my antipathy and queried Google that's how desperate I am. Thanks
  4. AMStreet

    Some colour photos

    Regarding the finish on the B26 and P47 I think that given the hard lives these a/c led a matt finish would be understandable. They were operational and the ground crew would have had no time to polish them up. That's one thing that I really dislike seeing on some restored a/c. A lot of hard work has gone into making them look as if they had been chromium plated and to my eye that just does not look right. The owners of course have every right to present their a/c as they wish but I think it is a big mistake. Just like some over-zealous restorer polishing the patina off of an antique. Generally that destroys the value of the item. Just a pet hate of mine, I'm sorry to say.
  5. AMStreet

    Some colour photos

    I just spotted this on the Guardian website: Here The one that caught my eye was of the 112 Sqn Kittyhawks. Now I had always believed that the squadron codes were white but to my eye these look like medium sea grey. Enjoy
  6. Thanks for all the replies. It was as Seahawk says the blister windows that first made me think about the similarities between the two kits. Checking the few available plans I have there are some problems with the tail end of the two models but nothing that some work with a razor saw and plastic card won't fix. One problem I can't seem to get an answer to is the observer's cockpit. I have been unable to find any references to the layout of this area. Now I know that the USN did not use this but the FAA did and as I intend to make one of the models as a Tarpon I would like to know how it was fitted. Any pointers to reference material would be of great help. Thanks.
  7. Digging through my cache in search of inspiration I came across an Academy 1/72 Avenger kit. On looking at the parts a thought struck me that they looked awfully similar to those in a Frog kit which I also have. so I checked the two kits out. Apart from recessed panel lines and a few minor differences, the parts of the two kits are pretty much interchangeable. Can anyone tell me if Academy got hold of the Frog moulds after Frog went bust or are they some sort of clone?
  8. AMStreet

    Iraqi Gladiator

    I have just dug out a number of Airfix Gladiator kits. One of the subjects I want to do is a Mk1 as used by the Iraqi Air Force during the campaign in 1941. I have a set of markings from DP Casper which covers this affair, although the instructions are, in my opinion, not worth much. Looking around the web I have not been able to find much information on the configuration of the Iraqi a/c. One of the few illustrations that I have been able to track down gives me some idea of the markings and colours but some other details seem to be missing. For instance, were the Iraqi Gladiators fitted with the Watts propeller and was a sand filter fitted? None of the sources I have seen are entirely clear on these points and I wonder if anyone here has an answer. Thanks.
  9. Most definitely down. I agree with the points made by Shane. To my mind models don't look right on stands and as I need to put them somewhere to store having them stand on their own two legs, as it were, make my life easier and I don't get quite so many breakages. Having said that MikeMaben's 262 does look the business.
  10. I've been doing a bit of research into the Mickey ship grey colour and I think I might have the answer. In Camouflage and Markings No. 13 there is a reference to a Sea Gray colour adopted by both the Navy and the Army as a replacement for Neutral Gray. This, it is said, was similar to Neutral Gray but with a blue component. As this colour was introduced in 1943 I wonder if that was the grey used for Mickey ships. The standard quoted is FS 36118. I do not have a FS colour chart so cannot confirm this but to my mind this colour looks to be a good candidate.
  11. Right, thanks for that. I'll hunt down some Neutral Gray and see how it goes.
  12. I'm thinking of doing a B-24 Mickey ship and wondered if anyone had a colour spec for the grey that was used on some of them. Most of the colour profiles look to be around the medium sea grey colour but if anyone has a more precise value it would be appreciated. Thanks.
  13. I have none. They are too big for me. 1/72 suits me best. They are much too expensive for my income and if I did build one I would really struggle to find somewhere put keep it. (One of the drawbacks of modelling for as long as I have) I have none. They are too big for me. 1/72 suits me best. They are much too expensive for my income and if I did build one I would really struggle to find somewhere put keep it. (One of the drawbacks of modelling for as long as I have)
  14. I had forgotten about the reversed rudder stripes. To me that seems to indicate that the markings were done by Sopwith using British standard colours. The reason being that they may have thought "The roundels are the reverse of ours so the rudder stripes will be as well." Thanks for all the thoughts.
  15. I have just got hold of an old Revell Sopwith Triplane solely for the transfer on the fin. The example I have is in much better condition than the ones currently available so I want to use it. After looking at a number of planes I have decided to do one in French service. The question is, are the national markings painted with British standard paints or were they remarked by the French? The reason I ask is due to the marked difference in the two sets of colours, the blue in particular being markedly different. Any thoughts would be welcome.
×
×
  • Create New...