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. :)

KRK4m

Members
  • Content Count

    983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

536 Excellent

About KRK4m

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 04/25/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Krakow PL
  • Interests
    1/72 aircraft & AFV, 1/700 warships, H0 trains

Recent Profile Visitors

1,555 profile views
  1. Still hoping that "plain" XXV TOE (SH72407) won't be cancelled ... Cheers Michael
  2. Decidely more Alphajet alike, although a little bit larger (5% in wingspan, 14% in wing area) and heavier (some 12%). The only similarity with Pampa could be the unswept wing, but Pampa weighed 3 tons less, which made the twin-engined layout unnecessary. Another retrograde step comparing to both Western designs were the single-shaft turbojets used instead of more modern turbofans. In the end only 17 were built (including prototypes), 8 of which were briefly (1992-96) used by the Polish Air Force. Sad comparison to 3000+ Aero L-39/59/159 or even to the 424 pieces of TS-11 Iskra built. Cheers Michael
  3. Exactly - in all Yak-7 and-9 variants the leg is straight and it reaches the wheel from outside (like in Hurricane, Fw190 or Tempest) while the original (older) solution was similar to the T-6/P-51 with inboard strut (bent in the middle) and outboard wheel. What's funny - the Yak-15 also uses the Yak-1/3 design, while the Yak-17 features wheels held from outside. Considering great shape commonality of the VK-107-powered Yak-9U/P and Yak-3 (both featured the ventral glycol cooler moved aft and both lacked the undernose oil cooler scoop) the best method of quick recognition is looking at the main u/c. Unfortunately it doesn't help with the modern-built Allison-powered aircraft, which differ only in the wing span and cockpit location - all they use the Yak-1/3/11/15 inboard struts and flaps following the wing trailing edge contour (in all wartime Yak-7s and -9s the flaps were perpendicular to the fuselage axis), which makes them only the "Yak-9 alike" replicas and not the copies of the real warbird. Cheers Michael
  4. I know, Richard... But I've started my MWS experience roughly half-a year ago with no results yet. Next I repeated the whole registration procedure in April, then a week ago. I'm still unable to log in using my nick and password while introducing new password is quickly blocked due to the existing password/address combination. Something crazy Cheers Michael
  5. Thank you, Chris... After some deeper studies I have almost sticked to the 80/90s MAN family. But F8 usually has square door glazing (with no bottom kink) and this "thin" bumper, while F90 features a door window kink, but the bumper is usually deeper. And yesterday (SIC!) at the neighbouring construction site I have seen some 32.322 with kinked window and thin bumper Only this circular logo in the middle of the grille is totally misleading, making "generic" really the most suitable term to use for. Cheers Michael
  6. Thus I'm also facing this "paradox of plenty"... Aiming to portray the 1/700 Saratoga in her early-1942 fit (after the 1941 deck mods but still with big guns in situ) I can either start with: Fujimi (or snaptite Meng) Lexington in the same period fit and modifying only the parts that differed CV-2 from CV-3 Tamiya (or cheaper ancient Fujimi) Saratoga in the 1943-45 fit and backdating her (e.g. the 8" guns) to the pre-Midway configuration Trumpeter/Pitroad Saratoga in the 1930s fit and introducing all the (e.g. wide deck) 1941 mods Trumpeter/Pitroad Lexington in the Coral Sea fit and modifying the parts that differed CV-2 from CV-3 plus adding the recently (then) removed big guns As I'm not a "big" expert in the maritime modelling field could you tell me which one of these 4 ways sketched above will be the easiest to follow? Cheers Michael
  7. There's a certain Irish company called Hobby Den - they run a model shop in Dublin and manufacture a wide (>100 items) range of 1/72 resin-cast vehicles. Some of them are strictly military ones like the T-72, Patton and Centurion, but many others are civilian machines - Jeeps, Land Rovers, Toyotas, Mercedes' a.s.o. And there are two truck kits (HD 20 and HD25) I'm unable to identify - a 3-axle tipper and a 4-axle lorry featuring the same forward cab with full-width grille (with some circular emblem in the centre) and quad-headlamps in the front bumper. http://www.thehobbyden.com/product_info.php?cPath=57_61_127&products_id=585 http://www.thehobbyden.com/product_info.php?cPath=57_61_127&products_id=590 Having examined all the post-1965 ranges of AEC, Albion, Bedford, Dennis, Dodge (UK), ERF, Foden, Ford (UK), Guy, Leyland, Scammell and Seddon-Atkinson I became forced to penetrate the Continental truck market too - with no results from Fiat, Iveco, MAN, Mercedes, Pegaso, Renault, Scania, Unic and Volvo. Does anybody here have any idea about the actual prototype of these two kits? Cheers Michael
  8. So mating together these 3 sources gives the following idea: - the plywood-covered (although still with metal spars) outer wings had 3 deg. more leading edge sweep, 0.92 deg (5*40' instead of 4*45') more dihedral and NACA airfoil instead of Clark (source: Avyatsya i Vremya drawings) - the wing area and the fuel capacity of arrow-winged Il-4 was increased with no increase in wing span (figures in table accompanying the drawings mentioned above) - since 1944 the wing flaps area was increased (Squadron Signal booklet, A+V drawings) However the question how many of these arrow-winged Il-4s were built remains with no answer yet... Cheers Michael
  9. Zvezda kit was born as Dragon #2512 Fresco-A with unreheated VK-1A engine (BTW it's the only 1/72 kit of this most numerous MiG-17 variant) Dragon had also manufactured the #2513 Fresco-C albeit as Jian Ji-5 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/dragon-2513-jian-ji5--123712 Paradoxically several years ago Czech Bilek company has reboxed the current Zvezda (thus MiG-17A) kit as their #965 calling it - erroneously - the Fresco-C However both these Dragon/Bilek/Zvezda kits are drastically underscaled overall (something like 1:77-78) with fuselage diameter 14% too small - massacre! Cheers Michael
  10. I don't know whether I have understood your question correctly, but today (thanks to Messrs Zvezda) I can measure the Dragon MiG-17 kit too. So the distance from the 13th fuselage frame and air intake front lip (extreme front fuselage) measures 57.0mm that is almost spot-on (should be 56.7). The fuselage behind the 13th frame (including vertical tail) should be 98.2mm long with Zvezda kit (measuring 92.5mm) being almost 6mm too short. The wings are 3mm too short in span each, which combined with 3mm too slim fuselage makes wingspan 9mm too short - massacre! Moreover the wing chord is too small 2mm at the root and some 1.5mm at the wingtips - allthough both the sweep angle and the distances between fences are correct. Tha tailplane span (overall) is 3mm too short, the chord (at the root) is 1.5mm too short, the tail fin is too short in both vertical (2mm) and chord (3mm at the root) dimensions. But the worst of all is the fuselage diameter - at the 13th fuselage frame it should be exactly 150cm (20.8 scale mm) with Eduard MiG-15 featuring 20.5 and AZ MiG-17 with 21.0 both very close. Here the Dragon/Zvezda with their 18.0mm is horribly too slim and impossible to correct. Cheers Michael
  11. KRK4m

    Mig- 17 PF. maybe?

    Unfortunately I managed to examine one (thanks to Messrs Zvezda ) at last and the dream is over... Beautifully engraved surface details, and horribly underscaled dimensions. Wing span is 125mm (should be 134mm), the fuselage is 6mm too short, vertical fin 2mm too short in height and 3mm too short in root chord. And most difficult of all to be corrected - the fuselage diameter is 3mm (14%) too small. Thus this way my idea of fitting the Zvezda (read Dragon) "unreheated (MiG-17A Fresco-A) tail" with oblong airbrakes to one of my AZ MiG-17F Fresco C kits failed. The AZ and Dragon/Zvezda fuselage parts simply cannot be mated together I will have to scratch-build this sleeker tailpipe myself as AZ refused to add the Fresco A option to their impressive range of MiG-17 kits. And I don't expect Airfix to design the second fuselage for their new kit either. Cheers Michael
  12. Frankly speaking I have been never expecting Heller to introduce anything in 1/700, but the same applies to Airfix. However we do have several 1/700 Cold War RN carriers thanks to Fujimi (Audacious class) and Dragon/Pitroad (Invincible class). Thus as both Aoshima and Trumpeter can portray the Soviet Kiev/Minsk quasi-carriers why there's nobody on the earth eager to model the Clemenceau/Foch twins or the CDG in 1:700? Cheers Michael
  13. KRK4m

    KGV versus POW

    So - the other way round - can I easily (yes, I remember the stern portholes) use the amazing 1:700 FlyHawk PoW to represent the 1943-fit (MTO ops) KGV with no mods needed to anything above the deck? Cheers Michael
  14. KRK4m

    German Jets

    But strictly speaking the "JET engine" term indicates both airbreathing (pulse jets, ramjets, turbojets, and turbofans) and rocket engines Cheers Michael
  15. Frankly speaking I also do have the Revell 1/720 "Big E" in the stash (somewhere between the Italeri Forrestal and 1/600 Kitech CDG), but I'm waiting for s'body to introduce the new tool. Upgrading these kits up to the Fujimi/Trumpeter level of modern carrier kits will take years. Life is too short... BTW Few years ago a new tool CV65 has been announced by Dragon, but the results remain unseen yet. In the meantime Trumpeter has released a new tool KittyHawk class (3 ships), that has been decently portrayed by Fujimi some time ago. It's unbelievable that Forrestal-class, Midway-class and all three French angled-deck carriers are still not existing in 1/700 injection moulded shape. Cheers Michael,
×
×
  • Create New...