Jump to content

KRK4m

Members
  • Posts

    1,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KRK4m

  • Birthday 04/25/1957

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,684 profile views

KRK4m's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

1.8k

Reputation

  1. All the 1:700 and 1:720 kits of American supercarriers that I know of include an air group of F-14s and F-18s, which forces them to be built in the Gulf War configuration. Wanting to have an aircraft carrier from the beginning of the Vietnam War in my collection, some time ago I started backdating the old Italeri 5520 (CV-60 Saratoga) kit to the 1957-66 configuration. Things were slowly going well, I rebuilt all 4 sponsons and got stuck. I have nowhere to get eight 5" Mk.42/54 caliber Frogeye guns in the double-dome single mount version. In 1:350 this is not a problem, because aftermarket Mk.42 guns are offered by both L'Arsenal and Orange Hobby. But what should one do in 1:700. Do you know any ship model including these guns? One piece would be enough for me to copy them in resin. Cheers Michael
  2. As we all know, the entire family of LaGG-3, La-5/5F/5FN and La-7 are based on the same wings, rear fuselage, empennage and landing gear. Of course, there are differences in the contour of the landing gear covers, wheel diameters, rudder balance or wing slats, but generally the only very serious difference is the replacement of the Klimov (nee Hispano-Suiza) in-line engine with the radial Shvetsov (nee Wright). The analogy with the Kawasaki Ki-61 with the Ha-40 engine (nee Daimler-Benz) and the Ki-100 with the Kinsei engine (nee Gnome-Rhone) is irresistible. Unfortunately, while for years each Ki-100 kit has been based on the Ki-61 of the same manufacturer, no one can follow the same way with the Lavochkin kits. KzP's love affair with this family of aircraft began in 1973 with the La-7 kit, which we can consider KP.La.1.0. Then, in 1986, the La-5FN was released, which did not have a single part in common with the earlier La-7 kit - and yet it could use the same landing gear, propeller, tail, or cockpit interior and glazing. Let's call it KP.La.2.0. And now, in 2015, another La-5FN (KP.La.3.0) appeared, which again has no common parts with its predecessors, although it is a picture of the change in the manufacturer's approach to this family of aircraft, because the sprues clearly read "La-5FN/ La-7". Unfortunately, we did not see the La-7 from this generation (alleged KP.La.3.1), and now in the last 2 years the "new" La-5/5F/5UTI have been pouring in, which still belong to the same generation of kits, hence for me it is KP.La.3.2. More than 80 per cent of the parts are the same, only their layout on the sprues has changed. So I'm waiting for the equally "new" La-7 and maybe finally for a decent LaGG-3. Cheers Michael
  3. Mike, are you absolutely sure you mean the Chinese HobbyBoss? And not the Czech SpecialHobby? Because if it's about SH, I have it in my hands and these MG bulges are made as resin elements to be glued on an unmodified Academy styrene fuselage. Cheers Michael
  4. IMHO for 7 years we have been dealing with different mutations of one kit created from the same master. The fact that 5FN from 2015 (I have it in my hands now) has 60 grey styrene parts and 5F from 2020 has 56 of them does not matter - the technological breakdown is identical. I don't know what the surface detailing looks like in the "new" boxes from 2020 (and even more so from 2022), but for me only the parts layout on individual sprues, the picture on the box and the decals set have changed. And of course the price... Cheers Michael
  5. Well, Brother, there is some truth to this, but not entirely. Our friendly Czech brothers from MPM treated this Stinson with their usual ease. The plane in the picture on the box is the O-49A, or L-1A (long nose) #41-18915, still flying in Alaska today. The next in the instructions leaflet #41-18918 was also a longnose O-49A/L-1A, but it could not have been in Remagen in May 1945, because it was written off on July 19, 1942. The third one, #40-286, is the short-nosed O-49/L-1, written off on December 31, 1944. But the biggest mystery is the fourth camo variant, because of its age being the short-nosed O-49. Well, if its serial number is 41-070 on the fin, that's total bullshit. This serial was held by Fairchild PT-19, w/o on August 19, 1943. And if the number is to be 41-5204 visible on the wings , then ... the same thing again - this was the serial of Curtiss C-46, w/o in India on 14 August 1943. Even the coloured profile penned by M. Balous (also Czech) you attached in your second thread (WIP) shows on the tail #41-19847, which belonged to Curtiss P-40F-15CU. NEVER trust the profile without photo... You proved to be a better expert, because you recognized a plane from the Kermit Weeks collection (wearing RAF desert camo, #40-3102) as a short nose L-1, and 41-18915 from Alaska as a long nose L-1A. To sum up - the Stinson O-49 (renamed L-1 during service) was a relatively rare aircraft and tracing the fate of most of the 324 airframes made is not a complicated task (it looks completely different with smaller Grasshoppers, such as L-2/L-3/L-4 or L-5). There were only 3 contracts ordering the O-49. The first covered 100 machines from #40-192 to #40-291, the second - 42 machines from #40-3101 to #40-3142, and the third - 182 machines from #41-18900 to 41-19081. And both 1940 contracts covered the O-49 (short) variant, and the single 1941 contract, covering 56% of production run, the long-nose O-49A. Both short- and long-nosed a/c were converted during service into ambulances (short L-1B and long L-1C) and seaplanes (L-1E and L-1F, respectively). There were only 5 long-nosed seaplanes - the second known, apart from the pictured 41-18912, was 41-18907. Cheers Michael
  6. You're probably right, but converting the MkVI to MkV is just a matter of shaving the wing leading edge off the additional air intakes. As far as I remember, when I was building my MkV from the Matchbox kit 47 years ago, apart from the wing edges, I slightly modified the radiator. A total of 15 minutes of work, and in the company of monsters from Frog and Revell, this one finally looked like Tempest. Cheers Michael
  7. Void hopes, Brother. As you know perfectly well, Lukgraph is 6 km away from me, and I have known its owner for 25 years, when he went to school with my daughter. I talked to Łukasz a few months ago, trying to persuade him to release a few models of French WW1 rag wingers - some Farman, Caudron, Voisin, Letord, etc. And then he told me that there was a gentlemen's agreement between Cracow manufacturers of resin aircraft models, according to which Lukgraph only produces kits in 1:32 and 1:48. For Brailles in 1:72 or 1: 144 you must try Arek Choroszy. Cheers Michael
  8. Sorry, Graham, I'm correcting you, but you probably lost the letter A. If Adam wants a DC-3 (with 14-cylinder PW R-1830s) then Minicraft is OK. It is the Li-2 from EE (the licensed DC-3A) that features the 9-cylinder Wright Cyclones. Cheers Michael
  9. Relatively recently (rather months than years ago) somewhere on the web I saw pictures of the USMC M60A3 from the 1991 Gulf War. But it was not an ERA brick-hung one, but an old "naked" example in the Marines desert livery. The description stated that five (?) such tanks (even some serials were given) were transferred from the 197th US Army brigade to the USMC in Saudi Arabia in 1990. "Of course", I didn't copy the photo, and I didn't even note the source, and now I can't find it anywhere. Maybe some of you have also come across such a copy of the Desert Storm M60? Cheers Michael Update: on Ebay and Amazon you can buy a Chinese diecast M60A3 in desert camouflage with black inverted Vs on the turret sides. But this one is still serialled US Army 983116. Can such a toy (completely accidentally and not intentionally) be credible? Do the US Army and USMC tanks have a common numbering, or (like airplanes) completely separate. If handed over to the Marine Corps, would the M60A3 retain its original Army serial or would it get a brand new one? Is there a list available of M60 serial numbers for the USMC units involved in the Gulf War somewhere?
  10. Did this "Jong Blad" colour always appear alone on NEI planes or was it usually combined in some two-color pattern? I must say that this shade of green is very interesting - it reminds me more of a military uniform than an aircraft hue. Cheers Michael
  11. Taking into account the fact that @GrzeM from Arma Hobby was looking for pictures of the hook and catapult spools recently, you might be right. Cheers Michael
  12. Because I just dislike handling cyanoacrylate glue. I hate gluing resin details and I hate sticking all those microscopic details from photo-etched fret that you can't cut, shape, process and then fix in the right place. I can understand a PE fret with 10 or (horror) 20 elements. But Armory in their Braille scale M41 Bulldog give a plate containing 98 (!!!) elements, 30 of which could be made of polystyrene, and 30 others will never be noticed by normal people on this model. I've been struggling with it for 2 weeks and I can't see the end Cheers Michael
  13. Thank you, Dmitriy Probably not all of them, but I have seen most of them. The worst part is that the T-37A in the pictures from Finland or Barbarossa are completely olive green - they don't have any tactical numbers or even a red star. I mean, there is one with numbers on the tower (a diorama with the 1:35 Hobby Boss model and a guy with a cigarette) but it is not known what year it is. Cheers Michael
  14. The scheme is all right for a US Army plane. Most of the SEAC ones have, however, been repainted into the RAF scheme. Cheers Michael
  15. Most of these profiles and several others (probably three dozen in total) plus plenty of photos and tables (I do not urge you to translate the entire Polish text) you can find there: http://calameo.download/0013529286047affa65b7 Cheers Michael
×
×
  • Create New...