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

    841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

407 Excellent

About KRK4m

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 25/04/1957

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,310 profile views
  1. KRK4m

    wishes for aircraft kits

    New tool 1/72 injection kits from my wants list are (top ~30): pre-WW2: Farman MF.11 and F.40, Caudron G.III and HD.14, Salmson II, Potez XXV, Albatros B.II and C.III, DFW C.V, Rumpler C.I and C.IV, LVG C.V and Polikarpov R-5, WW2 era: Cessna C-78, Beech AT-10, Curtiss C-46, Vickers Warwick, Miles Master, Beaufighter Mk.II, Mosquito XVI/XXX, Macchi C.202, Tachikawa Ki-9, Mitsubishi G4M1, post-WW2: Cessna L-19, Grumman F9F-6, Republic F-84F, Sikorsky MH-60S, MiG-17A, -19S and -21PFM, Yak-12M, Avro Lincoln and Anson C.19, DH Venom, Cheers Michael
  2. KRK4m

    Operation Musketeer in 1/72

    Yes, I know this But if the Gannets were left ashore (Malta perhaps) they also could wear stripes like the NF Meteors operating from Luqa... Unfortunately they weren't - perhaps they were flown back home from Malta to the UK And now any Gannet in our cabinets looks "plain" EDSG/Sky among all these black/yellow striped FAA a/c of the 1950s. Pity Cheers Michael
  3. KRK4m

    Operation Musketeer in 1/72

    Wyvern, Seahawk, Sea Venom, Skyraider, even Avenger - why there was no Gannet with Suez stripes? All were relegated home before the attack? Cheers Michael
  4. After the 1955 refit (angled deck introduction) HMS Eagle sailed in May 1956 to Malta with the air wing consisting of Seahawks, Sea Venoms, Wyverns, Gannets and Skyraider AEWs. Then the Gannets were flown home from Malta and R05 took part in Operation Musketeer in the end of October. Afterwards (somewhere in 1957) another Gannet flight is listed again as operating from the Eagle deck. My questions are: does anybody know the dates when the first Gannet flight (812 NAS) left the Eagle deck and when another (814 NAS) Gannet flight landed on the same deck after the Suez campaign? when were the black & yellow identification stripes painted on the Eagle aircraft in 1956 and when were they removed? are there any photos of the R05 deck featuring any "striped" planes (Seahawk, Sea Venom, a.s.o.) side by side with Gannet (with no stripes of course)? Thank you in advance for any help in this matter Cheers Michael
  5. KRK4m

    1/72 IBG PZL -37 Łoś (Elk) - confirmed

    At last I managed to get both Fly and IBG products onto my desk. Needless to say both are GREAT improvement over the 1985 ZTS kit, currently marketed by Mister- or Mastercraft. It is also true, that IBG is a tad better in ALMOST every area compared. The Pegasus engines are quite acceptable, the resin ones of Fly kit will be more difficult to process with. Same applies to bomb bays (resin in Fly kit), while bombs themselves are much better in IBG kit. IBG also has better reproduced the fins, rudders, tailplanes, undercarriage, props and transparencies. So where are these very few faults? One is overall dimensions - IBG kit is about 2mm too short and the wingspan is 1mm too big. On the other hand Fly is 1mm too long and the wings are 1mm too short - I can easily live with both inacuracies. Second is fuselage height - both kits are about 1-1.5mm too high at the highest section point (just behind the pilot seat). Yes, I know that they follow the drawings universally recognized as the best ones. The only (?) problem here is that the factory drawings don't exist and that the photos say something quite different. But this will be discussed in the end. And the third issue - outer wings of PZL.37 were attached to the centre part (like in the C-47/DC-3) using the vertical flanges protruding outside the wing surface, After fitting the hundred (or so) horizontal screws and nuts the joint was covered with some longitudal fairing. Looking at the photos you can easily find that width to height ratio of this fairing was something like 5-6 to one. And this is the way they are reproduced by Fly in their kit (both above and under the wing). IBG fairings (only on the topside, as on underside they are totally omitted) are exactly half-circles in section (2:1 ratio) which spoils otherwise perfect (and surely the best on the market) PZL.37 kit. <copyright photo removed> Sorry - look at the entries #31 & 40 above as well as pictures # 26 & 27 at the review linked to at entry #35. So now my few words about the drawings the kits were based on. When you look at the real plane photos you see the LONG glazed nose with almost horizontal upper edge and upturned lower part - see the PZL.37 exhibited in Paris. You can also see the very low windscreen - the general fuselage outline looks like the wing section with only diminutive "dents" for the windscreen and tail gunner's stand. It's also well visible on this worldwide known picture of Romanian "211" (c/n 72.137). Contrary to my interpretation most Polish authors for years showed the nose almost Hampden-like - either too short or lowered down. Below are the profiles used for design of ZTS 1/72 (top), Mirage 1/48 (middle) and IBG 1/72 (bottom) kits. On next picture you can see the sideviews of ZTS, Fly and IBG kits compared to the photos of three real a/c belly-landed in Romania during the WW2. In my opinion both new tools are much closer in outline shape to the real a/c - they are slimmer (both vertically and horizontally) than ZTS and both are light years ahead in surface and inner detail. Nevertheless even the better one (IBG to be precise) still doesn't look (from several angles) like the real plane scaled down. Below are the silhouettes of Fly (outside) and IBG (inside) fuselages compared to the ALMOST definitive colour profile made of the IBG one with slightly "upturned" nose. Of course it's only my opinion. I have never examined the real plane (as it doesn't exist anywhere in the world). But being an architect I'm used to "read" photos and linear perspective views. And this is the reason why I'm unable to call neither of these new tools "the definitive PZL.37" kit. Cheers Michael
  6. KRK4m

    Can anyone identify this postwar US Navy transport??

    Frankly speaking all early variants up to P2V-4 looked the same in this area except for the (TurboCompound) engine cowlings in -4 and underbelly radar in -3W. Actually P2V-1 was a very rare bird (only 14 have been built compared to eighty two -2s, eighty three -3s and fifty two -4s) and only P2V-2/5/6/7 are listed in the VP-29 a/c assignments. Cheers Michael
  7. KRK4m

    HMS Eagle 1:700 Fujimi

    I regret to say - cannot find anything in 1/700 neither at WEM site nor at the Sovereign Hobbies :( Cheers Michael
  8. As CV-36 Antietam underwent neither SCB-27 nor SCB-125 modifications it's very intriguing for me what was her actual deck colour in the 1953-57 period. The Dragon 1/700 kit manual says "intermediate blue" for the whole deck while the box picture shows some grayish chocolate on the foredeck and almost anthracite gray on the angled landing path. Do you mean that the deck planks were really brought back to their wartime hue after fitting the sponson and angled deck or were they painted in uniform with the Midway class armoured deck shade of gray? Cheers Michael
  9. There are six post-war USN carriers in my stash, namely the 1/700 Antietam (Dragon), Kitty Hawk (Fujimi), Nimitz (Trumpeter) and Wasp (Hobby Boss) plus 1/720 Saratoga (Italeri) and Enterprise (Revell). And every manufacturer uses different names for the colours that look roughly the same. So my question is whether were there any changes in USN carrier camouflage after 1955 or should all these six vessels look uniform? Is the Hobby Boss "dark gray" the same colour as Italeri "gunship gray", Revell "medium gray" and Fujimi "engine gray"? Are the (used for the verticals) Dragon "light gull gray", Italeri "gull gray", Revell "steel gray" and Trumpeter "navy gray" just various (kit maker) names for the same hue? Is it true that somewhere between 1955 and 1980 true Black was used for the angled landing path? And another question follows on - what colour should be used for the deck of the CV-41 Midway during her 1950 Mediterranean deployment? A friend of mine builds the small 1/72 diorama including the VF-72 F8F-1B, the VF-74 F4U-4 and the VC-12 TBM-3E. Was the carrier deck also "dark/gunship/engine gray" already in 1950? Cheers Michael
  10. KRK4m

    HMS Eagle 1:700 Fujimi

  11. KRK4m

    HMS Eagle 1:700 Fujimi

    Congrats! And just a little question - where can you get the 1/700 Sea Venoms and Seahawks from? The Fujimi idea of mixing the 1950 Seafires (retired from FAA before the Eagle commission) and Sea Furies (also never used operationally from the Eagle deck) with the 1960s Wessex and Gannets is totally crazy. Cheers Michael
  12. Exactly this was the reason I didn't mention her for :) Although it's easier to build the JFK using the Fujimi Kitty Hawk kit than to build the Enterprise using all the available Nimitz and Kitty Hawk bits :( Or to extend the Essex hull to get the straight-deck Midway.... Cheers Michael
  13. No, I'm not angry with Trumpeter... I'm totally furious! There's no injection 1/700 (or even 1/720) Midway class carrier on the market. There's no decent 1/700 Forrestal class nor the CVN-65 Enterprise too. The only decent 1/700 supercarrier (save the Nimitz class) kit on the market was the Fujimi CV-63 Kitty Hawk. And now a new supercarrier kit appears! Which one? Of course the CV-63 Kitty Hawk... Has anybody of you seen this "marvel"? Is it any better than the Fujimi one? Why are those kit manufacturers so stupid? A good Midway, Forrestal or Enterprise could give them much more money than Kitty Hawk will. After all every cold war carrier modeller all over the world had 20 years time - enough to buy the Fujimi kit. Cheers Michael
  14. KRK4m

    Dornier 17E/F wing details

    Quite a lot - even more than you anticipate. It' something like building the Beaufort using the Beaufighter kit. Or the A-36 using the P-51H bits. The amount of work you have to put into this task will surely exceed any "silly" price the Hobbycraft kit fetches now. The main problem with wing is not its fabric covering (here you're right) - whole wing has only the same outline, but the rag-covered one features the engine nacelles much closer to the fuselage centreline. When Dornier gave up on the vintage BMW VI engines with their tiny props he had to move the engines outboards due to the larger prop dia needed for the BMW and Bramo radials. Fortunately fitting the DB601s to Do 215 didn't require such a surgery to be undertaken once again. AFAIK roughly half of the Do-17Ks for Yugoslavia (probably the German-built ones) featured the rag wing and tightly spaced nacelles, while the later ones had metal-clad wings and widely spaced engines (althought the GR14K engines in all of them were basically the same). Thus you can easily build the Do-17Z from the Do-215 kit (and vice versa) as this is exactly the same aircraft - the 215 name appears only because Z is the last letter of German alphabet. You can also try to build Do-17Ka3, M, P or S, as they feature metal-clad wings and the same nacelle layout as Z and 215 - only the front fuselage is different. But building the E/F or Kb1/Ka2 is (for me at least) not worth bothering with. Cheers Michael
  15. KRK4m

    MTO P-38J in OD/NG

    That's incredible - the very aircraft, pictured from every angle plus a whole story about it... The most probably option for my 1/72 Academy Lightning. Thank you very much indeed Cheers Michael
×