Jump to content

KRK4m

Members
  • Posts

    1,598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KRK4m

  1. I am well aware that at the moment it may not be welcome to spend time building models of Russian vehicles. But after all we are also building those related to Nazi Germany, aren't we? I found the perfect Modelkrak resin kit of the T-37A floating tank. The problem is that it presents an Izhorsk-built variant, while almost all photographed T-37As from the Winter War, the invasion of Poland or the Barbarossa Operation are tanks produced by the Podolsk factory - a modification (theoretically feasible) would devastate the sophisticated details of the turret and the upper hull surface. Unfortunately, the tanks from the Izhorsk factory appear only in the photos of the pre-war maneuvers in Ukraine and the clashes on the Khalkhyn Gol river. But there are also photos of such tanks in Wehrmacht colours, and the Germans surely did not capture them in Mongolia . Does anybody have a photo or a colour profile of the Izhorsk-built T-37A from the 1941 Eastern Front? Cheers Michael
  2. We all know the M4, M26 and M46 in Korea, and the M48, M551 and M113 in Vietnam. But are there pictures of the pre-series T41 Bulldogs of their testing in Korea in 1953? Are photos of the M59 and M114 from Vietnam known? Did M41 # 30169845 (3CAV HQ) and M109 # 12A5365 (9-IF84) really fight in Vietnam? There could be many more questions, but I asked the most interesting ones from my point of view. Cheers Michael
  3. You might think I'm fooling myself, but it wasn't until today (after 50 years of interest in aviation and modeling), that I discovered that the three basic World War II American light and medium bombers (A-20, B-25 and B-26) most likely have no anti-icing installation whatsoever on the wings. I know that high-altitude flying heavy bombers (B-17, B-24 and B-29) and airliner-derived designs (C-47, A-29) have black rubber boots integrated with the wing leading edge. PBY and British Blenheim are similar. And here what's going on? Was it assumed that a twin-engine bomber would never have to get through the clouds of a stormy weather front? Shed some light on this at least, please. Cheers Michael PS. Although Wikipedia mentions the anti-icing installation as the basic change introduced in the B-25C, but the B-25H/J cutaways by Mike Badrocke/Aviagraphica are completely silent on this subject
  4. Due to the market debut of the new excellent 1/72 Airacobra kit by ArmaHobby my (so far almost unsuccessful) search for photos of the USAAF P-39Q, fighting in the Mediterranean in 1943-44, became even more urgent. There were only a handful of these aircraft - a maximum of 200 or so. And only 3 fighter groups: 81st FG (91st, 92nd and 93rd FS), 332nd FG (99th, 100th, 301st and 302nd FS) and 350th FG (345th, 346th and 347th FS). Perhaps single P-39Qs also went to the 68th RG (16th, 111th, 122nd and 154th TRS). All these units were rearmed with P-47 and P-51 over the course of 1944, and the surviving P-39s were handed over to the Italians and the French. Identified is for sure #44-3028 Quanto Costa (exploited to the bottom by all decal manufacturers), while two other machines from the same 332nd FG are known only from single photos, which makes it impossible to determine the complete set of markings (name on the nose, tactical number on the fuselage). I have been trying to dig it for a couple of years and in the last few days it has been pushed a lot by an excellent photo from @Ed Russell , but it is still a long way from the finish line. So maybe there is some other plane. more complete with markings? Cheers Michael
  5. Being faithful to Humbrol for over 50 years I must say, that IMHO H160 is too dark - it contrasts too much with the yellow background. I personally use H186 - here you have it on the Hetzer in a typical tricolor and on the Panther (only on the barrel and the number fields on the tower). Cheers Michael
  6. It's been 3 years since I first came across these photos, and they bother me more and more. The announced ArmaHobby kit also awakens the imagination, and here the problem of building a model has just moved away for me - in P-39Q-20 #44-3022 we do not know not only the name in front of the cabin (Jess?) Well, the area on the fuselage between the exhaust pipes and the US insignia clearly shows something white. That is, only the white is clear, contrasting with the OD background. But these two letters or numbers are completely unknown - P-39Q-20 #44-3028 has white CF letters on the cockpit door, but the P-47Ds photographed a month later already have two-digit numbers (27, 38, etc.). Here the plane has the engine covers off and only the lower ends of the two letters or numbers are visible. It may well be CP or SI, but also 31 or 51. Interestingly - the plane from photo 13/14 (we still do not know the serial number, and at that time not only P-39L, M, N and Q were flying in Italy, but also the P-39K, F, D and even the P-400 flown earlier to Morocco directly from the UK), ALMOST certainly named Eileen, has some remnants of a yellow band in front of the tail, red stripes on the wings undersides and some two letters (probably SD) on the cockpit door. Whether she has anything behind the exhaust pipes - we don't know. This area is effectively obscured by a wing. @Dana Bell - you are our last hope Cheers Michael PS. Thanks to the incredibly sharp photo sent to me by @Ed Russell you can ALMOST certainly recognize the inscription in front of the cockpit as Jolila (or Folila / Tolila / Solila) - God knows what it means, because I never met any of these words as a name. However, the biggest puzzle remains the side number - 31, 51, 61, 81 or 91? Rather, these are not letters, because those were found on the cockpit door, and in aircraft taken over from other units - such as the abovementioned #44-3028 "Quanto Costa", previously used by the 350th FG.
  7. As Peter already quoted from the USAAF TPCP Chart, the 4-bladed prop affected the directional stability, but not performance. These aircraft were disliked by the pilots and therefore the last variant (P-39Q-30) reverted to the 3-bladed prop with a diameter 7 inches smaller than that of the P-39Ns and early Qs. Years ago, the misidentification of Soviet Cobras went even deeper - lots of Q-21/25 were repeatedly identified as P-63 Kingcobras because the authors were not aware of the existence of the Q-21/25 version. Hence, many colour profiles of the Soviet P-63 without the USAAF serial number on the tail later turned out to be four-bladed P-39Q-21/25. In the face of this "qui pro quo", it would be worth re-examining the alleged combat use of the P-63 over Poland and in the Berlin operation by Pokryshkin's regiment. Maybe even the pilots also mistook all the 4-blade Cobras for the P-63? Cheers Michael
  8. IMMSMW there were 6 types of propellers in Airacobras: 3-bladed Curtiss of 10'5" (317cm) diameter in the P-39C, D, J, L and P-400 versions 3-bladed Curtiss of 11'1" (338cm) diameter in the P-39M 3-bladed Aeroproducts of 10'4" (315cm) diameter in the P-39F, K and the first 166 P-39Ns 3-bladed Aeroproducts of 11' (335cm) diameter in the P-39Q-30 3-bladed Aeroproducts of 11'7" (353cm) diameter in the last 334 P-39Ns and in the P-39N-1, N-2, N-5, N-6, Q-1, Q-2, Q-5, Q-6, Q-10, Q-11, Q-15 and Q-20 4-bladed Aeroproducts of 11'7" (353cm) diameter in the P-39Q-21 and Q-25. The RS model is designed with 2 hubs and 2 spinners (for 3- and 4-blade versions) plus 3 blades for a 10'5" Curtiss propeller, 3 blades for the 10'4" Aeroproducts and 4 blades for the 11'7" Aeroproducts in every boxing. Thanks to this solution, four of the six above-mentioned propellers are "served on the tray", and only P-39M and Q-30 require plastic surgery by shortening and reshaping the ends of the longest among the attached blades. Cheers Michael
  9. Actually the Q-21 AND Q-25 because there was nothing between these two blocks (no Q-22, 23 and 24). Exactly 109 Q-21 and 700 Q-25 were built, although many of them were retrograded to 3-blade props in service. BTW. There is a 4-bladed prop in every boxing of the RS Airacobra. Cheers Michael
  10. I absolutely do not feel like an F4U expert. My sources are just Joe Baugher and Douglas E. Campbell. Cheers Michael
  11. Thanks a lot, Tbolt - this is exactly what I have been looking for for years. You can see that the Bell engineers did not want to remake the wing armament bay covers like the P-63 manufactured in parallel, which had the same .5" MG installation in the under-wing nacelles as the P-39Q. Or maybe the accountants didn't let them? In any case, thanks to your photos, my awareness of Airacobra increased by a few hundred percent. Cheers Michael PS. Here in one of the photos you can see two rows of P-39s assembled simultaneously with at least three (maybe even six) rows of P-63s at Niagara Falls Bell factory in 1943. https://aodww2.com/betty-bishop-attends-miss-betty-dedication/
  12. Thank you, Tbolt. However in my long life I must have built 2 or 3 P-39 models and I remember that all manufacturers use the same panel layout on the wing surface. But life has taught me to be careful about model makers' decisions (see: Allison Mustang fuselage depth). And I have never seen factory drawings (I do not believe in modern ones, from the CtrlC + CtrlV era either) or photos of P-39D/N and P-39Q with open ammo bays. And the wing armament is a very sensitive part of the aircraft to modification - look at the panelling of the Curtiss P-40C and P-40D wings or the 3 layouts of the wing gun covers on the Allison-engined Mustangs. In the older P-39, the covers had to be able to handle both ammunition boxes and the guns. And in the P-39Q, the guns were hung in the nacelles under the wings, so the arrangement of the weapons chambers had definitely changed. Didn't that entail changes in the outline of the covers? Cheers Michael
  13. You'll probably take this as a joke on my part, but I've never really checked it out. Does the change of armament from 4 MG 0.3 inside the wings to 2 MG 0.5 in nacelles under the wings not entail any changes to the wing panels? Were the ammunition boxes and their covers identical? If not (and if Hyperscale is telling the truth that the first boxing will include parts for all versions from D to Q), Arma must include 2 sets of wings in the box. Cheers Michael
  14. However, I would avoid the term "raising the central and rear fuselage", because this in some subconscious way suggests a change in the contour of the fuselage spine and a smaller elevation of the vertical stabilizer above the ccanopy top. And here, there is none of these things - above the FRL and the thrust line, both the Allison-versions and P-51B/C have the same height of canopy (36 2/16") and fin (67 9/16"). Even the location of the tailwheel has not changed in relation to the FRL, as lowering the wing by 3"(while keeping the same main U/C legs and wheels) increased the parking angle from 12*45' to 13*36'. Thus, the reason for lowering the wing was not a deeper radiator (although, of course, further lowering its lower edge would inevitably result in contact with the ground), but a different design of the air duct to the compressor. Well, Allison has this duct above the engine, and in Merlin, the duct goes under the crankcase and then turns straight up in front of the firewall. This is clearly seen in the side photos of the XP-78, which have an old (slender) fuselage with the original (high) wing location, making the lower part of the Merlin cowling protrude a few inches down, spoiling the aerodynamics of the lower fuselage contour. On the other hand - as far as I remember (I sat in a Mustang once in my life and it was over 30 years ago), the upper surface of the wing is the cockpit floor there. So, did the pilot in the P-51B/C sit 3" lower (in relation to the windshield and canopy), or do the Merlin versions have the seat and rudder pedals moved upwards? Cheers Michael
  15. And you did not manage to find these, Ed? https://geekweek.interia.pl/historia/news-cessna-185-bandera-usa-w-srodku-zimnej-wojny,nId,4417455 https://pfmrc.eu/topic/65644-cessna-185-skywagon-bez-kompromisów-relacja-z-budowy/ Cheers Michael
  16. Actually, I do not have this kit (I would prefer to buy a U-17 boxing), but the inscription on the door (on both sides) should read AMERICAN RESEARCH HOSPITAL IN POLAND (not in Warsaw). Hope no problem there as there are some photos available even on the internet. Cheers Michael
  17. In addition, my southern neighbours stubbornly promote their own version of history and geography. Do you remember Curtiss H.75 from the Etampes airport in Africa (France, don't you tremble at your feet?). Or the Albatros C.III from the non-existent Mokotowka airfield? This time, colleagues from KP located the (non-existent) American Research Hospital in Warsaw, and Cessna N1649Z (since 1986 SP-FBD) was given to Poland as a gift to the American Institute of Paediatrics in Prokocim, which - as a district of Krakow - lies almost 300 km south of Warsaw. I think such mistakes are becoming a tradition for KP and AZ . Cheers Michael
  18. I will definitely fail, but if I were @Wojtek Bulhak or @GrzeM, I would have released a model of an aircraft that is missing in everybody's collection. An American single-engined WWII military aircraft, manufactured in the number of over 10,000 (some say even almost 15,000), which in addition is associated with names such as Norma Jeane (later Marilyn Monroe) and Captain Ronald Reagan. Moreover such a model even in 1:24 would be smaller than the 1:72 Hurricane, and in 1: 144 it would be the size of the 1:700 TBF Avenger. For years I have been wondering why no one has figured it out yet ... Cheers Michael
  19. I'm sorry, but I need to add a few small adjustments here: 1. Not 57567 to 69, but 57657 to 59 2. Not 57966 to 90 and 57980 to 83 (that would overlap), but 57966 to 83 However, the majority of F4U-1Cs really joined the USMC units, namely VMF 213, 221, 311, 313, 314, 441, and 451. Several went to SERVRON* 22 and CASU^ (F) 12. The only USN units operating F4U-1C from aircraft carriers were VF-85 (USS ShangriLa) and VBF-1 (USS Bennington). Identified F4U-1C with VF-85 had BuNos: 82371, 82382, 82436, 82440, 82451, 82455, 82541, 82542, 82543, 82547, 82548, 82551, 82633, 82636, 82744, 82746, 82751, 82753 and 82759 Cheers Michael * Service Squadron ^Carrier Service Unit
  20. Troy, I'm afraid you got me wrong (my poor English again). I said VMF-312 because AFAIK it was the only USMC unit to use the chessboard as a marking. But - as I emphasized - it CANNOT be the VMF-312, because the size of the checkerboard fields in your photos, their layout on the plane and (probably) the colour are completely different here. Cheers Michael
  21. Thanks, John However, I looked at the leaflet first than at the back of the box And I don't use FB (and also Whatsapp, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, etc.) Nevertheless, there are A, B, C and E sprues in my (SCW) boxing, so Sprue D with skis would fit perfectly there. Cheers Michael
  22. My ClearProp I-16 just arrived (thank you, Karaya) and a surprise inside! Well, on the last page of the instruction leaflet, next to the Ki-51, H-75Q, OV-1 and the other two (we have known for weeks) I-16 boxings, there is also a novelty, signed as "I-16 type 5 ski version". The picture indeed shows a dark green late series I-16 type 5 (with a fixed/short/rounded windshield) skiing in winter scenery. Next to the large tactical number "11" on the fin there is an inscription on the starboard fuselage side, which reads "Svobodu ugnyetyennym" (Freedom for the oppressed). Unfortunately, it has not been stated whether this set will be the #72026 or something else. Cheers Michael
  23. A few comments from a guy who doesn't really consider himself a Corsair specialist. 1. Lack of rocket stubs under the wing outer parts and pylons for bombs/fuel tanks under the centre wing, framing on the canopy sliding part, and white tapes sealing the fuel tanks at the wing leading edges make it identify this aircraft as F4U-1A, not -1D . We consider the name F4U-4D used by Troy to be a typo, because firstly, such a variant did not exist, and secondly, we can clearly see the 3-bladed propeller. 2. The plane is in a three- (purists will find it in a four-) colour USN 1943-45 livery, as evidenced by white main landing gear covers, tail wheel covers and lower section of the cowling edge. Remember that in this scheme the vertical tail was Intermediate Blue, much brighter than Sea Blue visible on the top of the fuselage, as well as the top of the wings and the horizontal tail. 3. The plane bears a (probably unit) marking in the form of a checkerboard on the cowling and vertical tail. But this is not a typical marking of the VMF-312, whose Corsairs over Okinawa had 7x36 squares around the engine and 10 vertical and 13 horizontal rows on the rudder (I remember these numbers exactly since 1979, when I painted this marking with my own hand with the 00 brush and no template on my "611" in 1:72 scale). While in the VMF-312, the fin remained blue, as did the front of the cowling itself. And here we have only 6x6 fields on the tail (with full coverage of the fin) and 3x16 fields around the engine (also covering its front edge) - so the fields are twice (comparing the side length) or rather four times (looking at their surface) larger. 4. But the most interesting issue is the colour of the chessboard. According to the current knowledge, the VMF-312 used the Sea Blue and White colours (although 50 years ago Aircam showed white and red fields). But here the dark fields on the rudder are lighter than the vertical fin base, which was light Intermediate Blue after all. So Sea Blue definitely comes off - i.e. white and red or maybe some bright green? What do you think about it? Cheers Michael
  24. Even though BuNo 82305 was a wartime one, it didn't belong to any F4U-1C, since the BuNo 82290-82369 block is actually F4U-1D (according to Douglas E. Campbell). I'd rather vote for 82453, 82553 or 82753. Cheers Michael
  25. 1. Certainly it won't be more difficult to assemble But comparing the Amodel kit (VK-107 engine) with the Zvezda is something like the P-51D and P-51H or the Spitfire VB and Spitfire XVI. 2. Here, of course, you are right - the -7DI, -9, -9D, -9B and -9R are practically the same plane, if not for the differences in armament and the number of fuel tanks - to be mastered by a moderately advanced modeller. 3. The ICM 1/72 Yak-9 is one of their first and most crude kits. Sold with two fuselages in a box, which allows you to build any version with the VK-105 engine - both with a forward cockpit (i.e. - 7DI, -9, -9B, -9D and -9R) and with one moved back (i.e. -9T , -9K, -9DD and -9M). It is also available under the Alanger brand. Unfortunately, only the antediluvian Airfix set is worse than it. It shouldn't be confused with the other Eastern European kit (originally Dakoplast, but also boxed by Eastern Express, Modelist and Valom) that is light years ahead. The latter is also available as -7B and -7V, with "rear cockpit" versions available only under Russian brands, as Valom only released all Yak-7s and early -9 versions (with "front cockpit"). Cheers Michael
×
×
  • Create New...