KRK4m

I assume you're waiting for the group photo of the Savoia seaplanes until S.66 is finished Well done, brother 👍 Cheers Michael

Are you sure? Because I know the completely opposite version "...the German DB601A-1 liquid-cooled inverted-Vee engine was installed in a C.200 airframe (MM445) to create the prototype of the C.202. This machine flew for the first time on 10 August 1940..." Fighters, attack and training aircraft 1939-45 by Kenneth Munson, Blandford Press, 1969, p.136 These are good questions. Unfortunately, the best C.200 drawings I know and the best C.202 drawings I know are not the works of the same artist. But analyzing the subsequent cross-sections, it is clear that the corresponding frames of the rear part of the C.202 fuselage are not only shallower, but also narrower than the corresponding frames of the C.200. For example, frame #11 has dimensions of 115x87cm in C.200, and 105x80cm in C.202. Similarly, frame #15 has dimensions of 83x63cm in C.200, and 73x58cm in C.202. The main question is whether C.201 frames are the same as C.202 or are they "somewhere halfway" in terms of dimensions. I assembled (after adjusting the scale) C.201 drawing sent by Gianpiero, which, however, differs slightly from "my best" drawings of C.200 and C.202. The tailplane is too far forward and the cockpit too far back. But if we assume that the outline of the rear part of the fuselage is well reproduced, the cross-sections in frame stations 11 and 15 are (with a tolerance of 1 cm) consistent with C.202, and not with C.200. Therefore, in my opinion, the entire process of slimming the rear part of the fuselage in the development of the C.200-201-202-205 family took place only once, between C.200 and C.201. When installing the DB601 engine in the MM445, the entire fuselage section from frame 4 to 22 of the C.201 was used, while the C.202 fuselage in the section from frame 0 to 7 was slimmer only due to the narrower in-line engine - the fuselage did not have to widen forward for better aerodynamics transitions from the circular cross-section of the radial engine cowling. Cheers Michael

Complete C.202 wings (with a 7.7mm SAFAT machine gun between the sixth and seventh ribs) began to be used in 1942. This applies to the entire series XXI and XXV produced by Breda (MM8131-8250), the entire series XXIII (MM8596-8615) and XXIV (MM8618-8643) manufactured by SAI-Ambrosini and probably a dozen or so aircraft of the XX (Ambrosini, MM8437-8466) and XXII (Macchi, MM8794-8843) series. In total, this is about 20% of the whole C.200 production. But I never wrote that it was "the same" wing, only that they were interchangeable. As for the fuselage, the C.201 had a much smaller cross-section. Frames 4-9 were lower by as much as 12 cm, towards the fuselage tail these differences were smaller and smaller. This is a difference greater than 8 cm between the height in the cockpit area of the P-51A and P-51B, and even than 11 cm between the cockpit heights of the P-40B/C and P-40D/E. Cheers Michael

Frankly speaking, I have no idea how to distinguish rubber from vinyl. I have to apologize to Messrs. Heller and Matchbox (boxes numbered PK-30...) - their tyres are still OK after these 35 years. Only the ones manufactured by Revell of Germany were deformed (the Matchbox-branded boxes, numbered 403... and bearing the inscriptions "distributed by Revell AG Bunde") - 4 tyres in the Mercedes SSKL (2 are still good) and all 5 tyres in the Jaguar SS100. Cheers Michael

When, as a teenager, I was starting to learn about WW2 planes, I had it in my head that the C.201 differed from the C.200 basically only in the fuselage (after all, the C.200 and C.202 wings were interchangeable, so the C.201 should also have same). Now I don't remember whether the information came from W. Green "Warplanes of the 2nd World War - Fighters vol.2" or from the Czech monthly "Letectvi a Kosmonautika", but for me for over 50 years C.201 is (in short words) a C.202 Folgore with an A76 radial engine (a development of A74 with A80 cylinders, i.e. a stroke longer by approximately 15%). And since this engine did not go into production, it was replaced by the inline DB601, resulting in C.202. Cheers Michael

Over the last 4 years, I have always shown here the 1:72 scale AFV models I have built - there have been 37 of them so far, but a good dozen are in various stages of completion on my work bench, and another dozen are still in boxes waiting for their turn. Today, however, I am starting to show my much more modest collection - classic sports cars from the era when motoring still had something romantic in it, or more precisely: two-seater roadsters from the 1920s and 1930s. When races and rallies were nothing like today's carousel, dotted with a mosaic of advertisements and fueled by huge amounts of money that had nothing to do with motoring. The then racing driver changed car marques from one race to another and... won. The names of Caracciola, Nuvolari, Birkin and Chiron did not leave the newspaper columns, just like Mrs. Simpson, Charles Lindbergh or Rudolf Valentino. This is a very special period of motor sport: the birth of the Le Mans 24 Hours and the 1,600-kilometre Mille Miglia. And at the same time, the times of cars in which you could win a long-distance rally, a week later a Grand Prix, and then go on public roads on holiday (with a lady and her suitcases) to the Riviera. Would today's Red Bull F1 be suitable for this? Such cars were, for example: Bugatti T35, Mercedes SSK or 4.5-litre Bentley. About 30 years ago I bought 10 such kits: four 1:32 Airfixes, four 1:32 Matchboxe and two 1:24 Hellers. I started with the largest ones - Alfa Romeo 6C 1750 and BMW 328. I opened the boxes, glued together (without painting) a few parts and... I came to the conclusion that this size did not suit me. BTW, if anyone is interested, they are available for purchase - 90% of the parts on the sprues, decals, instructions, etc. I definitely liked 1:32 more. Maybe because the tiny 65x15cm shelf can accommodate the entire collection, i.e. a Bentley, an MG, an Aston, a Jaguar, a Mercedes, an Alfa and two Bugattis. The first one was the Matchbox SSKL, which I modified into a slightly less exotic SSK - unfortunately, after 30 years, the rubber tyres (what a stupid Matchbox idea) became slightly deformed and the model is no longer suitable for presentation. I will try to print new tyres using 3D technology, especially since the problem also affects other kits that have been in factory-sealed boxes for 30 years. The second in the collection was the 4.5-litre S/C Bentley, commonly known as Blower. Walter Owen - the youngest of Alfred Bentley's 9 children - although he was educated as an engineer, he started as a railwayman. Then he managed a fleet of taxis, raced motorcycles, and finally, in 1913, he patented the use of aluminum for the production of internal combustion engine pistons. During the Great War, this patent was used by the two largest British aircraft engine manufacturers - Rolls-Royce and Sunbeam. In 1916 at Humber, W.O. built the first rotary engine with aluminum pistons and cylinders - the 9-cylinder BR.1. for the RNAS Sopwith Camel naval fighter. It is therefore not surprising that the first Bentley car, introduced in 1921, a 4-cylinder 3-litre model, also had aluminum pistons, pent-roof (almost hemispherical) combustion chambers with 4 valves and 2 spark plugs per cylinder, an overhead camshaft and a dry sump . It was offered with three wheelbases: 274 (called Green Label), 298 (Red Label) and 330 cm (Blue Label) - a total of 1,640 cars were sold. Due to their 1,610 kg kerb weight, they were nicknamed "the fastest lorries in the world" by Ettore Bugatti. After the introduction in 1927 of a larger 4398cc engine (100x140mm, still 4-cylinder, called 4.5 for the marketing purposes), many owners of 3-litre Bentleys ordered the installation of a new power unit in their cars. It is generally believed that this only concerned models with two longer wheelbases, as the factory "4.5" model (730 built) was also offered only in these two variants. And my model is "slightly What-If" - it has a supercharger, radiator and engine hood from a typical Blower, but the rear part of the body (covered by Weymann with fabric stretched over a wooden frame) is shortened by 24 cm to fit the shortest 3-litre Green Label chassis. In the model, this required shortening the chassis, body and tonneau cover by 7 mm and eliminating the little doors. This is how my "dream Blower" was created - if I had been born 70 years earlier and had a lot of money, such a Bentley would have been in my garage. Charged with a Roots compressor such a 180 hp (in road version) monster reached a speed of 200 km/h - quite enough, even today. However, it was worse in terms of fuel consumption (3 MPG, i.e. 94 litres/100 km in racing conditions), durability and reliability. Both cars starting in 1930 did not finish, although after 18 hours they were placed third and fourth, behind the two (ultimately winning) 6.5-litre Bentleys. Blower thus became the only Bentley not to win the Le Mans - in 1924 and 1927 won by the 3-litre, in 1928 by the naturally aspirated 4.5, and in 1929 and 1930 by the N/A 6-cylinder 6.5-litre variant. It's unbelievable, but this Airfix tooling, last numbered #02446, is already 70 years old. The kit is painfully simple, but in my opinion it can still be made into something that, when assembled, resembles that legend from 95 years ago - it just looks like Blower. There are only 40 parts in the box - OK, 43, but no one seems to use the 3-part driver figure. At first glance, two faults are visible: the front ends of the front wings are much too long, and Airfix made the folded windshield as an opaque non-transparent fairing. In addition, the exhaust pipe could have a fishtail, and 2 small individual wind deflectors were usually fitted in front of the driver and passenger. I built it 30 years ago (shortening the chassis and body by 7 mm, and the wing noses by 11 mm) and placed it on the shelf next to the SSK. Then it had to survive my 3 moves until I finally decided it needed some facelift. A week ago it was dusted off, washed, given new paint and varnish, I extended the exhaust with a fishtail, I attached small individual windows in front of the driver and passenger, and I replaced the silver windshield painted according to Airfix's instructions with a transparent folding window - like in the full-size original. The paints are – as always – Humbrol enamels painted with Italeri brushes. This time the greens are # 163 (metal parts) and # 86 (Weymann fabric). Finally the Vallejo matt and glosss acrylic varnishes were brush-applied overall. The photos are taken with an LG smartphone. Comments are welcome. Cheers Michael

Don't you think, @Homebee, that this is exactly THE SAME subject? Cheers Michael

Don't you think, @Homebee, that this is exactly THE SAME subject? Cheers Michael

Thanks for your replies, @dogsbody and @griffsrw. I was also thinking about aftermarket resin tyres, but do you know where I can buy them? Ultimately, I will choose 3D printing, because I can do it at home Cheers Michael

About 30 years ago I bought a dozen kits of interwar roadsters - 5 Airfixes and 5 Matchboxes in 1:32 plus two Hellers in 1:24. I recently opened these boxes - the Airfixes are OK, the rest - not so much. What is the difference? Airfix engineered the tyres as integral with the rims, injected from polystyrene. Matchbox and Heller have rubber tyres - and that's a problem. Some tyres (BTW why not all?) lost their shape. They have swollen and softened. What this is about? Can I buy something as a replacement somewhere? Is it only a matter of time before the remaining rubber tyres deform? Are these 7 kits only suitable for the bin? Cheers Michael

What difference does it make, Chile or Uruguay, for a model manufacturer who placed the city of Bourges (200km from Paris) in Africa (H75 #AZ7572) and for the Albatros C.III #KPM0150 created the non-existent Mokotovice airfield in Poland. I am afraid that we will encounter such mistakes more than once in future KP/AZ models. Cheers Michael

It is with great pain and regret that I inform you that Dr. Bartlomiej Belcarz, founder and co-owner of the STRATUS and Mushroom Model Publications publishing houses, has died at the age of 62 after a long battle with a merciless brain cancer. We met in 1974 during the qualifying round for an aviation knowledge quiz TV show. Then Bartek completed his history studies and obtained his PhD. He wrote several dozen books about airplanes and aviation people. He published several hundred of them in his publishing houses. Without him the world will no longer be what it was. Grant him eternal rest, my Lord... Michael

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, I don't feel up to creating an English Wiki page about Ciastula, but then again, not every F/Lt got an OBE. Before WW2, Poland had many talented aircraft engineers and most of them fortunately managed to avoid German or Soviet captivity. And those who stayed in the West after the war worked on many leading aeronautics and even space projects. Jerzy Dabrowski, author of the PZL-37 Los bomber, worked on JetProvost, Gnat, B-58 and Space Shuttle. Wsiewolod Jakimiuk (of P.11, P.24 and P.50 fighters fame) was the author of Chipmunk and Beaver, and later worked on Sea Venom, Caravelle and Concorde. BTW @Dennis_C Jakimiuk - although a Polish citizen - was of Belarusian nationality. Stanislaw Prauss (author of the PZL-23 Karas bomber) worked at Westland on the Welkin, and then at DH on the Venom, Comet, Sea Vixen, Trident, A300 and BAe146. Henryk Millicer (of PZL-46 Sum) settled in the antipodes, where he created the Jindvik target drone, and then - the family of popular Victa Airtourer/Aircruiser/Airtrainer aircraft. And Dr. Stanislaw Rogalski (together with Jerzy Wedrychowski - i.e. R and W from the RWD acronym) became chief engineer and director respectively of Turk Hava Kurumu Ucak Fabrikasi, where they created the THK-1 glider and the THK-2, THK-5 and THK-11 aircraft. After the war, Dr. Rogalski worked in the USA on C-123, E-2 and F-111. This is how the history of the world works Cheers Michael

It's hard for LF to develop the same elements twice, once for the Wasp and separately for the Scout, if it's basically the same helicopter - almost like the army and naval Lynx. BTW this will probably sound strange to most of you, but the designer of both the Scout/Wasp and the Lynx was a Polish engineer, F/Lt Tadeusz Ciastula, OBE, inherited by Westland from SARO (where he created Skeeter), and previously Cierva. Cheers Michael

At last! Still waiting for the Breguet XIX and Farman F.40 though. Cheers Michael

Well, that's a bummer 🤔. By the way, my first P-47 was also a Revell H-613 Bubbletop D-25RE, built OOtB as the 56th FG MX*E in 1971. Cheers Michael

Actually this the 1999 new tool Revell Jug.... Cheers Michael

A surprise attack from Hungary. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/armada-hobby-n72165-m59-apc--1542063 Very expensive (~50 E), but certainly better that the only one offered so far by Hobby Den. If only someone had come up with the idea of releasing the Korean K200 in this scale, I would be in paradise. Cheers Michael

It's a pity you don't have the documentation that would allow you to release an equally comprehensive collection of Breguet 19s... 😢 Cheers Michael

Indeed, the photo shows something strange, although the 5 designs you showed absolutely do not exhaust the variations of external P-47 tanks. There were a total of 11 of them and you can compare them (all drawings are in scale - it was supposed to be 1:48, but the printing house made it 1:52) on page 20 of my P-47 brochure (TBU #158). Under the fuselage there were American metal tanks with a capacity of 200 USgal (semi-drop, adjacent to the fuselage, for ferry flights or flat, box-shaped), 150 USgal (cylindrical), 110 USgal (drip), 75 USgal (drip) or British ones made of reinforced cardboard (all cylindrical) with capacities of 90, 125 or 165 ImpGal. Starting with the D-15 variant, almost all of them (the exception was this 200-USgal semi-flush ferry tank) could also be carried under the wings. It was also possible to install there (not limited by the low ground clearance of the fuselage) two other types of metal American teardrop tanks with a capacity of 150 or 165 USgal (from the P-38). The record holder was the P-47N - the only variant cleared with 310 USgal underwing tanks (from the P-61). Cheers Michael

The FK.58 (which was essentially an evolution of the D.XXI made by Schatzki for the French) also had an identical telescopic sight protruding through the windscreen. Although the front exhaust ring indicates a Bristol engine, I still only see 7 cylinders in the row, and the Mercury would have 9. But there was no 7-cylinder Bristol... Interesting thought - I completely forgot about this prototype. But it was in the Netherlands in 1940. The spine shape and the canopy in the D.XXI and FK.58 are almost identical - the designer of both was Erich Schatzki. Great link, although I came up with the idea of scrolling down the table with individual stories only after reading the entire text letter by letter three times To sum up: you are right, both the 4 MGs in the wings and the lack of the upper tailplane strut indicate that it is not an FK.58. It seems that an elderly man well over 60 should sleep after midnight and not (cursorily) analyze photos. Sorry... Cheers Michael

Everything's fine, except it's not a Fokker D.XXI. The French camouflage and markings are original, and the plane has a 14-cylinder French engine because it is a Koolhoven FK.58. Cheers Michael

Contrary to the above opinion, I must say that the Italeri 1283 re-edition is much improved in detail, just like the Italeri 1322 FIAT CR.32 (ex Supermodel 10-009) Cheers Michael

Don't feel too pressured to go with the long-tailed version (unless it's the P-40L), Brother. The French of the LaFayette Group used the P-40F with both short- and long fuselages. Cheers Michael

I faced a similar problem a few years ago. In the same way, I have been building aircraft for 50 years and despite a few attempts in 1:48, a dozen in 1:100, one in 1:32 and one in 1:24, I stuck to 1:72 - today I have over a hundred of them in the display case and a similar number in stash. I've never built a tank in 1:35 or a ship in 1:350. Once upon a time, 50 years ago, I built two ships in 1:600 (Airfix) and four AFV in 1:76 (ditto). In this way, the natural choice for my warships was the 1:700 scale (I already have over 20 of them), and the 1:72 scale for the AFV (I'm already approaching 50, plus a dozen or so on the pile). In today's reality, exhibition space is becoming an increasingly luxurious good - I leave ships in 1:350 and AFV in 1:35 to the wealthier. Well, unless someone needs just 3 ships and 10 tanks - then you can stick to such scales. Cheers Michael