lasermonkey

Nice job! Yellow 15 has always been one of my favourite Emils and you've done it proud. Cheers, Mark.

The only way you learn anything is by attempting something you can't presently do and sticking with it until you can. It's down to the individual as to whether they want to do this or not, but with it comes a limited pool of kits that meet the criteria for a shake'n'bake. Cheers, Mark.

^ Yes! Forgot that one! The holes seem to be conical, where the pins aren't. Considering I did that just a couple of days ago, I should have remembered! I decided to separate the Lanc wing spars into three sections, so that I could assemble the wings/undercarriage and attach them to the fuselage later. The undercarriage bay went together fine and the wings closed up nicely, with the proviso that the paint was scraped of the mating surfaces (the spars, u/c sidewalls and locating slots). I didn't even try to do it the suggested way! Maybe next time, on the B.II. I have to admit, I found the Tamiya Mossie (the 1/72 one) a bit fiddly. Probably my fault though! Cheers, Mark.

Of course! I'd be happy to post the swatches to you, if that helps. I'm not entirely sure how I ended up with so much Gloy stuff. I only had a couple of tins from back when they were around in the shops. I must have got them cheap off eBay or something! I'm still missing a few colours though, most notably RAF Dark Green. Cheers, Mark.

"Anyone can glue a plastic kit together." Having read through this (and other) thread(s), I think it's patently obvious that not everybody can glue a plastic kit together, at least not so it fits together well. Maybe it's because the modeller doesn't want to put the effort into making it fit (that's fine, not everybody does. Each to their own.) or maybe it's because they haven't yet developed the experience to do so. Of course, the only way to learn is to give it a go. *edit* Or have mis-read the instructions. I'm guilty of that! *edit* As I mentioned before, I have built/am building 39 recent Airfix models (of 20 different types*) and not one of them took any real effort to get together. Some of the fits were a bit on the tight side, so a minute or two with a sanding stick were needed. Sometimes I needed to remove the paint from the areas to be fitted. Sometimes I needed to do a few dry-runs to work out exactly how the bits went together before committing to glue. Nothing I haven't needed to do with pretty much every other manufacturer, with maybe the exception of Tamiya (excluding their 1/72 Spitfires**). Anyway, a few minutes with a sanding stick isn't "ages" and of those 39 kits, not one of them was what I'd call a dog. I had more fit issues with the Academy 1/72 A-10 and F-15D to be honest, and I wouldn't call them dogs either. "Most people aren't interested in making badly fitting, fiddly kits and there's nothing wrong with wanting something that's easy to build and accurate straight from the box. Most people haven't got the time to spend ages fixing up a dog of a kit" Most people? That's a sweeping generalisation. I think opinion here is pretty divided on that! No, there's nothing wrong with wanting something simple and accurate from the box. Trouble is, you end up with a pretty small list to choose from, especially if you want really simple and really accurate. There's a few very well-fitting Tamiya kits that aren't that accurate! "but what I said is the truth" No, that's your opinion, just as the above (and below) is my opinion. I understand that people have had short-shot/misaligned mouldings, or badly flawed canopies. That's unacceptable and needs to be addressed. I'm not sure I know anyone who would disagree with that. I'm surprised, given the number of recent Airfix kits I have built or am currently building, that I haven't encountered these problems thus far. I'm just not that lucky! What I strongly disagree with, and this is going on my experience of these recent kits, is that there isn't anything like the "major fit issues" complained about that can't be addressed with a little patience, dry-fitting and a little attention with a sanding stick or scalpel blade. Rudimentary modelling skills, if I may be so bold. A few examples, if I may. Someone mentioned that the Lancaster wing spars won't fit into the slots inside the wing if you don't remove the paint from the mating surfaces. That was my experience too, but should we not be removing the paint from mating surfaces as a matter of course? The cockpit floor/wing spar assembly on the new Beaufighter is a *really* tight fit into the fuselage. Again, making sure the paint is removed from the mating surfaces will help, as will dry-fitting. And it *does* fit! On around half (maybe just under half) the eleven 1/72 Spitfire I/IIs I've built the fuselage wouldn't close perfectly around the cockpit assembly. Dry-fitting revealed that it was the instrument panel that was a touch too wide, requiring a few swipes with a sanding stick. I'd also point out that the Hasegawa He 111H-6 I'm about halfway through needed a fair bit of sanding on the fuselage bulkheads to get the fuselage halves together nicely. On The Academy A-10, the underside fuselage around the nose was quite a poor fit, as was the wing/fuselage joint. On their F-15D, with the hard plastic they use, getting the fuselage halves to line up well is going to take some doing! Both of these kits have far worse fit problems than I have encountered with the newer Airfix kits, but I'm not seeing pages of complaints about those. Ok, I don't have the Swift yet, as I've spent rather too much over the past few weeks, but I will get one because A: I'd like one anyway and B: I'm intrigued enough to want a bash at it. I'll be happy to report back, if anyone's interested. Cheers, Mark. * all in 1/72: Spitfire Mk I/II (x11); Spitfire IX (x3); Spitfire XIX; Spitfire 22; Hurricane I (x2) ; Hurricane IIc; Typhoon Ib; Gladiator I; Lancaster I; Tiger Moth; Defiant (x2); Beaufighter; P-40B (x2); P-51D; A6M2; Bf 109E; Fw 190A-8 (x5); Vampire T.11; Harrier GR.1; A-4P. ** I haven't yet encountered a single 1/72 Spitfire kit (from any manufacturer) which didn't need the wing/fuselage joint sanding to get the dihedral just so. Just because it fits, doesn't mean the dihedral is right.

No, I appreciate that! :-) I thought it might be interesting for posterity, if nothing else. I have probably every iteration that Humbrol did of that strange, pale, yellowish, bluish green, probably as I prefer the older enamels to work with over their newer counterparts. I"m currently using the Gloy Authentics Sky, but will probably go with all WEM paints on the Airfix Beaufighter, just to remind myself what they're like. Cheers, Mark.

I'm more than happy to brush out some swatches. I'll brush out a few other, more known representations too, for comparison. Cheers, Mark.

A quick look over at Hyperscale reveals that our ex-colonial cousins seem to be getting somewhat excited over it!

I do hope that it doesn't rule out the Westland Whirlwind. I have such a soft spot for that aeroplane!

On Friday we had a Spitfire VIII, Puss Moth and Chipmunk fly over, in the space two or three hours.

I thought I'd mentioned it before, but anyway. I have a few tins of the long-discontinued Humbrol No. 28 Sky, including the retail box. The number has since been reallocated, but I thought it might be of interest, even if it does muddy the waters even further! Cheers, Mark.

I'm not sure the car analogy holds up, we are talking about construction kits here, which, in my experience, almost always require some degree of fettling to fit properly, no matter what the manufacturer. For instance, I haven't encountered a single 1/72 Spitfire kit that didn't need some amount of sanding of the wing roots to achieve the correct dihedral. That includes Tamiya and Hasegawa. It also doesn't take into account the builder. It's a factor. Having built or being in the process of building some thirty four recent Airfix kits, I can't say that any of them have needed anything more that the kind of slight fettling than I would expect from any other mainstream, manufacturer, with maybe the exception of Tamiya. Saying that, most Tamiya builds leave me cold as they don't require much in the way of effort on my part, and I'm a very mediocre modeller! In my experience, the key is to test fit everything, which is one of the modelling rudiments anyway. That, and patience. Of the eleven Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk Is I have built, on roughly half of them the fuselage halves closed beautifully around the cockpit assembly, with the other half requiring a few swipes of a sanding stick around the instrument panel. I can also report that around half of the Hasegawa 1/72 Fw 190s I've built (around ten) have had wing-fuselage fit issues (even with their hard plastic) and needed a spot of filler and sanding. My Hasegawa He 111H-6 didn't want to close up around the bomb bay without lots of sanding. It happens! I have also read plenty of people complaining about the fit of WNW kits. And going back to the subject of imperfect transparencies, on an earlier thread on this issue, one of our number checked through his stash and found plenty of examples from other manufacturers that weren't perfect either. It's just that everybody's looking for a problem now. And the punchline? Just as well I didn't mention the Dragon Ta 152H! Cheers, Mark.

I assume you are using the required 9-14V DC to power the LEDs? As long as you have the LEDs the correct way round and wired in parallel, there's no reason at all they shouldn't work. They don't draw much current, so a PP3 should easily be sufficient. Can you explain what you have done so far? Cheers, Mark.

I like the White Ensign Colourcoats representation. That, and the old Humbrol Authentic!

Superb! I've seen the real thing quite a lot over the past few years and you've done her proud!

I've always quite fancied doing the Fairey Exe testbed. Although it's quite brutish in appearance, I understand it was quite fast.

I got mine off eBay for £17.99 with free postage from Jadlam. That's what twisted my arm! I'd already "pulled the trigger', as I believe the popular expression goes, on the Beaufighter from the same place for £13.49 including postage. Despite *really* wanting a Swift, I shall have to postpone that until next month.

A Tiger Moth and Dragonfly (of the de Havilland variety) in formation, swiftly followed by a vic of Spitfires.

Just bought one. I'll probably get into trouble with the Mrs for spending too much on kits this month, but temptation got the better of me!

Regarding the squadron code letter position on the port side of K9899: I don't think I have ever seen a photo of a 602 squadron Spitfire with that format. All have had the LO forward of the roundel on the port side, ie LO@H. Nos. 64, 234 and 611 did place their squadron codes aft of the roundel on both sides, with No. 616 seemingly doing whatever they liked! Incidentally, I have yet to see a photo showing a single 1940 64 Squadron machine with the squadron codes ahead of the roundel on the port side, despite many profiles showing just that. Cheers, Mark.

Reading the Lucas BoB book the other day, he mentions that two unidentified spitfire elevators were found with Sky Grey on the undersides. Both were starboard. It's a shame the a/c identities aren't known.

On Saturday we had a red Mew Gull, four (!) Miles Magisters, a Hurricane and Gladiator fly over. The joys of living close to Old Warden!

Just had a Yak-11 fly overhead, quite low. Made a great noise too!

Hi, Apologies for the poor quality, but I came across this photo recently and wondered if anyone else thinks that it's of L1055. It's a 616 Sqn a/c, but the grey "lettering" behind the codes initially threw me. I then wondered if it was an ex-66 Sqn machine and having a quick look through the allocations, it seems that L1055 was issued to No 66 Sqn first, then onto No 616, which explains the grey-coloured serial number nicely. Too convenient, or maybe there's more to it? Cheers, Mark.

Here's a few pictures of R6800 which might come in handy: The last two are new to me. I only found them a couple of days ago! Cheers, Mark.