Jump to content

burncpt

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

About burncpt

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canterbury, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

597 profile views
  1. Nice painting! But yeah, those wheels are horrible! About all that can be said in their favour is they have the correct number of spokes. The tyre tread is uncharacteristic, the tyre is far too narrow and square. The exhaust stubs are far too long and spindly and the whole piece looks like it came off a 1/72 scale diecast model. Ah well, doesn't spoil the nice paintwork and the general feel of a big kit too much.
  2. Add my name to the list of fans of your model and those with local connections! Grew up near Woodbridge and the folks now live in Hollesley so I regularly pass RAF Woodbridge to see them. A few years ago I remember sneaking through a hole in the fence to get a closer look at the giant hangars, although sadly they were well locked up. I'm not old enough to remember the USAF presence (3 at the time of this aircraft) but glad I grew up somewhere with so many cool places to explore from the hundreds of 8th AF bases onward.
  3. Looks excellently grubby, fine skill at work. I love the squadron codes especially. That prop spinner definitely looks odd though, too long by about a third...
  4. Amazing job. Just looks so right. The brush works so well but my favourite parts are actually the red where you can see some unevenness in the finish. Whether intentional or not, I'm almost certain it's a more realistic representation of the quality of paintwork on real aircraft, which varied wildly. But as unit recognition colours were applied by base painters, and frequently changed or hastily re-applied to damaged panels, an airbrush-even finish was pretty rare. There's a great photo in Roger Freeman's "The Mighty Eighth in colour" which no doubt you have already, showing two painters paint
  5. She is smooooooth! Maybe it's the quality of the finish but that is a very compelling model. I have the Dragon 110D in my collection and it's been intimidating me for years with the sheer size and number of parts (300 or so) plus the complicated paint schemes and the desire to not screw up such an expensive kit. Yours has made me think about digging it out...
  6. Best NMF I've ever seen I think. Just enough dark smudges to give the impression of a stressed skin. It really sits nicely that model as well.
  7. That's quite a return to modelling - how good were you 25 years ago??? Doesn't look like an older kit at all, you've made it look bang up-to-date!
  8. Bosh, what a stunner. I know everyone has said, but the way you've simulated the exhaust stains streaked away by a wet winter is great. She just sits nicely as well, which is easier in 32nd scale I guess. The photography is great; to those despairing you need a mega camera for this, it's more about the lighting (as much as possible without harsh shadows) and a bit of time with settings. A cheap bridge camera or secondhand DSLR will do great. The camera used here, while 'semi-pro' in its day, is 13 years old now and can easily be matched by any number of low-mid range cameras you could pic
  9. That is fab. Nice change from plastic as well (how sustainable is plastic modelling these days anyway huh)?
  10. Nice. I'm still not sold on the look of the CW but this looks a great result. The spinning prop effect is a nice touch (slow shutter+crafty hand I'm guessing?) even if they probably wouldn't be too happy about the pilot leaving his aircraft with the engine running IRL
  11. You know, I think I never have, not even as a school kid. I remember doing a 109E, Hurricane, that sort of thing. Perhaps it's always been too obvious. Since I've started flying a sim called DCS and they have a Mk IX, I fancy doing one of those now as I've got a taste of what she's actually like to fly...
  12. Oh man, I do like the 'bolt, and this is niiiice. I made the Hasegawa 1/48 one, same early prop and no fuselage strake, with a lot of mods years ago and it's the model I'm most proud of, so I think I'll have to try this one. The only downside of the size of it and the huge surfaces is they can look a tad sparse, even in 1/48, fault neither of modeller nor kit, and just an opinion anyway. What's objectively "worse" about the Trumpeter kit than the Hasegawa one?
  13. Lovely Spitfire, those canopies really help the effect! I must have a go at brush painting to see if its possible to get near the even finish you have. Just about the photos - several seem to be duplicated like the 2nd/4th and 3rd/6th. Makes for a rather unnecessary amount of scrolling when reading the thread
  14. I doubt it too. To be honest, I bought MSFS first before I knew DCS existed, and now I'm a paid-up DCS WW2 fanboy. Even discounting the fact that it's a bona-fide combat sim, it just feels more real to fly. Several of the default MSFS planes really disappointed me with their complete uncrashability, even refusing to stall or spin. The minute I jumped in a Spit in DCS and failed miserably - first at getting the thing started and then doing a simple circuit without piling it into nearby trees - I was hooked on the seat-of-your-pants, oh-poo-poo-you-actually-need-to-practice challenge.
  15. Haha, well I'm 36 so since it's older than me that qualifies it, right? There are some accuracy boo-boos like the nose and gear doors but you're right, compared to the odd lumps of plastic from years before it's pretty good. I'm actually with you on the hidden detail areas as well. Why make me pay (and feel like I should paint) areas only I and anyone who can be bothered follow a WIP, will ever see, and make me pay extra for the privilege? Thanks for the compliments as well; I'm genuinely surprised how many people think it's a cool model!
×
×
  • Create New...