Jump to content

burncpt

Members
  • Posts

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by burncpt

  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 painting clearly different reds on the same B-17 tailfin from opposite ends
  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 pick up on eBay for a couple of hundred bangers.
  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. Obviously MSFS will improve and there's no doubt it is drop-dead gorgeous, but unless MS creates a new standalone combat sim, with weapons and ground units, attendant AI etc., not to mention collision and damage modelling, DCS and the less-realistic IL-2 will be the way forward for combat.
  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!
  16. Lovely. the skill gone into the faded look I can only aspire to!
  17. Thanks for the compliment! Yes I saw from photos that the nose gear well and doors are a cock-up, but by that point I was past filling and sanding stuff and it would have meant filling half the nose gear bay etc. Pure laziness on my part. I'm going to assume that it's a trick of the light with the strangely black appearing windows though, to hide the face that I didn't find that photo of the actual plane I was modelling *cough*. I'm quite pleased that it shows the wing oil cooler ducts though as I forgot to put the kit supplied radiators in, but they're not visible on the real aircraft anyway!
  18. *Blushes* Thank you very much, sir! I shall remember your words next time I drop an airbrush full of paint over a model or glue the wings on wonky
  19. Yes that was what I was going for They're actually a fair bit darker IRL just under the photo lights came out rather light! Thanks for the compliment!
  20. Oh good luck! Yeah the props were a labour of er... labour? But they do set the camo off nicely and there wasn't too much swearing. I did do a few corrections but also cocked up things which I'm glad haven't been noticed so far, like the position of the antennae on either side of the top of the cabin, or completely forgetting to fit the wing radiators (luckily pretty much hidden anyway). Landing gear is indeed spindly but it seems strong enough. Lord knows how much depleted uranium you'll need to get it to sit on the nose. Perhaps a trip to your local white dwarf star for some super-dense post-supernova matter might do it.
  21. Oh boy, well she sure is the queen of lumpy! Struggling to think of lumpier - perhaps we need an "oddly-shaped" aircraft thread... Glad you like it.
  22. Thanks everyone! I need to do more huge kits like this to use up my venerable pile of Humbrol tins... To be honest, I find them fine (and I quite like the smell of enamels, thanks Screech!) but everyone moans about the quality so I feel like I must be missing something Next up, either a 1/48 Dragon Ju-88 or Eduard Il-2M.
  23. I didn't know there was one! But a google image search makes it look awfully like they're the same mould (bar the K mods and the nose)...
  24. I love it, love it. Not just the modelling which is stonking but the endless reasons why it's utterly preposterous. The work of a man with not only no understanding of a WW1 battlefield, but what must have been some sort of vendetta against natural iron reserves. From the fact that in spite of its gargantuan size, he couldn't find anywhere for the peeps inside besides a vulnerable pointy bit on top, to the rear (front? oh God which is it?) which is one enormous shot trap. Even vintage lawn mowers have the roller in two or more pieces so you can, y'know, steer; this thing mush have been like a giant wind up toy. Once you've set it rolling it goes straight until it hits the skirting-boa... I mean a house. Unless there's a medium-sized pothole in the way.
  25. Hah, well certainly ancient enough to have hulking great raised panel lines. But I do have to say the detail parts like cockpit and wheels etc. were quite finely moulded, and for such a monster kit it went together quite well. Especially the windscreen which I was seriously doubtful would line up but slotted in satisfyingly.
×
×
  • Create New...