espeefan

Thanks, all of you for replying. That's sort of what I figured, it wasn't needed for the flight but I was looking for confirmation (it is pretty neat looking when installed!). I do have contemporary pictures of the surviving plane. I was pretty confused till I understood it was removable. Thanks for that link Dave, Google hadn't revealed it to me. Some good pictures, ones I don't have in my MC.72 folder, click and save......

Trying to determine if the removable radiator on the rear lower fuselage was on the plane during either successful world record attempt. Anyone have an idea? the plane currently lacks it and only few photos show it, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. TIA!

those look suspiciously like the set I have from Eduard......

Street price for the kit appears to be sub 25.00 in the US, so the purchase of a fillet less tail ( if one currently exists) or a cuffless prop is not going to really break the bank for most of us. or, if you cut the fillet off, and bodge it, (and there's another vertical tail to use as is, or to attempt to remove the fillet again)you're only out around 20.00 US. That's half a tank of gas for me. I know some folks do not like aftermarket stuff or modifying parts on their own, and we all have limits to what we can spend on the hobby, but still, I think there's good value to the Airfix kit if the outline proves accurate and the omissions easily rectified.

Mike, you're talking about an M4A1. M4A1s were produced through the whole Sherman Production run, so what time period are you looking to make a model from? Shermans are really the farmers axe. A late production M4A1 has a different suspension, transmission cover, exhaust deflector, hull profile, larger hatches, different ammo stowage, a different turret, different gun, and that's just scratching the surface. CMK and Resicast both make interiors suitable for a mid-production M4A1, from say, Italy through the ETO campaign, and close enough for an early one. Tank Workshops makes an early M4 interior that would probably fit too-its really what I'm calling a mid production tank. The tasca "early" M4A1 is also really mid production. Their Sherman Mk II in British markings is a true early M4A1. I don't think anyone makes a T23 turret interior though, so an M4A1 76mm(w) isn't possible, though the Italeri kit has a presentable breech.

Hate to sound cheap, but would you sell just the clear parts, decals and PE for a Hampton? Don't want to see my Valom kit wasted. And when is the P-36 family due?

Go to full service hobby shop, and buy the type of white glue that RC modelers use to attach canopies, the most common being Formula 560 Canopy Glue. I haven't built the Wildcat yet, but if the windows press fit from inside, press them in and run a bead of glue using a toothpick around the join. If its a really snug fit you can thin it a bit to get it to flow between the 2.

Doing Johnny Plagis' spitfire from the Sword dual Malta Spitfire/Reggiani kit. My guess would be after painting over the delivered camo scheme, they would not restore the stencils, but the undersides, if not painted, would retain them. What say all of you?

The pictures Dogsbody links to are helpful, just be aware the one that appears to show the gunner entering from the right side is reversed. The rear fairing down, turret to starboard, guns slightly elevated and front fairing up was the most common and shows in the pictures. you can lower the step as well. Flaps really should be up by the way, but if it makes you happy to see them down, personally, I have no objection!

No, 99% certain, natural metal, spar YZC. according to Dana bell, North American got permission to discontinue corrosion treatment. Only the spar would be primed to prevent corrosion caused by contact between dissimilar metals. Again, from an old post of Dana Bell's on Hyperscale.

The torpedo bodies were silver, but they were greased to keep from oxidizing, so had a slight amber tone. The warheads were a lighter grey: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-navy-aerial-torpedoes-in-world-war.html http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=25105 I think brass for the props is OK, see the 2nd picture

I'll have to check your article when it appears! it is a really well done kit, isn't it! and its red!

Yes, they are the only thing not included in the kit. Stretched sprue, with a glop of canopy glue on the end, fairly convincing I guess. And thank you.

I hope you like it. The kits a beautiful build, no real problems at all.

There are regular flights between them, you know.

Actually, I don't see how he could miss the worstest, most hideousness portion of the KP kit- the malformed cowling. The KP has it so the chin intake and the spinner form 2 separate cylinders that intersect for a fair distance back along the cowling, creating a highly uncharacteristic "double bubble", or crease if you will- a figure 8 cross section. The sides and top of the Mustang's cowing are relatively flat, and no crease exists on the prototype. All the other flaws in the KP kit are relatively benign and I'd live with them(and there are others beyond what was mentioned in the article) but the shadow created by that crease just screams "wrong". from any distance, at any angle,and the poor Merlin inside the KP's front end should be spilling out all over, like Jayne Mansfield in the famous photo with Sophia Loren . I did post this earlier, but I think the Jayne Mansfield example will strike more to heart that a set of dentures. The Hasegawa kit is far better in the nose area and the shortness in the tail isn't obvious, at least to me. I'm trying to figure out the most expedient way to crosskit the 2. The wings of the KP are nice, though the outer gun is too far out but the panel lines, bay openings and leading edge extensions are correct, and it has dropped flaps as most P-51s showed on the ground.Personally, I hope Airfix LIDARs a B soon.

In answer to the question, the leading edge on the D/K is further forward and the landing gear bay also moves up to occupy it, which is why you really can't just sand back the extension to make an A/ B/C wing, so the well may not fit right. Also, the biggest fault with the KP kit is the nose. Its far too rounded and pinched behind the spinner and has an entirely fictitious double curve accommodating the spinner and chin intake where it should be more slab sided. Imagine your grandfather with, than without, his false teeth in, and that's the look of the KP to the real thing.

For what its worth, after building a Mk Vb and experiencing difficulty with the upper fuselage piece, I chose to assemble the fuselage completely except for the underside of the cowling, then assemble the cockpit tub separately and insert it after. the only difficulty was the little O2 bottle (I guess that's what it is) on the left fuselage half, and I rigged up a way to attach it to the tub. Slipped the tub in, checked the wing fit, and its all good!

This uses bamboo struts as RayB24 describes: I used the kit's struts on this one, no real problems-Have not built the Tiger Moth though, but the Gladiator went together fine.

I might have some old Air Combat, Wings or Airpower magazines with some details. My fuzzy brain seems to remember photos of the NEIAF ones, anyway. I've got hundreds of them so it would take some time to look. If I find them I'll let you know. Marabu Designs do nice work, I have used some of their PE on the Airfix Swordfish and Gladiator. Would like to see something for the basically sound old Williams Brother kit, though I'd prefer for a US one, personally. the Blue and yellow paint made for an attractive aircraft!.

The matchbox kit is actually nice. No interior to speak of, nice raised panel lines, decent 150 gal. tanks, good shape, correctly a little shorter than the Sword kit. Canopy needs careful fitting. Sword costs more, recessed panel lines, nice decals and interior, some conduit trunking to be removed, better fine details. Either can be built into a nice accurate replica, the Sword a bit easier, probably.

We will have to agree to disagree then. To my eye, the first post is obvious as the war for Great Britain started in '39 vs. '41 for the USA. I'd also add now that plenty of Poles, Frenchmen and Czechs flew more missions too! Still irrelevant, though. The 2nd comment, is really out of scope for a model airplane forum. Its also irrelevant to Yellen's current health and an oversimplification of the social, racial and economic issues US veterans returned to. Furthermore, I remember reading an interview with Joe Ekins, the gunner who destroyed 3 Tigers in a few minutes, one arguably having been Wittmans, and he seemed quite healthy and in possession of his faculties as well, though he regrettably passed a few years ago, the same age as my mom did, I recall, at 88. In contrast, read-or re-read- iang's post. Its on topic, presents interesting information I wasn't aware of and in no way attempts to throw cold water on Jerry's achievements-or health. Wondering if it was simply the last USAAF mission, or if the flight time to Okinawa put them on the ground after the FAA pilots landed, or the story is just one of those myths that got started somehow....but Yellin's still a pretty cool guy.

Yellin flew on the last mission of the war, which is what the poorly worded email and title alludes to. Nobody said anything about who flew longer, or first. For the record, I'd wager some axis and Russian pilots flew for a longer time and on more missions than any Commonwealth pilots, and what does it matter what the economic state was anywhere after the war? If the issue is Yellin's mental and physical health, its largely genetics at his age, and anyway, there's been plenty of social and economic upheaval in the US in the last 70 years or so. No need for sour grapes, I wouldn't act this way if the interview had been with a Commonwealth veteran, I'd think: "Mazel tov!" Be happy for the old gentleman.

Great brush painting skills-its orange, its super glossy, its macro, and yet the finish is remarkably even, though there appears to be some dust that had the temerity to adhere to the paint or gloss coat (or maybe its just laying there to be brushed off). I let my paint jobs harden in one of those plastic shoe boxes I buy at the dollar store. Not a bad job at the demarcation line for the anti glare either. Try masking next time with good tape, like Tamiya, and brush a thin coat of the base over the edge, then the antiglare color after the base color dries. I'd try using a flat paint for the anti glare next time, and to me the orange is a little too glossy, though it could just be from the photography. Decals look good, no silvering, Good basic assembly skills too, except maybe the canopy at the back on one side. A hit, and extra bases at that, and I've always liked the 326, elegant little trainer.

I built the Hellcat, Avia and Mk. IX weekend editions. They look quite nice assembled. I always have seatbelts lying around anyway, which is the one aftermarket part I really always use. Decals, I used the kit ones for the Avia and Mk. IX and I wanted a particular Hellcat the Profipack that was available didn't include anyway. I had the aftermarket ones in a ziplock bag in my decal drawer. I'll point out the straps on the Hellcat's drop tank are only in a Profipack kit, so some Evergreen strip came to the rescue (in the UK I believe Slater's is the equivalent?) On the other hand, I built the P-39 Profipack because it had markings I wanted, and the Mig-15 profipack, well, just because it was what my LHS happened to have in stock. The Profipack are really good value if you use the decals and PE, as opposed to buying separate, but you can make a nice model without.