Jump to content


Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ray_W

  1. Just when I thought I might save some money. I'm in. I have been wanting to build a RAAF F-35A. Now with Tamiya there will be no excuse not to. Ray
  2. Hi Ed, Impressive and why I want to build one in the current BM Meteor GB 2022. I am fascinated by the A77-882 (WK937) asymmetric red scheme. Are any of the reference photos of A77-882 in this scheme available? Thanks in advance. Ray
  3. I am happy with anything. It seems recent Tamiya kits have been doing a great job of making me part with my money - so, if it is a subject I want (or will come to want because they have done it so darn well), I win, as I get what I want. And, if it is a subject I do not want, I also win, I'll save some money. Having said that a Tamiya rendition of a 1/48 A-20 would be nice. Asking too much I know. Well I did knock my expectation back a little. Otherwise, I would of said a B-26. Mr Tamiya, please do not release an F-8 seeing I have just picked up the Hasegawa F-8E re-release with a stack of aftermarket. Not long to wait now.
  4. It has been a while since the original post. It is worth checking out a newer entrant - Hataka Hobby Paints - a Polish company now also making an excellent range of paints. I used their Orange Line, which are lacquer solvent based paints similar to Mr Color and MRP, and was very happy with the result. I used their Polish Set: https://www.hataka-hobby.com/HTK-CS01-Polish-Air-Force-Paint-Set For this Bulgarian build. Ray
  5. This made me laugh I think this is a good problem to have,
  6. Seems they originally named the access door for access to the coolant system expansion tank. Prestone being the anti-freeze brand. Whether it was removed during winter operations (Russian experience? Drain and refill?) or for whatever other reason and then never replaced I do not know. You can see the grey coloured white banded expansion tank in the right of this image. I thought the access door may of also allowed access to the oil tank dipstick thereby simplifying checks without the need to remove the topside panel. Dipstick location shown forward (assuming the draughtsman represented it correctly). But then, when you see how much room was available, This may not be practical. Here is the top of the oil tank with a bulkhead immediately forward and before the expansion tank. And here is the expansion tank. And you are correct. Seems some changes going on regarding this access and possibly a system change. I've seen a very poor copy of a later layout with a different system. Apologies not a definitive answer. Hopefully helps in some small way. Ray
  7. I think you are with the majority. A close reading of the link https://www.dingeraviation.net/skuaroc/modelling_plans_for_skua_and_roc.pdf does help. They provide a great summary of changes to the Skua. For example: 12. The Roc did not have machine-guns in the wing and therefore would not have had the access panels required by the Skua. We can speculate that, other than that, the access panels and panel-layout on the wings of the Roc would have been much the same as the Skua. I do appreciate their honesty in what is not clear or speculation. You can take their position or do some more research to determine what commonalities in the wing construction with the Skua. Noting the obvious difference of introduced dihedral and elimination of MG's. Best is to then to check any photo evidence and decide. There is a great image here: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/roc/blackburn-roc-l3090/ I am usually wary of published plans as they do tend to repeat the same errors. Ray
  8. I would not say I was expert on the type, however, if it was me and I was trying to improve the appearance of the individual exhaust stubs, then an aftermarket Emil set looks like a good option. Very similar. Possibly the same supplier? The top of the engine cowling and the transition into the supercharger seems to have had a number of iterations. Without better photo evidence, I would go with the small transition like so: And as given in this sectional view. Ray
  9. Apologies I have not got a lot but these may help. One thing about the wing is a Spitfire's it ain't. Not to be fooled by the nice elliptical pattern. Seems more Hurricanesque, I dare not say He-111'ish . I have not seen the data but I expect the He-112 has a wing with a significantly greater chord to length ratio than a Spitfire and has sufficient room to pack the MG barrel above the locked up strut and shield it. mmm ... another worthy subject for me to look up. I must add that to my "to do" list if I could only find where my list ends. Wing Underside Wing Topside Skinning removed. Ray
  10. Also I have this. I think the original source is from Squadron/Signal's He-112 in Action. I can't vouch for its accuracy. But, if the German artists were correct with their often used sectional view of the He-112. Here it is from Flight Magazine Here it is from a German postcard: And here it is in close-up from the original: I'd say, in lieu of better information, it is something to work with. Ray
  11. @Dansk @modelling minion @Enzo Matrix Thanks guys for a great GB. Sadly, my time at the bench is limited this year so I'll fail to make a post in the gallery, but, I will keep at it and keep posting the WIP here. Congratulations to all who participated and I look forward to reviewing the gallery and making a vote. Ray
  12. @Richard502There is also a great build of 4A by @mark.au with a lot of good information if you have not, as yet, happened upon it.
  13. And I am too! Ever since I saw your build Dennis in the ANZAC GB. I am really looking forward to using the Red Roo conversion kit. Shout out to @Ed Russell. It looks great. The conversion kit comes with an 18 page instruction leaflet with a lot of tips. The resin looks very good. Hardest part will be deciding on the scheme. I do like the second from the top WE-902, but, then again, those matt black nosed versions are kind of special, and then there is an asymmetric red/white fuselage scheme for A77-882 (not shown above). Decisions, decisions. I'll provide some better images of the conversion details when I get into my WIP. Ray
  14. Can I make some recommendations? The MMP site does show samples of their Blackburn Roc plans that you could use: http://www.mmpbooks.biz/assets/books_pdf/103.pdf The following site is also very good indeed. In fact, I would say "wow!" in terms of the information available. Careful though, once you dive into all the information presented you might want to do more to your Roc: https://dingeraviation.net/skuaroc/blackburn_roc.htm And this link from the same page will give you a lot of what you're after. https://www.dingeraviation.net/skuaroc/modelling_plans_for_skua_and_roc.pdf Ray
  15. There is certainly plenty of opportunity to get with groups that like this sort of thing and it can be fun (so long as you have a thick skin). It is the usual story though, you cannot criticise others who may choose to go down this path. Or, anyone else who has a different view of what they enjoy and get out of their chosen hobby/passion. It can be irritating with the level of build complexity coming into kits, with everything that opens and shuts, if it is poorly executed by the manufacturer. For example, it's a personal decision if you want to portray your Spitfire with dropped flaps. I like to show mine with drooped elevators and flaps up (I am always hunting for photo evidence of my subject). So if the flaps up configuration cannot be portrayed nicely it can be a pain. We do see a trend by some kit manufacturers trying to accommodate complexity with buildability - Tamiya at the forefront. Also Eduard's progression as demonstrated in their early FW-190's, designed to display engine cowls open that could be built with the engine cowl nicely closed up, but, this took some work, then their decision to eliminate this complexity on their later FW-190 kits. It can also be fun to build a kit with all panels open and flaps down. Strictly correct? No or maybe. Usually these builds, if executed well, do have a degree of "wow" factor. It's a personal choice like showing your models flying, wheels up. I know when I was young, the more complex the kit, the more I wanted it irrespective of accuracy. Now, a fundamental shape error and I lose interest or may wish to launch into corrective action. I can understand some modeller's frustration and desire to vent when, at last, a favourite subject or new tool is released and it shows poor/lazy research or a bad moulding decision, irrespective of their own building skill and ability to execute to the nth degree of accuracy. I also understand the flip side of this with a modeller who likes to build and paint and has some of the gloss taken off their new or planned purchase which has been hit with kit criticism. Although, I do think deep down most of us would like to build an accurate portrayal to the level of our skill, even with some added artistic license thrown in. However, it is the critiquing of kits, by the modelling community, that is certainly driving the industry along. We are getting phenomenal kits at greater levels of detail with fidelity before unknown. Even with some manufacturers retrospectively correcting moulds and putting up early CAD renditions for critique. May it continue. Ray
  16. I checked my own resources on the Storch and there is no clear mention of fuel tank configurations. I do know the Valiant Wings Airframe Album No.11 on the Fi-156 does go into variant details including fuel tank configurations. Sadly, the title is now out of print. I wish Valiant would offer e-versions. If you do search for this title and look up images you will find book reviewers who show a couple of pages from the aircraft "Evolution" section which do show the early and late versions. As these images were provided for promoting the title the intervening pages and main wartime variants are not shown (4 pages are missing). However, they do show the extra tank configurations for the D (ambulance), and P (counter-insurgency) variants. Sorry not much help. Hopefully it steers you in the right direction and you can track down the title or someone who has it and they can chime in with the answer. Ray
  17. Yes. This is correct. I also don't think of anyone as "assemblers" or "real" modellers. We are all gradually building our skill set, just at a different stage along the same path.
  18. The mod work from Series 2 to 1 was not a lot. Most of the work was correcting Eduard's first attempt at the Tempest. It looks like Eduard did a good job of fixing up their old Tempest kit which had thick awful wings and fin, incorrect prop shape, short fuselage length (a lot of debate on this - I opted for the Bentley drawings), and terrible undercarriage. There was hardly anything I did not replace or rework. I did much work improving the wheel wells, actuating mechanisms and the cockpit with vacu-formed canopies. Seeing I was very happy with the result that I had achieved with the old kit, I saw no point in making their later rendition. A very satisfying build and one of my favourites. The usuals for Series 1 are as you said with the one addition - the longer barrels, the stiffening plates (and check this is the case in a reference photo of your chosen subject if you can) and the bulge over the wing spar attachment point that was moved from above to below. In the Series 2 it is a smaller bulge under the wing. In the Series 1 there is an ugly bulge on the top at the wing root like so: I removed the underside bulge and added the topside bulge. You will clearly see this in images of Series 1 aircraft. I did not weather it heavily as it was relatively new in service on Diver patrols. Sadly Flying Officer Ted Kosh lost his life in this aircraft in July 1944. I think the cause is still unknown. I finished this build as a KUTA GB here on BM as I had stalled on the undercarriage and then Eduard released their new kit and the lovely aftermarket bronze undercarriage. Problem solved. Good excuse to finish. The WIP is here: Ray
  19. The safe bet is dull metal unless you have contrary evidence. Go to the IWM site and go through all the Swordfish images and then watch this and decide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIf7vLeGa70 Ray
  20. I have also been looking at a number of the period images of the Swordfish and possibly those major flat strip cross braces may of received a coat of paint. In particular, those flying diagonals rising from the inboard position. Maybe black or selected camouflage colour, sometimes white. But, and a big but, not all the time. The rest metal.
  21. Watch this here. It will answer your question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZo6SRsrbk I backdated my original Eduard 97 Series 2 release to a Series 1 with a lot of mod work - thinned wings, lengthened fuselage, new fin, new undercarriage etc. etc etc. I re-did the intake and left it open. Ray
  22. The alcohol based aqueous paints - Tamiya aqueous acrylics X and XF range, Gunze Mr Hobby Aqueous acrylics - mix with AK Real Colors. Also, the lacquer solvent paints - Gunze Mr Color, MR Paint (MRP), Hataka Orange Line all mix with AK Real Colors. I have not tried mixing the newer Tamiya lacquers but expect they do also. Note that I use Mr Color Leveling Thinner for thinning purposes of all the above. Still I recommend you experiment to test your own processes. Ray
  23. Please let us know how it performs. I have had my HP-CS (standard 0.35 mm nozzle) for many years and still love it. I have not sprayed Vallejo Model Air but have sprayed Lifecolor regularly and found it suited it very well. I also found it performs for Luftwaffe mottle (1/48) with correct thinning and practiced trigger control (true of any quality airbrush). It does have the self-centring nozzle although I have to admit I have probably only removed the nozzle a couple of times in 10 years of use and never actually had to screw the nozzle out of its holder. Maybe I have been lucky. I later bought the HP-B Plus for the small cup (less paint and good to get into tight spaces) and with the smaller 0.2 mm nozzle (correct thinning ratio is more critical, provides a finer line). The 0.35 HP-CS is not obsolete. It still gets the lion's share of the work. Very adaptable. Good choice. I grabbed a new H&S Infinity CR plus Two in One that was offered to me at a very good price. Another exceptional and might I say beautiful looking airbrush. I keep it set-up with its 0.15 nozzle for use when I am after super fine lines. As an aside, I find the nozzle seal in the 2 in 1 a pain and now recommend always buy a single size airbrush for greater happiness. I do prefer the Iwatas for their robust simplicity.
  • Create New...