Jump to content

72modeler

Members
  • Posts

    8,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 72modeler

  • Birthday 10/13/1948

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Antonio, Texas
  • Interests
    1/72 scale aircraft

Recent Profile Visitors

7,993 profile views

72modeler's Achievements

Completely Obsessed Member

Completely Obsessed Member (6/9)

9.2k

Reputation

  1. That might have been the issue, as I have seen builds of the Eduard P-51D where the tail wheel was definitely up into the bay, and that would make the model sit higher on its main gear. Have to watch out for that when I start the build. Thanks to all for your assistance! Mike
  2. I doubt that the rockets would be mounted on a folded wing; I am guessing that the weight would be too much for the hinge assembly and the jury strut and latch that held the wingtips against the horizontal stabilizers.. Mike
  3. Great! Thanks, Bob! That means Eduard did not repeat the gear strut issue on their new P-51B's and as you said, they are incredible kits and extremely well-researched, as the number of part options attests! Mike
  4. I'm not a 1/48 scale modeler, per se, but I did want to get the new-tool Eduard P-51B combo, as I have always wanted to do 'Princess Elizabeth' in the larger scale. I seem to recall reading discussion that Eduard's 1/48 P-51D kits had landing gear struts that were too tall, as the Mustang they studied was suspended from the ceiling, so the oleos were extended, and Eduard molded the struts this way, making the sit of the model too high. Has anybody who has purchased the P-51B combo measured the landing gear struts to see if Eduard corrected this error? I can always use the struts out of one of my 1/48 amiya P-51B or P-51D kits, as they are the correct length, but I hate to trash perfectly good kits just for the struts if I don't have to. (I know I can always cut and shorten the oleos to the correct compressed length on my two 1/48 Eduard P-51D kits, but I was hoping Eduard had corrected this flaw on the new-tool P-51B's.) Just curious! Mike
  5. Jure, Yes, that is the blister I was talking about. After looking thru my various Bf-110 references, including Kagero, Classic, Jadgwaffe, and Aero, it appears some had the blister and some didn't; I'm guessing that maybe late production F's had them- I know not that many F's were produced, and with the G coming along so closely, perhaps the late F features were the same as the early G's? I guess I need to do some more research! Mike
  6. Thanks, Jure! I had thought about using my Eduard G-2 kit to do an F, but IIRC, the G engine cowlings have a blister or hump on the dorsal side that the F's did not have. I guess I need to get upstairs to the library archives and pull out all of my 110 references. Thanks for the heads-up on the F details, though! Mike P.S,I have always wanted to do a ZG1 Bf-110F in 'Wespe' markings, and I have several decal sheets with those markings, and I'm sure i can find a suitable F in one of my Jadgwaffe series monographs.
  7. It's ugly enough to be a Farman design! Mike
  8. I ran across a listing today for a 1/72 Eduard Bf-110F profipak kit, stock number 7084, but i don't recall ever seeing this release, and Scalemates lists it as a 2017 future release. I have always thought the Bf-110F was a very sinister-looking variant, and would like to build one, but I can't seem to find any information on the kit. Does anybody know if this was an Eduard project that never came to fruition? Just curious! Mike
  9. Martin, aka @RidgeRunner might know, as he has a slight fondness for the type in foreign colors. Mike
  10. I believe that is the USS Boxer, CV-21; she was used to transport aircraft to Korea, and then became the third carrier used for air operations during the war. The Mustangs were coated with a rubberlike flexible coating called spraylat, IIRC, applied by means of a spray gun, that cocooned the Mustangs to protect them from sea spray and corrosion during the voyage to Korea. P-61's were covered with the same material in WW2 when they were shipped to the PTO . I think the coating peeled off when exposed to steam applied by means of a hose/nozzle. Neat photo- thanks for posting it! Mike
  11. Don't know if this helps, but written references cite 10' 6" as the diameter for Lodestar prop, which is also the same diameter I have seen listed for the Hudson on the RAAF website. Maybe the bladed profiles differ between the two types? Mike
  12. For what it's worth, here's the one I have always wanted to do, but other than some oop resin forward engine cowlings, the P-82B has never been released in kit form, as far as I know. . Click on 'download hi res' to see larger images of each photo. The AFM also has the ex-CAF P-82 that used to be flyable, but was damaged in a landing accident, and with no replacement for the prop that was beyond repair, it could not be flown again, and it was reclaimed by the Museum. IIRC, it is one of only two Merlin powered Twin Mustangs that have survived. I saw it fly at a couple of CAF airshows...wish I had taken more photos! As I understand it, the XP-82 restored by Tom Reilly is still up for sale, but so far, there have been no takers. Mike https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196411/north-american-f-82b-twin-mustang/, as far as I know
  13. So very hard to weather and fade a black finish, Fuad, but you have managed it more realistically than on any other model I have seen- in any scale! Not my preferred scale, obviously, but I have read that this kit is NOT an easy one to build- so hat's off to you! I am amazed, but never surprised, by the quality of your builds. Keep 'em coming! Mike
  14. I am going to take a guess that the round flat panel where the nose section attaches to the fuselage might be a cover for the bolt or spar that connects the nose to the main fuselage. Since the Invader was designed to use a bomb aimer's nose and a solid gun nose interchangeably, that plate/cover might have something to do with it. Betting somebody out there will have the answer.. Mike Some photos that might be useful. I looked at a lot of period photos as well as detail photos of museum and flyable Invaders, both B and C variants, and I saw some had the mushroom domed plate and others had flat plates. I have no idea why there were two types of plates, but they are all located at the transport joint between the nose and the forward fuselage, I never really noticed the two types until you pointed them out. Is this a great hobby or what? As always, find a photo of the one you want to model, if possible. Italeri made so many mistakes on their A-26B, A-26C, and B-26K kits, I wouldn't put too much faith in the instructions. https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/a-26/images/fwa_a-26b_21.jpg https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/a-26/images/fwa_a-26b_04.jpg https://ipms.nl/walkarounds/walkaround-vliegtuigen-props/walkaround-a-26-invader#&gid=1&pid=3 https://photos.kitmaker.net/feature/3087/5t6museum_a_26.jpg
  15. Evidently Bing Crosby recorded the song. See the lyrics and music: (It appears the song and the airplane was titled 'Duke the Spook' Mike https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/AirForceSongHistory/DukeTheSpook.pdf https://www.pinterest.com/pin/463167142907877937/ https://valortovictory.tripod.com/photo17/43-38972ph.htm Here's her combat record: https://valortovictory.tripod.com/b17s/43-38972.htm
×
×
  • Create New...