tempestfan

I'm pretty sure the original Jersey Air Lines kit had a second option too - wasn't this the same as the later T3 issue, with JAL swapped for Shell ?

Similar to the 3008 brian recommended, as I think it's the same chassis, consider a Citroen C4 Picasso. Nice high driving position, soft enough seats. I have a 2009er with a 1.6 Diesel, enough power and torque in there to swim comfortably on the Autobahn, good fuel consumption, very reliable (apart from some sensor problem that keep occuring in connection with DPF regeneration). As mine now gets a bit old and I always liked the C5 tourer, I bought an 11 month car last year, with a 2.0 diesel. Plenty of fun if you know when to shift gear back a bit, and then kick down in the 3rd Mine has comfortable heated seats with a massageing function, though that one is confined to the shoulder region. Now I'm always spoilt for choice which one to take - the C5 is the one for the more official occasions...

Reading your post, I was just about to almost exactly post what Troy said - as you're US based, you may be able to get access to someone's spare box on Monogram figures. Monogram always had a reputation for their excellent figures, thoug the later kits were more concerned with ground crew and "prefilght check" pilots. Just the other day I checked an example of their 1/48 Ju 87 and it has a flying pilot with separate left arm. The right arm as moulded looks rather naughty, though, with the top of the control column in a rather ambiguous position. Anyway, certainly workable. My feeling is they are slightly smaller than scale, but that may be of help in getting them to fit in confined cockpits. Another kit with a nicely sculpted pilot is the Tamiya P-51, though it's a single part, and may be bigger allround. More possibilities are in the original Airfix 48th kits, they are not quite as sharply sculpted as Monogram's but should look good with some refinement. As I recall them, they have separate arms - not sure though if the 109 one has different kit to the Spit's and Hurri's.

The complete wing detail is different, not only the fold. IIRC the guns were more widely apart on the 3 with the ammo in between, while on the 4 they were staggered and closely together. Besides, there are various cowl flap arrangements to consider. You will find everything you will need to know here.

Ahh, wasn’t aware of this, thanks for the heads up.

I remember at least one occasion where the links were discussed, and it can’t have been this one as it predates my signing up for two years. Perhaps in one of the two Spit q.‘s monsters ? Doesn’t help much I admit with a total that must run to 1.500+ posts...

I‘ll try them in person if/when I am at Milano the next time That was what I wanted to bring across, actually the few I have are IIRC actually very well printed, as were most Italian sheets I have seen included in 80s kits. If they got registration right, this seems to have been the Achilles Heel, especially with many of the Esci aftermarket sheets. Again I am no expert, but the Letraset type dry decals were I think confined to some of the fighters.

You will most likely be right, the boxes will State „Made in Korea“ like on the B-17 from the same source. Interestingly, the workbench doesn’t name Academy but refers to them as „one of our modelling associates“. A hint to an intensified cooperation? A two-way deal may well make sense.

I haven’t checked their site @Giorgio N, would Mr. Kit be a potential source for the Skymodel sheets? From memory, I think Supermodel had most if not all of their decals, at least at times, printed by Cartograf, as did Esci and Italeri. And possibly Tauro too, having just had a look in their Mc 202 box. As the Supermodel kits were in production for something like 20 years with essentially unchanged boxes, it will be hard to tell from which Cartograf period they are (if they are in fact Cartograf...). And Cartograf standards evolved quite a bit too over the years, their classic 80s stuff on yellow or blue paper invariably has rather thick, Matt carrier film and a tendency to silvering. I don’t think that variety would disintegrate on being soaked.

@72modeler, may I object in that I am a young maverick at well below 50 and have one, actually all the five aircraft they released ( would love to find a lone P-40B some day...). If I ever find the time I should have a look whether it „owes“ something to the Frog like their 109. Otherwise: I can’t add anything that has not been said already, I have five each of Revell‘s A and B bought at half price when they increased box size to justify a 60% mark up for next year‘s re-release, otherwise unchanged. Considering price and what you get, you can’t do much wrong. If it were more expensive, a cheap Matchbox one may be a viable alternative as I always thought it best looking of the pre-Hase kits, but probably an MB would actually cost more. So have fun with the Revell!

Is it known what she was used for before? There are some fairly well known pics of a GR Baltimore from Malta (13 Sq.?) with a small „Saint“ Art , which was in dark (EDSG?) over light (white?) with high demarcation. So if 435 was ex GR, she would not have had dark cowlings to this extent I think. If she had been a bomber, she‘d likely have had DE/Midstone cowlings- I think. I guess the waves have reduced her to produce (or microplastic?) in the meantime - pity that as I always found it a very handsome aircraft which could have had one preserved....

That would make sense, as Kangnam May be a successor of Ace/ new name - Kangnam seems to have boxed most of the kits said to have been tooled by Ace later on.

It’s definitely not the Esci directly, as that was one of their earliest 48th moulds and has raised surface detail, as I recall it. Even Revell‘s own mould would have been a better choice. Have to have a look whether it‘s a more or less refined copy of the Esci.

The listing has them at 18.99 which is the price for Series 4 where all te kits (except the Eagle, S.5) originate. So actually a fair price for kits IMHO that are (un-)arguably somewhat dated. However I still like their Eagle, but have enough 1980 "new" boxings in the stash to ot to require to buy one (but I noticed the description is ambiguous, saying "A" and Strike Eagle", at least in quotes I saw). You're not alone But then we have got the Hunter and will get the F. 4 this year, which I personally consider even more important as it's the first long-run injection small-bore Hunter since the 1955 or thereabouts Frog it. Still, maybe we are lucky with the V's next year. Possibly the tanks are an opportunity for Academy to sneak into sales channels especially in the UK not otherwise easily available to them. And for Airfix to expand their range without tool investment. Given the numbering of the kits out of the usual Series system, could it be they will co-branding ? As Revell hasn't been that prolific with new tools in the past two years, with their own financial woes, I guess the Airfix schedule doesn't look bad, and it's good that they finally try to make easy money with some of their more desirable/sought after hangar queen moulds; though the Dominie was re-released not that long ago. Not quite sure about that when they translated the (t) in 38(t) as "tonnes" apparently, but let's hope for the best. The difference between Vulcan an Victor is that they have a tool of the Vulcan which probably makes them decent money still until it becomes shot, while the MB/Revell Victor doesn't earn them money. And in this case the "doesn't earn them money" argument is valid because the MB kit appears totally eclipsed, price difference notwithstandig (and the MB, as far as I understand, requires qute some mods to be converted into a Bomber version). As has been said twice already (sorry for the repetition), Max from Japan also sold as Peerless and Tomy at various times and places. The moulds were apparently bought by Italeri around 1981 and more or less drastically revised. We'll have to wait and see re the Concorde. As the kit was only in production for some seven years or so until replaced by the newer tool (and is itself some five or so years younger than the 707), it will certainly have seen a lot less use. A small bore Hunter in 72nd would be great including the J.34, but I'm not sure if they'd go fishing in Revell's pond at this time, and a solitary small-bore version would possiby not be viable. On the other hand, the Revell costs around the price of a S.4 kit in Airfix terms, which I feel Airfix could match with a new tool. My resumée: The Hunter 4 is enough to make me happy. Everything else is icing...

While shifting some piles of kits yesterday, I noticed that Hornet which I „inherited“ some years ago and never had a closer look into. Looking at the sprues, it’s neither their legacy tool nor the Monogram (though Scalemates claims the latter). It is a recessed (softish) panels kit, the surfaces looking „lifeless“ . As the box says Made in Korea, the moulds were likely made by Ace; however, that would in all probability mean a copy. Most if not all of the Ace kits boxed by Revell around that time were „inspired“ by Hasegawa, so how about that Hornet? I admit not having tested if google is my friend on this one...