Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

tempestfan

Members
  • Content count

    1,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

513 Excellent

About tempestfan

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    near Hamburg, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1,408 profile views
  1. tempestfan

    Best ju87

    Internally, a pale yellowish brown, known as RLM P
  2. tempestfan

    Best ju87

    Found something, no idea how accurate it is - this page gives 1745mm for the 211D-1 and 2172.5 for the J-2 - the difference if correct is hence 427.5mm or 16.83 inches, or 1 foot 4 5/6.
  3. tempestfan

    Westland Whirlwind

    Not sure when the monthly switched to AI, but it must have been around the time, when I was starting to walk... Wasn‘t Ron Firth a member here, Fluff75 or similar? He also was behind Hallam Vac, around the mid/late 80s. Nitpicking a bit, I think he was actually named Silvester, he had ads in the monthlies for some time. I have extremely fond feelings for that kit as it was my first self-bought, self-built aircraft kit. Slashed together in an afternoon with Faller PC-505. Painted later with my father‘s Authentics around the decals. I was proud, and it’s very likely a better rendition than Trumpeter‘s 48th kit. BTW, I should have the Kookaburra title so if you’re unable to find it, drop a line.
  4. tempestfan

    Best ju87

    Ok, then... Aero Detail 11.50, but I haven’t measured the drawings. Now it gets funny: Aircraft Archive quotes - to be expected- 11.50 for length and 13.80 for span („D and G“). The drawing measures ca. 15.15 cm for length corresponding to 10.91 and ca. 19.1 cm for the short span wing, equating to ca. 13.75. They should have consulted Mr McHard who probably took tape to Hendon... Allowing for measuring inaccuracies on my part and perhaps slightly underscale printing, 1100 or 1110 mm seems more plausible than 1150, even if some profiles probably exaggerate the sleekness of the nose. Something similar can be observed with profiles from the early 80s portraying F-4E/Fs with I‘d say somewhat overlong noses.
  5. tempestfan

    Best ju87

    My Schneider is the 1939/40 issue and gives 11.00. Nowarra, Die Deutsche Luftrüstung, has 11.10 for the B and 11.13 for the D. I wouldn’t rate him the most reliable source, but the figures would snug in with Graham‘s line of thinking. Eric Brown quotes 11.50, Peter Smith 11.00 vs. the same 11.50. In Action 73 has 36/3 (11.05) vs 37/8.75 (11.50). Wood/Gunston (Salamander) give 11.10 across (they differentiate for span). Waffen Arsenal, Aero Detail and Classic a/c are upstairs. No doubt Dressel/Griehl also compiled something, and I do not have the Classic title. The idea I have so many books featuring the 87 is a bit frightening...
  6. tempestfan

    Best ju87

    Not that it means much - the German Wiki entry states 11.00 for both the B and D... I could have a look in the Schneider this evening, but I am not sure if I have the version with 1944 supplement; in any case, it would be doubtful if that wartime publication has the correct figures.
  7. tempestfan

    Westland Whirlwind

    T-21 beat me to it re the Kookaburra title - here is an example, I think it's the initial edition, later ones had a b/w photo cover. No idea how accurate the drawings are, their look is very good (but so is that of their Boomerang drawings, which have been said to be all wrong). I guess it should be possible for you to find them in Oz via Abe or other channels. Otherwise, I second the 4+.
  8. tempestfan

    Airfix 2019

    Back in pre-internet days, Revell required the instructions be sent in; some 20 or so years ago, they wanted the barcode cut from the box. No idea how they do it today. It‘s true the immediate responsibility is with the seller, but the seller has a seller, and ultimately the kit will return to Airfix. Unless someone down the line has excluded warranty. As the kit industry has always worked with a replacement service, there will be a reason for it - possibly some kind of filtering. However, this fails if there are „systemic“ faults like the canopy problems of the past few years when the requests are much above the number calculated. A return to the seller isn’t better either if they end up with a quarter of a run returned. Anyway, if they find the money for a mould, Fury would be logical. I‘d also like a smooth wing Hunter, but the parts layout may be against this.
  9. tempestfan

    Airfix 2019

    I do not see how this is connected to the place of the moulding. It’s a case of squeezing out the last half penny. The automotive industry knows this as the Lopez effect for 25 years plus. Airfix has had junk coming out of China, Revell has it occasionally from Poland, and it certainly wouldn’t be a problem to get junk from Germany if you‘re prepared to spend ridiculous amounts only.
  10. tempestfan

    Airfix 2019

    As they pay their moulding facility to inject plastic, I‘d incorporate the standard to be met in the agreement, and if it’s not met, reject the rubbish and make them pay for substandard stuff that gets through. This may harm the prices , however That’s nasty, but faults like this occurred on French made kits, too. I think I have a 1987 boxing of the Mitchell... err...Marauder that has similar defects. Some of this may be down to the fact that at least pre 1981 moulds were designed to run on their specific equipment, and may not work without fine tuning on any other machine. At least that’s what I think I read about Matchbox tools. A replacement service will inevitably multiply cost. IMHO that makes sense only if they can either pass the full cost to their supplier, or gamble that they have only a 1% complaint rate or lower. A Series 6 kit may not be a suitable contender for the latter as the majority won‘t be bought by people who don’t care (even if they probably could fix it).
  11. tempestfan

    Airfix 2019

    Not sure about the „outsell“ aspect but if they see a market for the Fury in 1/48, there must be one in 72nd too. And most of the design work is recyclable. And - no competition! (Unless SH or someone made a new tool that escaped me) I‘d say a fairly safe bet, if not for 2019 then 20. Still a Fury is no Venom. Even less competition, in any scale.
  12. A couple of years ago, the 21st Century toys kit may have been a viable alternative, as at least the Brett Green review on HS suggests it’s more than decent. However, when I look at baybay and the prices asked there, that no longer seems to hold true...
  13. Make it 50 shades and it instantly gets more interesting. And you get more google hits with your build thread... That 1/48 F-4J looks like a much-modded Esci mould, especially in the cockpit. I assume the two lower fuselage sections on the fuselage sprue are for the recent RF‘s that Italeri extrapolated from the Esci moulds?
  14. tempestfan

    A Good Hampden?

    Mike, you may not be aware that Airfix actually retooled the clear parts for a number of subjects including Hampden and Wellington ca. 1974. The more recent ones are much thinner and may even be usable - all in all a 1975 boxing in grey may be the best bet if one can’t get hold of the Falcon set.
  15. tempestfan

    Airfix Heinkel He 111 H6 colour scheme

    BTW, a H-6 would be inappropriate for Dunkirk, I think. The differences aren’t that major, and I haven’t yet opened any of my Airfix He‘s so am not aware what alternatives the kit has. However, be sure not to use the shorter A-Stand for the MG FF as I think it wasn’t yet in use at the time, but the one which is more or less fully hemispherical. If both are supplied, that is...This will be a relatively visible aspect - I can’t really make out whether the film model has the bulbous one.
×