Jump to content

tempestfan

Members
  • Posts

    2,347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tempestfan

  1. Looking at the German callouts for 64 and 69, I wonder whether they are actually a "reverse" translation of the supposed English "translations". "Light" translates to both "Licht" and "hell" in German (just the same as it's in English), but I have never heard of any colour being called "Licht-..." in German, apart from some references to 65 and 76 - in English-language literature. [EDITED in: Just had a look into the RAL classic range, and much to my surprise, there is a "Lichtblau" (5012, a MUCH darker colour than 64, 65 or 76), and several other colours including "Licht-". So I was wrong, as so often... However, I could not track down any RAL colour even including "Lohfarben". Following Monogram's logic, "Light" may either be blue or tan - but not red, green or yellow? I see not much sense in those names, and sincerely doubt they are official or have ever been used in German(y). "Lohfarben" is also a German colour name I have never come across.
  2. I do interpret the picture that they are neither missing nor fully pitched up - if anything, I suggest they are pitched down. There is a spanwise "light" strip at the rear end, which I think is the large trim tab. Even with the rather drastic angle of the tail to the ground, that tab - if it's the tab - probably would not be seen with any significant "lift" applied. Anyone around with a full scale 410? I think we are in dire need of doing some trials about the effects of fire and explosions to come to a satisfying conclusion - Aktenzeichen XY! I keep seeing a lot of things, everyday, everywhere (I have vivid imagination ;-)), but - so do I.
  3. plus the elevators are continuing almost to the tip - puzzling!
  4. The 287 had a very angular fin/rudder shape, a deep rear fuselage to accommodate a tail turret, and as such a high tailplane position. The wreck in question - unless it actually is a pile of several - is most probably an inline-engine aircraft with a spinner. Re the tailplanes, were the tips possibly made of wood? I assume if that had been the case and had burned away, one would see scorching of the areas next to it, but just an idea.
  5. Dear Mr T-Shirt, I am saddened to learn that apparently you do not only frequent this (lifesaving) forum but other modelling fora as well. But I will forgive you (possibly) as that unnamed other forum is another modelling forum (tinkering with cars again, are you, ey?) and not a collecting forum If and when I go somewhere on holiday, I do not expect anyone to speak German. I will try to at least learn some chunks of the respective language, if only "please" and "thank you" for starters. I consider that as a matter of a modicum of respect - while I am not particularly enamoured to the concept of "nations", I respect the concept of culture. And I hope to keep up to my own yardstick with at least the wording of my posts, if not at all time the contents. At the mo, there is precisely one member here which I'd consider to put on an ignore list. But I won't, even if he claims to know all on a subject. and his posts are so incredibly badly translated from Alpine-German that he can't have run them through an online translator - he must have done it himself. Man vs Machine, man loses. What if Sutherland had been invaded by the Netherlands? Would that make a difference? And - did you check the lineage? Some William of Oranje influence there - possibly?
  6. The photo in Wiki shows a totally different fin shape; and the Hs 130 was fairly huge with a quoted span off 33m and a length just under 20m. While not much remains to judge the size, I think the fin would be larger on the Hs than the one as it appears in Rob's photo.
  7. I will repeat myself here, your Ginter book is top notch. I actually read it (doesn't happen that often :-)). Hope you still have my e-mail address?
  8. Revell reissued that kit not that long ago (I think, but I am always surprised how long ago some kits were released that I think of as recent...), so maybe their spare parts dept. may help you.
  9. As I remember them, the engines on the Frog Oxford are not exactly a high point of the kit. Maybe not as bad as those on the Baltimore, but still the cylinders are just some slim tubes with a few rings around them.
  10. As it's a prototype, I guess it could be moved to RFI The profile shots you posted really make it look like a racer, a fairly lethal one.
  11. There is a difference between "flaps" and "slats". I am not an aerodynamicist, but IIRC the flaps were for low speed lift improvement (e.g. on t/o and landing), while the slats are to help high speed manoeuvers by keeping the airflow close to the upper wing surface, in particular during tight turns. The slats were a fallout of the F-15 programme and not adopted on it, but introduced first on the F and then on middle to late block E's. 1972/3 or thereabouts. Both the flaps and the slats are on the inner and outer wing section as applicable - but only slats with slats and flaps with flaps, if that makes sense. Slat wing Phantoms have three fairings close to the lower inner wing leading edge each side for the actuators, but they are usually only visible from certain angles and/or relatively close up. Here is a very clear pic of the slats, and of the stabilator slot.
  12. I ***think*** the fuselage was always one piece on the dedicated "short" and "long" fuselage sprues, but there may be a "seam" between the common (between short and long kits) rear and front section where the master may not have joined perfectly. Not quite the same but similar to the old Revell Catalina where you can see ghosted u/c wells on the Boat versions.
  13. Hmmm, just had a look around which tooling it is, their own (Testor's co-financed) or Esci. Cybermodeler claims the former, but positively states it has recessed detail. Which unless they retooled their own kit similar to what they did with some Supermodel kits, means it is the Esci. But that was not your question I think the Esci kit is still a sound basis for a model. However, the Heyl Ha'Avir F-4s developed considerably over their VERY long life, both with "standard" upgrades as well as with Israeli-specific stuff. I can recommend the two-volume book set by AirDoc/Double Ugly, but that will probably be over the top for your purposes (and Vol. 1 may be hard to get/pricey). As this is a "hard wing" kit, you are somewhat limited to early E's, but this also means that it will be quite close to one of the early deliveries, which the decals depict. IIRC they were mostly used for strike missions, so the purely air to air armament may be not fully appropriate. One pic to hand shows 183 with apparently 6*Mk 82 high speed on the centreline pylon and 3*M117 on each of the inboards, another 172 with again 6*M117 on the wings and what I make out to be another five on the c/l (both Osprey Aces #60).
  14. I am pretty certain one respected reviewer commented on the 1/24 Airfix kit when it was new that it correctly represented the raised rivets behind the wing profile apex, and included a very low angle shot of the Chicago B to demonstrate. Mind you, they were not Tyneside style, so the shot had to be low angle and close up to make them visible. And looking at the wings of the Hendon D, I'm not completely convinced that they are not raised - finely, but raised. Which, even if it were true, raises (pun intended) the follow-up question whether any aftermarket rivets even in 32nd would look convincing.
  15. Nice find! The MB A was among my early kits - I didn't apply he decals as I couldn't make my mind up between Louise and The ArizANG bird. --- I agree with Duncan, no 45° corner cutting there, apart from the lower bar in the wing "F". I am not sure if it's also present on the fuselage; it rather looks like the upper bar is cut down the opposite direction, but that is probably a visual trick.
  16. Downloaded - that looks impressive! Thanks for sharing!
  17. It's possible the wing changed position during the development (or at least the upper shoulders' geometry was changed), as the initial Italeri kit (1/72) had a distinct step down from the intake trunks upper to the shoulder fairing, while the Airfix had it level (IIRC), and the final product had the shoulder fairing slightly proud of the intake trunks at its highest point. I think @Giorgio N may be able to clarify this, in particular for the Italian protos.
  18. Not sure if this adds anything valuable, but from the 2000 edition of Air Britain's AA/AZ book (which I think was compiled from yet a different source): - AK739, missing, presumed shot down by Bf 109s near Gazala, 21. (sic)3.42 - AK759, soc 1.6.43 - AK767, missing 15.2.42 [only ME indicated, not 94 as with the others] - AK807, stalled and spun into ground during practice dogfight 20m SE of LG.115, 15.3.42
  19. Rob, I think your pics show pretty clear what the posts quoted by Tommy @Tailspin Turtledescribe as „fat“ in the Hase kit. Among the top 3 of my list is a bulgeless -1 „The first of the last of the Gunfighters“ from the 65 years old Lindberg kit in an attractive livery if only I can find a correlation of BuAer/VF/no bulge for the one I would like - Ginter has only stbd. pics for the livery I‘d like. I‘ll get back to this someday after 15+ years dormancy
  20. I am pretty convinced the Hase canopy (and the canopies in its offsprings) suffers from being too wide at the rear and hence having an excessive (and very noticeably at that) taper. One of the Ginter books upstairs should have dimensioned drawings in it (though probably only for the stations) - not sure if the Vought publicity drawings are helpful?
  21. You are cruel, man, you make me want to have this one... I haven't looked at the other for fear of a heart attack seeing the postage. Have you looked into other services? Just as a suggestion, I ordered a parcel full of books from HLJ recently, and it cost less than 50 € from Japan to Germany with FedEx, arriving on my doorstep in 4.5 days (!) within placement of the order.
  22. I mostly agree with the Esci kits mentioned except the F-100; I never checked myself but the kit got rather bad reviews when new, with mention of looking more like a Super Mystère in the fuselage... BTW, the Su-7 is not an Esci kit but was only briefly reboxed by them in 1991 or so - It's an OEZ original that was also reboxed in the 90s by Revell. The F-5 is OK but I'd prefer Monogram. The A-7 also is one of their oldest moulds but I think better than the F-100. Not mentioned and for a good reason is the F-18. I will repeat "most of Monogram jets", exceptions have been detailed above. As OEZ has been mentioned, I'd say all three kits released by them may be found worthwhile (MiG-21 late, Su-7, Su-25), even though they are somewhat chunky. I am pretty convinced the same design team was also responsible for the Smer MiG-17 (and derivatives) and KP Su-17/22, two kits that should be available quite cheaply (probably in a MisterCraft box). I have always been rather fond of the Revell F-16. It's old, has raised panels, but later issues were upgraded with a Monogram-sourced ACES and other stuff. With its long production life and plenty of competition, you should be able to get one at a very affordable price. In contrast, I'd NOT consider Revell's 70s toolings for the F-4, F-14, F-15 and F-18; not sure about their A-10, but it may be quite tough to get one anyway, as I don't think it was in production in the past 30 years (which may be due to Revell-Monogram considering the Monogram mould to be better). Hasegawa had a rather good A-7, which was reboxed by Revell some 20 years ago (god, I am getting old!), and I guess it should be possible to find one at an acceptable price; similar for the Hase Brit Phantom - you can hardly do anything wrong buying one in a Revell box.
  23. Indeed - Starfix kits used to be something you had to give money with to get rid of them until not too long ago (in particular the "black" 80s boxes), but I have seen some older boxings go for astonishing amounts. Chances are that their "F-5E" is a copy of the Matchbox kit, as are their P-51D, A6M2 and Alpha Jet - but it may be a Hase copy. The "T-38" is a copy from the early 70s of the Hase kit, I think. Would have to check if the Hase (or its Frog rebox) contains the tanks, but probably if they are included in the Starfix "T-38". The Hase F-5A used to be around cheaply in older boxings as well. Indeed, they do not look particularly convincing with their super-bulbuous nose. And they appear to have a "symmetric" waist on their entire circumference, when I am quite convinced the waisting was much more pronounced inboard than outboard in plan view. Besides, while PM kits (or certain of them) used to be similar to Starfix in that you had to accompany them with cash, that seems to have changed after the company founder's death and the decision of the heirs to stop producing kits. However a couple of years back a number of them made a surprise reappearance, including some reboxings of (Italeri, I think) new kits.
  24. I probably wouldn’t have noticed, but it looked like there was an „extension“ visible on the port tank. Thinking about it, an overhead view may be best for your purpose, as the waisting was most pronounced inboard. It’s a pity there’s no really comprehensive single-source account of the F-5 to my knowledge - probably due to its „poor man‘s fighter plane“ tag line.
×
×
  • Create New...