Jump to content

tempestfan

Members
  • Posts

    3,386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tempestfan

  1. They're on Village, whose security certificate has expired. I can see them, but only after a lot of clicking.
  2. Ah - is it included in one of the "high tech" boxings? I had a look at the basic plastic parts from the Revell issue, but didn't saw anything close.
  3. The 1973/4 Airfix for example had the u/c legs at full extension as the kit was apparently based on the data for the Superkit, which needed to have the legs that way to make the u/c retractable.
  4. You're welcome! If you are looking for additional references, the May 1983 issue of SMI was a "SHar special" and included scale drawings; reprinted in one of the Aircraft Archive Post-War Jets volumes, as were the GR.1 drawings (I can't quote you issues of SM/SMI in which they were printed for the latter). If you have the Airfix GR.3 in 1/48 (which is their 1983 SHar with some new parts), you may be in for a culture shock compared to the Kinetics. The drawings may be useful in general if you want to rescribe, and IIRC the SHar ailerons had incorrect span. Just my 2p, and not "better", but hopefully useful. I had the great pleasure of being blow-dried by an RAFG Harrier around 1980 at an airshow somewhere around Cologne after a pretty atrocious downpour. To be honest, it would be rather cool if I could pin the airframe and pilot. I'll have a look and try if I can be more precise.
  5. I think 1/64 has also been used quite a bit by Continental European die-cast cars, but indeed I have never seen any S railway stuff over here. IIRC the Betty is also 1/64 - and I was just too lazy to be bothered to type 1 ft= 3/16 in. Even though I'm a lawyer, I am pretty good at maths, and I can even convert an imperial scale/measurement to metrics; sometimes at least.
  6. I don't think it was "true" box scale, but to the universally accepted 3/16 scale Lindberg in their wisdom chose for e.g. the He 111, Ju 88 and large B-58. Nominally at least...
  7. I'd recommend the Aeroguide on the Harrier 3, both for details and the storyline of camouflage.
  8. DO you also do the M35 and sponsons?
  9. Short Sturgeon? Rather attractive as the PR version, but those TT's...
  10. As this is about the Vampire, and the only other engine I'm aware of used in the Vampire would be the Nene as used in the Mistral and RAAF machines, "responsibility for the engine" implies the Goblin - or not?
  11. Which Airfix - the recent big belly kit or the legacy F.1A/3? Probably the former? And SAM or SAMI? If the former, then they are probably the ones by Ian Huntley - I read (somewhere, someplace) that they have issues; there was also a set in the Aeromodeller range of the F.6 by C.J. Nicholls which IMHO looks good. But then obviously the Matchbox kit was based on it, and there seem to be few people who like that one (apart from me). The most recent drawings are in DaCo‘s „Under the Skin“, and I think I‘d go with them. You may have noticed I didn’t mention a particular set, and will continue not to mention it. If that makes sense.
  12. My first thought was Gavin MacLeod, but it's not shown in his Airfix gallery. So Dave is likely right, and it has the same style as the TSR.
  13. Scalemates says 1960, so give or take a year I was off. I bought my first Airfix 217 slightly earlier than 14 (the 1978ish mild retool), and was somewhat unimpressed compared to the Seasprite. The Italeri 88 is said to be based on the Granger drawings, and to be too boxy as well for that reason. Just like the AMT/AMTech. I wonder how the Frog fares, of the legacy kits. --- Anyway, it is somewhat surprising that Revell should have a CAD file of a 217 for some 20 years but did not do the pretty obvious and blessed us with a rather modern 1/72 kit. If I'm not mistaken, this was Bill Koster's last design (or one of the last), which I'd take to be kind of a quality hallmark.
  14. IMHO this only applies to the 17, which is one of a handful of Airfix 70s kits with mainly engraved panel lines and has quite decent overall detail. The 217 in my opinion has always been rather crude - look at those flame suppressors, the u/c, the engines, those blobby clear parts - maybe on par in 1961, but she has not stood the test of time well. And apparently a noticeably incorrect rear fuselage cross section.
  15. 183? IIRC, only 263 and 137 had Whirlwinds. I have my doubts about DG/DE/MSG - not completely out of the question if in the case of transition, but I think night/Skyor Sky is more appropriate.
  16. That Seafire was my first attempt, you have to start at some point or leave alone. I am pretty sure I only used the Xacto to separate canopy and Windshield, and cut out the canopy with very sharp nail scissors - they give great control,, and you can work very slowly if you like.
  17. That's massive, thank you Duncan for sharing! In defence of the artist who did 1234, that intricate pattern on the diagonal sash isn't visible in the pic (well, at least I can't see it). But that of course does not explain missing out the yellow on the fuselage decking, the striped tank fins and use of a rather oversize font for the fin serial.
  18. There also was a book by Krzyzan and Steinle on the Stahltaube, being based on the MVT example. Quite cheap in Germany, but it may be a problem getting it to Oz...
  19. That may well have been so in reality, but I'm pretty sure I spot spanwise panel lines on the Italeri wings. I recall a review in Replic (which must have been close to 20 years ago???) stating on of the Italeri reworks of a Supermodel kit had engraved panel lines IIRC, but I have no idea which kit that was...
  20. I just wanted to write EXACTLY the same! But the second question possibly answers itself to some extent, as it looks utterly well detailed (OK, which does not necessarily go hand in hand with a great build...).
  21. Ah well, a Spit does... https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235136857-ocidental-148-spitfire-mkix-questions/#comment-4899480 The difference is marked - and the one to the right in the pic probably has it wrong, as it looks rather extreme. Anyway, back on topic - and many thanks for the very graphic illustration of those bulges! Indeed the Hase looks very close to your pic, and while I'm not quite convinced its bottom front of the curve is completely correct, it's much closer than the pretty steep curve up on the Eduard.
  22. The canopy of the 22/24/46/47 family is easily the weakest part of the kit (apart from the missing nose intake interior for the 47). When I built mine in 1996 (yes, I once did finish a kit...), I replaced it with an Aeroclub Sea Fury canopy, as no dedicated one for the Seafire was yet available. May not have been 100%, but fit well and looked a huge lot better, both shapewise and in clarity.
  23. If I'm not mistaken, all original Superkits were designed to have the engine panels removable to show the engine. Which allegedly resulted in an oversize nose on the Hurricane, as apparently the Merlin was to scale, so the thickness of the panels created additional volume.
  24. I‘m pretty sure no RNAS Squadron flew Attackers 😉 Which McLelland book is this? I‘m interested - the Attacker is underrepresented in my library, but it’s rather underrepresented in print.
×
×
  • Create New...