tempestfan

It seems that the initial "Huff" version has sold out, so I assume they thought it made sense to do a new run with new decal choices. I'd say that's better than what they did in the past, namely running kits for 40 years with the same decal choices (Typhoon, Scout, P-40E, F-5A...; only 25 for the A4D-1, which really was a missed opportunity of incredible magnitude, as the -1 had about the most colourful markings of all Scooter variants - and they stuck with that blandest imaginable VA-34 scheme which has almost no colour at all).

Which one ? MMM ? I'd like to see Boeing thrown out of the trade marks registers in the toys categories, especially for historic aircraft names that weren't their product in the first place. It's ridiculous.

At least Revell released its boxing in 1996, so the mould is a full 18 years fresher than it is today, if it's still in production... Better check Lines/Hellström for Frog release year, Scalemates have dates wrong in some cases.

Is that Sabre a version built by Piasecki/Vertol ? And that 109E looks as if it was by someone else than Adam Tooby, it looks more like that "gorgeous" T10 (white box) 109F art...

That dsicrepancy of dimensions must mean one is inaccurate.

I've only ever built the old Matchbox kit as a RA machine (before the mould was slightly upgraded and RA decals included, probably 1980 - and was a little boy then), so I can't comment how any of them build. However, as Airfix kits from the mid to late 70s usually had good fit, if fit is a main concern, that one may be a contender. It is on ebay very often and usually cheaply. There was also one by Fujimi, but contemporary reviews IIRC judged its accuracy as below Airfix's. It's a pity that Airfix never bothered to upgrade their mould from XX154 standard. The new-mould Airfix kit appears to be essentially a scale down of the 48th kit, which in turn was based heavily on the old 72nd kit (as evidenced e.g. by the u/c well details and the pre-prod-standard main wheel doors). The panel line detail on the 48th kit is, in the main, approximative at best and in parts fictitious, so I'd expect the same for its smaller brother.

Thanks Panoz for clearing that. That ProFinish thingy doesn't look as if it was intended for the German market as there's no German whatsoever in sight. Probably not for worse...

When I visited the Baginton Museum ca. 1996, a very kind bloke slathered fresh paint on the underside of the Javelin (I think it was some light grey). I asked him if he was sure that was the right colour (I had the feeling it should have been silver, but feelings may be wrong), and he said he had no idea, this was the only paint available, so he had to use it.

Something you may find useful are the clear plastic stiffeners used for shirt collars etc. They often feature "compound curves" (with changing radii) that come in handy for difficult panel shapes. I also have often read people using Dymo tape as it is tough yet flexible, though I haven't used it myself (yet). I'd post some pics of my fully-engraved Frog Sea Hawk, but the links have been lost in the meltdown of another forum, and it seems the search function on the ATF only works for current members.

Have you tried the Olfa P-Cutter ? It's not for tiny detals and small radii, but otherwise it works very well. I started by using a compass needle held in the chuck of a small electric drill. With that needle you can do just about anything. It has some problems, however. As it is flexible, it tends to "spring", and it may "lag" in curves etc.which may cause the point to get out of direction. It's very advisable to do very gentle passes and gradually build the depth of the line. Invariably, the "ridges" will get back into the line after sanding, requiring some more applications of the needle (it's here where most of miy disasters happened, as it is very boring to clean out a line again that was nice).

A message by a bilingual Alsatian, perhaps (not the furry variety) ?

What do you use for scribing ? I admit I have been out of the building business for a very long time, but I have successively used a compass point (which basically works well but needs a lot of passes and even more care), a scribing tool (Bare Metal ? it was completely useless as it resulted in a trench worse than the worst of Matchbox kits; I may have had a Monday example, thhough) and the Olfa P-Cutter. The latter is superb for long straight lines and controlled fairly easily (at least mine was, bought it ca. 10 ys. ago) along a ruler, tape or whatever. A bit of care is needed to control the depth, as it removes a "hair" from the surface which gets thicker corresponding to pressure.

Amen ! There's the generally excellent "in Canadian Service" book on the CF-5s (but not the E of course), but...beware of the drawings !

Don't get me wrong, I did not intend to condemn them altogether. As the F-5E/F was a quite early issue (#9 ? in the unified series), I guess the drawings are by J. Smith ?

Alf Granger probably is to blame for me not finishing more than four kits since 1988 - his 109E drawings were about the first scale drawings I came across consciously, and I decided to engrave and correct an Airfix kit according to them (not finished to this day), assuming any drawing done as cleanly must be dead accurate. I freely confess that his work in Wingspan made me a sucker for cleanly-done and layouted drawings. I have asked about him on other fora, but I don't think I ever got any substantially new info. Googling doesn't yield much either. All I can say is that his first works I'm aware of are the Dataplan series from ca. 1972 or thereabouts. Then follows a gap up to ca. 1981 when he started doing the drawings for Wingspan (originally Planes), a series which was relatively easily available in bookshops in large rail stations in Germany up to the end of 1994 or so. As there appears to have been some dramatic price increase for all UK magazines in Germany leading to SAM, AvNews and SMI being dropped by my suppliers at the end of 1994, it may have continued being produced for some time, but I recall seeing a reference that Wingspan ceased in 1995 or something. I have not seen any work by him after that which was not recycled. He also was responsible for the drawings in the Aerodata International series, which was produced from the early 80s on by VAP Publications. Most of his work was associated with Philipp Moyes in some way, so I think he could be a lead - if he is still with us, as I suspect Mr Moyes must be in his 90s. His Beau drawings were reprinted (IIRC they appeared in an early issue of Planes) in a later Wingspan (between 50 and 65, I think), which I have. Somewhere in a box.

D&S is not the first source I'd turn to regarding accurate drawings, all of those for which I did some crosschecking with photos had more or less serious errors. Though that doesn't mean other sources are any better. Possibly it would make sense to try to get as many drawings from different sources as possible and check them against each other - if it matters to you at all.

As this is a large kit, it may make sense to do all of them. I may not be quite up to date, but regrettably the F-5s used to be one of the least-documented 2.000+-built aircraft - I'd try to get some picture references and/or drawings to confirm whether all of the panel lines should actually be there. If they are visible in pics, I'd say they should be engraved. Famous Aircraft of the World #116 (should be from the old series) was on the F-5 and had a set of drawings that looked very nice, as I recall them.

Is there anything wrong with thread resurrections ? There were at least two different boxings of the basic kit in the 70s (1/32), one for French and Swiss E/R/S/RS, and one that pretended to be a 5J (I think that's how it was labelled), with the pointy nose (no idea if the E and R noses were still included). The latter version has been re-released as a "special scheme" kit with markings for a Belgian machine (ca. 1992), the E kit was repopped ca. 1988 (additional Argentine markings) and ca. 10 years ago in a retro box, IIRC with additional antipodean decals included.

I built that kit when it was new, 18 years ago (how time flies ! Incidentally th elast kit I finished...), so my recollections are somewhat dim. The replacement canopy is a must, besides it having a cross section too narrow and therefore notcoming down to its rails, I think it had an uneven surface on the inside. I don't really quite recall the way I took when building her with wings extended, but I think I did the outer sections separately, and one thing I'm rather sure about is that the "ribs" were not a great fit, to put it euphemistically. In the end I think I managed to obtain compatible sections both in- and outboard.

I do. Great weathering job, I especially like the "rustspots" so apparent on the "foot" of the laying gear (3rd from last pic - also on other surfaces). Most convincing.

Good that no-one came up with "left to daugther to practice parking".

Great build, but I don't see wings or rotors - how does it fly ?

I second that. It's where progress for mankind derives from.

The (German) Wiki entry says the 2002 had a siginificantly improved "Flugwerk", which usually would be the translation for airframe (Matchbox translated Hu Airframe Silver as Flugwerk Silber in their instructions, IIRC), but they give no specifics whatsoever. Air Enthusiast had an article on the Re's in the 40s, I think. The English entry says the 02 was 01 wings with a modified 00 fuselage. Pending confirmation or otherwise...

Always running left to right, right to left again... Dear colleague, you've done a really great job ! As an alternative to masking tape, how about the sticky bit from a Post It ? That's really low tack, so should leave the decals in place, and being paper, should be well suited for tracing the shape onto it. And if you go the paint route: Be sure paint and decal like each other - when I was a boy, some decals when coming in contact with paint contracted to little sausages. A test would be sensible, but obviously that kit doesn't give a lot of spares. I find the white elelctrical hazard warnings on the radome quite intrusive - are they that large in full scale ? (not your fault, of course)