tempestfan
-
Posts
2,660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by tempestfan
-
-
Would Gladiator struts possibly work ? I seem to recall reading the Glad was essentially a Gauntlet airframe with enclosed pit and Dowty u/c.
-
I would have thought that Ali d'Italia drawings (if they covered the Reggianes) should be a starting point, being from a relatively recent Italian publication.
-
The next one I do remember was another Airfix kit, namely the P-38. I did this is a fetching Oxford blue with RAF roundel. I remember it because my uncle (late 5th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards) paid a visit and said 'Ah! A P-38! I was strafed by one of those in Normandy!' About two days later, my other war veteran uncle (15th/19th King's Royal Hussars) paid a visit and said 'Ah! A P-38! I was strafed by one of those in Normandy!' So that rather stuck in my memory (the second uncle had to explain that the Luftwaffe didn't have P-38s and 'those sort of accidents have a nasty habit of happening in war, you see'...)
P-38 units seem to have had problems in IFF, as you relate the second and third incident of this kind in this thread
-
1
-
-
Old Airfix would also be a suitable starting point, having raised panel lines - this one should also be available cheaply. A Hase Ia could be raided for the Watts and flat canopy and still be built as a nostalgia build, the cannibalised parts being alternatives anyway.
-
1
-
-
I think mine was Airfix's good old Spitfire Mk I but by the mid 80's when I started, it was in a box not bagged.
That was a late 70s mould and never came in the classic headered bag anyway - it was boxed from the start but also available in blisters for a short time.
-
1
-
-
Hi Dave,
It's not o/t as we are discussing indispensable aids in building the Revell Hudson
Thanks for the tip, I must give it a try, but do I have to buy three Hudsons then (cask strength probably leads to triple vision) ? -
That's an easy one - my first self-built (and self-bought) kit was the then-new-tool Airfix S. 2 Whirlwind, price DM 4.75, bought probably early in 1979 as a not-quite-seven-year-old at the local newsagent which was conveniently located on the way to school. I think it was the only Airfix aircraft he had at the time (and possibly the only aircraft at all). I went on buying the foundations of my Matchbox collection there (many were actually built, but some weren't) - I think this was due to availability (may have been post the 1981 Airfix crash) but may have been due to price, as Matchbox was initially only DM 3.50.
The Whirlwind got slashed together and decalled in one aftenoon. After having built a few kits more, I decided to paint the Whirlwind (with real RAF Humbrol Authentics from my father's paint set), around the decals. Worked more or less well...
It is my intention to initiate my daughter at the earliest possible moment to aircraft kits - "Flugzeug" [aircraft] was among her first 20 words, possibly first 15. So, if anyone has a suggestion for a suitable kit for her third birthday...let me know !
-
1
-
-
Thanks for taking the trouble, Carlos: I just couldn't make it out clearly on the pics even in zoom, and one looked as though the flat ended further forward. The second pic is very clear as the NG just below the paradoor shows exactly where the flat starts on the circumference, and that it extends qute a bit towards the tail..
-
. Ok I'll rummage around for some mojo and do some more.
I think the Laphroaig Dave suggested is just the right stuff for this model. Preferrably cask strength (Caol Ila cask strength may just not be strong enough).
-
1
-
-
Julien, thanks for the review, I've a couple of these in the stash from when they were origially released by ESCI, along with the Fujimi release.
Colin
If I'm not entirely wrong, the Fujimi is a mould entirely of its own, with finer panel lines and fine rivets - you probably meant that, but "Fujimi release" sounds as if it were an Esci reboxed by Fujimi.
Julien, AFAIK, the baseline military version was the M (VBH = Verbindungs- und Beobachtungshubschrauber as role identifier [liaison and observation heli]), I think the C was the designation for the civil variants.
-
1
-
-
It is let down by the over sized panel lines - even if it is impossible to reproduce in scale the overlapping panels and the rivets, thin panel lines like the ones Tamiya was already doing 50 years ago would be much better.
Heller did a quite convincing overlapping panel simulation on some of their Musée twins (Potez 631/63-11 and or Bl 174, possibly) almost 50 years back.
I like the Monogram late 50s style of instruction drawings. One question/observation: The belly behind the wing looks very flat to a point quite far back, the pics in the walkaround seem to suggest the fuselage picks up the round/oval shape before the rear tip of the wing to fuselage fillets.
-
1
-
-
What is balsa ?
(joke, I know it is a very hard metal)
You're doing a great job to a 53 year-old veteran. When you finish her up, don't forget that the Ps and early Hs (with MG 15 capability only in the A turret) had a different, slightly more domed, A turret glazing.
-
1
-
-
Didn't Pegasus do one, 25 or more years ago (full kit) ? There was also an article in SMI (by Robert Humphreys ?) around 1991 or so detailing a conversion, though I leave it for the Spit experts to pass judgement on that one.
-
Arm yourself with theJapaneseAero Detail book on each, and off to work you go.....
Maru Mechanics may also be of help - I trust there's one for each of the types (though I have no idea how accurate all the drawings are, old as the books are).
-
Scratch-built radio (it's actually a piece of an old Revell Tornado cockpit side panel, cut and adapted), with cables:
They were certainly ahead of their time...
Aiming device = gunsight. You're coming along nicely there.
-
Thanks for that link ! I'll have a good look when there's more time.
-
IWhat has surprised me is that the Lightning isn't an isolated case and that to some extent it appears the modelling customers have been putting up with it for years, why?
Possibly because 90% of all kits bought have the box openend, plastic fondled a bit through the
box(I really meant) bags, and then get stashed away ? Make it 100 % for me...-
1
-
-
Does anyone make the RP-3 rails (I hope I'm using the right term) that many Hunter FGA9s seemed to use during the Indonesian Confrontation and the Radfan War? It's entirely possible I just didn't recognize them, but as near as I can tell, the Revell kits seem to only have the later rocket pods.
Airfix did (to some extent) in their original F.6 kit from 1960 or thereabouts, at least I take them to represent a representation - if you looked at them, it's not only possible but quite likely you didn't recognize them
Mark, thanks a lot for pointing to that most informative thread. Am I right in thinking that the main purpose for those triangular "fins" (your post #20, best seen in pic 4) is that of being sway braces ? As they look rather beefy, I don't think they serve an aerodynamic purpose. At first I thought pic 3 showed a different arrangement, as it looked like showing "straight" plates external to the rocket bodies, but after looking long & hard I believe I now see the "kink" at the base of the upper fins. Hopefully not self-suggestion.
Was this the exclusive RP arrangement as used on the Hunter, or was the older type suspension also employed ? I may have overlooked that point in the other thread.
-
I presume you are referring to my post #7: 04:20 PM post to me - I am on the other side of the world.
Me stupid, yes, for the avoidance of doubt, I should have said "#7". Thanks for your clarification re the spinners - if I ever get around to building a Boomer, I know where to turn to...
-
The Trumpeter 1/32 kit was checked against the SAM Modeller's Datafile drawings, and they apparently matched.
Airfix/Trevor Snowden got their drawings from BAC (for the 1/48 kits,) and kept them for future use.
That should tell you all you need to know.
Airfix also got their drawings for the Battle from Faireys, way back when...
But no doubt the ones they got from BAe for the Lightnings were better suited for their respective task. Regarding drawings in SAM, it probably depends on who did them.-
1
-
-
I'm a bit confused, Magpie: I take the first two shots in your 10:20 post to show a/c in FG/EB/SB - if that is the case, there's hardly any visible contrast, this looks "worse" than EDSG/DSlateG for FAA a/c. But if that is so, and it's not solid FG tops, how does your statement re the probable EB spinner for 177 and 178 fit in ? I wonder as they are very light, similar in tonal value to the SB undersurfaces visible on 177.
-
Interesting observations, Tbolt. May this (also) have something to do with the pressure used ? I wouldn't bet without having checked, but I ***feel*** many of the larger Monogram kits had thin, crystal clear canopies and at least two gates, and I don't recall having noticed that phenomenon with them. The choice of material may also contribute, as Monogram's clear parts were from a very brittle plastic and cracked easily.
-
AV-8B; May want to consider Monogram AV-8B as it has a much more accurate wing, as opposed to the kinked wing Hasegawa Harrier.
IIRC Revell also boxed an AV-8B some 10 or so years ago. I remember looking into it and it looked like a Snap kit, not what I'd expect of a regular range Mono kit. Am I mixing things, or was that based on the Mono ?
-
Sorry, didn't notice the link only directed to the menu.
I know that this is a minefield, and it may be due to the angle and light and thousand other factors, but the cowling of the first one looks grey to me. I'm not particularly convinced re the brown of the second one, as the Grünherz on my screen at least does not look green but quite similar to the apparent brown. But I'd better shut up and leave the discussion to those with more knowledge on RLM colours and photo interpretation.
Thanks for the tip, I must give it a try, but do I have to buy three Hudsons then (cask strength probably leads to triple vision) ?
Gloster Gauntlet
in Aircraft Interwar
Posted
Wasn't aware the Gauntlet was 2-bay vs. 1-bay for the Glad. The distance between the fuselage and upperwing also looks to be a bit shorter on the Gauntlet (without having looked at more pics).