tempestfan
-
Posts
2,660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by tempestfan
-
-
I have not kept track if finally one is available, but a true Finnish B239 should be assured of good sales.
-
Regarding continental deployment of the Meteor, there was an interview with Warren Schrader (OC 616) in one of the Ventura booklets, detailing the final days of the war when they were stationed in the Lüneburger Heide a few km from where I live (Fassberg or Celle; or possibly they may have moved to Lübeck by then). One memorable statement by Mr Schrader was he didn't paint kill marks on his planes as he couldn't see the benefit for mankind - an account worth reading.
-
The JG 54 used "bomber camouflage" of RLM 70 and RLM 71 topsides. V-P
One could also say "earlier fighter camouflage", though apparently the pattern was established on unit level.
A patch of 75 (?) may be seen behind the swastika, don't forget to paint this if it's not printed with the swastika decal.
-
Airfix may have measured an actual plane when they prepared their 1979 kit, apparently this was based on the research for a proposed 1/24 kit dropped for cost issues. If they had those drawings mentioned by Edgar by that time, they certainly would have used them in the process.
How do the Granger drawings shape up ?
-
I've seen this ebayer before. Some curious pricing policy. £60 for a Hawker Hart that fetches £12 on average.
Prices for the Hart must've come down somewhat. It used to be rather expensive as it was one of the earliest "never to be re-released" kits by Airfix as the mould was converted to the Demon.
If you like that Lightning art, check out the US-style interpretation of the Treble One Hunters shooting themselves out the sky with their rockets as an air show routine, or their Final Countdown-style NA.39 with a carrier being attacked by a Zero, or their Bloodhound being fired from its launch pad on the trailer, or...
I'd say those US issues may be picked up in the states quite cheaply (before s&h, that is.)
-
1
-
-
Although looking at it again, it has raised panel lines - is that right? They would be wiped out with any wet and dry action....
I'm not intimate with Tornado tanks, but to me it looks like it's meant to represent a weld seam.
-
I seem to recall having read (IIRC Squadron feature in AvNews) that 71 Sq., receiving Buffalos as initial equipment in sep./Oct. 1940, was so dissatisfied with the Buffalo that the aircraft were deliberately damaged in faked landing accidents in order to get rid of them. While the situation in the Far East may have been somewhat different due to the (then apparently) perceived inferiority of Japanese fighters, I'm inclined to think that the Buffalo wouldn't have been deemed a "perfectly good aircraft" a year later. I don't claim the removal was done, and if so, likely before hostilities there began for the reasons you state.
-
The Buffalo loaded with armour plate, weapons/rounds, fuel, pilot & gear, already taxed the
engines. Adding extra metal would have hindered the aircraft further.
Just a thought: Removing the probably relatively thick perspex (?) and possibly associated framing and replacing it with sheet alu may actually have lightened the plane a bit.
-
La-7 originally by Hobbycraft.
Academy have reboxed a few Hobbycraft kits, the La-7, also Bf109G's, F8F Bearcat, P-35, and a few more IIRC. It's late and I'm not going on a search!
A bit of searching will usually turn up the required info, Scalemates can be useful for working out what are reissues of what.
I had the surprising idea to google this after my post and, as expected, this brought a quick confirmation...
-
I wish you all the best for the next steps with the Re. The Artiplast/Smer kit appears to capture that "Omega" shape in the rear wing to fuselage fairing region rather better. Incidentally, the MC 72 is said to have recessed panels, so please oblige
(and it's only about 42 years old so not too old - and now think EXACTLY if and what you answer to the last statement )Forgive my ignorance, is your smashing Academy La-7 the ex-Hobbycraft mould ?
-
You could build the Airfix 1979 190D-9 as a companion. It is a bit simpler and generally less detailed than the Italeri, but IIRC it was considered to have a small edge over the other.
Coming back to RLM 76, "Lichtblau" seems to be the official designation, though I have some reservations (but am not particularly interested in Luftwaffe camou). Lichtblau is not a particularly sensible term in German (true, a certain part of the light spectrum is blue), and I have never seen any other light or pale colour being titled "Licht-". To me it sounds rather more like the false pick of one of the meanings of "light" in German, "Licht" instead of "Hell-" (like pale).
-
1
-
-
Italian aircrafts do look good; sadly, not much choice in 1 48.
Ciao
You could try some of the old Artiplast's if you're in masochistic mode anyway ... Most would probably be available quite cheaply as Smer boxings, and I think that some of the line are actually not that bad (I seem to recall having read relatively good things about the MC.72 racer), but then they are probably more 1/50 than 1/48.
What amazes me is the apparently rather rough engineering and finish of this kit. They certainly could do better 30 years ago, but then who knows to whom they outsourced the toolmaking.
-
1
-
-
It would be interesting to compare the various drawing by Pat Lloyd (SMI), Mike Keep (AvNews/Warpaint), 4+, Anthony Shennan (?, Kookaburra) and the presumably new ones that were included with preorders of the VW book to see how far they agree or otherwise...
-
Is it just me or does the whole world love the Whirlwind???
Anyone else of the opinion that if she had the right engines at the very start this aircraft may have taken a very different place in the history books??
She is simple slender and very, very elegant ...in my humble opinion
Really looking forward to following this build.
Cheers
From me: Yes on all accounts. The (then brand) new tool Airfix Whirlwind was the very first kit I bought (and completely built) myself as a 6-year-old, so it obviously has a special meaning for me. And she as a plane looked so modern then compared to the boring 109E's my friends were so keen at.
Possibly she even would have worked out great had RR had the resources to properly develop the Peregrine.
-
1
-
-
$ 16.95 is a rather hefty price tag...
The "no figure included" disclaimer probably stems from the fact that this likely was the last kit Italeri tooled that had (sort of) a pilot included - way back when in 1979 or something (note that this also may have been the last aircraft kit they issued to sport their original "Italaerei" name). This probably also accounts for the confused painting instructions, the stuff on the box may come from the first issue (I'd have to check) while the instructions were progressively updated/amended. Over the years Italeri recycled part of the kit to form the basis for an A-8, that's probably where the tank (and I seem to spot a second ETC) came in - usually in those cases, parts not used will be crossed out in the parts diagram. And may I tell you what - Italeri likes to confuse, 'cause in a number of cases where they have "family mouldings", the same parts numbers are alloted twice (those not for use should then be crossed in the layout diagram), while the instructions tell you "not to use parts x, y and z" - which do not exist in the first place.
-
1
-
-
As Oor said, It 127 has always been the number used for the original Italeri C-47 (and I don't think there was an earlier release, a Civilian boxing came later and may have been It 132). Retention of the number suggests this is the Italeri and not the Esci tool.
-
galgos...
They were drawn by 'Ian Allen' for the Warpaint series of aircraft scale drawings.
Sure it's not Ian Huntley, as he is probably one of the authorities for all things Fairey ?
@ Don, Ian Huntley related the story in some old issue of SAM, but probably more in the mid to late 80s. Airfix asked the Fairey PR office (though I'm not sure what Fairey did in the mid 60s) for some material on the Battle and was duely provided with drawings. Unfortunately, they were sent GA drawings that (IIRC) were a cross between P.4/34 and the Battle. When Ian came to know about that fact, he sent Airfix better material and a kind-worded reminder that if they expected something to work from, they should rather ask someone who is in the know and direct themselves immediately to the drawings office.
I think the CA 1/48 Battle was based to some extent on the MAP/Argus drawing by Mr. Merrick. SMI re-ran them around 1985 with nice large photos printed accompanying the drawings that showed some areas where the drawings wer possibly not quite correct.
-
1
-
-
Hey, that should be a collectible tin by now !
-
The RAF adopted it for the Nimrod MRA4 to illustrate the same - The only use of 'attack' for RAF I think.
GR was not appropriate for the SHAR2 as most of it's planned targets were not 'ground'.
What about the Hunter FGA.9, or does the A in there stand for something else ?
The FAA's Phantoms were called "FG" for a role that I imagine would be comparable to the SHAR 2's. And then there's the S for Strike, which also covers an air to surface role. I confess I may not be up to the finer points her, though.
*** Edit: All points have been mentioned on p. 3; apologies for having read the thread in reverse order ***
-
By the way, I am much impressed with the book and with its rapid delivery as I ordered it on 20 May and here it is today together with a nice set of 1/48 Whirlwind plans.
Who is the draughtsman ?
-
Hmmm. What I called "stainless steel footboard" are in fact two boxes. After switching between the illustration Edgar posted and the one in your link, it seems a bit as if the former has heelboards level with the top of those boxes not (yet ?) installed in the other shot (as there seems nothing in front of those boxes on the same level). I'll stop staring at those pics lest I begin to see white mice lurking in the corners, and try to locate my ancient Kookaburra booklet and the 4+ one when at home. Maybe there's something in there with a bit more depth to the photo.
-
That looks gorgeous ! I assume you will be shutting the flaps up to have more key area for the rearwards fillet extension (I think I once read that flaps were ordered to be retracted immediately after touchdown to avoid their damage) ?
-
1
-
-
Would you be so kind to explain your remark in detail, please ?
-
I do not see any trench, as portrayed by the kit. The edges of both the stainless steel (?) spanwise "footboard" and of the alu (?) edge liner of the heelboards are visible for much of the breadth of the fuselage, and they are uninterrupted.
(and it's only about 42 years old so not too old - and now think EXACTLY if and what you answer to the last statement 
)
Bf-109 F2 colour question
in Aircraft WWII
Posted
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm