tempestfan

Just the same regarding Frog 45 years earlier - the Frog moulds were NOT "sold" to the USSR because DunbeeCrombexMarx went bankrupt (IIRC that happened, but somewhat later), but as an attempt to be able to offer product at unbeatable prices. Or as regards Airfix in 1985 - "they" (actually there was no "they" as Airfix was merely a trademark then) did not "break down", but General Mills as ultimate owners decided to divest non-core businesses including toys. Perhaps it makes people feel better if someone's exit from business is down to bankruptcy, or it is an unconscious reflex to think this.

Hey, that would be cool, buying without paying crazy customs duties and handling fees! But I assume stocks will not last till Lingen - if that one will happen in the first place... Looks like I'll have to fold the rear seats flat and drive to Delmenhorst in January - 1.800 liters should accommodate a couple of kits

Some people would consider getting divorced like being released from jail...

@Blimpyboy: Oh yes, the Gakkens! There were also at least two volumes on the Zero in their "Pacific War history" series - regrettably, one of mine was missing a chunk of pages, which may have been the scale drawings I was after (the Raiden book had a very good looking set of drawings). Anyway, the Gakkens and many other Japanese-only books are really tough to find unless one has the ISBN - with the latter, one stands a chance on the usual book sites, but without it's almost impossible. No idea how they stood the test of time, but I always liked the Maru Mechanics. I think they had three volumes on the Zero and a "special" combined issue, but the MM's are generally tough to get in Europe, and the Zero books apparently even harder, as I first noticed them only recently when trying to compile a list of the series.

While we're at bad kits, also avoid the Starfix, which you may come across and think it's a bargain. Though I'd probably prefer it over the PM blob...

I am pretty certain the Matchbox kit was designed taking very long and hard looks at the Bentley drawings. The surface detail is Matchbox‘esque, but not as bad as others. I still consider this one of MB‘s best.

Jumpei Temma's drawings show both features, though without further explanation - his -4 stbd side view is labelled "early production". Given his (I repeat myself) is the only set of drawings I am aware of that feature the small blister in front of the outboard shell ejector, I think he did a very serious study of pics. I have no idea if he could answer your questions if you contact him via the "mail to" feature on his start page - but it may be worth a try.

Is that the one shown on the artwork of Airfix's BV-107/Hkp-4, out of the snow?

Ouch - that was a serious brainfade on my part! Of course Verlinden was Belgian, not Dutch... However, I believe there was some coordination and collaboration between both countries regarding maintenance and upgrades. Would have to check the book if it says something on those aspects. In any event, it is a great source for "general details" (if that makes sense), and something like the mother of this style of book (yes, D&S was earlier, but at least the first six Lock Ons took that concept to a new level). However, I haven't spotted one on my favourite used book platform going up to 50€ combined price - which with all sympathy I wouldn't pay for it.

The Verlinden Lock On may also be worthwhile - I think it appeared ca. 1983 and so would probably cover the KLu birds in their twilight days.

Where are the wheel masks when you REALLY need them... Great pic! IIRC I read somewhere that also Luftwaffe self-sealing tanks were reddish (the colour of the unvulcanised rubber used as sealant). The Tempest tanks you posted look very dark, too dark (?) to be this brick orange colour - unless the film type shifted the darkness.

Sometimes size does matter I was just having a look into my old "Encyclopedia of the FAA" by Paul Beaver which IIRC bought on HMS Belfast in 1991 - oh, that was a great summer It has a pic of an AS. 4 (as captioned - p. 113) with what looks like the pod you're after. However, the pod is neither depicted in the accompanying drawings nor is the sensor named - for Barracuda 5 and Firefly AS. 5/6/7, it's specified as the ASV Mk 9, and shape and size look quite close. However, the pod in the Firefly drawings looks too small to my eye, both in length and diameter. Ian Huntley did a two-piece on late Fireflies in SAM way back when (I'd guess 1992/3/4 as I'm quite certain I was at university), which may contain a drawing of the pod - if it's the correct one.

There was a small book called "Transporter - wer kennt sie schon?" by Karl Kössler, former head of the German Civil Aviation Authority, published in the early 80s. This may be helpful regarding Ju 52 units if it can be found at the usual sources. I bought mine a fairly long time ago at Luftfahrtmuseum Hannover-Laatzen, as Dr. Kössler headed the organisation behind it. I have no idea really if the museum still exists (I think its founder and main financier died some years ago), and if so, if it still has stocks of that book, but it may be worth a try, EDIT: The museum still exists, and amazingly the book is still visible in a glass cabinet on their HP under the "shop" section. Apparently they do not do any e-commerce, though.

This thread is a goldmine for an amateurish Wildcatista like me! A first thought that crossed my mind was CoG - if some weight up front is deleted, it would make sense to move an ostensibly relatively heavy part like the mounting bulkhead forward a bit to compensate. But if that bulkhead applies to all P&W versions from some point on - -3, -3A, -4, FM-1 and Martlet II - then probably not. Possibly "only" a move to introduce a lighter structure to gain some kgs in comparison with the A6M, while improving access to the accessory bay?

Williams had a Lockheed Electra (late 30s model) at the slightly eccentric scale of 1/53.

The original meaning of DPD was Deutsche Paket Deppen - process this through the translator of your convenience

Seconded! One of the easier "rare" ones to find...

Somewhat off topic, but Swastikas on kits by European manufacturers were not that common, with Frog and Matchbox showing them, and Airfix and Revell did not for quite some time. The first Airfix kit ever to appear with a Swastika was the 1/24 109E, in 1972 (I think). It was used by all new Airfix kits, but generally not introduced on pre-existing tools. Use ended when in 1979 the Federal High Court decided that a long-established law about the use of the symbols of anti-constitutional organisations applied to Swastikas on kits; the offending kit was the Matchbox SdKfz 251 with the ultra-prominent Fliegersichtzeichen on its hood. I am fairly sure the use of Swastikas is also outlawed in other European countries. That must have been the black box with Bergèse artwork? Mine with the pixelled-over Swastika has the new mould in it.

But it's incredibly hard to get, and if it's on offer, at prices I consider ridiculous - usually around the EUR 100 mark.

You'd hated it much more had you accidentally slipped on the "buy" button for the Revell née Matchbox Tunnan, I suppose...

Ah - now I see. Well, Airfix went save and used both Roman and Arabic numbers on that boxing

Why fantasy - because of the spacial setting and the less-than-stellar perspective of in particular the JL100s (I think that's what they were called)? The model follows the Aeromodeller drawing to a hair (mostly), and those drawings also include the Matra 511 (IIRC) and the rarely-seen tanks/launchers. The only modification this kit ever had (as far as I'm aware) were new artwork and new decals for 1989 and later issues.

Those are said to have some serious inaccuracies, IIRC in particular the engine nacelles - not sure if much too big or much too feeble. The ancient AMT 1/48 kit apparently was based on those drawings. It's a long time since I looked at mine, but the Mono Snap kit was rather impressive for a snap kit IIRC, not an oversimplified toy but rather a quick build Monogram kit; the B-25 from the same range was very similar in approach. The problem indeed may be finding one, as I think it had a fairly short catalogue life.

Cue some 14 months... I am really grateful you put me onto that McLelland track, as I was unaware of him and his books up to then (well, under that name...). In the meantime, I have two copies of the first edition (the original had rather bad transit damage to the spine, second is almost perfect) and one of the revised. I still have not read it cover to cover but keep being impressed by the abundance of quotes - which hopefully are original and correct, despite the lack of footnotes. Most likely I will have to get the Crowood title as well; however, the number of pages may well not be a real indication as to quantity of contents as the Classic/Crecy title is set in a rather user-unfriendly 8-point (I think) font, which saves a lot of space. As regards the scale drawings (which is the point of the quote), it may be an idea to look either for a cheap copy of Barrie Hygate's "British Experimental Aircraft" or for the issue of SMI in which the drawings were printed (IIRC 1986 or 7). I'd bet a half-penny the drawings in the Classic/Crecy book very closely conform to the Hygate ones in the main aspects After you set me on that McLelland trail, I bought a couple more of his books, and was really astonished why I had never come across that name before, given his track record. But sometimes google and wiki are your friend - I have a couple of photo softbacks written under his original name. RIP, Tim.

Now that's a great one! Many thanks & saved! If I may add a snippet - AvNews had Skua/Roc drawings sometimes in the mid 80s (by Chris Bowley?), and Ian Huntley noticed something was not quite right - I think the wing chord -, and redrew the wings in his Column in SAM. Man/men, I am getting old seems like I read that piece yesterday...