tempestfan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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...).

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was there twice - the first and the last time, on the same occasion... But if I am at a shop with a wallet full of cash, obviously willing to buy stuff on the shelf for almost 20 years, and keep being told "no, it costs 2.5 times of what is written on the label", it makes me keep my wallet in the pocket.

@Santti - you're a brave man! This kit is really ancient and it definitely shows... Not least by what looks to be the outline of the ejector seat warning triangles in rivets. And quite a bit of mould mismatch. Not wanting to spoil anything, but one big problem of this kit is that it is a IIIC and lacks the extra 50-something cm (?) behind the cockpit for the additional avionics bay, and hence the intakes protrude into the cockpit area. All other single seaters have the leading edge of the intake roughly in line with the rear canopy edge. You are too far gone to do anything about it - but you should consider taking out the blanking plates, or at least adding the tips of the "mice" (the intake shock cones, those little conical pieces) - paint the flat front of the intakes red, and it will look good! You have done some great things to this old horse, but this IMHO is amongst the worst of the moulds bought by Crovetto way back when in the 80s. POR FAVOR do yourself a favour and pick a more modern kit like the J-35 Draken (admittedly no Argentine connection) for your next project after you finished this one, it will give you much more modelling pleasure. But for the moment, persevere with this one!

Every type of aircraft or fighter aircraft? Does fighter aircraft include "heavies" as well? If we're talking about late war - the Me 163 to my knowledge was only used by JG 400 and EJG 2 (marginally), so my candidate would be the latter, which fits with its character of OTU/OCU.

I have both in the stash but not built either (yet...would want to) - the Revell has highly superior detail, but is engineered to have mostly flat parts, and to accommodate maximum mileage, version-wise, so has a lot of joints to line up properly. The Italeri is a lot more simple overall, has slightly pebbly surfaces, panels lines some may not find sharp enough, and some sinkage where the u/c well liner guides are situated. It is some 30 years old now, and I don't think was considered cutting-edge technology right back then. But it looks quite good in the box and should be comparably cheap. My boxing (which should be the initial one, as it's from the estate of a mag editor and probably a review kit) has Cartograf decals, including Gulf Killer and Snoopy Airlines. They are printed sharply, but very matt, and the girls have a single-pink skin. Apparently the main cockpit parts are the same for IDS and 4 boxings, but the 4 should be much more easily available anyway. The LRMTS is also in the IDS boxing.

That would leave out (more or less) prominent night fighters like Ju 88G and He 219 I think were available at the time? But I admire your knowledge. And that you did not spell it "Nacktjagdgeschwader" (which I have seen - now, that would be a sight! But rather not...).

Wow, nice do they look indeed! But that means only very few Hase parts are actually required. He should consider doing a full kit. But then I will never again visit his brick & mortar shop and make that suggestion to him...

Obviously...

Understood - but I still do not see "visible 97 times"; 97 squadriglia did not have 97 planes.

Easy solution: always fire both! (But then it's not a problem)

That would be interesting! For posting pics, you need an external photohost.

The two He 50 pics are apparently from a landscape A4 publication, so not any of the Hoffmann-published Ries books, or mm/Flugzeug/J&P Foto archiv. Waffen Arsenal would be possible, but I do not have many of them, and would be hard pressed for an idea from which one. The caption of the first one looks like it has no source quoted, so identifying the publication would not help much (unless they are from a series provided by the same source quoted in the first caption). @Kari Lumppio - have you tried contacting Axel Urbanke? He may be able to put you on a lead.

Do AV-8Bs have operable cannon in their LIDs, or if not, have a cleared wing gun pod? A small drone would be a perfect target for a short burst from a Vulcan or even Minigun.

Oh well - not that much different here.... The Heer deliberately retired Gepard some 15 years ago without replacement, creating a gap in battlefield air defence. Elsewhere, it shows that it is still a very capable system after some 50 years. Similar for maritime recce - retire first, find replacement later...