tempestfan

The ancient Monogram Ju 87D had a pilot and gunner, but to me they appear a bit underscale. Otherwise, there weren't that many German multicrew kits brought on the market for some time, and during most of that period figures were somewhat unfashionable. I have no idea whether the AMT Ju 88 contained any crew figures, but if it did, their quality likely would have matched the rest of the kit... Not completely but pretty sure its Hobbycraft offspring and their Do 17 didn't include figures; neither did the Fujimi Me 110, Dragon/Revell Ju 88, Revellogram He 111. --- Quite recently Revell did some aircrew sets, but I am unsure about their scale and subjects... You could always model her with escape hatch open, after they took to their chutes

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the J radome was slightly larger due to the different radar set (but this may well be incorrect - there are many kits on the market using the same basic radome tooling for B/C/D/J - which of course may be incorrect as well), but as @CT7567 says, I also cannot recall reading about such difference between B and C/D.

There was also a rather good booklet by Wojtek Matusiak published by Mirage - primarily covering those flown by Polish aircrew, but with a lot of good general information (IIRC).

You recall correctly regarding ghastly, my father (or uncle) had one of those too, and when I had access to it 20 years later, it did a number of dogfights in which ghastlyness didn't matter much. It was big. However, it was moulded in a rather intense medium metallic blue - the even more ghastly Me 109 was metallic wine red IIRC, and the undescribable "MiG-19" (or 17?) in vomit-inducing metallic green.

You mean as a base, or as the paints for the experimental pattern? If the latter, that would be a very marked contrast between EDSG and DSlateG, type of film notwithstanding.

Seems I'm in for Alzheimer treatment, if there is one.

Then definitely Monogram is not for you

The 47 was the last kit I managed to finish, some 25+ years ago... Sorry, I don't recall how I painted them, but I think there was a somewhat hazy shot in an old Air International, ca. 1980- (very ca.), possibly accompanying an article by Eric Brown? This is mine , but you really can't see anything on the photo (better picture here, they may be black or dark green), and the model is in long-term storage... somewhere! IIR the article correctly, the underwing tanks were not well liked as they impaired manoeuvrability, and I seem to recall they were not jettisonable, so not useful in combat (I may be wrong, it's a long time). What I remember is - if you use the rockets, forget their tail parts. The fins are fat, and there's not much you can do to them. I am quite certain I replaced the exhaust with pieces of metal tube (either alu or brass), and made new fins from thin sheet. A pure joy considering there are 32 of them, but in the end it was not that hard. And also get a replacement sliding canopy (IIRC mine was Aeroclub for the Sea Fury), as the kit part was frankly dreadful, as it stopped 1mm or so each side above the slice rails, and had a somewhat uneven texture. No idea if they ever got around retooling this part, as it is so focal. And another possible small improvement is adding something as a chin intake interior, as it is an empty hole. I think I used a part of the 46 cowling underside part.

Thanks for bumping this thread up again - and many thanks for that most interesting page from AM! A highly interesting paint scheme, however, I wouldn't call it "blotchy" but "fency", as the pattern consists of diagonal fences. Is anyone able to spot any colour demarcations of the original scheme, or can we assume the base was Dark Green? --- I really should seriously consider rejoining AB...

What was the practice for direct purchase aircraft - .30s or .303s? If the latter, I'd imagine they were fitted after arrival; and how about the gunsight - UK GFE, possibly?

Wasn't there also a Mosquito, as first of the "new" Airfix 1/24s? Not quite sure about the Hurricane, IIRC @Troy Smith has stated that the Trumpeter kit is excellent; and considering their track record that may even mean it's their best aircraft kit allround

Alan Hall and MAP may have been slightly antagonistic - AWH published SAM, MAP/Argus SMI I do not know the AvNews drawings, but those by Pat Lloyd (IIRC he at least collaborated on them) indeed look very good - and I think covered a number of projects like butterfly tail, so are possibly the source for the AZ kits. I am pretty sure that the 162 was covered in an ancient Luftfahrt International volume, with a number of reprinted original drawings. If of use, I can have a look (I should have at least part of my LI's instantly accessible). They also had a Do 17 and a He 219. All of those kits would lead to an instant summon at the ICC for atrocities... Just like the US types they did in the mid 60, of which I luckily have managed to avoid contact with except for the Kingfisher. To be fair, they (probably) predated most of their superior competition. I have a feeling they may have been tooled at Lindberg's German facility, as they are so completely different in each aspect of approach to Lindberg's 50s kit, some of which are just plain gorgeous (1/64 B-58, F8U-1...)

I think you could build one of the earliest F-110As, which were Navy Bs loaned to the AF and returned soon after (IIRC). However, memory is hazy... A cheap way for a fairly nice D would probably be the Esci/Scalecraft/Ertl kit, but the mould is something like 40 years old and should probably not be presented directly beside a Tamiya or ZM Phantom...Same goes for the Monogram.

Hi Carl, as I wrote here: "If you happen to have a chat with @Carl V anytime, I'd be happy if he could confirm whether this was actually released or not. If it was, I want it, plain simple. And if he had Mr Hopp (or someone else) prepare the scale drawings for Blenheim/Bolingbroke, Stranraer, Cat/Canso and the Curtiss's, I'd be hugely interested (and I will pay, of course). Mustang to a lesser extent, but if the drawings cover the Allison variants, as before applies. Even more interesting would be the manuscripts of all of them, as I think it highly likely he had completed a lot of the research, and if he happens to have done so, I'd be highly interested and again, I don't want anything for free. Hard work has to be remunerated.", so I will gladly take up your offer - and I am still prepared to pay, of course. In particular for the drawings, if those ever were produced.

Luckily I do not need translator to have a quick go through it Part of the problem, possibly with many armies around the world, but certainly at the Bundeswehr, is that it has been attempted to run them like a business, with just in time logistics for spares, outsourcing etc. That may have worked in peacetime to some extent, with only limited peacekeeping missions going on, but is bound to run into problems when demand suddenly surges. If you have close to zero stocks of long lead-time spares, problems are inevitable, especially if the suppliers have tailored their capacities to (normal) demand. And they will not be able to suddenly increase their capacities to meet increased demand, if only for the lack of suitably qualified manpower. To some extent it is a systemic failure, but then in (relative) peacetime no one liked to spend more taxes to retain a higher degree of independence from just in time supplies; so in some ways the situation is also to blame on voters. I could comment on my view of the qualification of the current and at least four preceding German MoD's, but that would probably be considered political . From what I read, 16 or 17 of the Pumas have returned to service already, with only the one with the cable fire requiring more thorough repair. Suppliers and politicians are blame-gaming in my view, with reality probably somewhere in the middle of the field. As regards the PzH 2000, as Jochen stated, they have been employed - if reports are true - in a fashion for which they simply were not designed out of operational necessity, and I have my doubts any other comparable system would have fared much better. Any barrel of any artillery (or other fire) weapon has a specific life/TBO after which it has to be changed or refurbished as far as I'm aware, and this is measured in shots. It would be interesting to know if the guns fell short of this, which may have been influenced by non-observance of e.g. max shots per given period to avoid overheating, or if the limit was actually reached sooner than expected because the guns performed so well. My perceptions, and hopefully not considered (too) political.

May we call you "two sheds" after you were successful?

Actually this kit was retooled twice in the past 66 years, with the first one (in 1967/8) being more drastic, so it's not quite the original. The original had no innards, with two alien torsos sitting on a shelf, and no main cabin windows (nor sure about the cockpit side windows). The floatation bags for the wheels were removed (or blanked) in the 1973/4 retool, as regrettably was the plinth on the tail rotor drive tunnel for the upper nav (?) light (which is still on the clear sprue, as well as a searchlight [I think]). I'd love to have seen Airfix adding a new, separate base for the spine light and this kit reappearing in the lovely blue/red Antarctic scheme. And frankly, the rotor head and blades more than show their age.

A re-release will not necessarily bring the price of older boxings down - the Type 3 and especially the Type 4 boxings are really scarce and hence usually expensive (I saw the latter only once in my active ebay days, which spanned from 2004 to something like 2017). I'd say the smaller one is more of an approximation, with its integral paddles on the half-wheels - but then it's something like 65. Sorry, I am a collector so am of no help re building hints.

That depends on if the kits are realistically intended to be built. If not, a bad box may make a huge difference to price in case of reselling (at least if sold on to a kit collector like me...).

Somehow this sounds like "call it a day", which is not yet a Kinks song I think (and will never become one). So how to make this a SUNNY AFTERNOON? A couple of years back, I bought a big load of scrap kits because it contained three of the four (I think) "lost Japanese" Revell 1/32 kits, including two Raidens. So if you want an impressive Raiden, drop me a line. Would have to be dismantled and rebuilt, but I think both are essentially complete.

If you're tired of Jack, build LOLA instead (but I am not aware of any Japanese bomber with that reporting name, sadly...). Or give Jack a WATERLOO SUNSET the old school - AA firecracker, and off he goes. Sorry I can add nothing about that cockpit... Better now? All day... IMHO has one of the best yet most simple riffs in history. The Stranglers' version is also rather cool - but I don't want to go too far O/T...

Sorry, I didn’t want to put up a blatant ad for the site There are fora whose admins do not react favourably to such, and I confess I am ignorant to the policy applicable here. But I gave you a clue, and it seems to have worked All the better if it’s up your street anyway, I think you will not be disappointed after you joined. You may well find out there are folks leading a secret double live, building here and collecting there…

Ohhhhh yessss - they are so in love with detail it almost hurts. Some of the most beautifully drawn "plans" I have ever seen (no idea how accurate, however - but the draughtsmanship is stunning!). Such a pity they are so hard to get around here. --- I can't set the cursor under the box below for some reason --- I am not sure whether they should update/replace their Dinah with a new mould, or rather try again what they did some 20 years ago - contact Arii/MicroAce, and put those gorgeous ex-LS Dinahs (and possibly the Nells, too) in a red box. And as they shied away from the ex-Otaki Japanese types in 48th back then, some of those may be a viable addition to the Airfix range even now. And when I look at the eye-(and mouth :-))watering low prices of those kits at certain Japanese sites, it can't really break the bank? I prefer a well-researched Japanese kit of 50 years vintage, possibly lacking some of today's finesse, over a wonderful true-to-specimen LIDAR, where no-one with subject knowledge eradicates the restoration additions. I have a dim recollection the 1966ish Dinah was based on a captured one at Middle Wallop (???, well, back then, before my parents even met), with some creative additions faithfully copied (subconsciousness says "wheel cover plates").

There was an even earlier incarnation of the Alfa Jak-6, in a black and white box supposedly from the mid 80s, with english-only text on the box. My example is missing the instructions, so I can't comment on them. The general parts are the same (mostly), but with some significant differences: No "Frogmen", what appears three fold-up seats moulded flat, and - choice of fixed and retracting u/c (though no wheel bays on the nacelles. The box art actually depicts a machine with extended retractable u/c. As I have currently no photohost which is acceptable here, I will upload pics in a certain modelkitcollecting forum in a minute.

Your pic implies the wing chord must be undersize, too, as the "step" appears to intrude into the rear sweep area? OTOH, the glove span looks pretty much spot on, and the fuselage breadth quite close, so we are not talking about an 00 scale model...