tempestfan

The © notice would usually be found in a tiny line on one of the long sides, like © 1979 Airfix Products Ltd., Haldane Place, London SW 18. A copyright-less boxtop may indicate it's a transitional version from after the sale of the Airfix moulds and stocks - in this case, there would likely be a small white sticker on a corner of the boxbottom, reading something like "© 1981 CPG Products Corp. ------- Made in France"

I'm not quite sure if the Yugoslav Fury was among them, but Alf Granger drew a number of Fury variations and relatives (e.g. Danish Nimrod) for Wings/Wingspan magazine. I'm sure I have seen a scale drawing of it, but it could also have been in SMI or AvNews.

Yes, of course the new kit could be rescribed if necessary. In my experience it's usually easier to do this on a kit that started with raised detail instead of everything filled, as it will be hard matching the hardness of the filler to that of the plastic. This divergence can easily lead to slips/steps when a filled line is crossed. As I recall the vortex generators on the larger version, they were rather crude, and they look a bit blobby to me also on the smaller kit, but then true-to-small-scale V/G are probably beyond injection moulding limits. BTW, Giorgio, I've been trying to PM you for some days now but can't get through. Inbox overflow ?

If the surface detail on the new-mould kit reflects that on the 48th version, I see no advantage over the raised detail of the old mould - I did a lot of picture checking after the 48th kit was released, and much of the surface detail is approximative or spurious.

This thread was concerned with the best for the Reds, but would be applicable in the main also to a TWU machine. The old Airfix mould has SNEB, gun pod and bombs (not sure ATM whether JPs or 1000lb'ers), and I think that the Matchbox kit has SNEBs, too. The Airfix kit would need the strakes besides the airbrake added, the small LE breaker strips, the wing fences and some mods to the main wheel covers (but I think the latter also applies to the new mould, being based on th elarger kit which in turn has inherited some features of 03026).

So you have something to be escorted by your Dora...I've never thought about building one, but I think if you file and sand off the frames, this may improve clarity to some extent. At the same time, you will be able to sharpen/straighten the (presumably) optically-flat panels, which probably will also improve clarity. The kit's canopy is very similar to the 189's, which is also thickish and with armour frames, as I recall it. Wouldn't that be something: Build a 189 as the "missing link" between the Dora nad the 141...

But why call this "Probably the single most important German aircraft of the First World War." ? OK, "a rather outdated design shot out of the sky in its hundreds" perhaps is a non-sounder. (Which doesn't imply that that would be a correct subtitle for the C.V)

Depends on what one defines as "most important". If it translates as "best known", then probably a Dr. I which they apparently haven't done yet. The Albatros D.III was built in much smaller numbers than the D.V and the Fokker D.VII, so probably is out.

In case noone else commented, Airfix released a new-tool Brontosaurus in 1981/2 that was only available for a brief time and never reissued. A rather rare kit.

No idea if they're in current production (someone on another forum claimed that Arii restyled themselves Microace and dropped everything not railway oriented), but they are available, and as has been mentioned at very good prices - this extends to the other ex-LS kits and the ex-Otaki 1/48 aircraft, plus the (presumably) ex-Nakamura 1/500 Sunflower. BTW, Nick, if you're still looking for the release date of the T6 "new squadron" Airfix Dinah, the box should have a '79 or '80 © date on it, I'd have to check to be completely precise, though. There was also a near-identical release by Gunze, the box of which would IIRC be copyrighted 1981.

Scale drawings for the KC were printed in SMI some time in 1984 to 87 or so, and there would also be some in the relevant D&S.

The Dinah has relatively light raised line detail, while the Val is rivetted, which may be a factor if you're considering true SFTB. The Arii-ex LS Dinah would indeed be a much better kit that probably could be had for a reasonable price off ebay, but then they may have become collectible in themselves in the past few years.

Yes, the different interpretation of the wing bulges by all three makers is striking. In the fuselage view, it appears that the fillet of the Airfix kit is deeper, but that may be due to the matt surface finish as compared to the highlights of the others.

Yes, it definitely was. Compare them to late 60s Ax Mags and see the advance in production techniques. Thinking about it, and seeing that the AE article was by Peter Cooksley, there may have been a feature article with drawings by him in a 1985 to 1987 SMI. Hope I do not send you on wrong leads (again)...

Here's an online index of SAM, but "Monoplane" yields no results. It could have been in one of Ian Huntley's "mixed" columns - Vol 11/ 1 and 11/12 could be candidates. I'm sure there was something in SAM, as I recall a profile drawing.

As -67332 has red outlines to its s'n'b, while '73 hasn't, this would imply '32 was pictured earlier - and probably allow some datation of the pic, on the premise that the red outlines would have been replaced by Insignia Blue at some time following its introduction.

The radius of the Tamiya rear fillet-to-fuselage section looks much larger (the curve hence much shallower) - is that an illusion due to angle ?

Not completely - I mentioned the Jag to underline some Airfix kits were modded by Heller, in some cases those for which they disposed of their own moulds (as in the case of the Alpha Jet). Wasn't there a MB black box version with Belgian markings, just like the ZTS ? Just served to stress you don't know what's in a ZTS box until you open it. Will follow your advice and look for more info on those two mentioned. Ha !! That's what you call on topic ? Ah, OK, that may well be so, but I'm not sure whether the rather limited Revell/Fujimi cooperation extended into the blue box period.

You just beat me to it... No, it appears to (originally) have been a Revell GmbH-only release: H-216, containing alternative parts for an F; released 1979 or something, and I think never re-released in Europe.

Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't thought about that. The contrast of the lighter colour to the darker one looks more pronounced on the forward fuselage of "A" than on the tail, but that's probably some trick of the light.

I'm not aware of a grey box Revell rebox of the Fujimi Lynx, was that for the UK market only ? Heller ditched a lot of moulds to Crovetto (Argentina, source of the majority of the Encore reboxings of some 20 ys. ago), Lodela (Mexiko) and Smer (then Czecoslowakia) at various times, the majority reportedly around 1986. The Airfix Jaguar apparently also got some "A" parts added for Heller release due to the Heller mould going to Crovetto. Revell Germany started to use kits moulded by Lodela (Alpha Jet, Ar 196, Vampire/Mistral, T-6) in 1991, and those kits have been recycled by Revell quite often in the intervening period. As Lodela exited the kit business a couple of years ago, Revell seems to have bought them out, as some of those mentioned above (plus some ex-Cadet Apollo related stuff) are now made in Poland. The Matchbox Alpha had a retool for the 1981 Patrouille re-release, I think, replacing the very raked mock up fin by one more to production standard. The black box Matchbox kit should be Matchbox, and I don't think the MB mould has been re-released in a Revell box. Those relatively recent ZTS kits are always in for a surprise. They reboxed some ex-Frog, but also made a new-tool Hunter (though it may have some Frog heritage in), and their Javelin is also reportedly a new tool. The last thing I'd have expected is a Starfix rebox...

On both the Scalemates pics, the spinner looks to match the lighter camouflage colour - so wouldn't that be Mid Stone rather than DE ?

IIRC Ian Huntley did a column on it in SAM (probably in Vols. 8 to 10), but I assume you are aware of it ?

Why would you want to get close to that pic, after you invested so much time ? You could hav espared yourself much work Coming along nicely, enjoy your holiday.

While I very much like the old kit, this one looks good. Need to get me one. The instructions are very retro, they remind me of Monogram 50s and early 60s stuff without text. I notice the canopy parts all have one feeder and one "overflow" gate, and as you said they are very clear, that defect problem as e.g. on the Lightning obviously doesn't occur ?