steelpillow

Do you mean CMR not CMK? There is a retail outlet called CMK. I didn't know that Airmodel had repositioned itself as a resin producer, shows how awake I am. Fonderie did a 1:48 P.212, do you mean that one or another one? Elsewhere, the MGRP/Manually Controlled Rocket Projectile/Rocket Mistel, the Flugelrad A1 and probably also the Ae 607 were not BV projects.

All the P designations are paper design projects. Of those that graduated to Ha or BV status, about half a dozen types actually flew, while one or two more were begun but never made it home. The most amazing thing about them to me is the amount of aerodynamic research that backed them up, they were no idle puff but serious engineering designs. The jaundiced view put forward by Graham Boak is way off the mark - the idea that German designers had to create work to keep themselves busy is particularly bizarre. As an example it was generally held in the industry at that time that the BV contender for the Volksjaeger competition was technically superior to the He Salamander and that going with the latter was politically motivated. The number of studies run through in the new projects dept. for every type that makes it into the air is huge for any aircraft company, the BV studies just happen to be both unusually intriguing and publicly documented. The Chief Designer, Richard Vogt, ended up at Wright Field inventing winglets. Oh, and thanks all, keep 'em coming!

I am putting together a list of kits for B&V aircraft. As an experiment, below is my spreadsheet copy-pasted here. If anybody knows anything missing/wrong, I'd be glad of an update. These are injection and resin kits (vacform excluded) Models in [brackets] come as freebies in larger kits Type 1:48 1:72 1:144 Misc scales Notes Ha 135 Duijin Ha 136 Duijin Ha 137 Olimp (x2) Planet upscaled and re-engined Kawasaki Ki-5, with Vogt's trademark tubular spar wing.[1] [dive bomber prototype] BV 138 MPM Revell Supermodel Combrig 1:350 der Fligender Holzshuh[1] ["Seedrache" (sea-dragon), trimotor maritime patrol flying-boat] Ha 139 Mach 2 Air Craft four engined long-range transport and maritime seaplane.[1] [four engined long-range seaplane] BV 141 HobbyBoss Historic Airfix many others [Anigrand] asymmetric.[1] [reconnaissance (asymmetric)] BV 142 Classic Mach 2 landplane variant of Ha 137.[1] [four-engined patrol/bomber based on the Ha 139] BV 144 Dujin Lüdemann VAMI Transport FGP 227 Anigrand scale prototype of BV 238[1] BV 155 Arba Fliegerhorst Art Model Pegasus many others [Anigrand] development of Me 155 with laminar flow.[1] [high-altitude interceptor (formerly Me 155), 1944] BV 222 Revell Revell Anigrand ["Wiking" (Viking), six-engine transport or maritime patrol flying-boat, 1940] BV 238 Anigrand Maritime/bomber flying boat.[1] [flying-boat (prototype), the single largest Axis aircraft design of the war years to fly] BV 40 Brengun Planet Warlord [Anigrand] Planet 1:32 interceptor glider[1] [glider interceptor project, 1945] BV 40 rocket Brengun BV 40 with tail rocket P.163 [Anigrand] triple-hulled steel bomber project, 1942.[3] P.170 Planet [Anigrand] [Fast bomber, three engines on the forward wing with the cockpit in the aft. Project, 1942] P.175 Unicraft [Anigrand] shipborne singe engined jet.[4] [Parasite fighter][sources conflict] P.178 Bronco (x6) Unicraft jet powered asymmetric two-seat fighter-bomber.[4] P.179 Unicraft Asymmetric single-prop dive bomber P.184 Anigrand [Long range patrol aircraft] P.188 Unicraft W-wing P.192 Planet [Anigrand] [Ground attack aircraft, mid-fuselage propeller] P.193 Planet [Ground attack aircraft,pusher propeller] P.196 Planet [Anigrand] twin-boom twinjet, dive bomber and ground attack.[2][4] P.202 Antares Unicraft Slewed-wing VG P.203 Unicraft Combined prop + jet heavy fighter/bomber P.204 Planet [Anigrand] [2] mixed piston & jet power, ground attack and dive bomber.[4] P.207 Unicraft Pusher fighter P.208 Planet > tailless swept piston-engined pusher fighter project.[2] P.209.01 Sharkit Tailless swept jet P.209.02 Planet [Anigrand] alternative (re?)design with forward sweep and a tail.[2][4] P.211 Planet Special Hobby P.212 Fonderie Special Hobby [Anigrand] > single-engined jet fighter, Tailless swept variant, 1944.[2][4] P.213 Planet Unicraft pulsejet miniature fighter, based on the P.211.[2] Miniaturjäger, pulsejet.[4] P.215 Special Hobby [Anigrand] > twinjet night fighter, tailless swept.[2][4] P.217/Ae 607 RS Unicraft [Anigrand] questionable pedigree, conspicuous by its absence.[2]([4]) SK P.14 [Anigrand] > an SK V6 modified with BV style wing to test the control surfaces. BV246 [Condor] Hagelkorn ? Unicraft “Zerstoerer” asymmetric twin push-pull props in single offset nacelle fighter/bomber

One 45 gal and one 170 gal surplus to requirements , on sale here

Pair of Attack Squadron 1:72 scale 30 gal tanks tidied up & ready for undercoat. Front openings enlarged to take Vokes filters. Note the extra width overall, bit under 1mm (say 30 thou), added to match photo of an RAAF Mk VC in the air. Tail end required the underside gap closing off, filing down of the moulding runner and a touch of filler around it. These small tanks fit flush, but if I was fitting a larger tank I'd add a supporting block or two to bridge the gap. 170 gal tank still on its runner for comparison, the photo seems to have distorted its streamlining somehow, it's not really that blocky. Just visible is the treatment of the air intake, which I queried above. Oh, and note the upper side detail on the left hand tank: this set is a perfect choice for a servicing diorama with the odd tank lying around being prepared for flight.

The reason I ask is because the Attack Squadron one just has a cutout in the leading edge like the other three, so I am wondering whether this was a genuine variation (production version vs prototype maybe) or a mistake.

There is a photo of the 170 gal tank* showing it fitting right over the air filter, with a hole cut in the front to let the air reach the intake. Were they all like that? *Smith, J.; "The development of the Spitfire and Seafire", Supermarine Spitfire 40th Anniversary, RAeS, (Southampton Branch), 1976.

Got myself the Attack Squadron 1:72 resin set of 30, 40, 90 and 170 gal tanks. Accuracy of the 30 and 90 matches reasonably well the two drawings still linked in previous posts, though the 90 gal seems a little long. Comparing the 30 gal with a photo of an Aussie Mk. VC flying over, it looks a touch too narrow, but nothing that a couple of plasticard shims and a dab of troll paté can't fix. Another thing about them is the very delicate rear end butting into the pouring block: the trailing edge tends to break off with the block while trimming/filing down, leaving a rather more subtle plasticard/filler game to finish off neatly. On the plus side there is some fine detail which it would be next to impossible to scratchbuild: compared to that option, these are definitely recommended.

I believe there is actually a species of vulture called the Griffon. But I do like the idea of what-if creature names for what-if aeroplanes. Besides the Manticore there were also the Minotaur and the Medusa.

How about small cats then? The Manx was already taken by Handley Page, maybe the Moggie?

Coming late to the party: According to Supermarine's Chief Designer from 1938, J.Smith, there were four sizes of slipper-style drop tank: 30, 45, 90 and 170 gal. The original 30-gal. was conformally mounted but the later types were spaced a short distance on struts from the airframe, to reduce drag. Over 300,000 of all types were manufactured. (Source: Smith, J.; "The development of the Spitfire and Seafire", Supermarine Spitfire 40th Anniversary, RAeS, (Southampton Branch), 1976.) There is a 1:72 scale drawing of the 30 gal. tank in a 3-view which appeared in Scale Models, October 1978, p.491. The RAAF used slipper tanks in the defence of Darwin and the later Pacific campaign. The Spitfire squadrons' No.2 in the air, E.M. "Bill" Gibbes, managed to accidentally drop one on a house while testing them. There seem to be a fair number of resin sets available in various scales now, for example this set of all four in 1:72: https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/ASQ72082 I don't know how accurate any of the offerings are.

Napier engines included the Dagger, Javelin, Rapier and, most famously, the Sabre which powered the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest. I like the sound of Martin-Baker MB.5 Matchless. Another possibility might be big cats (Napier never went beyond the Lion), how about the Leopard or the Lynx?

Has anybody else tried Humbrol decalfix? There must be so many decal film formulations out there. Maybe it's a question of sticking with a manufacturer that has developed a consistent set of products, Airfix and Humbrol being part of the same group and all that.

But that's why Humbrol brought production back to the UK. The Chinese way has always been to start cheap-and-nasty and then improve year on year. Humbrol's customers evidently weren't prepared to wait. Recent tinlets arriving at my local stockist have had a plain lid, unpainted and unstamped, with the number and colour printed on a sticky paper label and the main tinlet bearing a Union jack with the legend, "Made in the UK." I suppose it takes a while to restart proper production once you have closed a line down, sacked everybody and sent your recipe book away to the other side of the world. The matt white I bought on that basis is very nice. If the black has had quality issues, perhaps they have pulled it off the market until they can fix it. I would assume that anything with a painted and stamped lid and anonymous tinlet was made in China. I have the mustard problem with the (presumably) Chinese matt yellow too, although Humbrol yellow has always tended that way. Worse, the gloss white is more of a pale cream.

Today my local stockist was all out of Humbrol Matt Black enamel. Said they had re-ordered but it was not in the delivery. A few weeks ago I scoured Worcestershire and Gloucestershire for a Matt Black acrylic - both Humbrol and Tamiya firmly out of stock everywhere I went, until eventually I found one last Tamiya pot languishing in the middle of Cheltenham. What is it with matt black? Has there been a hugely popular "Paint it black" craze, does it use a rare earth available only from under one rock in a mine in a protected rainforest, or what?

Several reasons. One is simply geometry: the mould has to pull apart without breaking up the sprue all over the place, so the opportunity for undercutting is at best limited. Second is cost - it's easiest to run the sprue along the same face of the tool as the part, to save making a ridge in the other half of the tool. The other is the need to distribute the material evenly and not leave unfilled gaps where a part is incomplete on the one hand, while not exerting excess pressure elsewhere. Finally, a part may fit only one way next to the others without making a wasteful and expensive mould, and that might just be an unlucky way round from the point of view of the runners.

There are three basic reasons for poor fit: 1. Imperfect tooling. This may be no more than failing to allow for shrinkage due to inexperience, or it may just be bad workmanship or laziness. Once a tool has been made, it is hard to put missing material back on! Sometimes, even trimming a bit away would thin the material in the wrong place and weaken it too much. Not everybody has the tooling to capture a prototype part exactly, reverse-calculate the distortions it will undergo when being moulded and then automatically form the tooling. Then again, some tooling in use today is over half a century old and is so worn that each moulding shot is a gamble. 2. Imperfect manufacture. Issues include The cleanliness, closing pressure and temperature of the mould, the consistency (e.g. air bubbles) and temperature of the material, the injection pressure and the curing time before release all affect the finished part. 3. Poor assembly. Sometimes it is easy to misalign parts and then have trouble fitting the next one. All in all, it's a wonder that any kit ever goes together well. Hats off to those who do take the trouble to number-crunch the distortions in cooling and allow for them.

Update: the Humbrol matt acrylic dried with a texture like fine sandpaper, not smooth to the touch like the finest-grade polishing papers but noticeably gritty. Where the oils always bond well and rubbing with a finger just shines them up, the acrylic started flaking away. And if I get another tin of another colour, from what people say it looks like I will get a different experience altogether. OK I know the oils vary a bit, but nothing that a dash more or less of thinners won't put right. So today I bought a tin of Humbrol oil-based and that will be the next coat.

Yes, Galleria is my current choice. I have trouble getting it very matt, but then, at my usual scale of 1:72 one doesn't want it totally matt. I might try a more generous coat next time, just to see what happens. Humbrol oil-based is bad bad bad because it ages yellow surprisingly quickly. Never tried the acrylic and, with Galleria to play with, I am not about to.

By coincidence I have just tried humbrol acrylic for the first time. I'd certainly want thinners and retardant if I were to try again. I am a brush-painter by preference and I apply several thinned coats to reduce brushmarks. Out of the tin it was a little too thick, though better than Humbrol oils. But, thinned enough with water to smooth out the brushmarks, it stopped covering and began to pool. And tiny lumps like dust seemed to appear from nowhere, I'm not sure if they were in the paint or if one fast-drying brushful would flake off into the next one as the strokes overlapped. It certainly smelled less than oils, just faintly of household emulsion paint, so its in-front-of-the-TV friendliness might just win me over enough to try out that thinners and retardant - see if the dust-like trouble disappears.

Gorgeous. One day, art collectors are going to discover whiffs, because this really is a work of art. What scale, 1:48?

Seems to take a while to harden off if it's any thicker than a graphene sheet. Nice to work when it finally does get round to it, though.

Thanks. Turns out the black ooze hardens too. I'd hazard it's just excess binder not mixed properly with a white bulking agent. Dries slower than green stuff, not like wild trolls. When it has hardened off we'll see what a little trimming/filing does to it.

Thought I'd give it a try. Pierced the end and black orc blood oozed out. Squeezed a bit and nice, workable grey putty appeared but streaked with this black fluid. Has anybody else met this? Does the black leave flaws in the putty? How to clean off the black smears after applying the putty? No sign of the dryness/workability problems mentioned by a couple of others, I guess theirs must have been old tubes. I now have this theory that Humbrol breed battery trolls in total darkness, then grind up the whole troll to make putty. The first sign of daylight turns the troll-meat paste to grey stone.

Put them in sunlight and the yellowing fades? It's usually the other way round. Three sets for B-02 (V10) as per the Airfix kit now printed off, anyway. Couple of coats of varnish to come and that's it. Anybody interested in one of the spares, drop me a line.