Jump to content


Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doc72

  1. Your Javelin looks great! I agree with the others: The Javelin is one of the largest remaining gaps in the 1/72-market today. We need a state-of-the-art kit for all those of us who do not possess your skills and patience to rescribe and update the Frog Javelin.
  2. No, AFAIK, the P-47 N was the ultra-long range model used for escort missions against Japan. It had an enlarged wing to carry more fuel. The M was a high-performance model with the same wings and outwardly similar to the late bubble-top D-model. Frankly, I don't know if there was an external difference between late Ds and Ms. Dive-breaks under the wing might be a difference.
  3. Hi all, here comes the Valom 1/72 Dassault Ouragan in Israeli markings. The kit is a typical short-run kit. The fit was not perfect and some filling and sanding was needed, but the surface detail is quiet nice with well-defined, sharp panel lines. The kit actually comes covered with fine rivets which I filled with Mr. Surfacer since I don't like the effect. This is certainly a matter of taste. I was less satisfied with the tricky assembly of the cockpit and intake area especially because the instructions are very vague with regard to the exact position of the parts. The only things I modified were the underwing pylons which were changed to the configuration used at the very end of the Ouragan's career. I used the kit's decals with some additions from the spare box. In the background on some of the photos, you can see the Ouragan's younger brother, the Super Mystère. To add some interest, the Super Mystère is in the old camouflage and the Ouragan in the newer post-1967 scheme. All comments welcome!
  4. I guess most of us modellers prefer good, old piloted aircraft, but, like it or not, UAV or drones are here to stay and we will see more and more of them. However, I am a bit perplexed by the apparent success of relatively slow propeller-driven drones in recent conflicts like the now famous Bayraktar TB2 in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan 2020 and currently against Russia. Another case are the (supposedly) Iranian drones used by Houthi rebels against high-value targets deep inside Saudi Arabia. I can understand that slow, propeller-driven drones (like MQ-1 and MQ-9) were effective when used over Afghanistan where there was next to no air defence, but I wonder how similar slow UAVs can survive against (ostensibly) more sophisticated air defence systems like those of Saudi Arabia or Russia. Of course, these drones are small and made from composites, but they are not that tiny. In addition, I wonder why the data link connecting the drone to the ground station does not seem to be vulnerable to jamming. Can anyone shed light on this matter?
  5. Looks great! The recce-conversion makes it particularly interesting. What paint did you use for the High Speed Silver?
  6. You have done a great model of a beautiful aircraft! The vac-form canopy definitely pays off.
  7. Looks great! One might think it's a state-of-the-art, modern kit.
  8. They look both great! What's your opinion on the High Planes conversion set? I wondered if it could be used to produce a night fighter Vampire (with the radar nose scratch-built).
  9. Really impressive. I like in particular the slight colour variations of the access panels on the wing and the way the panel lines go through the decals.
  10. Well done! And an interesting choice of subject. The Hind really became the weapon of choice for many African brushfire wars in the post-Cold-War era.
  11. Great model! I think the chipping on the wing roots looks fine or at least I think I have seen worse on photos of real P-38s. The OD also has a nice modulated effect.
  12. I hope they will do the Israeli single-seaters, too. Or does the Fujimi kit lack the specific parts like the DEFA-guns? But I guess the IDF did use some unmodified Skyhawks as well. In any case, there is nothing wrong about re-boxing old(ish) Fujimi kits. In terms of surface detail (width of panel lines) many of today's kits represent a step back.
  13. A beautiful PR Spitfire! What kit and conversion set did you use (or are the modifications scratch-built)?
  14. There are some pictures of Japan-based 11 Sqn Spitfires in Alfred Price's "Spitfire at War" and "Spitfire at War 3". They look like MSG/DG (at least the grey looks very light) and they carry white serials which might indicate that they were repainted in the field. But I am not sure if these photos help with the undersurface.
  15. A very fine looking Fouga and two nice collections! It's always interesting to see the size differences between the aircraft.
  16. Well done! Two fine looking models. How do you compare both kits?
  17. Well, your experience with AZ then reconciles me with Special Hobby. Their kit really went together quite well. I used Tamiya XF-18 for the blue, a mixture of Mr. Color H66+H72 for the brown and XF-83 (if I remember correctly, maybe with some white added) for the grey underside. In the literature it mostly says this Israeli camouflage scheme is RAL 5008, 8008 and 7044. I never understood whether the IAF actually used paints according to RAL standards (maybe sourced from a West German or European company) or if these RAL numbers are just ex-post interpretations by historians/modellers.
  18. I thought about something like this, too. However, I guess it would make the panel lines less deep, but even softer. Maybe it is worth a try. I prefer the panel lines Hasegawa, Fujimi, Tamiya, Academy and others did a quarter of a century ago and earlier. Today, Eduard for example is also very good. I guess, it has something to do with mould making technology and costs. Filling everything with putty and sanding it smooth would be an alternative, too. Some would say, this is the most realistic option, but the model might look a bit bland as a result.
  19. Looks great. I like the weathering and the faded paintwork. What technique did you use?
  • Create New...