Circloy

There's a mass of information, advice and questions over on the RMweb forum along with some inspiring model railway projects. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79025-a-guide-to-using-the-silhouette-cameo-cutter/ Its a lengthy discussion (currently 95 pages) and includes discussion on software options including links to the silhouette software Centre in the USA. Considering getting one myself.

Anyone shed any light on this - got more of a German look to it rather than US http://www.americanairmuseum.com/media/11539 https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/b17/42-5053-bloody-tangier-show/

Radpoe Out of respect for the crew can you correct the title and use the planes correct name "Mi Amigo"

Tony, Hate to be a pedant but out of respect for the crew can you correct the title? The aircraft was named Mi Amigo !

Whilst the loss of any aircrew on the 22 Feb 1944 should never be forgotten. The self sacrifice by the crew of Mi Amigo on that day deserves the special remembrance that it was afforded by the USAAF & RAF this year. Badly damaged following the raid possibly by flak and certainly by the Luftwaffe on its return leg Mi Amigo was lost some 80 miles from its Northamptonshire base. Emerging from bad weather and with engines failing they found themselves looking over a heavily populated area, probably never knowing it was Sheffield, with little options for landing they spotted an open grassed area and headed for Endcliffe Park. As they did their last engine began to splutter and fail, the park was their last hope! To their horror a group of kids were playing in the park with no power the options were stark. Endcliffe Park sits at a low altitude and by now the aircraft would have been below the surrounding hills without engines so climbing away was not an option. The park is small crash and landing beyond the kids was not possible. A crash was now inevitable but where? Other than the small wood that borders the park anywhere else would have meant crashing into housing with the loss of civilian life. The crew chose to sacrifice their only chance of life and it is for that reason that Mi Amigo hold a very special place in the hearts and memories of Sheffield people. This was not just another crash it was a unique sacrifice on the day and a rare event in the whole war. The flypast was a fitting tribute to their self sacrifice. First Lieutenant John Glennon Krieghauser, pilot. Second Lieutenant Lyle J Curtis, co-pilot Second Lieutenant John W Humphrey, navigator Second Lieutenant Melchor Hernandez, bombardier Staff Sergeant Robert E Mayfield, radio operator Staff Sergeant Harry W Estabrooks, engineer / top turret gunner Sergeant Charles H Tuttle, ball-turret gunner Sergeant Maurice O Robbins, tail gunner Sergeant Vito R Ambrosio, right waist gunner Muster Sergeant George U Williams, left waist gunner All aircrew lost that day

details on smoke floats found here https://ww2data.blogspot.com/2017/02/british-explosive-ordnance-aircraft_13.html & parachute flares (British about 1/4 way down page) https://ww2data.blogspot.com/search?q=parachute+flare

Having been in the news recently I'd looked to do 'Mi Amigo', an early 'G' type, lost with all aboard killed when it crash landed into woods in Sheffield after avoiding kids playing in the park. Whilst Airfix was reputed to produce a more accurate model it represented a late model 'G' - shame as the the main squadron markings were included in the bomber supply set. Reviews of the Revell kit highlighted issues that put me off using that as a start point. Think I'll be waiting to see if Airfix do an early 'G'

Not sure what format your camera saves the file in if it's one of the compressed options - JPG, TIFF, etc then editing in Photoshop can be a bit of a faff. You'll need to tweak Hue, colour balance, exposure, gamma etc. If on the other hand you have a raw file Photoshop has a module that gives greater flexibility and has pre-sets that directly adjust colour balance, light temperature and much more with pre-sets for such as lighting type While the pre-sets can do most of the adjustment on their own they may not be perfect but they can be tweaked to suit your own preferences. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/camera-raw-vs-photoshop/ A great benefit is that they leave the original file untouched and save the edited version, and the edit itself, as new files Not sure what format your camera saves the file in if it's one of the compressed options - JPG, TIFF, etc then editing in Photoshop can be a bit of a faff. You'll need to tweak Hue, colour balance, exposure, gamma etc. If on the other hand you have a raw file Photoshop has a module that gives greater flexibility and has pre-sets that directly adjust colour balance, light temperature and much more with pre-sets for such as lighting type While the pre-sets can do most of the adjustment on their own they may not be perfect but they can be tweaked to suit your own preferences. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/camera-raw-vs-photoshop/ A great benefit is that they leave the original file untouched and save the edited version, and the edit itself, as new files

The bare steel would have been primed during initial construction but the tanks would have been finished before leaving the factory in the then current US military colour, not in bare primer. http://bright-cars.com/uploads/chrysler/chrysler-m46-patton/chrysler-m46-patton-11.jpg http://www.pencaderheritage.org/main/phhistins/tanks/tank10.jpg https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=JIYBYwfr&id=98DA21B46B0787F7CD251990A231EEEA2351EFCF&thid=OIP.JIYBYwfr4sE-IRIm2wMShAHaEn&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2fcecildaily.com%2fcontent%2ftncms%2fassets%2fv3%2feditorial%2fb%2f64%2fb647a521-5bc6-53eb-9e86-f0908bf1e752%2f59834f51423ca.image.jpg&exph=434&expw=695&q=patton+tank+factory&simid=608041439251989306&selectedIndex=10&cbir=sbi http://www.pencaderheritage.org/main/phhistins/tanks.html Abrams but illustrates the point http://www.cobases.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Detroit-Arsenal-Tanks.jpg

Not a marketing specialist just a realist. Looking at the relative offerings, excluding aircraft, from Airfix & Oxford die-cast: Airfix offer approx 20 products suitable for use alongside OO/HO railways, Oxford approx 2250. The real marketing specialists are putting their money where the future is. The voices within railway modelling forums also indicate what's currently fashion on layout and where the future for 1/76 vehicles sits. However this amounts to thread drift so I'll be saying no more about OO/HO offerings. Hope that Airfix do make a successful toe dip into 1:35 military market so much so that they consider new tools of oft overlooked British equipment.

True but the market has swung to die-cast. When Airfix introduced these kits there was little if any suitably scaled die-cast available for railway modellers. Matchbox, and others, were a fit the box scale. the only consistent option was to use civilian conversions of military vehicles. The market is now swamped with suitably scaled die-cast of all types of vehicles. At similar RRP's and without the need to invest time and other monies (for glue/paint) I suspect that Oxford have sold more AEC Matadors in the last 5 years that Airfix have in the last 20. I can only see investment from Airfix/Oxford being in die-cast and not kits. The numbers are deceptive, the difference overall is 5.5% which whilst it doesn't sound a lot put two similar size objects (e.g. buses) side by side and the difference between 1:72 & 1:76 becomes very noticeable. Don't worry about the jeeps though as they'll probably be alongside dissimilar items they'll not stand out, just keep them away from any Oxford variants.

Actually the Germans started it !! - Marklin introduced 'O' gauge in the early 1900's to use 32 mm wide track or 7 mm to the foot scales @ 1:43.5 Hence HO , or Half O, which scales at 1:87 (3.5 mm to foot) expanded to 4mm to foot to allow models of British locomotives to be motorised using the motors available in the 1920/30's. Suspect that Airfix at the time were looking to satisfy both the railway and military modeller but by using both 1:76.2 & 1:72 they never got it right and agree that 1:76.2 should be dropped if they plan any more small scale military vehicles in the future. As for the use of other companies molds it has to be a good thing surely, a quick way to test the market with a reasonably sized range and, if successful, follow on with new tools of your choice. What chance Ferret's, Foxes & Saracens for 2020?

Cant see the detail but resistor A looks to be a Diode - totally different functions ensure you're happy with what you propose to do - even small voltages can kill !

@ 32.5 & 35 tons both types were over the units rated weight of 30 ton though having said that I'm certain that there are pics of them carrying Shermans (31 ton) in the desert campaign. Unlikely but not impossible - especially if the tank was battle damaged & say shorn of it's tracks.

Personally I've never found the SE Finecast brick sheets well defined, being very soft in detail. Additionally in 1/24th scale they only offer plain, by which I think they mean stretcher, bond which is relatively weak and certainly not suitable for structural work such as railway arches. The Victorian builders used English bond for their structural items. This web-page will help illustrate the difference https://brickarchitecture.com/about-brick/why-brick/brickwork-bonds. You could try and convert the SE-Finecast product by cutting to individual brick rows, re-scribing alternate rows an then relaying. Somehow I don't think this will be successful. By no means does it allow you to get every brick right.

For 4mm that's exquisite there's a level of detail there that you often don't see in 7mm - 'O' gauge.

That's Nice! What scale?

https://www.wwiivehicles.com/great-britain/aircraft/amphibian/supermarine-walrus-amphibian.asp Not sure if the above clears anything up but certainly contains some very detailed pictures.

That's NATO (North Avon Tayto Organisation) sorted then!

Knew about spraying metallic coats over gloss black, never thought about using it under yellows 'suppose I've always considered it would darken the colours. Red's I've allways sprayed over a red primer which bring's the coulor out

Reminded me of the project a team i'm involved with is currently working on https://www.facebook.com/192967507490617/photos/a.541393592648005/1717868858333800/?type=3&theater Laser cut from thin MDF with none of the dimensional/warping issues you get with card. These are then clad with plasticard to suit brickwork, tiles etc. In our case window frames will follow to get rid of the bombed out look.

Genuine Dodge product - they produced in the UK from the early '20's. That particular cab style was also used by Leyland & Albion and known as a LAD cab (from initials of the users) Late 50's - mid 60's. The CAT also has the company name on on the rear tank, & the BR22 also has a name high on the rear but the picture here don't show it clear enough to make out.

Can't comment on the masking tape, just sprayed the interior of 2 JLTRT Gresley coaches using lifecolour acrylics over a Halfords gloss base and was already dreading sealing the interior with masking tape, what i'm reading on here's not helping ease the worries of paint lifting. For removing sticky gunk residue from tape etc I always start by using lighter fluid & cotton buds, did the trick when I was a kid and still works. Just don't smoke when using it!

Details of LMS cattle docks in "LMS Architecture" OPC book believe the authors are Jenkinson & Essery