Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,569 Excellent


About Antti_K

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,514 profile views
  1. Hello Martin, I can help you with a Finnish AF example if that is what you are building. Cheers, Antti
  2. Hello guys, as Michou said the earlier conversation is packed with useful information. Here is the link: It seems I might build another PR Valiant to get a more accurate result Cheers, Antti
  3. What a beautiful "Älysanteri" Fuad. Excellent model and photography. My grandfather had a ride on the backseat when these aircraft had just arrived in Finland. Cheers, Antti
  4. Hello Michael, I bought mine when it was first released. Camera windows were included with the kit just like Tony said. The bomb bay doors have "recesses" on the inner surface to show the correct locations for the windows. As you mentioned the bomb bay doors are wrong for the SR -version. Those Airfix additional parts are "a straight" copy of the original kit parts but they have the window openings. I cut the windows open and rectified the bomb bay doors. However two windows for the high oblique cameras (at the very rear of the camera bay) were missing from the kit and had to be scratch built. They are not included in the Additional Parts Box. Cheers, Antti
  5. Thank you for the information. I haven't heard about Rudy so this was sad news. Hopefully his son will keep at least some of the aircraft flying. Cheers, Antti
  6. Hello Mike, did this Spitfire belong to Rudy Frasca (owner of the flight simulator company at Urbana, Illinois)? At least he had a Spitfire in the markings of 60 Squadron (Squadron commanding officer's aircraft). I once suggested that he should build a FSTD for the Spitfire. Rudy laughed at me but I think he has been playing the idea himself. One pilot who used to fly PR.XIXs at Singapore stated that the radiator flaps had to be kept fully open when on the ground and still it was a matter of minutes to get airborne before the engine overheated. The very same was reported by E.C. Powles who flew PR.XIXs and an FR.XVIII out of Kai Tak, Hong Kong. Cheers, Antti
  7. Hello Monty, the Revell offering is old and "over simplified". One big problem is the canopy; it's out of shape. So much that the only option is to build the kit with open canopies. The re-heaters have the correct diameter. I have the F-4F boxing and another concern is the separate nose as it's attachment feels pretty poor (the attachment of a heavy nose/cockpit part is based on few narrow surfaces). Some say the Tamiya Phantom is the best in any scale. Well, I don't agree... I've been building one for nearly three years now and there isn't a single part I haven't altered somehow. One big problem is the rear fuselage as it is out of shape (too box-like) and there isn't enough plastic to sand it into correct shape. If you choose this one, attach some plasticard inside the rear fuselage to increase the thickness. Also the surface detailing is far too simple for a model of this size. The fuselage is 6 millimeters too short (6 mm missing between the antenna on the middle of the spine and vertical stabilizer). Tamiya also has out of scale cockpit interiors. The pilot's instrument panel is few millimeters too narrow. I had to use 1/48 scale instrument decals to make them look right. And the cockpit lacks details. Absolutely the worst thing are the air intakes. There are the funnels provided but they are ca. 1 cm too short. I decided to fix the problem with Milliput... If you can have those resin intakes, use them! I took the re-heaters (or Turkey Feathers) from the Revell kit as they are too small in Tamiya kit. Here are only some notes about the kits. If you want an accurate Phantom, you should be prepare yourself with a lot of work no matter which kit you choose. There is also a noticeable difference in the prize... Hope this helps and if you wish to have further information I'm happy to help. Stay safe and keep on modelling Cheers, Antti
  8. Excellent work Tony! The interior looks great. This would look lovely beside a 60 Squadron Javelin... Cheers, Antti
  9. Thank you Ray I used all possible decals from the spares box. All airframe servicing and rescue markings came from the kit's own decal sheet. As the kit was a Luftwaffe (or German Marine) P-3C in a current paint scheme, I had to paint those walkways with black. Individual letters KK-M were hand painted. Also some modifications had to be made for a P-3B. IIRC, at least one or two fuselage windows were painted over, completely new aerials, wing pylons and search light(?) pod scratch built and also the sonar buoy tubes had to be modified. Cheers, Antti
  10. That's what I believe as well. When I built this model (some 15 years ago) I only had one photograph of the original aircraft in this paint scheme. Later some book suggested that the photo of KK-M was taken during the delivery flights in the USA. Internet search led me to discussion about RNoAF paints and colour shades. The site stated FS 36118 for the overall colour. I used Humbrol 125. Funny, as I'm writing this the Finnish television shows a document about Fritiof Nansen Cheers, Antti
  11. I'm in! P-3 Orion in Norwegian markings in something one would see everyday. Here's my P-3B built out of the Revell P-3C re-boxing. This is the original paint scheme. Cheers, Antti
  12. Hello guys, here are some pictures I took at the Anti-aircraft gunnery museum at Hyrylä, Vantaa. Then there is a wing at Vesivehmaa museum. Note, that the colour is different in real life than in these photos (check the NCS codes in my earlier post). I wouldn't use Humbrol 226 to representate this green. The rear fuselage interior is brushed with a thick, clear lacquer that looks red or orange in areas where the layer is thick. Cheers, Antti
  13. Hello Massimo, I checked my photos and you are right of course: the horizontal stabilizer is made of metal. There is all kind of bits and pieces displayed at the museum and I remembered a wing tip on top of the pile. There is a serial "2171" painted with black on the lower surface of the wing tip, just in front of the aileron. The metal parts have suffered somewhat and it is possible that they are slightly lighter than the wooden parts (which are in pretty good condition). On metal parts the paint looks lighter there and darker here. It is pretty difficult to say what the actual colour is. This same variation is visible on the wooden parts as well, but it isn't so pronounced. The light blue is looks more grey on metal parts than that on wooden ones. Cheers, Antti
  14. Hello Massimo, Thank you for the information concerning the time frame and specification. I had a chance to study only the rear fuselage (behind the cockpit glazing), a horizontal stabilizer and one complete wing. To my eye it all looked wooden structure. The green paint looked darker and perhaps more olive at some areas (see the chip) and brighter "grass" green elsewhere. It is however painted with only one green colour. Cheers, Antti
  15. Hello again, I just compared wheel hubs painted with Humbrol 150 (with a top coat of Hu 135) against the NCS colour chip and it is an excellent match for NCS 6030-G70Y that was found on the MiG as well. The remains I studied are painted with a single "bright" green, but the paint shows both lighter and darker shades on various spots. My previous post shows the darker shade. Here are my wheel hubs Both Kari and Massimo say that Humbrol 150 is a good match for AMT-4 then it is possible that I have actually studied a very good original sample of the Soviet paint. Cheers, Antti
  • Create New...