Antti_K

OK, that makes sense. Cheers, Antti

Nice progress with the interiors. What is that box in front of the control stick? I was just looking at the photos of my model and there is no such thing in the cockpit. Or did I remove it? I can't remember. Cheers, Antti

Hello Reini78, the fit of the cockpit parts was good in my example. Just make sure everything lines up perfectly. Before attaching the cockpit floor you might want to neaten the window openings below the wing as the fuselage sides are very thick. Do not attach the gunner/navigator seat directly onto the floor plate as the instruction sheet suggests. There should be a rotating pedestal with four feet that run along the floor rails. I encountered problems with fitting the wings (especially the Port one was bad). The center wing should have a dihedral of 0 degrees. At first dry fit showed that also the center wing had positive dihedral. Cheers, Antti

Now that's interesting. "Osasto Kuhlmey" was based at Immola Airport that is located on the Finnish side of the border (it's still an active airfield and the skeleton of one of the big hangars is still there). I would say that the ground crew members are all German in the photo. My guess is based on the clothes and hair style. For example the Feldmutze (cap) visible below the propeller blade isn't Finnish, leather boots were normally used instead of shoes and so on. Cheers, Antti

Terve Troy & Co., I made a search on SA -kuva and found exactly the same B+W photo as you did. I saw this well known photo in full colour in some magazine (probably in Suomen Sotilas) some time ago. They have colourised a fair amount of war time photos. I would say that originally this photo was B+W and the one you posted is colourised. Key word "Immola" gave 293 B+W photos including some detailed close-ups of FW-190s and Ju-87Ds useful for a modeller. Cheers, Antti

Did RDAF use the same Sikkens' camouflage paints that were used by the RNoAF? IPMS Norway published an article about them and you may be able to find in the Internet. Cheers, Antti

Hello Paul, The letters look a lot like Century Gothic or better still Grotesque but the numbers don't match at all. Probably someone here has the exact answer. Cheers, Antti

Hello Reini78, this is a great subject. I built one of these when the kit was first released (you can find my build here on BM). It is nice that there is a company producing kits of these less known types. I got a book from the Swedish team that restored and operates the solely flying example. The book covers the restoration process and flight operations with nice close up photographs and it is a rather good source for the modeller. Looking forward for this build. Cheers, Antti

Hello TeeELL, have you seen my Javelin WIP? More information about FAW.9R in detail. Cheers, Antti

That's excellent news! Thank you RobL Luckily I haven't started to scratch build them yet. Cheers, Antti

Another great photo Dennis, thank you for sharing it. I detailed this area for my 1/48 scale Airfix Javelins using only a couple of poor photos as a resource. It seems that I got it right though. But now I have a proper photo for my next Javelin. Cheers, Antti

Hello Selwyn, I have a couple of technical manuals for Javelins covering several variants. They don't give any dimensions for the intakes. If I remember correctly, at least some of the earlier marks had wooden intake lips and metal was used from FAW.7 on. They might have been slightly different in shape giving the illusion of smaller (or wider) intake. (and of course you know that FAW.9s and FAW.9/Rs were actually upgraded FAW.7s and FAW.8 was the last "new" variant with new cambered wing leading edge. These wings and re-heated engines of FAW.8 were attached to FAW.7 fuselage to create an FAW.9). I also have a small collection of Javelin books and if there is something definitive available it is most likely in "Javelin from the cockpit" or in Maurice Allward's "Gloster Javelin". I'll have a look. Cheers, Antti

Hello Peter, I've just purchased the Academy 1/35 scale UH-1C (kit number 12112) and I think it is the only "Huey" kit in this scale. I haven't made any detailed checks yet, but so far the kit looks nice, although it is rather plain for its size and scale. For example a lot of small details (like very visible structural stiffeners) are missing from the cockpit, the seats are rather plain with molded seat belts and so on. There are also some nasty ejector marks. All doors (including engine bay doors) are clearly meant to be built in the open position. The engine bay lacks details, so scratch building is required if you wish to present your model with the doors open. The fit isn't the best one, if you choose to close all doors. Some push rods are missing from the rotor head and these have to be scratch built. So far the worst thing has been attaching the cockpit roof windows (those green tinted ones). They are very thin, don't match the roof contours very well and the openings are too small. Proceed carefully with these if you choose to build this kit. Cheers, Antti

Thanks for the "Heads Up" guys. It seems there is something wrong with my Villagephotos account as some people can see the pictures and some don't. Do I need to start all over again with a new service provider? Cheers, Antti

Excellent photo Dennis! Thanks for sharing it. Again we can see a couple of stencils that are missing from the Airfix 1/48 scale kit. It looks like the stencil placement guide for the real thing was written over a couple of times. Guys: note also, that the ailerons pointed up when control lock was applied. The tip of the aileron is "faceted". A feature that is missing from the Airfix kit and not that easy to create by sanding. Cheers, Antti

Hello Ben, The nose and front fuselage are accurate (one can even say, it's very accurate) up to FS 249,65. I compared the kit against the data given in F-4K Crew Chief Manual some AP drawings. The problem lies in the center fuselage. Here's my approach: Airfix did a LIDAR scan for their recent 1:72 scale kit. That of course created a great amount of 3D data that was then used for engineering the kit. Then they had to produce some drawings like decals placement guide. Most likely the same data was used. There is no sense in drawing a complete set of three views starting from scratch, if one already posses all that 3D data running in a suitable designing program. So I scaled the drawing up to 1:48 scale with my photocopier. Then I downloaded F-4K Cross Section drawing (copy of the original factory drawing) from Tommy Thomasson's web site (Tailhook Topics) and scaled it also up to 1/48 scale. The cross sections were perfect matches with Airfix stencil placement drawing. Finally I started to check the measurements from my new FG.1 drawing against those taken from a real aircraft. And again, a perfect match. At last it was time to start to check the model. Be careful with the Plane Captain's Manual though; not all given measurements are for the British Phantom but for an F-4B or -J! In plan view the Hasegawa FG.1 center fuselage is some 4 millimeters too narrow (I don't have my drawings and notes at hand). Another problem are the air intakes. There is a couple of millimeters missing from the intake mouth (the funnel is too short). I believe this is due worn moulds and/or low pressure during manufacture. When you look at the model from the side (look at my model) the curvature of the air intake funnels is wrong; it's very good for an F-4B or F-4J but not for British Phantoms. The highest point should be behind the cockpit. Look at the photos below. Another problem are the intake "mouths". Here are the correct measurements taken from the real thing: The intakes are slightly wider than those of F-4Bs and Js, and not just that tall. Quite many modellers say that British Phantoms had "some 20 %" wider engine intakes. They are both right and wrong at the same time. The intake funnel (inside the plane) is wider to handle a greater amount of supersonic air, but the intake mouth is roughly the same size as in US versions. Some further measurements from the real thing: And the "Splitter Plates". They are slightly different in size and shape than those used in F-4Bs and Js. Things get better towards to rear fuselage. I haven't checked these measurements against the kit yet. I did a stupid mistake with my FG.1 by replacing the kit's re-heaters with resin items. Their shape isn't good and they are too wide. So use the kit parts. I didn't go all the way as I didn't feel like building the whole center fuselage from scratch. At least at that point. Hopefully someone will produce an accurate British Phantom in 1/48 scale in the near future. I guess it would sell well... Hope this helps. Cheers, Antti

Hello Giampiero, just as others have already said: look for the Hasegawa FG.1 kit or the Revell re-boxing which might be labeled as FGR.2 as well. The plastic is for the RN FG.1 with additional stabilizers, blanking plates for the bridle hook recesses and and another nose landing gear for the FGR.2. The kit isn't very accurate but it is the only one on the market. It builds into a nice model even if you decide not to fix the inaccuracies. Here's my Hasegawa FG.1(one of those with dual flight controls; included in the kit as well): Cheers, Antti

Hello guys, the green used for the cockpit looks the same in the photos as that paint used in the Airacobra I was referring to. Possibly the same NCS S7020-G70Y. The Airacobra here in Finland has ZCY landing gear bays. The colour is dull and looks rather "brownish" than "greenish". Landing gear legs and wheel well covers are green. Hopefully the restoration team of this Kingcobra made some colour comparisons before the parts were repainted. Thanks Troy for the interesting photos! Cheers, Antti

Hello CheapTricked, here is a colour sample from an P-39Q Airacobra showing one observed "Bell Green". I can't tell, whether this same green was used for landing gear legs in Kingcobras but it was used in Airacobras. The airplane is still in its original paint. There are at least few Internet sites where you can convert NCS values to other standards. I use Humbrol enamels for my models and I had to mix paints to get a match for this "Bell Green". My starting point was Hu 150 which is too light and too "drab". Hope this helps. Cheers, Antti

Beautiful work Neil! You created a very good looking Mk.XIV. Cheers, Antti

Thanks Alain. I just might do that (and hope to see the long faces). Cheers, Antti

A most impressive collection Alain! Lovely work. I especially like the MS406s, Hurricanes (my grandfather used to fly them during the Winter War) and DC-2s. You have created a collection many modellers here in Finland say is impossible to do. Is there any types still missing from your "Finnish Air Force"? Cheers, Antti

Hello Milos, here is a couple of photos showing you the original wartime paints. Maybe these photos help you. The old Humbrol Authentic colour range give a very good match for the brown and Humbrol 86 for the green. Cheers, Antti

Terve Troy, and thank you for the information. As you said, I was talking about Peter Cooke's drawings published in Scale Models magazine in September/October 1979. Just couldn't remember his name and correct date. I compared the Eduard fuselage with the scaled up drawing and it became clear that the rear fuselage was too short in the drawing between locations E and F, just as you remembered. The measurement Edgar gives (69'') matches exactly with the Eduard kit. The nose ring was only 0,6 mm too small in my PR.XIX kit, so I didn't bother fixing it. More problems would have been created than solved. Here is a photo showing the rocker covers of both types. The rocker cover shapes are slightly different: the rear end in Mk.XII is more rounded. And they were too long as well when I attached the Airfix nose (maybe the problem lies with the kit). Correct shape was easily created with some filler and sanding. Cheers, Antti

Hello guys, I scaled up an old set of drawings published in Scale Modeller in 1979. And I also collected data about Spitfire XIIs from various discussions here on BM. Fellow modellers Edgar and Johnaero provided measurements taken from a Seafire XVII(?) at Yeovilton as it had similar engine. As you can see the drawing gives 39,42 mm for the upper cowling and Edgar's measurement gives 39,82 mm along the lower edge of the upper cowling. His statement about the similarity of the cowlings of Spitfire XII and Seafire XVII sounds good. According to Edgar the fuel tank cover panel should measure 17,99 mm. The Eduard Mk.VIII had plenty of room for conversion as it measures 19,18 mm. As I said earlier the fit between Airfix PR.XIX nose and Eduard Mk.VIII fuselage was excellent. There wasn't no step at all between the parts! Note also what Troy said about the exhaust pipes and their correct location. If you use the nose of a PR.XIX make sure to reshape the rocker covers as they are too long and too pointed at the rear for Mk.XII. Cheers, Antti