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. :)

FinnAndersen

Members
  • Content Count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

318 Excellent

About FinnAndersen

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests
    WWII RAAF and RAF; N.A. P-51

Recent Profile Visitors

497 profile views
  1. Take a look in the link provided by Alex Gordon
  2. Had exactly the same problem a few years back with my Hasegawa Hurricane. Ended up filling the trenches with Mr Surfacer and sanded the excess away. If done carefully (i.e. very very slowly) you end up with the sort of multifaceted surface of the real thing. You should not see stringers as such, just the fabric stretched out between them. HTH /Finn PS: Graham is on to something: Why not sell the lot and buy one of the new Arma kits; rumour has it that they are quite good ?
  3. AFAIR, the idea was to see if the Spitfire would benefit from the Daimler, i.e. if the Daimler was superior to the Merlin. An engineer noticed that the firewall was the same size as the Me110 firewall, so the conversion was feasible. In any case the Spitfire was almost mythical in German eyes and re-engine it was a way of finding out secrets. Funny fact: The Messerspit was very popular among german pilots and flown a great deal. /Finn
  4. To be perfectly honest, I can't see much else than a silhouette that I can identify as a Defiant. You need more light when taking pictures of a black painted model. Sorry Finn
  5. I won't disagree. In another recent RFI thread I presented a pair of Spitfires, a Hasegawa IX and the newer Eduard and your argument is spot on. Trouble is to tell them apart from 4 feet away, but my next Spitfire will be another Eduard, it wins close up every time. Seems that the skills I have got from doing the previous generation kits come in handily when doing the newer kits. At any rate I'm actually finishing kits after I realised this. So if the build is whats makes you tick, then go ahead and build the old ones. If you want something for the display cabinet, then go for the newer kits.
  6. That sounds like a very good record. I ditch models all the time, err, with regular intervals. One thing that I have concluded from this sorry experience, is to avoid the old kits and try to build only newer ones. Some time ago I started on two kits I expected to be quick hasselfree builds. One was the Tamiya FW190A3, the other was the CMR Spiteful. Oh boy, was I wrong. The FW190 almost assembled itself, but the Spiteful... Jeezz, it still not done. Life is too short for troublesome or legacy kits. I wonder what people with extensive stashes will do when they realise what they are up against. Cheers Finn
  7. No, of course not, but you have the problem of knowing where the little pieces go and how to turn them. More seriously is the problem with the missing propellor. I use some blue and white mould making paste I got from an art store to make quick moulds; look here https://espritcomposite.com/rtv-polyaddition/27-silicone-pate-ab-3535.html . As a matter of fact my Spitfire prototype in the RFI section has propeller blades made that way. If I need to use the moulds more than 4-5 times, I make a proper silicone one. HTH Finn
  8. Agree with Graham, but you have answered that, something mystifies you and you are unsure how to proceed. If it were me and I dearly wanted to make an FW189, I'd get another kit with instructions. Sometimes a quest is just not worth the effort.
  9. I have been tempted to do such a model, but so far have failed to find the courage to actually do it. It's more of less the same as to try and wrap a globe with A4 paper; it will fold somewhere. However, I if it were me and I suspected that the decals would not conform, I'd cut the decal into smaller stripes, ultimately just one row of checkers and apply one at a time. You'd be able to overlap slightly if that was necessary. If you haven't got some decal softener, get it. It's not a miracle cure, but it helps. PS: I've seen a video on Youtube of some mechanics doing a checker tail bird in Italy during WWII and they painted the tail yellow and then did the black checkers one at a time using a mask. HTH Finn
  10. Correct. The Hasegawa builds into a perfectly acceptable model, but the Eduard is better close up. Mind you, the Eduard calls for very carefull assembly, the tolerances are so tight. Have fun, that's the important thing.
  11. Stay tuned. You will soon see an Eduard with a Mk V nose as BR114 of Abukir fame. I would not worry about the Hasegawa being too short. Even placed next to each other the Hasegawa and Eduard IX look alike. The Eduard, however, wins close up. Here's the Hasegawa and the Eduard side by side. Which is which? See?
  12. It will, but break out your digital calipers just to make sure. Also consider using the Eduard kit as base.
  13. If you like the Spitfire and have not read Jeffrey Quill's book "Spitfire", do so. This is my Spitfire Griffon Prototype in the form it was when "raced" against the FW190 and Hawker Typhoon July 22, 1942 at Farnborough. It's not in Quills book, but I read somewhere that Supermarine had put a pair of A-wings on DP845 for the occasion, so this is how I made it. Its the 1/72 Tamiya Spitfire I with a XII nose grafted on. I rather like the look of it with the pointed spinner. Hasegawa IX canopy, Xtracolour enamels, decals from the spares box and DP845 done on inkjet printer paper. /Finn Bonus: Here's the FW190. Tamiya 1/72 FW190A3.
  14. Aviation megastore has this on their black friday sale: https://blackfriday.aviationmegastore.com/spitfire-mkv-voor-revell-72039-hi-tech-ht-72039-aircraft-scale-modelling-detailsets/product/?action=prodinfo&art=21610
×
×
  • Create New...