Jump to content

Vlad

Members
  • Content Count

    775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

643 Excellent

About Vlad

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,249 profile views
  1. Yes, good point the undercarriage angle is suspicious, but I don't have drawings to compare this. Since it's clear now we are talking about the 1/48 kit, the comparison would be Eduard. That also has suspicious undercarriage in the opposite direction, making the plane look like it's standing too tall. For the shape of the nose, it is very subjective and hard to tell from pictures that can be taken from all sorts of different angles and distances, not the same as pictures of models. I would suggest that what you see as the profile being "overinflated" is actually an illusion caused
  2. The AZ model kit is too long and has other shape issues, I am not debating that. But the FM is too short. This is not by comparison with another kit, this is by measurement and comparison with factory dimensions. You can see them FM length for rudder post to spinner back is 107.6mm when it should be 109mm. I too have seen a lot of pictures of the real thing, and pictures of built up FM kits look right. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact their dimension is wrong. I have built the Tamiya 109G-6 in both 1/48 and 1/72 and that also looks r
  3. Which is proven to be too short in the engine bay and 1.5mm too short overall, an error Tamiya does not share. I don't really see the mystque surrounding the FM kits. I am curious to know what shape errors you consider the Tamiya has that the FM does not.
  4. There is one small mistake I noticed, they have not placed the engine exhaust stacks at the correct angle. On the kit they are paralell to the aircraft datum line, but in reality the thrust line is slightly angled up at the front, and the engine and exhausts with it. I would count it as a minor error with a disproportionate effort to fix.
  5. Which specific aircraft are you modelling? It's best to think of the G-14 more as a rebrand than a new type. It still failed in its goal of being a truly standard type. I think you'll be fine using G-14 sprues, although might be worth comparing sprue shots of Eduard's G-6 and G-14 to see if they incorporated any differences. There are some subtle variations over time as production goes on, a few different versions of the tall rudder and the canopy frame. They're interchangeable and don't exclusively denote a G-6 or G-14, you might be able to tell which you need if your subject is w
  6. My only other speculation is that pilots might like to do a final inspection of the pitot before getting into the cockpit, and it seems they mostly get in from the port side, which is pretty consistent across designs and nations.
  7. P-51s and Fw 190s have them on the starboard wing Lavochkin designs have them on the starboard wing as well (but Yaks have them on the port side). That's some pretty big counter-examples there (but can't find any British ones interestingly). There's probably no real rhyme or reason to it other than manufacturer preference (like the supercharger intake position on Damiler-Benz vs JuMo engines).
  8. This does not seem as outrageous as you suggest. Numbers for US Navy 5"/38 fire are also in the region of a thousand rounds fired per aircraft shot down, even with VT fuse. And these guns were firing at small and flimsy Japanese attack aircraft, not B-17s that are known to be able to take a pounding.
  9. As discussed in that thread, there's a part you're ment to glue in to "fill" these holes, but it doesn't fit very well so you may need to additionally fill them. There are no spent cartridge chutes on a G-2/4.
  10. Are there any UK based model shops that stock 1/700 ship kits by Flyhawk, Very Fire and/or Fujimi? I occasionally see sporadic stock at some online shops but not found one with a reasonably complete catalogue. The ones you do find in the UK tend also to have ridiculous mark-up compared to online prices direct from China/Japan, but I'd be happy to support a local retailer with a sensible mark-up to avoid months of shipping time.
  11. Fair enough, the lighting of the photos makes it look black. Maybe there is a mistake in the instructions, the colour profiles on the box show this stripe as gray:
  12. An excellent build and I agree, a really great kit. I am curious however as to why you decided to paint the lower half of the fuselage stripe overpainted section in black.
  13. Not had those issues when I used a Techmod set. But mine were a bit transparent, whites and yellows especially (this was a Bf 109 set).
  14. So what exactly are you looking to build, a Hartmann aircraft or a G-14? If you're hung up on the G-14 designation, I'd point out again that a G-6 with a tall tail and Erla canopy is visually identical. If you specifically want a tall tail Hartmann machine, there's also this G-6, with a very fancy and unusual oversprayed camouflage to boot: More here: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2016/08/late-war-9jg-52-film-footage-hartmanns.html
  15. The Typical one you see modelled as Black double-chevron in white camo with the black tulip was a tall tail G-14. This picture pretty clearly shows both the tall tail and the box at the back of the cockpit. Although actually neither of these features prevents it being a G-6, at this stage it's semantics. What people tend to forget though, is that even important/high ranking pilots that had their own assigned plane, still flew a variety of planes sometimes interchangeably.
×
×
  • Create New...