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

107 Excellent

About Vlad

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

524 profile views
  1. Rob Taurus vac-form canopies for Fine Molds fit AZ quite well. Not perfectly, but then if you're doing it open it doesn't matter. Of course, you have to cut it up yourself.
  2. I built their 1/144 Tu-22KD recently. Accuracy and detail are fantastic. The build was very painful though. So much sanding at times I felt I was sculpting the subject from a solid block, not building a kit. And the instructions leave you guessing a lot. But a result that's definitely worth the effort!
  3. Here are some rough and ready ones. I'll stick them here as I don't think I did such an amazing job to make it worth a RFI thread.
  4. Yes, I finished mine. It was blood, sweat and tears all the way, but worth it. I probably spent over 60% of the construction time just sanding to make things fit. My verdict is, I'm really glad I built it and very happy with the result, it's a gorgeous plane and the kit captures it beautifully. But you'd have to pay me (a lot!) to ever build one again. If you want one I would say go for it, after all your only other option is Resin. But steel yourself for the long haul. Here are some in-progress shots of the cockpit. I can take some completed photos as well if you like.
  5. What do you mean? That you buy multi-packs just to get your hands on more kits regardless of what the pack "theme" is or the actual options inside?
  6. Aha! So having panel lines for it and painting it on the outside is a kit simplification, albeit probably a necessary one in 1/72. I wonder if it was ever omitted.
  7. I suppose there's no accounting for taste I can see the logic in theming, Eduard for example has their Grunherz box that comes with two very nicely different Fw 190s. Then again, that dual pack doesn't actually seem to be cheaper than getting two separate kits. And you're stuck with aircraft from the same squadron when there's scope for potentially mixing in more iconic (if hackneyed) markings without that restriction. No arguing with the extra goodies in some of the more premium packs though. I would still question the extent to which people wanting multiples of the same subject actually want the same version in slightly different markings. I can see why lots of people wanting Spitfire collections would want an VIII, a IX and a XVI, even though they are very similar. But I would have thought going from the start for a pair of IXs or a pair of XVIs would be a bit more niche. If these packs sell then I suppose I'm wrong even for specific force/theatre interest, there's scope for mixing types. A hypothetical D-day Spit combo could have a V and a IX instead of 2 IXs. Or a Hypothetical Aussie combo could have a Spit and a P-40 from the same operational area/time frame. Dogfight doubles and similar are a completely different kettle of fish, and possibly going too far the other way. There's no guarantee even someone with dedicated interest in a specific theatre or battle actually wants to build planes from both sides. @NPL I'm definitely missing something of the mentality. I am a collector, I must be, I collect model kits (having built them). But I'm also a chronic optimiser and I loathe wastage. I plan my collection along the lines of: "given I have shelf space for 12 fighters and I wish to fill it all with Spitfires, what combination of variants and markings will give me the greatest variety while avoiding overlaps, and what kits and decals can I buy to achieve this while minimising spares?". The idea of having a pile of stuff with no concrete plan (or indeed hope) to build/use it fills me with guilt and pain, not joy!
  8. I've googled plenty of pictures myself but not sure what you mean. Are you saying the upper glass panel is continuous across the top, and the frame is underneath it?
  9. This is going to be a really petty complaint, but I'd like your thoughts on something that's been bugging me. Quite a few kit makers offer some form of multi-pack, commonly dual packs but sometimes more, which is billed as a cost efficient way of building multiple instances of their chosen subject. These are often "themed". The multiple aircraft in the pack are usually the same or very similar versions, and markings cover a specific squadron or outfit, or even a specific pilot. Decal sets often do the same, with 4+ markings all very similar on a themed sheet. My gripe is this, and it's really personal preference but I wonder if anyone else feels the same: If I'm looking to optimise in buying multi-packs to build several examples of an aircraft type, chances are I'm after variety. Not just filling my shelf with near-identical copies. There are exceptions (e.g. I'm a 109 nut so if that was the subject I'd mind less). But say, I want to build some late war Spitfires. I have absolutely no use for a "dual pack" of 2 Mk.VIIIs both in Aussie markings, and another dual pack of 2 Mk.XVIs both RAF even if one is bubble top and the other high back. Now, if the dual pack was an "Aussie 8" boxed with a "bubble 16", I'd snap it up instantly. I'm not just picking on Eduard here. Another example, Sword 2-in-1 Seafire XVII. Why? I don't need two of those. Why not, XV + XVII box? Or better still, Seafire III + XV box? The individual kits already exist. Again, not picking on specific brands, just examples I could think of quickly but there are plenty of others. Do you see what I mean? Of course, I can just buy these things separately and the price difference isn't catastrophic. Like I said, it's a very petty gripe. But I'd like some insight into what drives these choices. Usually in multi-packs the sprues for each kit are completely separate anyway, so I doubt it's a limitation to mix and match different types. Same for decals. I don't like buying a set to take out one marking and let the rest rot in my spares box, or try to trade them away, because they're all too similar. Then buy another set to do the same to when I want something completely different.
  10. Referring specifically to the square frame variants E-4/7, F and G up to -6. I always thought the rear fixed portion of the canopy had a frame at the top going down the centreline, dividing the upper glazing in two. I've now seen several kits, including Tamiya's 1/48 G-6 and Airfix's 1/72 E-4, as well as several builds online of F versions, where this section is represented as a single, continuous piece of glass across the top. But I haven't found any pictures of real aircraft confirming this. Is this a mistake in various kits/builds? Or did some 109s have a frame there and some not?
  11. It really is. All the parts just slide into place, it's a joy to build, and the part swapping for the engine is easy and well fitting. Will definitely be buying that as well, but I don't regret building this. I'm eyeing up the Eduard 1/48 kits as well to expand my collection since I enjoyed working in this scale so much, but I'm going to run out of space very fast if I'm not careful
  12. Thanks! The gloss finish is part personal preference, part necessity. I do quite like my plane models shiny even if it's unrealistic. But the bigger issue is that I've yet to find a usable satin or matt varnish in acrylics. I've come very close to ruining a number of projects trying out different matt varnishes, and it's got to a point where I'm not willing to risk it even slightly, especially on a special build like this. As for flow enhancer, I wasn't being too scientific. I was mixing in a small plastic palette, just dipped the tip of the brush and put a spec in the bottom before adding the paint and water. To be honest, the flow enhancer itself doesn't seem to have any negative effects even if you add too much, but it is possible to over-thin in combination with the flow enhancer. In future I'll use a pipette and try to be more accurate. I think something like a drop of enhancer to 2 or 3 big brush-loads of paint should do just fine.
  13. My WWII aircraft collection so far has been exclusively 1/72, but when I saw my favourite subject done by the engineering masters that are Tamiya, then seeing the options in the box and the superlatives every review has been heaping on this kit, I simply couldn't resist. So here's my effort on this kit. This is a number of firsts for me: First time posting a completed kit here in "Ready for Inspection" First 1/48 kit built as an adult First open engine kit ever First time using flow enhancer to improve my acrylic paint coverage The kit is mostly OOB. It's as good as they say. Though the engine open/closed option is ingenious and the fit is sublime, it made me want to do more, to avoid choices elsewhere. I went "above and beyond" in the following ways: wings and gun pods have small magnets embedded in them, so the pods can be clicked on and off at will cockpit side and rear decking also have small magnets embedded in them; the canopy itself has metal embedded in the frame edges (pieces of staple from the sprue bags... so I guess this is "OOB"?) - canopy can be displayed open or closed and has a functioning restraining cable for the open position (unfortunately the wire I picked for it is too thick and stiff so it looks a bit ugly; live and learn) Flaps are up because making them posable was beyond what I was willing to do, and I wanted a "clean" look with everything closed up. Everything is brush painted with acrylics. Main camouflage colours RLM 74/75/76 + 70 on the prop blades are Xtracrylix. Everything else is either Revell Aqua or Humbrol Acrylics. It's not perfect by any means but I'm very happy with it. Might have caught a dangerous bug for this 1/48 stuff! Thanks for taking a look!
  14. I can see it in the pictures you posted but the shots aren't from the same angle. The wheels toe-in and the shots are parallel to the ground not the fuselage, so this distorts the angle you see. Also the big tyres on the K obscure it a little. Try comparing an F-4 or early G-2 to a late G-4 or G-6. I don't remember where I read it, but the reasoning is sound. Making the wheel itself more vertical reduced the tendency for it to "dig in" under sideways load, a known issue impacting 109 ground handling. Edit:
  15. As far as I'm aware, there is no change to the oleo angle with version for 109s. The thing that did change is the angle of the wheel relative to the oleo. It's parallel up until G-2, then the wheel is more vertical from G-4 onwards. This is what causes the teardrop bulge on the upper wing, as one edge of the tyre now sticks up when the gear is retracted. The later, much larger fairings are to accommodate the wider K-4 tyres. The wheels are at the same angle relative to the oleo as the late G tyres.
  • Create New...