Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,386 profile views

Vlad's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)



  1. Fantastic job, really good looking 109! @mustang1989 my understanding, from conversation some time ago with another modeller knowledgeable in 109s, is that the dots are camouflage for parked aircraft, meant to immitate the large bright flowers that grew around the airfield.
  2. I have a 125ml bottle of DecalFix that I bought I guess about 3 years ago now. I'm not even halfway through it, but I feel on some recent projects it's not softening as well as I expect, particularly "sucking down" decals sink into recessed details (I remember being very impressed with it when I first used it). Now, this may be my bad memory, or coincidence that recent projects have just had thicker decals, but I wanted to ask just in case. Does DecalFix have a limited lifespan once opened? Does it weaken over time?
  3. So that's how those hand holds work... fascinating, thank you!
  4. I think it may indeed be a hand grip. It's the same size and shape as the one just behind the canopy. For what it's worth, Eduard calls out the same decal for both those positions, and it reads "Hier anfassen".
  5. Some tips from my experience and other viable options: white primer - I also brush paint everything but I use Halford rattle cans for primer, white for light colours rattle can gloss white - might be worth compromising for such a generic colour, especially if you need large areas of it matt white then gloss varnish use flow enhancer if you don't already use more thinner, and do lots of extremely fine coats - I have coverage issues with light gloss paints in general (e.g. AKAN or Xtracrylix) - I've done at least a dozen coats on some projects
  6. Nice build! Metallic silver is definitely a good look on these planes in combination with the red
  7. Great news thank you. I like this look and I don't like painting with light greys. Sorry, I came across more ignorant than I meant to. Yes, the colours are known but finding matches is more awkward especially if you want it lightened for fading or scale effect. I am always surprised how dark this grey actually is supposed to be when fresh, I will remember your recommendation of Hemp for if/when I do a Zero or something similar. However it seems it is not appropriate for my current project anyway.
  8. I'm building Hasegawa's 1/700 Akagi three deck, but this question is about the air group so I figured it goes here not in the Maritime section Anyway, I have some Type 13 bombers (B1M) and some Type 90 fighters (A2N). The instructions say they should be painted "silver", which I assume is meant to be some aluminium paint or doping because these are fabric covered biplanes. However, I am seeing various artworks and profiles online showing these aircraft painted white, which I assume is meant to be that IJN light grey that's so hard to pin down on early Zeores. So which is correct? Light grey, white or metallic aluminium/silver?
  9. I really like them. Don't let the snap fit fool you, they are accurate in size and shape, fairly finely detailed and go together well with no gaps. Some minor detail complaints, aileron mass balances completely missing for example, but no deal breaker issues. Overall excellent value, and they come with a rather nice pilot figure too!
  10. The "step" is simply an altered cover since the oxygen tank is moved forward to accomodate the MW50 tank. So the step is only indicative of MW50 being fitted, but is not a hard identifier of G-14 vs G-6, since MW50 fitting started with the G-6. In fact, nothing other than Wk.Nr. is a reliable identifier of G-6 or G-14, certainly nothing visible externally (except if the number is printed on the tail, haha). G-14 is just a "rebranding" of late production G-6s with all the bells and whistles (although still sometimes missing some). Now, if you were going to confuse a G-10 for something, I suppose you could confuse it for a K-4, G-6/AS or G-14/AS since these shared the new streamlined cowling. Again, various detail features vary from batch to batch. For example, not all G-10s had the larger tyres and associated wider upper wing fairings.
  11. If you want to use Humbrol stock paints for this project, I would suggest avoiding the 117 and 31 specified in the instructions (the 65 is fine). My "rough match cheat sheet" has Hu 224 as RLM 02 and Hu 116 as RLM 71.
  12. Vlad

    Yak-3 colour schemes

    Weren't some prototypes painted overall bright red? That would turn some heads...
  13. @Jochen Barett interesting speculation using the overall blue, and makes some sense. A 109G with the longer square T wings would be quite a sight too, food for thought (but would require a major kitbash). I would however argue that the higher stall speed and unpleasant stall characteristics of the 190 would also make it unsuited to carrier conversion. The 109 isn't ideal, but the British made the Seafire work (eventually).
  14. The lack of locating pins is troublesome, but I found it in the end not as big an issue as I feared (built a G-2 and a G-6/AS). For the fuselage sides, the cockpit tub acts as the main locating helper, just need to align the nose and tail. For the wings, the wheel well walls similarly act as helpful guidance, so if you align the wingtips and leading edges carefully the rest just falls into place. It might not have pins but is otherwise excellently engineered and well fitting. The tail butt joins gave me no issue. Sure it's not as nice as deeper pins (or Tamiya's solution of one piece horizontal tail), but again no insurmountable difficulty here and strong once the glue is dry. Spare parts is par for the course with Eduard, but I don't see why you need to remove them, cover them or constantly refer back to the parts list. The instructions tell you at each step exactly which part to use and they're pretty clear when there are options too. What I do if unsure is just find the part by number, cut off that part only and set the sprue aside, prepare and glue on, go back to the sprue. Do you have the "Weekend" or "ProfiPack" kit? If its the former, the build is surprisingly simple in terms of parts count and breakdown, once you filter past the spares. No engine assembly and associated (necessary) over-engineering of the front end like the Tamiya and Zvezda kits. You don't even get flap posing options (well, you do, but it's DIY not separate parts). Further tips: landing gear attachment is the most "unsure" and easy to misalign one, spend lots of time holding it while looking at it from every angle cut off large parts from the sprue very carefully and support the parts - I've found the sprue gates on these kits have a tendency to rip holes out of the part if even slightly bent there's nothing helping you align or support the canopy if you want to glue it open - if it helps, 109 canopies are hinged via a pin at each end, so the lower edge should be visible inboard and overlap the fuselage side by approx. the frame thickness when open paint very lightly and carefully, there's a lot of fine surface detail that's very easily lost
  15. Thank you! Interesting about the Junkers aircraft, althought 70/71 and 72/73 combinations are not a million miles apart in terms of overall darkness and contrast. Do you have a bit more information regarding the camouflage experiments on the Fieseler 167s? I have found some basic profiles but the colours are not labelled. Also interestingly, all the maritime aircraft have the sides completely camouflaged with a hard demarcation very low on the fuselage, so only the underside is light. However those prototype torpedo bombers have a hard demarcation between upper surface and camouflage colour halfway up the fuselage. May be an option for "what if" fighters.
  • Create New...