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

56 Good

About Otakar

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 04/12/1959

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chicago area IL, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

324 profile views
  1. I just found the overtrees. I put them on order from Hobbyshop.cz
  2. Well, I guess I will wait until the new Eduard A8 is available and than get the overtrees. Since I want to put Czech markings on it I need nothing but the plastic. and the canopy mask. I'm not spenting (wasting) the cash for Tamiya or Hasegawa. I just wanted something I could just throw together quick over a weekend. no-muss-no-fuss.
  3. Which is the better kit, Dragon/DML or Eduard (old)(weekend) Fw-190A-8. If I go on a US website I get Dragon/DML, if I go on a Czech website I get Eduard. Now I would like to hear it from the UK crowd. I am looking at general fit and dimensional fidelity. They can both be gotten for about $17 here. I would like some justifiable opinions.
  4. I just ordered two more of the A&A model kits. The best part (besides having the extra tree of injected parts) is that it also has an etch sheet. It definitely is an improved version of the Bilek kit. I might have to see if I can make a new canopy plug for it and vac some new ones. As I mentioned before, besides being too thick it is also too tall.
  5. I would agree with that. Most likely something like the Hobby Craft 1/48 canopy. It is ridiculous. Take a look at the Kovozavody Prostejov 1/72 La-5FN and see what you think. If it is any good in your eyes, you might be able to kitbash something. https://www.super-hobby.com/products/Lavochkin-La-5FN-Aces.html
  6. Actually on the Gavia 1/48 kit the rear canopy is only about 1mm too narrow than what it should be. The rear canopy on the La fighters was a lot narrower than the main canopy. The Zvezda canopy is right on the La-5 and it is 1mm wider than the Gavia canopy. I was almost able to use the canopy from the La-5FN on the La-7. But the fuselage is so far off on the La7 that there would have to have been other changes made. Here is a pretty decent image of the aft canopy. I have a better one but I don't feel like putting it on Photobucket and wasting my limited space.
  7. UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE It seams like Kovozavody Prostejov is already working on a NEW tool La-7 in 1/72 scale for next year release. Please be aware that the NE Kovozavody Prostejov is not the old one which than changed name to KP. The old @Name was purchased a few years ago and is doing new tools in 1/144, 1/72 and 1/48. Some of the 1/48 scale stuff was integrated directly from Smer with some new tooling added to them. https://www.kovozavody.cz/cs/ I own their 1/144 La-5 kits and they are extraordinarily well detailed for their diminutive size. I also have a bunch of their new 1/48 kits and they are very nice.
  8. Since the Gavia 1/48 kit is so bad than just avoid any kit subject matter associated with it. You might be better off with the KP kit. As much as I like the MBI books the drawing in the La-7 book is all wrong. The drawing in the La-5 book is however very good. For decent drawings of any kind you are much better going here. http://www.airwar.ru/other/drawe.html They have three different sets of drawings on the La-7. Some better than others. There are three 1/72 kits that I am aware of besides the Eduard kit. The old Frog which is now ARK models. KP, and Hobby Boss which has a single piece fuselage. I have always liked the old Frog and the KP kits.
  9. This is the paint scheme I am going with.
  10. Here are some pictures of this gavial abomination ready for paint.
  11. I guess that might depend on the factory it cam from or batch#. These were mostly wood aircraft and that would only make sense. That is just fine with me. I have my Gavia abomination all put together and filled in the big gaps that I had between the wing and fuselage. All sanded down and ready for painting tomorrow and this weekend. I dis a compilation of canopies on this. The front is a Taurus for a La5FN the middle s a Squadron for the Gavia and the aft is the original kit part. I just couldn't stand the "picture window" that the Gavia canopy has. The front armor glass is just enormous on the gavial kit. I wish I would have caught it sooner because I would have used the upper gun cover from one of my La-5Fn kits. The blisters on the Gavia kit are about two or three times the size they are supposed to be. I might still do a Gavia/Zvezda kit-bash to make a nicer representation. I also replaced the trim tabs on the wings because the ones on the gavial kit were too small and I fixed the upper rudder shape also because it was wayyyyyy too pointy.
  12. I have been studying photographs of the La-7 and found that many of them have different shaped panels in the wing to fuselage joint area. Especially behind the exhausts. This means that there will not be such a thing as write or wrong.
  13. Yes, this is the original Bilek kit but it has some extra trees added to it. It desperately needs a better canopy. Since they added extra injected part trees to it they should also have taken the time to make an all new canopy for it. The original canopy is extremely thick and not clear and also is much too tall. I do have multiples of both and did a side by side comparison. It is otherwise a very nice kit. The new kit has just the right amount of complexity to it. The new kit updates were just the right touch, short of the canopy as mentioned before.
  14. Anyone ever wonder if some of these kit reviewers are paid off for their reviews? I have now been working on my Gavia La-7 for about a week and five days now, and not just an hour or two a night either. Not to mention any names but they list themselves as "The Finest Review Site on the Web: Since 1995 Celebrating 23 years on-line" Supposedly this reviewer had his finished in one night and painting the next day. I am still filling and sanding gaps that were worse than the stuff I have found on the "short run" kits by HiPM. Some of the wing-to-to-fuselage joints I have had to fill and sand two to three times. A kit that I was hoping I could have finished in two or three days has now taken me almost two weeks. Granted, I have spent about four days on the cockpit but that still leaves over a week on the "straight forward" kit. He actually called it "this well-designed kit is an obvious fall-together slammer" and "well-designed and close to a shake 'n' bake project". Yes those are exact quotes. At one time I have respected and paid heed to these reviews but no more. The old ICM Spits, Mustangs and such are MUCH MUCH better than this thing ever could hope to be. I have had a response back from ICM and it looks positive. Zvezda was blunt but not so positive. Roden I have had no news from yet. I mad no attempt with Eduard. Their plate is way too full I am sure and the kit would be twice the price as the Zvezda or ICM kits. The ICM Spits and mustangs were/are nice (for their age) Unbelievably this same reviewer gave the spitfire a very poor review. I know that he is getting paid for his reviews, one way or another. If you reed TC's reviews of the ICM Spitfire and the Gavia La-7, to me it appears like he reversed them. I 98% disagree with almost all he wrote. Anyone else have had the same experiences with these reviews? I have about 10 (maybe more) ICM spitfires and will at some point build all of them. These kits are only $9 which makes them 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the Eduard "weekend" kit depending on where you buy it.
  • Create New...