TallBlondJohn

Looking at my playing card RNAS camel, the top wing looks very bowed down from the front but bowed up from the side - as Paul says its an optical thing. I used the Revell wings and tail (which are nice and thin) with the Academy fuselage which has more detail. The Roden 1/72 is much better but harder work, you really need a jig.

Totally agree with all of this. RFC/RNAS is usually simple to paint but tough to rig, while German are more complex to paint but usually easier to build. The Roland CII Walfisch is a great place to start, you can go to town with interior detail and fish-scale paint jobs, or just not bother. The 1/72 Airfix is a great little kit for practice. The key secret with biplanes is to build and paint the fuselage, tail and lower wing, then add the top wing and complete the rigging. Then fill, sand, paint and decal the top surface.

Nice job. As a kid I always admired the box art (Roy Cross of course) but never got one. It just wasn't 'cool' - she didn't have anything to play with. Which is probably sadly why Airfix did no more WWI - it wasn't a big seller. I notice he has most of the errors you list but not the notorious flared 13.5" gun barrels.

Superb. How did you paint the linen affect? Is it Tamiya smoke?

1-3 were abandoned early in construction, and IV was pinched by Commander Sinclair for the first Shadow War... Superb work on a tough kit. Almost worth the terrible crime of glueing lego.

If you haven't done the propellers then correcting one can be done, just use a very sharp scalpel to cut the blades off and glue them back on turned around. I've done it in 1/600, though my props were plastic not resin which made adjustments easier.

Airfix Saturn 1B in the stash - my record with GB's is poor due to very slow build pace but it should be simple - right?

Well that's easy - build the Vulcan, coz its Airfix, RAF camo, and a Vulcan. But I've voted Viggen its in splinter. Baby V-bomber.

Hmmm. I suspect G45 is correct. This photo looks rather over-exposed in bright sunshine and there is still a contrast between the ensign, the sailor's cap (white, obviously) and the conning tower (not quite white...). Add in scale effect and I think a conventional white will look wrong.

All Eagles should have this scheme. When I take power, its on the list.

Hmmm - I use future, which the manufacturer says "doesn't yellow" but that doesn't mean its UV resistant

No I'm not starting the pre-shaded debate again. I've moved a display case into a bay window - but is it safe to put models in it? I don't think they will deform in strong sunlight - I'm in Scotland - but will the paint fade over a period of years? Most of them are Humbrol painted, but there are a few Xtracyclics and Tamiya Thanks

Nice build. I remember when this kit was state of the art - separate guns and gunshield!

Build, weathering and photography all look excellent to me. IMO most people over-weather wartime aircraft, they usually didn't last long enough to look tired. Just one thing - are the serials meant to look like that or are they out of register?

Lovely 314, especially the walkways. Having done two 314s I know what work that is. Mine wobble on their stands as well! And just a note, some Clippers (e.g. Dixie, Bangor, Bristol) did have aerials wires from the pitot tube arms to the fins, though not California/Paciific Clipper as you say.

There was a resin 1/700 Ohio - difficult to find, but may be of some use. I'm still thinking of the consequences of eating 18 cold hard boiled eggs in one go. Hadn't Malta suffered enough?

Totally agree. Or on a WWII aircraft that is probably less than a year from its factory paint. The only time I have seen "joint enhancement" (good term) is on USN aircraft (something to do with sealant perhaps) and aircraft that have stood outside at a museum for years on end. And in the latter case its fading of the paint, not darkening, and the unfaded areas are not necessarily along panel lines. But now we get pre-shaded battleships! Anyway musn't hijack the thread. Lovely TSR-2 so far, its not an easy build. I've got one on the Shelf of Doom, my paint job was a disaster so I'll probably whif it and start over.

Agree completely - that photo definitely has extra contrast (possibly the original film). 219 may have been dirty, but that ammo mag model isn't "dirty" - it has very ordered shading along the panels and rivets. Such things do have black lines, but they are invisible from any difference. And sure planes have oil leaks and grime, but not so neatly arranged all over - I mean look at that tail. I guess this is not the place to debate the merits of pre-shading, but that Ammo mag model is, IMHO, a disaster. The modeller had exceptional technical skill, but his powers of observation are suspect and it's a very bad example to others.

That shop better stock the kit. Isn't there a model village that contains a model village?

Don't be afraid of wood kits- with laser cut, resin and metal parts the principles are just the same as plastic, and its easy to make planks, spars etc - just cut and sand. Generally its much easier to repair mistakes than plastic - if you mess up a part then just make another one. Of course the cost is another matter, but that Billings Warrior will keep you going for a year or two. Maybe start on something small first as practice. OK I admit it - I now want that Warrior. But I'll get 1:1 scale kitchen done first.

I was going to say "At last! A BoB diorama without a Spitfire!". Then I saw the Spitfire. Superb work anyway!

Beautiful build - I want one. Small story - spring 1987 I was flying out of Moscow on a Aeroflot flight to London (Tu-154 I think). For some reason the plane got diverted to taxi through the military part of the airport, past a row of Blinders. We all started taking photos. The cabin crew went white and starting running up and down pulling down the window blinds. The joke was on us as most of the blinds then wouldn't go back up (it was Aeroflot) and we spent the flight back in partial darkness. And in final revenge, I got food poisoning (Aeroflot again).

Lovely work. I'm doing the same thing in 1/72 but I've figured out its possible to have each in a different scheme. So far I've done... 3 (Hunter, Hawk, Bucc). But lots more in the stash!

Superb. How did you do the masking? It looks very clean

As somebody who studied typography and layout under two of the old masters, I have to point out that book layout and graphics design are two different things. The problem is proper layout is a dying art and publishers today keep hiring designers out of art school who don't know how to do it properly, thus the issues highlighted above (and all sorts of other horrors, don't get me started). From the quality issues it sounds like the original design has been reproduced photographically and printed at medium resolution on a short-run press - thus the dithering and pixelation. The up-front costs still have to be covered by the print run, so you won't even get a low cost. But probably the only way the publisher thought they could get the book done at all.