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. :)

Jure Miljevic

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

592 Excellent

About Jure Miljevic

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

871 profile views
  1. Live and learn I did not know it. Thank you for your correction, EwenS. Cheers Jure
  2. To the list above one can add our recent discussion about Cauldron C.714 colours here, which probably slipped BS_w's memory. Jim Barr, I agree with you that in absence of photos of camouflaged 3rd Sqn of GC II/1 D.510s a photo of NM aircraft as a guide will have to suffice, with usual caveats of course. Probably nothing new to you, but camouflaged White 2 on a colour profile here has serial no 321 and the one on NM Black 2 on a photo here looks more like 345. Sorry to muddle waters even further. Cheers Jure
  3. No problem, Oberleutnant, I am glad I could help. Cheers Jure
  4. Jure Miljevic


    It is a Cl.IIIa, which can be easily converted into Cl.III and also into Cl.II with a little effort. An old, but very neat little kit. Cheers Jure
  5. Hello Jim Barr Interior was silver or NM, covered with clear varnish. Take a look at this webpage, complete with cockpit photos and pages from D.510 maintenance manual. About Vert Fonce: which GC II/1 D.510 are you building? In Dewoitine D.500 - D.510 - le chasseur a la française article (Aero Journal magazine) a colour profile of D.510 no 219 from 3rd Sqn. GC II/1 is shown in what appears to be dark gray top colour, which differs considerably from dark green on two other D.510 colour profiles on the same page. Also, a top colour on a profile of no 219 in publication you mentioned looks more like dark khaki or brown to me. Cheers Jure
  6. Model, that theplasticsurgeon built is the second prototype XX946. There is little I can add to this discussion. Mind nine vortex generators on vertical tail and camera just below the top of the fin which were absent during early flights of this machine, but appeared when XX946 had been camouflaged. Cheers Jure
  7. Which MRCA are you after: the first prototype P-01 D-9591, the first British built machine P-02 XX946, some of the other seven flying prototypes? I do not know if there are decals available for the MRCAs, but I believe each of them at least initially flew in white livery. So, if everything else fails, you can still resort to DIY decals. Cheers Jure
  8. Well, C.714 was developed from Caudron 450 and 460 racers which I believe made their first flights on a year of demise of the last Gee Bee racer, hybrid R-1/2. Cheers Jure P.S.: I have no idea what that Finnish phrase means, but I suspect it is not very flattering.
  9. Hello BS_w, thanks for your correction. Mike, my preference, just as Vesa's, is a GC 1/145 machine with half-painted PAF markings on a fuselage. I understand Finns never flew C.714 in combat, although Polls did during French campaign and actually managed to shot few Luftwaffe aircraft down. Not bad for an aircraft which, reportedly, had been a pleasure to fly, but was almost useless as a weapon. Cheers Jure
  10. Gris bleu clair (lower surfaces), gris bleu foncé, terre de sienne and kaki (upper surfaces). These colours are opened for interpretation to various degree so consulting more than one source is recommended (here is IPMS Stockholm chart). Here is a photo of Finnish CA-556 still in original French colours although you probably have already seen this one. Cheers Jure
  11. Hello tomprobert Agreed, to each their own. I browsed through N3703G pictures again as I wondered how could I have missed the early F style nose. It turned out N3703G had the nose reconstruction after the filming the Memphis Belle. During production it was still in G configuration (probably to reduce individual aircraft features which allowed Fortresses to carry various guises, thus helping to create an illusion of mass formation), as evident on photos like this one. So it is up to Zac to decide if he wanted to build a model of a movie star or a more authentic post production N3703G version. I believe, at least for the former, conversion of a B-17 G kit is still easier path to follow. Cheers Jure
  12. Jure Miljevic

    Spitfire Mk. XVI

    There was a small number of FR Mk.IX Spitfires, although I never heard of factory built FR Mk.XVI. However, some Mk.IX fighters had been field modified to fighter-reconnaissance standard so perhaps an odd Mk.XVI also got included into a mix. Then there were post-war modifications by various air forces like Yugoslav, which equipped some of its Spitfires with vertical fuselage camera. However, these aircraft were Mk.IXc and not Mk.XVI and despite being used for reconnaissance at medium and high altitudes their armament had been retained. Cheers Jure
  13. Choosing B-17 E would solve cheek windows question, but then one would have to find paddle-blade propellers, late model cowlings, blank out windows on the top of the nose and scratch-build G type astrodome instead, add fuel vents on wing tips ... It is hardly worth it. Cheers Jure
  14. Hello There are photos of N3703G in the ancient Warbirds Worldwide, taken during filming of the Memphis Belle flick. Her cheek windows look like those on last series of B-17 Fs, which had already been equipped with chin turret, but still lacked cheek machine guns. Since there is no kit of B-17 F-75-DL available my suggestion is to go down the backdating G model path. There are probably AM B-17 F top turret and late B-17 G bombardier transparency with horizontal seam (I think last Vega built models had them) available, but you will have to scratch-build cheek and waist gunners' windows. Cheers Jure
  15. Hello Graham, credible sources usually give wide rudder Spitfire length somewhere between 9,54 m and 9,65 m. There is an article in Scale Modeller about Spitfire VIII complete with Mk.VIII scale drawings. Length for this version is given as 31' 6'' (9,6 m). What is interesting in the article is a remark about the source: ˝Various smaller length dimensions had been published. The figure given was obtained by measurement & published in A.P. 1480 (June 1944).˝ Does anyone by any chance has this Air Publication? Mike, my inner (over)pedantic modeller is raging as I am typing this, but the easiest way to build 1/144 Seafire would be to take Eduard Spitfire IX kit, saw off its nose between exhausts and fuel tank, take photos Troy posted as a guide and trim it until it looks right to you, scratch build hook assembly, oil radiator and fuselage reinforcing strip (by engraving, by masking surrounding areas and spraying filler on the top of it or just by simulating it with slightly lighter colour), here are Seafire III drawings which also show wing fold curves, and off you go. When you post photos of your model in RFI please let us know, as I have a feeling that by that time this discussion still will not be over. Cheers Jure
  • Create New...