Jump to content

steh2o

Members
  • Posts

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by steh2o

  1. Eduard is top quality detail-wise, not so mich shape-wise. I hope in the future they will invest in 3D scanning to get real accurate shapes
  2. Yes Eduard Mk.VIII wing is almost right. Referring to Tenma's plan, yes it should look like the right part (marked as "starboard C wing"). Please note that the long thin blister above the wheel well was not present on wartime Mk.XIV and there seems to be no amber light under the fuselage of early Mk.XIVs Stefano
  3. Hello Rob, I did a similar work in 1/72, take a look. The main difference is in the wing, you'll need a c-wing with those beautiful clear cannon fairings in the outer position! Good luck!
  4. I believe that D-1s had SCR522 retro-fitted in Europe. I would think that the small box was present, but its actual position would be determined at unit level, and probably different from what seen on later blocks. Also IIRC, D-1s still had wire antennas and ceramic insulators on the fuselage, and you have to verify if these were removed or not after installing SCR522. For an example, Capt.London's "El Jeepo" had SCR522 installed insulators removed and skin patched.
  5. Following the thread, while I'm building IBG's Fw-190D-9 too. Just a note, the aircraft in the picture linked above is Wr.Nr.210129, Red 9, as recently depicted in Exito's decals sheet. There is no photograph showing Yellow 9 W.Nr. 210128 although it existed; there is instead a profile of it by Claes Sundin who apparently mistook the same photograph(s) as showing 210128 and not 210129. Ciao Stefano
  6. Sadly Eduard seems to have lost its spirit of the "1/72 revolution" and it takes them years to bring to market a new 1/72 model like the imminent avia 199
  7. It'd be time someone does a decent Mc.202/205! (Arma are you reading?) Arma showed time and again what can be achieved if the goal of your work is accuracy. Yes they are not perfect, but what they produce until now is THE best for each choosen subject (the closest match still being the Hurry Mk.I, Arma Vs Airfix). Personally I'm waiting this new kit with open arms
  8. Definitely N, the fist leg is straightsided while the second is definitely wedged, can be only N if we assume a decent paintjob! Stefano
  9. First test sprues http://armahobbynews.pl/en/blog/2022/04/04/ki-84-hayate-first-test-sprues/
  10. Wings of pegasus report on the design of this kit is at the end of this page: http://soyuyo.main.jp/ar196/ar196.html#last the analysis conducting to this shape and dimensions can be found here http://soyuyo.main.jp/ki84/ki84e-1.html and it is very interesting. I'm happy that Arma choose to base its design on Tenma work although a 3D scan of the real thing would be the last word about the real Hayate shape-Tamiya, you missed that one too!
  11. Wouldn't be nice having a state of the art F-104 in 72nd? Just dreaming, we'll possibly have a Baka...
  12. Hello! lately I had a very tiresome work period and couldn't advance that much on the Spitfire. Moreover I tend to be distracted by other projects and can't keep myself focused on the Spit: you'll recognize: IBG Fw-190D9 Cottbus: fuselage lengthened 0.3mm, tail still needs some reshaping in section at the plug and fin Brengun Typhoon (late): major adjustment of the tail (length, fin height) and recontouring of the fuselage at the cowling and cockpit area Sword Fiat G-55 serie I: wing moved forward, fin moved forward... this is a tough one! Coming back to the Spitfire, yesterday I decided it was time for a big step forward... toward the unknown: I glued the chassis legs to the wing bottom half The chassis legs need to be precisely aligned to the wing undersurface, both in rake and camber. I have built a jig using the Monforton's plans scaled to 1/72. The side view provides the two lateral elements of the jig, obtained by gluing a scaled profile to styrene sheet then cutting out the wing profile and the chassis leg profile (x2). The two elements have been glued to a central beam (carved in styrene sheet from a front view) providing the correct camber the jig is centered then glued with CA to the top surface of the lower wing through the two tabs near the leading edge. Small wedges of styrene sheet between jig and chassis well walls ensure that the jig adheres well to the lower surface of the wing. The legs are loosely held by the undersized brass trunnions (which tough are precisely spaced in gauge according to Monforton's reference) and can now be precisely aligned with the leg terminal in the slot provided by the jig- that is the raison-d-├ętre of the jig itself: provide a reference in space for the position of the wheel trunnions Everything is freezed in place by abundant CA with flour filler; the legs are fixed to the trunnions just with liquid CA. The jig is easily removed and... ...and here I am! Now the chassis legs are fixed in place, even before the topside of the wing is glued to the bottom!They have the right Spitfir-ish (Spitfir-esque?) look! It is a big risk considering how much handling the model will undergo before it's finished. Now it'is time to add details. You will notice that the radiator housings are all in place, and the panel lines and rivets have been restored to the final configuration Ciao! Stefano
  13. Hello Stonar would it be possible for you to send a PM to me too? Out of luck in finding Crandall's book at a reasonable price
  14. Hello gentlemen, I see now these recent posts and -embarassingly enough- I can't see the pictures too with my mobile's Chrome! Sorry if there is trouble with the pic hosting service- please let me know. Hope to publish something new in week or two. Thanks everybody
  15. The P-38 looks 1/72 EDIT: no 1/48 it is the same scale as the Chally 2 and Tiger in front, so possibly it is a 1/48 p-38j
  16. Thanks Laurent I save pictures and don't take notes whom they belong to.
  17. Here's a picture of the above, sorry I can't trace who published it firstly
  18. Mike, there is a slight but visible profile difference between -B/C and -D noses, C.J.Neely was the first to find evidence of it; it depends on the -B/C firewall being slightly taller than -Ds, and it produces a different upper line of the cowling, flatter up to the firewall, with a distinct "kink" at the firewall in the B/C, This particular is present also in the -D prototypes. I would trust Airfix, Meng, or Tamiya (1/32) for the -D cowling. Slightly less Eduard (there is an odd discontinuity between fuselage and cowling lines just in front of the windscreen)
  19. Aircorps library has the original NAA drawings, they can be purchased on the website. The first set of very accurate P-51B scale drawings belongs to C.J.Neely who used original NAA microfiches to have a very correct shape ( he was the first to underline the cowling line difference between -B and -D f.a.e.). Jumpei Tenma has very good P-51B profiles on his website, reportedly derived from Aircorps documents.
  20. Hello, I would like to share a couple of observations now that I have this new kit in my hands. First of all: perhaps someone is curious to see its profile compared to plans, I did-scaling the two best plans for the -B/C version, namely: Charles J. Neely Jumpei Tenma Please note that there is a slight angle mismatch in the JT comparison, I moved the setup inadvertently. The fuselage and plans are aligned at the firewall line. The results can be summarized as follows: Arma-Neely: almost perfect match, just the tail seems 0,2-0,3mm short Arma -Tenma: again almost perfect match, same discrepancy for the tail (0.3mm short) but a small discrepancy on the cowling lenght too, again 0,2-0,3mm. Small mismatch of the radiator opening depth too. I scaled the drawings for 32' 2,97" without tail-light fairing in both cases; Neely's profile could have a slightly shorter cowling because he depicts the spinner assy slightly longer than Tenma whose spinner length is correct, but leaves no gap between cowling and baseplate. The tail length mismatch seems to be consistent but acceptable I checked the position of wing leading edge and trailing edge and it matches well with both plans (this being the main shortcoming of the Tamiya 1/72 P-51D). A comment about the wheels: in my sample they definitely have the tread slippage problem, and this seems a mould design issue. This is a message for Arma: they are about to release a P-51D, so please take care of the differences between Ponies: they had different hats and shoes. With the P-51B/C they addressed the different canopy styles (birdcage and Malcom) but really they didn't pay attention to the tread patterns. The diamond style (as the failed one in the kit) is just one. Yes, DING HAO had it. But KH716 WC-F and F-6C 'AZEL had the so-called cross-pattern. Cripes A'Mighty had cross (IIRC) and the most iconic of them all, Shangri-La had block-pattern The cross-pattern and oval- are perhaps the most diffused and there is no aftermarket for them (that I'm aware of). For diamond- there are excellent Brassin, Reskit, SBS, CMK, for block there is luckily SBS.
  21. I checked, it was Antoon van Dyck! Thanks Charlie and Wikipedia!
×
×
  • Create New...