Work In Progress

It is a nice kit, and the aeroplane itself is rather pleasing: it's a very practical four-seat tourer. While you can go faster for less fuel burn these days, you can't necessarily arrive in more style this side of a Beech Staggerwing. If I had the money sitting around I'd be rather tempted by this lovely restored example for £100K, and the pics might be useful for some detail shots (it's pretty much the same aeroplane as the kit version, just with a different radial engine) https://www.ataviation.uk/listings/stinson-v77-reliant-gullwing/

It's not really about insurance, I suspect that was a metaphorical comment about personal risk rather than one based on financial risk. It's about how much personal risk of injury or sudden death you're prepared to run. A PR.XI or PR.XIX in wartime RAF service didn't spend a lot of time between 100 feet and 2000 feet where most of the birdstrike hazard is. An aeroplane on the modern display circuit spends most of its flying time in that height range, and frequently at speeds which would make the impact of even quite a small bird against the unbraced perspex windscreen unsurvivable. It's one thing at 80 knots in a Super Cub or 100 knots in a Bulldog and another altogether in a Spitfire at 250 knots* plus Of course all flying carries certain risks, all display flying carries certain additional risks, and I don't criticise anyone who personally finds the risk of a birdstrike against a non-armoured Spitfire windscreen acceptable. I have often been known to fly aeroplanes at low level in the 150-200 knot range with non-armoured windscreens, preferably polycarbonate rather than acrylic, and would not turn down a go in someone's PR-windscreen Spitfire if they offered, though I would be very mindful of birdstrike risk. But if I owned one, I would make the change to the armoured windscreen without a minute's thought.. *there is in principal a 250 KIAS speed limit for VFR traffic below FL100, but that's really intended for straight line speed in transit, not a situation where every airshow has a radar gun trained on every Spitfire or Mustang running into the display line

Dornier: Airfix may have sold out its recent stock but there are plenty for sale by retailers e.g. https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/Airfix-A05010-Dornier-Do17z-Model-Kit-1-72/2255409403 Heinkel: Airfix kit also still available if you look (It's true that Airfix have also done a later-war He 111 H-6 but they have also done the P linked below, which is a Battle of Britain era) https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/Airfix-A06014-Heinkel-He111-P-2-Model-Kit-1-72/2255801956 Incidentally, if you will forgive a heresy, some of the recent Airfix bomber kits including the Dornier and Heinkel both, have a lot of small fiddly parts and according to some builders on here can be a bit tricky to assemble. If you're not particulary knowledgable about the Do17, want an easy build, and don't mind something with a slightly too-broad wing, then the old Monogram Do17z is a lot of fun and can often be picked up very cheaply.

The 1/72 Airfix kit has an error in the chord of the ailerons - it fails to have the upper surface chord substantially less than the lwer surface, in the way it should be for a Frise aileron. It's easy enough to full and rescribe though.

No, they are completely different bulges and in a completely different place on the wing

Correct. Amortisation policy is an accounting decision, not an economic decision.

You may also want to consider how it was painted before the stripes went on, given that quite a lot of the repaint seems to have come off the cabin above the windows.

I would trust the Barracudacals sheet over the sppecial Hobby info. The aeroplane should in principle have had yellow leading edges, but not everything is as it should be in war.

You actually can wind down the window on both a Typhoon and a P-39

It's probably the best Hurricane kit extant for overall shape accuracy and surface treatment, in any scale.

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/CMQ72081

I assume you mean the Tallboy, as the Grand Slam was 22,000 lb and required aircraft with no bomb doors at all. The Lancaster II was not used for Tallboy ops. Tallboy and GS needed to be dropped from as high as possible in order to penetrate deeply into the earth and make large cavities, and the Lancaster II had poorer altitude performance than Merlin Lancasters despite its highler headline BHP figure. Detailed thread about the carriage of Tallboys and other big ordnance here, which might be of interest.

The cross section of the windscreen arch is a lot better shaped than the front arch of the sliding section. But that canopy is weirdly engineered in its breakdown, as well as its shape. I can't think of any good reason to make it three piece in that format. It should have been either one piece or windscreen / sliding section /fixed rear section. However, the sliding section would always need to be thinner than injection moulding can manage, in order to fit over the fixed rear section in the open configuration. What I'd do with that is just saw the back fixed section off, carve a new limewood sliding section and crash-mould it in clear sheet. But yes, for those who don;t want to make their own components it's a real shame they didn't do a standard one-piece fixed canopy, or vac-form it.

It doesn't really need a decal sheet: it's all straight generic markings, nothing specific needed at all. No squadron codes, just roundels, fin flashes, the 8-inch black serial and the prototype P which can be had from Blackbird and various other vendors http://www.blackbirdmodels.co.uk/sitemap.asp

Yeah, he's correct though in that I got my clockwise and anticlockwise the wrong way around. Pretty stupid, huh? Especially given the number of Chipmunk and Tiger Moth props I've swung over the years. Have edited my earlier post to prevent later confusion of future readers. Anyway, the point remains that you need props that go the other war round from those on the standard aeroplane if you're modelling a Riley.