Jump to content

Wm Blecky

Members
  • Posts

    720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wm Blecky

  1. I am looking for an email address for Airone Hobby.  I've been to their farcebook page, but cannot find any contact information.  I've left a message several days ago and that has not been responded to.  I figure finding an email address is the next best step.

     

    Thanks!

  2. Just curious if anyone is having trouble accessing Eduard's website?  I am getting the following message:

    Quote

    This site can’t be reached

    www.eduard.com’s DNS address could not be found. Diagnosing the problem.

    DNS_PROBE_POSSIBLE

    I have also been getting that same message when I try to go on to another website (hobby forum).  That one has been more long standing.  I have tried all sorts of things to clear that one up, unsuccessfully and I am just hoping and praying that this is not the case with Eduard's website now.

  3. On 2/25/2024 at 3:25 PM, MDriskill said:

    That is absolutely true! And nothing looks worse than an Fw 190 with the gear struts at the wrong angles.

     

    And it might be the very worst point of Eduard's 1/72 kits - the strut sockets are a very loose fit, so you are own your own getting things right. I ended up making a jig for mine.

    Mike, would you be able to post a few pictures of the jig you made for your 190s?  Thanks.

  4. Hello all, I am looking for some input on Italeri's 1/72 SM.82 kit.  I've been giving some thought to picking one up, and have not been able to find any really good reviews on the kit, so I am hopeful that the members here might have experience with it and could pass along their thoughts and comments.

     

    TIA.

  5. Hello all,

     

    A, hopefully, easy question, though I have not been successful finding the answer... 

     

    Can anyone tell me if the Italeri 1/72 SM.81 Pipistrello kit is the same as the Supermodel offering?  If so, has Italeri improved the kit at all, or just repackaged it under their label?

     

    Thank you.

  6. On 2/23/2024 at 8:58 AM, MDriskill said:

    Wm. B, you are very kind! It's interesting to compare the classic 1990's-vintage Hasegawa, and recent Eduard 1/72 Fw 190's. Overall, both are quite accurate - obviously based on Arthur Bentley's landmark drawings - but interpret some details differently.

     

    To my eye, the 1/72 Hasegawa kits render the MG 131 nose gun bulges the best of ANY kit, in ANY scale. The 1/72 Eduard version is similar to their 1/48 kits. Hasegawa also did a better job with the gun troughs in the engine top cowl panel (which were were shorter than those for the earlier MG 17's). Eduard's are too long. 

     

    Some pics for comparison. The Hasegawa build is out-of-the-box. On the Eduard, I ran a thin putty wash over the bulges' top and side creases, and tweaked the troughs with dabs of filler.

     

    IMG-4665.jpg

     

    IMG-4663.jpg

     

    IMG-4664.jpg

    Mike, an additional question for you with respect to the gun troughs.  Do the Eduard 190A-5 kits have the same problem with the length?  Do they need to be shortened as you did with the A-8's?

  7. Thank you for pointing that out Mike.  In 1/72, does the Eduard kit suffer a similar problem?  What about the Hasegawa kit?

     

    Pity that Tamiya never saw fit to shrink their 190 kit to 1/72.  It would have been great.

    • Like 1
  8. Thanks Mike. Those are excellent pictures and definitely clarify things.  After having looked at the one with the armoured windscreen, I'm thinking that a piece of clear thin plastic cut to size and shape would make for a suitable representation.

    • Like 1
  9. I have the Hasegawa Macchi 2023 kit as well as the Mister Kit Macchi 205 conversion set.  Is there any difference in the canopy / windscreen between the 202 and 205?  I am hoping that I can use the Squadron vac form canopy (or even the Hasegawa kit one) for the Macchi 205.

     

    TIA.

  10. Having purchased the Mister Kits sets for both the 202 and 205, and after having gone through all 4 sets (2 of each), I thought it only right to mention that I've ended up with a somewhat similar problem with the replacement fuselages as the OP has with his kit.  All the tops of the vertical stabilizers are short shot:

    spacer.png spacer.png

     

    spacer.png spacer.png

     

    To be fair, one fuslage half from one of the 202 sets was ok.  I've emailed Mister Kit and will hopefully receive replacement pieces for the defective ones.

    • Sad 1
  11. @YorkshireT, I hope that you have had some success in finding a solution to your Macchi 202 problem.

     

    Thanks to @Giorgio N for having mentioned the Mister Kit Macchi 202 and 205 sets, I ordered 2 of each and they arrived today.  I am really impressed with them.  Although the postage was on the high side, these sets were worth it.  I only wish that I had ordered a few more of each.  Each set will require a little cleaning up of flash, that is an easy enough job.  I'll most likely still pick up a few of the Quickboost sets for the Macchi, but at least now, I do not have to hunt down any True Details cockpit or wheel sets.

     

    Thanks again Giorgio.

    spacer.pngspacer.png

    • Like 4
  12. I found this post off a link from a question that I asked in a post of mine on the Tempest.

     

    I also have a couple of the Academy Tempest kits and am quite satisfied with them.

     

    Question regarding the rocket rail and Typhoons though.  I have only seen pictures of the KP Tempest kit's sprues.  Would the rockets and their rails be suitable to use on a Typhoon?  (I have the Academy Typhoon and would not mind replacing the rockets on one of them).


    TIA.

  13. This may have been covered elsewhere, but I've been Googling all evening and have been unsuccessful in finding any pictures of W.W.II period Tempest Mk.Vs using underwing rockets.  I am hoping that some of the members here might be able to answer this for me and if you know of any pictures on the net, I'd appreciate your stearing me to them.

     

    TIA.

  14. I'm looking for some opinions as to which 1/72 kit has the more accurate propeller blades, Heller or Italeri?  Going a step further, what about the Airfix kit?

     

    It's the props themselves that I am interested in.  I do not think that there are any other 1/72 kits out there (or real life aircraft) that used the same prop as the Ju.52.

     

    TIA.

  15. 2 hours ago, FalkeEins said:

     

     you say that now, bet you won't be able to resist!

     

    the KP kit seems to fit the OP's original requirement..early RAF etc...

     

    spacer.png

    KP or AZ, whatever name you want to call them by, did a copy of the Revell P-51B kit.  While they improved the wheel well detail, they buggered up the tail (a Google search should turn up more information).  Plus, IIRC, there are no locating pins.  IMHO, one would be better off to run with the Revell kit and grab a set of aftermarket decals.

     

    In this thread here on Britmodeller, there are several comments pertaining to the KP kit.

     

    I suppose that one could take the wings from the KP kit and mate them with the Revell fuselage.  The fault with the Hasegawa and even the Academy P-51B/C kits lies mainly with their wings for different reasons.  Hasegawa uses their P-51D wing and Academy, while having a better shape, the wing is too wide front to back.   Not an easy fix.

     

    If on a budget, I'd just run with the Revell kit.

    • Like 1
  16. 35 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

    Where Italeri has a slight advantage is in providing both early and late style tailplanes while Hasegawa only offers the later style

    Thanks for pointing that out Giorgio.  Question now, how do you determine which set of tailplanes to use?  Are they significantly different?

     

    I also found some online images of the Italeri 1/72 MC.205 kit and it also has 2 sets of tailplanes.  Unfortunately, Italeri did not see fit to indicate which set to use in their instructions.  Any chance that you can enlighten me?

  17. 47 minutes ago, MilneBay said:

    It's a DF loop. You'll find them on some P47s operating in the CBI as well.

     

    Re the numbered guns most appear to have had that, although the numbers might wear off in service I suppose.

    Thank you!  I appreciate your help.  I had been doing some more searching and it pulled up a build that was done on this forum and the builder had used a DF loop on his P-47.  Happily, he mentioned where he found his, from the Arma Hobby P-51B kit, which I have my share of, so that problem has also been solved!

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...