Torbjorn

Hannants now has the price specified, so it should be getting closer to release!

1/72 RS Models P-38E, with aftermarket vac form canopy. All olive drab, with some underside gray overpaint on the fins. The model depicts Lt George Laven’s 41-2069 yellow 80 'Itsy Bitsy', Aleutians, 1943. Build tread: My thanks to the hosts, first time I built a P-38 and took quite a liking for the type.

I’ve heard a lot of good about basswood, especially for ship modelling, but it’s rather expensive to acquire here. I have some harder woods (cherry, pine, birch, linden, fir) so it’s probably just laziness that I’m using the soft balsa Plodding along. Added some paint in the cockpit, still pure guesses. IP based on the NA which I know how it looks. The wires are aileron control wires: these went straight up and into the upper wing, attaching to visible mechanical links. They are attached already since they will be visible also on the inside Sort of visible, the cockpit is difficult to spot through this little opening: Milliput for the coaming around the opening, headrest from an Eduard Albatros, slightly filed down to proper size. The hole on the side (another is on the other side) is for the carburettor air intake. Wings and tail were made the same way as for the NA. The tailplane is pretty much identical, but the N wings have unbalanced ailerons on the upper wing and none on the lower. As can be seen here I managed to get some CA smudges where they shouldn’t be — I finally received the clear plastic for the NA top, and it works much better than the scraps I tried previously. I kept my first attempt, which after cutting and milliputt-ing and priming the inside looks like this: After adding that I am now at this stage, dryfitting the flying surfaces: The top cover will require quite a bit of careful application of putty and sanding as the fit isn’t great.

They’re very easy to build, difficulty maybe like an Eduard Hellcat (except rigging, but in 1/32 that is another thing entirely than in 1/72). Lots of parts true, but they go together easily without fuss or sanding and the instructions are clear. You’ll spend most of the time painting, which is why I stopped building the only kit - sorry, kitset - I started: I felt I spent all my time painting assemblies and got bored. If you, unlike me, like painting they’re perfect.

I too have bought embarassing numbers, but still put a few more on backorder. I have not built a single one yet, but I do intend to build them - I’m waiting for age to catch up and force me out of the 1/72 game. I have already opened several to use them as reference for 1/72 models of the same planes, and opened the rest just to fondle and admire the plastic, so I’ve busted the collector value anyway

They aren’t, they are a bit more expensive even accounting for inflation.

Ouch, I count 7 mandatory GBs and 3 STGBs. How will I find room for non-modelling activities I wonder.

Ditto - there is a whole bunch of more esoteric and varied themes this year. No grumbling from me.

You are way too pessimistic in your estimate: — Splendid finish by the de Havillands! Shame on me for ever doubting!

Another possibility 4. WNW is quitting themselves of remaining stock after final decision of closure.

Ooooh the dramatic final act has started

I got tired waiting so I got a bit side-tracked. Although type NA would be the final Thulin aircraft, and argueably the most advanced in terms of construction and performance, it was not, in my opinion, the most aesthetically pleasing of the lot. That price goes to the type it was based on, the N: Rather smooth for 1917. The N differed in the following: -Wooden frame vs Metal tube skeleton in the NA -Rounder fuselage - steamed and formed plywood all the way, while the NA had a lighter linen-clad aft section - One-seater (still unknown why they crammed a poor observer into the NA) -Aileron cables going to visible and exposed actuators in the upper wing just above the pilot -110hk vs 150hk engine, made her considerably slower (160 km/h vs 215) Only one prototype was built, so it coincidently fits in this GB! The rounded fuselage makes the built-up method ill-suited, so I’m trying my first all plunge-moulded fuselage. The male mould was made from two pieces of balsa glued together to mark the centreline. First step, glue the drawing to the top and sand down the sides on the disc sander, then repeat with the side drawing (you can stretch is a few percent to account for curvature). Balsa is really too soft for this, but it does go quick to form it. I had one dud (too large - I forgot to account for the plastic thickness! and figured starting over would be quicker than to evenly remove material). I sanded as much as I dared on the machine and finished with disposable nail files. Those are flexible which makes them suited for sanding rounded shapes out of soft wood. Had 3-4 moulding failures before I found the right sheet thickness (0.8mm) and fogured out how not to fasten the mould. I did not want to separate the halves out of fear of damaging the soft wood, so I fastened the mould on a base with bluetack while moulding. The mould looks really streamlined. Thulin did his phd in aerodynamics, and had a high- and low-speed wind tunnel for testing out prototypes - his early types were essentially copies of French aircraft, and the changes he did to them was usually aerodynamic in nature. Anyway, I added a cockpit, entirely on conjecture. Although N still exists, it too hangs under a ceiling and I have not been able to find photos of the cockpit.

«Go large…» seems not to be going home, and the following 5 will fight for 2 spots. The last 48 hours will be a nailbiter for those of us invested in these

Maybe, but its sub-line companions are mostly the opposite - less common that more seldom gets built, while the common themes tend to end up topside. Maybe should try the opposite for next year: catastrophic failures, killed-on-the-first-mission, etc sort of thing and see how that fares.