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. :)

Giorgio N

Members
  • Content Count

    12,185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Giorgio N last won the day on November 13 2012

Giorgio N had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,562 Excellent

About Giorgio N

  • Rank
    Blabber Mouth
  • Birthday 07/22/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Italy

Recent Profile Visitors

9,096 profile views
  1. Speaking of printing, I may also have to print my own USAF titles and here I have a doubt.... these were generally in Insignia Blue in this timeframe but I'm not sure that the F-86s carried markings in this colour. Does anyone know for sure ? My machine would have the later square titles, that IIRC were applied by the USAF during maintenance while North American initially applied rounded USAF titles. I checked a few pictures but can't come to any clear conclusion, in no small part thanks to the relatively poor quality of most period photographs- Another doubt that came while looking at the pictures was the position of the national markings on the wings: some show these almost parallel to the wings, while others show a totally different kind of position, with the insignia almost perpendicular to the fuselage. Which one applies to my aircraft ? I may have to dig much deeper in my books...
  2. Yes, looks like I found the only exception... that of course throws a spanner in the works ! No problem in printing an emblem looking the correct way, the problem is that I now don't know if the other side had the eagle looking one side or the other... will have to guess something ! As I'm speaking of printing, it should be clear that I've decided to discard the Microscale decal and make my own with the correct red markings. Before attempting this however I've printed a few stencils Not too bad but unfortunately some of the markings are not good, looks like the toner did not adhere well. I think I know the reason and I should sort this in the next print run. The various service stencils however are useable and I've started applying a few, as shown below: Now the rescue arrow and the red abd yellow markings come from the Special Hobby F-86K. This has decals for Italian, Norwegian and Dutch aircraft, and as my plan is to build an Italian one the English emergency markings for the other two options can be used on my D (Italian Ks had dual language stencils, correctly reproduced in the SH sheet). The white stencils on the antiglare panels are from the spare decals box, they can't be read anyway so will do. The black writings are my own printed stencils, and I like them quite a lot ! They are thin enough to be visible from close distance but not from 6 feet, IMHO pretty realistic. And tey can be read with a magnifying glass ! Not that I'll ever bother doing it but I like the idea of having stencils made this way. If only modelling companies offere the same...
  3. At Shapeways you can also find a proper Vietnam era M16A1 in 1/48, the problem is that they are quite expensive
  4. Green and grey lasted from the mid '60s, after a brief initial phase in Natural Metal, until the mid '90s. To be accurate, the very first F-104 in overall grey was delivered in July 1995, Repainting in the grey scheme occurred during revisions, so it took a while for the whole fleet to wear this scheme. Now if you're building an S these entered service in the early '70s, so no need to worry about the schemes used earlier. Anyway there were actually two different grey/green schemes, or better one scheme that used two different sets of colours. The early scheme was quite similar to the then current RAF scheme, with semigloss paints. The later scheme used different paints, both matt. The S variant IIRC exclusively used the later scheme, where the green was browner and the grey less blue compared to the previous scheme. Both colours weathered quite a bit, particularly on machines based in Southern Italy, where the sun can be scorching. Undersurfaces were always in aluminum paint, glossier in the early scheme and dull in the later. Codes were white for most of the career of the type but in the '90s they started to be reduced in size and became light grey with a narrow black edge. Now what paints are best for the grey green scheme ? Lifecolor makes a very good green, code is UA106. Closest FS is 34086. I've never found a really perfect grey, I know that closest FS is 36132. What I generally do is spray FS 36231 and then add a light mist of 36118 on top, adding more along panel lines. The grey tended to weather more than the green, so this approach leads to a realistic finish. For the lower surfaces I mix silver with some light grey. Of course there may be other paints around that look good enough straight from the tin, a lot depends on how obsessioned each modeller is with these things. I've built a few Hasegawa Starfighters, and IMHO this is a nice kit. The main problem area is where the intakes meet the fuselage and you've sorted this nicely. One thing that must be corrected for an S is the ventral fin: this is slightly smaller on the S compared to the G and Hasegawa forgot to mention this. The correction is very, very simple: the leading edge of the fin on the S has a 45° angle, so all you need is to cut a small bitof the leading edge following that angle. Then there are several other details that differ between subvariants of the S and between the various update programs. Hasegawa correctly indicates to remove some antennas for some of the aircraft proposed, as these antennas arrived with the ASA update program. There are several other small differences, if you're interested I can go through these.
  5. Regarding the F-100 and other USAF types, the finish depends on the timeframe. Initially all F-100s were in natural metal, later the USAF started introducing the aluminum lacquer finish on most types. The start of this was in 1958, with units based in rainy areas acting before those in the continental US. Of course with exceptions... In general if you're building a '60s aircraft, like the ones used early in the Vietnam war, these would have been painted aluminum. If building a mid '50s C this will likely be in natural metal. For a late '50s aircraft, particularly in USAFE, better look for pictures and decide based on these. Keep in mind that the rear fuselage section still suffered from discoloration even with the aluminum finish, so better check the rest of fuselage or the wings to verify the presence of the panel variations typical of NM finishes
  6. Not only nothing happens if you don't drill the holes, as you can always build the model without bombs, but generally a drill is not even needed for such holes. They can be opened simply with a drill bit and these can be bought for relatively little money in places like Maplin or even online at Amazon and others. Drill bits can be used with a pin vice, another thing that can be bought for cheap in a lot of places.
  7. All good points that illustrate how the term "research" involves a lot more than a LIDAR scan or even the availability of a set of good drawings. In the end the job of a "researcher" is to put all the data together, wherever this may be from, and integrate this into the final result. Modern technologies like LIDAR and CAD/CAM systems are great but there's always need of that someone, the "geek" who understands the subject and put all the pieces together. As modellers many of us do just this, the research teams of plastic model manufacturers may or not have a person like this, some resort to the help of external personnel, others don't bother. But without that someone who understands the subject, even the best design teams may make mistakes that to certain enthusiasts would sound impossible
  8. That is the same I'd ask myself and while I don't personally know how the Airfix management work, I wouldn't be surprised if they think along similar lines. Personally I would bet on a new Vulcan at some point, where that point would be the moment when they feel that the existing tool is not viable anymore. The Vulcan seems to have been a popular kit, Airfix will likely keep one in their catalogue. A thing I wonder about a potential new Vulcan would be price: the current catalogue has a gift set for £ 38.99, not a bad price for such a large kit with paints and glue. The similarly sized new tool Victor however is a whoppin £21 more expensive in a standard box ! Granted, it's a newer and way more detailed tool, so the price to me is justified. The matter is how a new Vulcan would be priced and if a new tool at that price point would still be as popular. I don't have an answer of course..
  9. Academy makes sense, as they made the moulds for several of the kits issued by Hobbycraft and a few of these are now in the catalogue of the Korean company. Was the Kitech kit the same as the original HC in terms of quality ? All the Kitech kits I've seen were lower quality copies of other kits (mostly Academy), so I wonder if in this case too their kit was a clone or if this was from the same actual mould. I remember that Hobbycraft kits varied quite a lot in quality, so while some were definitely from someone with good technology (like the ones reissued by Academy), others may have well been moulded by "less capable" companies, like Kitech. The Sabres compared well with Japanese kits from the day while the Arrow sure wasn't at that level and the Skyraider was very rough. Never built the Caribou so I wonder in which cathegory this fits
  10. Giorgio N

    paint colour

    As the Revell kit has decals for two FAA machines, the fuselage colour would be the same for both: overall Medium Sea Grey fuselage. Paint available in most modelling paint ranges Details of other parts like rotor blades are available in the website, IIRC the blades are in Dark Green
  11. True but the current kit is still quite decent, I can see how they are trying to get more mileage from it before issuing a replacement. Guess that the lack of any competition is also a factor that makes this kit still viable for Airfix The same likely applies to the Mosquito, the 1972 tool is sure not to the level of more recent offerings but is still considered by many a sound kit. Guess that this is another case of Airfix trying to sell more copies of this until a replacement is ready (and I'm convinced it will happen at some point). Other subjects that were redone earlier in the Hormby era were IMHO in much more need of a revamp compared to these two
  12. I remember a local modeller who never used gloss paint before decaling, what he did was to polish all painted surfaces with very fine abrasive sponges. The results were fantastic, but I don't know if I'd have the patience to get such a finish before decaling. Back to the original question, no problem in mixing gloss and matt paint from the same line of products, done that plenty of times myself. If the paints are from different brands, then better do a test first. Said that, I personally prefer to simply add gloss clear paint to flat back to achieve a semigloss finish, or with acrylics even just add Klear or similar products to the flat black.
  13. Vallejo primers do indeed smell like some detergents, every time I prime a model with them I feel like having collected clean clothes from the laundry
  14. The B and J were reviewed in D&S 12, dedicated to the USN variants. The kit was brand new back then and still distributed by Minicraft. The year was 1983... The volumes on the E (D&S 7) and the one on the C/D did not feature the Hasegawa kits as they had not been released yet. They discuss the 1/48 Monogram, Esci and Testors kits. It is interesting that with perhaps the exception of the Testors/Italeri kit, I still rate the others as overall buildable kits and I have one of each in the stash (Esci J and Monogram C). Phantom modellers were quite well served in those years !
  15. I can't think of any other British aircraft that could be considered as iconic as the Spitfire... important yes, some maybe even more important from a historical point of view, but iconic ? In any case you already answered your question: it's a commercially driven decision, Spitfire sells and a variant of the Spitfire that still graces the sky and can be seen by thousands at most airshows is a guaranteed seller. How many Spitfires do we need ? Personally I'd say at least one for every variant.. but of course I am a Spitfire fan... In fairness to Airfix they have not done Spitfires only, for 2019 they have also announced a 1/72 Buccaneer, a kit that was seriously needed as no modern plastic kit of the type existed. And in the past they've given us other interesting subjects, thinking of 1/48 Javelin, Sea Vixen, Meteor and Hunter for example, or the many other 1/72 kits. I wonder how many important British types have not been recently offered by Airfix in one scale or the other ? Seems to me that the only one missing is the Mosquito, that however is still in their catalogue in 1/72 with a still decent (if older) kit.. IMHO there is one other aircraft that is maybe even more iconic worldwide than the Spitfire... and it's not a type, it's a single aircraft: Fokker Dr.1 425/17, the red triplane of the Red Baron !
×
×
  • Create New...