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

    12,525
  • 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

7,120 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

9,480 profile views
  1. Parts and markings for an early Tomcat.. brilliant!
  2. Since the 1/48 Hobbyboss kits shares the same inaccuracis with the 1/32 Trumpeter kit, you will probably not be happy with this one. And as the Esci kit is not as nice to build and is much less detailed than the later kits, this leaves the Hasegawa kit as the only option. It's not a bad option, actually it's a very good kit but as you say comes with almost no ordnance. Fit is no Tamiya and there are a couple of areas that require attention, particularly the intake, but IMHO the Hobbyboss kits are no better. Monogram also issued an A-7 but was an update of the original Aurora mould, not great even for its days.
  3. It's not difficult to use the Esci wings on the Hasegawa kit and Martin IIRC did exactly this on his F-104A. I've taken a couple of pictures to show the difference between the two wings on a couple of models I have in various build stages. The model in grey primer is an Esci kit (actually an F-104C...) while the model with white and grey wing is a Hasegawa J Top of the wings: Notice how the Esci kit (here on the left) includes the slots for the boundary layer control system, absent from the Hasegawa wing. The panels are represented differently, IMHO Esci is more accurate. The flaps line also differ, again Esci is better. And now the bottom: Again Esci is the winner, with many small panels that exist on the real aircraft represented, while Hasegawa simply disregarded them There is also a difference in span between the two kits, due to the different ways the two kits have for the attachment of the various loads on the wing tips. Both kits have slots for the pylons, they have however been filled on the Hasegawa kit shown here. The Esci pylon is however incorrect in shape and in the C they don't tell to attach this perpendicular to the wing. On my model I will use a spare Hasegawa pylon modified to sit in the correct position. I'm aware that differences of this kind only matter to the true F-104 enthusiasts and many modellers will not care, however it's worth pointing them out for those who may care. I have not added the Revell kit as my two (a C and a G) are in the stash, I may take one of the two and do the same comparison. Anyway they are almost identical to the Hasegawa ones. I may add that the Esci kit wins over the Hasegawa and Revell offering in another area: the representation of the lines of vents present in the lower fuselage, that are nicely scribed in the Esci kit and totally absent in the Hasegawa and Revell kits. There are also a few panels that are more correct in the Esci kit. Now it would seem that for a number of reasons I prefer the Esci kit to the other two, unfortunately this suffers from an incorrect canopy, with an excessively wide windscreen that IMHO ruins the beautiful lines of the Starfighter. The cockpit in the Esci kit is also incorrect in several aspects but this is fixable, the canopy unfortunately isn't.
  4. I mainly build in 1/72 but I have built the occasional 1/48 kit, generally for subjects that I have a particular interest in or simply because I found one of those bargains that it's hard not to bring home. I can't really say I felt anything in crossing from one scale to the other, I recognize that 1/48 allows more detail and can lead to some impressive looking models and I enjoy this whenever I build one of these kits. At the same time I like the advantages of 1/72 scale and I remain happy with building most of my models in this scale. In my case the two scales are not exclusive but complementary I've less experience with 1/144, but I don't mind this scale for the larger subjects like airliners. Again, no big deal in passing from one to the other have a few 1/32 kits but I've yet to build any of them. I can see the huge potential for detailing but also the challenges and for a number of reasons I keep postponing my first build in this scale
  5. I'm sure Martin will not mind if I comment on this, more so as we discussed F-104 kits a few times, particularly regarding how to best build early F-104 variants... The Monogram/Revell kit is sure a quicker and cheaper way to get a C, as all the parts are included in one box. Particularly important are the wheels, as this is the only kit that includes proper C wheels (the Esci/Italeri kit has narrow G/J wheels). The Revell kit also includes the fairings for the RWR system antennas used on the Cs during the Vietnam War, however while the two rear ones are correct, the front one is the wrong shape. Said that, the Revell kit is not as good as the Hasegawa one when it comes to fit, surface detail and some other details. Just to mention one, the exhaust nozzle in the Revell C has not only less detail but also the wrong number of petals while the Hasegawa part is correct. Intakes and canopy are also way better in the Hasegawa kit. The Japanese kit is not perfect at all, but most errors in the Hasegawa kit have been replicated in the Revell one... and then Revell added a few of their own. Of course the problem is that Hasegawa never issued a C in 1/72 scale, so anyone who want to start from this kit must add parts from another kit, be it Esci or Revell. Using the "Italesci" kit has one advantage: the wings in this kit are much better than both the Revell and Hasegawa ones, with a nice representation of the boundary layer slots (missing from the others) and accurate panel lines (those in the other kits are simplified). So yes, crosskitting the Hasegawa G with an Esci/italeri kit is a more expensive way to do things, but results in a much more accurate model than just using the Revell kit.. apart from the wheels. Of course here the matter is what a modeller wants to achieve: if it's simply a model of an F-104C then the Revell kit is a reasonable solution straight from the box Anyone who wants a better F-104C model will feel pushed to change and modify a few things in this kit, starting with the exhaust and modifying the various little inaccurate details in the kit. Those modellers who will want to build a very good F-104C model will however find the Revell kit frustrating in several aspects and will recognise that converting the Hasegawa kit will lead to a better result in the end. I should add that while crosskitting is a possibility, it is possible to simply cut the hasegawa tail to the correct profile and I'm sure someone here showed exactly this in a previous post on the F-104C.
  6. Honestly if I'm spending that kind of money for a kit I not only expect this to be properly packaged, I pretend it to be properly packaged ! Then the matter is what is proper packaging and what is nice packaging. To me the box, the bags and all the way the sprues are in the box must aim mainly at one thing: protecting the content. Some boxes work better than others so I'd expect a good sturdy box (Zvezda must be the best around here in their larger kits). Having sprues in individual bags is also a good way to avoud losing parts that may have detached from the sprues so it's another thing I'd want to see. Most important, clear parts and other parts that could be damaged by scratching should be placed in their own bags in every kit, not only the expensive ones (Airfix do it even in their cheapest kits). Any other addition that may make the parts better protected or place them nice and tidy in the box is welcome, be it plastic or cardboard trays, separate cardboard boxes and so on. Are they necessary ? No, they are not. But a £100 kit is in many cases a "flagship", it's something that showcases what a certain company can do and IMHO companies should also consider less than necessary aspects as these would improve their image with the buyer. As for the price, prices at that level are not set by the kind of packaging, others are the factors that matter. Besides, I've seen examples of "nice" packaging in kits that costed £20 so it would be no problem adding them to a £100 kit with no price increase
  7. Could and could not... Hunter serial numbers were originally in black, then some started appearing in white and during the '60s they seem to have been mostly white. At some point the serial numbers were reapplied in black. I'm in the same position as Dave here as I don't have any official document stating when black serial numbers were supposed to be applied, but yes the timeframe match and as both black serial numbers and LAG would have likely been applied at the first repaint, it is possible that these two features appeared together. This however would only be useful if looking at a picture taken in the late '60s-early '70s... and of course there may be exceptions ! The 20 Sqn. Hunters you checked would fall in this timeframe as the unit was in Tengah between 1961 and 1970. However if the picture is older, then the undersurfaces will be in silver with both white and black serial numbers. The same 20 Sqn. F.6s for example sure carried black serial numbers in the late '50s.
  8. Folks, this GB is struggling in the poll ! We have to get more votes to go through for 2020, so talk to your friends and ask them to vote for this GB ! The GB allows a large number of very interesting and popular subjects, like the many US types used by the RAF, FAA and even the Army in WW2 and later Other subjects eligible are the many aircraft flown by Polish, Czech French and other pilots in the RAF. Last but not least, the GB is open to all kind of civilian operated vehicles, as long as they are of foreign origin and registered in the UK, be they cars, trucks or even airliners
  9. Regarding these two, it's my fault, I shoild do some more work to push them ! Said that, both GBs struggled a bit to find supporters, so they may require some vigorous advertising campaign to get back in the top 7. I realise however that there may be a bit of overlap between the two, as the first choice of many modellers for both would be some US type in use by the RAF or FAA...
  10. It is possible to cut the tail of the Italeri G to the shape used on the C and earlier, the question is if it's worth as there are kits that already offer the correct tail. The Italeri G features narrow wheels and the relative "flat" wheel well doors and while the doors are fine for a C the wheels are not. The Italeri A/C has the same wheels unfortunately. The Monogram/Revell C on the other hand includes the correct wheels and is better in a number of aspects. None of these kits however represent the slightly different panels of the C. Another difference is that the pylons on the C are perpendicular to the wings, not to the ground as on the G.. another detail you have to sort yourself
  11. Trying to put myself in Airfix' shoes... Investment for a new Lancaster: 100. Investment for a Lancaster and a Manchester: 150, maybe less, let's say 140. Number of Lancasters I can sell per year: 1,000 (number thrown in the air of course). Number of Manchesters I can sell per year: how less popular is the Manchester compared to the Lancaster ? Sure not a type capable of attracting many casual buyers as lacks the aura of its sibling, but interesting for those more knowledgeable guys who already have a Lanc.. say 1 Manchester per every Lancaster ? And I may be optimistic. Is it worth ? Not sure... the investment would only be 40% of that of a new kit, but the additional market would be 10% at best... If on the other hand I only spend the 100 for the development of the Lancaster tool, I would sell my 1,000 Lancasters per year... and those who want to build a Manchester will have to buy one of my Lancasters as a basis for a conversion... they will sure be less than 100 a year, as not all potential buyers would be willing to build a kit with a resin or similar conversion, but still those would be my customer without any extra investment from my side
  12. Some nice pictures, thanks for sharing. However, and I mean no offence to the enthusiast who is doing this job, I have very mixed feelings about colourised pictures in general... They sure can convery much better than B/W pictures the feeling of certain moments but they are also a risky thing. Now the author clearly states that they are colourised so as long as they are seen in this context it's all good. When a colourised picture is circulated though it becomes a potential source of problems for researchers as can be treated like a real colour picture while it is not. There are alredy plenty of problems in interpreting original colour pics in the study of colours and markings, colourised pictures add even more problems...
  13. Another vote for Tamiya spray paints, IMHO they are far superior to Halford's or similar products when it comes to our hobby. Strange that you had problems with Vallejo white peeling off, did you prime the area below ? Vallejo also offers a white primer that sticks very well to bare plastic, the problem is that while this can be brushed it's a bit too thin for that (it's designed mainly for airbrush use) so it will require a lot of coats to give a good cover.
  14. Tomas, if they are just black stencils then you may consider printing your own. This is what I did on my latest F-104 build as I found that with my cheap laser printer I could easily print stencils that were much thinner than what most manufacturers offer. I recently decided to redraw some of them to get an even more realistic result. I hate oversized stencils as IMHO ruin the look of a model while thin subtle stencils improve it a lot.
  15. A bit off topic and not immediately related to the D-13.. we shouldn't give too much importance to the effect of paint weight on aircraft as this effect is smaller than often quoted. The USAAF Proving Ground Command studied the matter during the War and concluded that on fighter sized types the overall contribution of all paints used for the exterior finish was approximately 15 to 20 lbs, figures that they assessed as negligible in terms of the effect on performance. More important was the increase of drag due to the roughness of some paints but this again was found to affect speed within the usual differences between one aircraft and the other. Where however the application of paint had a great effect was in the time required to get the aircraft off the factory ! Within the context of late WW2 Luftwaffe fighters, I'd expect that the importance of camouflage, particularly on the ground, would have been way higher than the negligible effect of a few lbs more of weight
×
×
  • Create New...