Giorgio N

I checked and have a copy, just send me a PM !

I hope someone has and will comment ! Having the set already I'd prefer not to buy another one I'm aware of the Aerocraft sets but I'd like to use the set I already have. Buying the Aerocraft sets would mean adding another £18 (£12 for the intakes and 6 for the exhausts) to what is already a quite expensive kit. That makes sense if someone really wants an S.1 but since I already have the Heritage set I'd prefer to be be able to use this.

The pylons under the intakes visible in the picture were only on the F-104S. Known as BL-22 (all F-104 pylons are known as BL-xx, where the latter is the distance from the fuselage centre), they were indeed rated for the use of bombs but this never happened during service: the bombs in that position caused a lot of drag and there were concerns about the ingestion of foreign objects in the intake when dropping the bombs. There are some pictures showing bombs under these pylons but they are all of either test flights (as above) or aircraft on static display on the ground. The same pylons were initially used to carry Sidewinders but the missiles in this position were quite close to the ground and the sensor got covered in dirt during the take-off run so the use was soon discontinued. All aircraft retained the capability of using these pylons until with the ASA-M upgrade all relevant wiring was removed

Quick question: I have the Heritage Buccaneer S.1 resin conversion set, designed for the old Airfix 1/72 Buccaneer S.2 kit. I also have two of these kits so I'd be sorted.. however since the new tool kit is so much better I'm considering buying one. Does anybody know if the parts for the old kit would fit the new one? I know there are sets made for the new kit but having one already I'd prefer to be able to use this. Should the old set not fit the new kit I'd just use it on the old one. Thanks in advance!

Not station drawings but I remember that the most accurate scale drawings were considered those included in the 1/32 Echelon kit. I'm pretty sure I have a set, let me know if they can be of use

If using aftermarket seats, keep in mind that the cockpit of this kit suffers from an excessive depth. The rear cockpit in particular should be much higher up and the side consolles as they are look like buried deep into the pit instead of being at the right level. This problem also affects the look of the instrument panels, again particularly the rear one that looks lost in its place instead of what it should be. All problems that this kit shares with the Fujimi J79 engined Phantoms. In the past I addressed this in two different ways: on one model I used an Eduard zoom set designed for the Hasegawa kit modifying the cockpit structure with plasticard. On the other used a resin clone of the Fujimi British Phantom cockpit. Of course it's possible to just leave everything as it is but personally I hate the way the instrument panels look from the box

I have the Dimensione Cielo volume and can translate if needed. In summary, the 613 Squadriglia was established in Rome in June 1940 and a few days later the aircraft flew to Sardinia divided in two sections, one in Elmas (still today the airport of the city of Cagliari) and Olbia. The section in Olbia became independent in July and flew to Puglia the following month but the aircraft were soon back with 613 in Elmas. As Carlos wrote, some aircraft were converted for ambulance use in September 1940. At January 1st 1941 there were 5 aircraft, one with red cross markings, 1 in civilian markings and 3 in military markings. It's likely that the picture was taken around that time. The unit continued to serve with the S.66 wil the end of July 1943 but no mention is made of the schemes carried, All pictures in the book seem to have been taken in the early days of the unit

The 4+ book is an option if you are happy with many pictures of detail but little text. Also covers the other variants of the Tempest

The original FS-595 was issued in 1956 so would have been a pretty new standard when WG774 flew. Now IIRC the violet scheme dates from 1958 so a little later, but still I find the use of paints from this standard quite unusual Regarding decal 28, this was discussed in the thread in the rumormonger section and should read "hood release"

Paul Lucas mentioned this in a thread I started after having read the use of 108 in an issue of section 33B of AP-1086

The Model Color range really is aimed more at figure modellers than us aircraft modellers. Some colours are supposed to be for aircraft but they are rarely that accurate... said that, there are a number of their colours that while meant for something else are actually quite good for certain aircraft schemes. The Model Air range is different as this includes a good number of paints supposed to represent FS or RAL or BS paints.... they sometime do and sometime don't. I agree that Vallejo should improve their accuracy with these paints although in fairness their latest attempts seem to be much better than the earliest.

In fairness to Vallejo, 70.807 does not claim to be matched to any specific paint, just carries the generic name Oxford Blue. We could then debate if this is actually the colour as codified by the University of Oxford or if it's just a dark blue using that name

All shops I use have minimum charges, reason why any time I buy online I try to add more stuff to the order to spread postage over several items. Now some in Italy and Germany have some very low postage for small flat items (decals and the like), in the €3-4 range but others charge much more. I like shops that use GLS as delivery service as this is generally on the cheaper side. One of my favourite Czech shops would deliver a dozen kits for under€8.

In general.... slotted leading edge extention in metal but the tip is in camo, The triangular plate is generally all camo, never seen one half painted and half not (and I'm sure in 5 minutes someone will show me a picture...). Inner panels in shades of natural metal. You can use this picture as a general guide (an F-4E but the stabilators are the same) https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7357029 Notice how the picture also shows a small panel left in metal just behind the slot and close to the tip. This is present in many pictures but not in all, so may or may not have been presebt on your subject (others may know more) You should alsocheck if your subject had the arrow shaped reinforcement, not all aircraft had them, see for example this F-4G here: https://www.scalemodellingnow.com/tbmodelconstruction-referencematerial-operationnorthernwatch1994/2

XIVs with stripes: they sure did ! Have a look at the picture in this page: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/spitfire-mk-xiv-rb188-t176284.html 91 Squadron machines were operational during D-Day and as the picture above shows, they had stripes Bubble canopy XIVs with full span wings: again it's a yes. There are several pictures showing this in the Far East. You can see some here: https://www.raf-in-combat.com/downloads/august-2019-supermarine-spitfire-xiv-far-east-21-photos/ Mind, the XIVs arrived in theatre when the war was over, so yes they flew with full span wings but not in combat missions

This would have been true a few years ago. Considering what a Countach is worth today even a car needing restoration would probably cost 15-20 times that model...

Guess that the moderators would be the right people to ask to concerning displaying your model on the forum, may be worth asking them. Can't help with the IPMS, never been a member so I don't know what their policy would be at their shows. I can add that personally I would have no issue, afterall if the aircraft sported these graffiti this is how I'd like it to be reproduced. Afterall we modellers often reproduce aircraft that carry symbols like the swastika but also nose arts that are blatantly offensive or racist and we don't seem to be bothered. And to be totally honest, we are happy to reproduce machines that contributed in the killing of hundred thousands of civilians around the world, should we then feel disturbed because one of these machines carried a few swear words ? Swear words that are just too common among those soldiers that we then celebrate in our posts... Of course that's just me, others may see things differently

Giampiero that picture was posted here by myself a few years ago and discussed. The interior of the flaps looks to be the same of the lower surfaces (no surprise, that's how they were supposed to be. The interior of the fuselage is harder to understand, may be a grey-green. Only the windscreen frames are visible of the cockpit, they look more grey than green. Apart from the picture, whoever wrote the comment you posted clearly has no clue of how paints work ! Really, it's the kind of rubbish comment I keep reading in certain Italian modelling press coming from people who throw their opinions around without any clue of what they are talking about. I'll translate in English the section I highlighted: "I'll offer some food for thought: in those days heavy industries were not involved in one single area but often in more than one. Breda for example also manufactured trains and the interiors of locomotives in those days were in that green and not grey. Now excluding the materials more typical of aircraft production, it is plausible to think that a common anti-rust paint, because this is what we're talking about, could be used in both fields..." What ???? A common anti-rust paint ???? Used in both aircraft structures and locomotives ? Does this guy have any idea of the chemicals used to protect metals from corrosion ? Does he know that aircraft structures are mainly in aluminum and its alloys while trains were then made using steel ? Two different metals that require specific products for protection against corrosion ! And more: does he know that any paint used in aircraft production had to be approved by the relevant technical offices of the Regia Aeronautica, in the same way as this happened in every other country ? Would these offices have approved the use of a corrosion protection for steel on an aluminum alloy surface ? The same offices that issued lists of approved primers for both aluminum and steel, each with their properties to achieve the best possible result on the specific material. Come on, really, I don't want to sound unpleasant, I'm always open to any new info but I can't accept as reliable the ideas of someone stating that Breda may have used an imaginary "common anti-rust paint" on both MC.202s and trains when this is simply not possible

That's very annoying ! Guess the kind of low pressure injection process used for these sets struggles in properly filling the mould at the top of the fin

The 205 canopy and windscreen were indeed the same of the later series 202. This is confirmed by the Macchi catalogue numbers in the "nomenclatore" of the two types. The one for the 205 even indicates in the relevant column that the part is common with the 202

The early Seafires are made from their "high quality" moulds so they are better kits compared to AZ/KP short run line. I don't have the Astir but have a couple of their Spitfire I/V from which the seafires are derived. They are no Tamiya of course but are buildable. What I don't like of these kits are the dimensions that don't match measurements as much as I like.

One exception to the above was the use of the desert scheme on 5 Spitfire Mk.VI that were sent to Egypt (BS106, BS124, BS133, BS134, BS149). Of these the only one of which I know pictures exist is BS124, see for example these two links: https://www.raf-in-combat.com/downloads/october-2017-supermarine-spitfire-mk-vi-11-photos/ https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/cleaver/gb/spt2/tc6.htm All 5 aircraft were later modified for PR work in the Middle East But of course, this has little to do with the high altitude scheme,..😆 Scheme that was not used on the Mk.VI but was used on a number of Mk.VIII and Mk.IX in the Mediterranean

Thanks everyone ! After speaking with Martin AKA @RidgeRunner, I realized that it would be good to let everyone know more about the foam I used to mask the wheel wells... I found out that this is known as Crepla or Creapla and the more technical name should be EVA rubber or EVA foam. Seems to be used to make costumes and the like and it's available in a range of thicknesses. Mine is actually only 1.7 mm thick and I bought it a roll. @reini, I also use packing foam, on this model I'll likely use it to protect the exhaust. For deep cavities packing foam is probably even better. The advantage of this material is that can be cut easily with both scissors and citters and can be cut very accurately. To make my masks I applied a patch of adhesive vinyl on one wing and drew the shape on this. I then removed the vinyl patch from the wing and stuck it on the rubber/foam/whatever-it-is. It was then easy to cut the shape with my hobby knife. I then reused the same vinyl shape on another length of rubber to cut the other mask.

All Valom Hampdens had clear styrene parts. The problem was that these were wider than the fuselage. AZ made new parts that did fit much better. I've seen the Valom kit built using Falcon vacform replacements so these should fit well enough. I've also seen the Valom fuselage widened to fit the original parts, easy in terms on width (just add a plasticard spreader between the fuselage halves, more difficult in terms of depth ( the correction I've seen involved cutting along the fuselage for a certain length and spreading vertically at the front to match the clear parts). For my own kit I bought the AZ clear parts when these were issued, now I just have to decide to build the model...

Hopefully I got everything right... guess that an early US Navy Jet would be eligible. Would be an aircraft built after 1946 and would have been retired by 1964, so things like Panther, Cougar, Cutlass and the like would be fine. Thinking of one of these or maybe a French late '50s jet... or a British early '50s jet but I see there's already quite a few of these