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. :)

Paul H

Members
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Good

About Paul H

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chichester
  • Interests
    Sailing, naval history, vintage & classic cars

Recent Profile Visitors

373 profile views
  1. I'm a big fan of that series of classic cars by Heller for the reasons you mention! The IRS on the Heller E Type is particulary nice, including rotating drive shafts - I'm using one from an old FHC kit in my parts bin (didn't survive my childhood...) for an Airtrax Mk10. The front suspension on the Heller E Type certainly looks much more 'in scale' than what is visible in pics of the new Revell one. I heard that rumour about the DB5 too - when suggested recently, I think the reason it didn't go ahead may have been licensing issues. However I may be mis-remembering... I was diappointed though as I wanted to turn one into a DB4 drophead (to go with a blue E Type FHC and red OTS as a set of three fast cars ) and perhaps also convert one to a Lagonda Rapide.
  2. Apologies if I've misunderstood (thought you were meaning that the location was between the chassis rails behind the axle), however I'm confused by the use of that photo, as isn't the tank essentially invisible, even from underneath?
  3. That looks lovely! I am really tempted by this kit now, even though I have nothing else in 1:12 scale... Given the filler location, the tank is almost certainly located in the pointed tail above the chassis, which wasn't uncommon on racing cars of this era.
  4. The box art is the old 1:8 Monogram one - the shape is good aside from around the headlights, and yes, that is pretty much how the roof & screen should look. Thank you for the pic - it answers a lot of questions! Seeing it much closer up, the roof & screen do look much more promising, and it is far clearer now how the parts are supposed to look once everything is painted and foiled. As I already mentioned above, I had hoped it was a trick of the photo, and seeing your one makes it appear that may indeed be the case. It struck me as strange it should be off, given how good the nose looks & also that I'm sure I read something a while back relating to the L-R Series 3 which suggested that Revell AG now scans vehicles to get the shape right. Interestingly, it looks like Revell may have moulded the windscreen and its chrome trim as one part, which means that the screen won't be incorrectly recessed as it often is on models. The wire wheels are a definate disappointment though - whilst once painted / chromed and given a wash, they may appear a bit better, but they just look like cross spoke alloys as there should be spokes running out on the wheel centre, level with right behind the spinner, rather than ending where the diameter of the wheel centre is greatest. The injection moulded wires on Tamiya's Jag Mk2 and Morgan 4/4 do this so much more convincingly. Also, in an engine bay pic I saw elsewhere, the highly visible ball joints and steering arms are unnecessarily chunky & overscale. This seems to be Revell's habit these days - compare the underpinnings of Tamiya Mini Cooper & 2CV along with and Italeri's Land Rover Series 3 to Revell's offerings. However, one very interesting thing shown by this pic is that the sills appear to be moulded integrally with the rest of the body, as the seam which has plagued all previous E Type models is not visible! I guess that the rear valance is still moulded separately though with the seam hidden by the bumper (in the same way that the spotwelded flange joining the valance to the rear quarter is hidden on the real car), to aid installation of the interior. After initial disappointment based on the first pics I saw (now mostly countered by the close-up pic above), shape wise this looks like it has the potential to be the definitive injection moulded E Type kit in any scale, especially if Revell have indeed managed to engineer a solution to the sill seam... I cannot wait for pics of the final model!
  5. Found another pic of the E Type: From here: https://www.spotmodel.com/product_info.php?products_id=53549&language=en
  6. The end result looks like it turned out great to me! Proportions and shape look just right too. What went well, and what wasn't so good about the build? I have one of these which I was originally planning to paint in one of the solid colours that they were available in, but the colour on your model looks absolutely spot on for a pre-facelift SD1
  7. A pic of Revell's new E Type Series 1 FHC: From here: http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2020/Bilder_VH/101.html My initial impressions are rather mixed. The bonnet, in particular the headlights (which virtually every other E Type kit has got wrong to varying degrees, ranging from passable to appalling) looks like it could be the best yet. However, the windscreen area looks very poor, with the top of the glass appearing far too low - it should be pretty much in line with the upper edge of the side windows. I hope that this is simply a trick of the photo due to it being unpainted, as if not, and if that is what they are tooling up, then the kit will be little more than a parts donor to use the front end to improve either Revell's own very old tool OTS or Heller's OTS & FHC, all of which haven't quite got the headlights right (Heller's effort is much better in my opinion, and at the passable end of the scale), but are otherwise pretty decent.
  8. I'm hoping that Beemax will do a Vitesse touring car (one is visible in the background of the artwork of their Volvo 242 Turbo). I suspect that is the only way a 1:24 one will appear. Simply a case of cost saving - this was the dark days of BL... Rover were fully capable of desigining and building a more advanced rear suspension, as demonstrated by the de Dion rear on the P6 from a decade earlier. However, I recall back in the early / mid '90s that Performance Car mag (when still a proper car mag) featuring the Vitesse version in a regular series of articles on older performance cars, and describing them as being not far off a 5 door TVR, so the live axle can't have been that bad.
  9. Following this with great interest, and thank you for documenting how you are improving the interior. I shall definatly be using this as a reference! If you did want to do something about the axles & gearbox, have a look at the Italeri 109 kit. Whilst it is a curbside, those parts are much more accurate. I will probably be using the entire Italeri chassis if it fits, or if not, then the suspension, axles, gearbox & transfer box when I build mine. Ironically, the body seems to have no sink marks, and fully smooth panels, whereas the panels on the real thing have plenty of witness marks from the way they are built especially on the rear quarters where the inner arch structure is attached...
  10. After much deliberation, an Amodel 4C should now be on its way... Whilst still in need of work to get it to go together based on the reviews I have read, the better engraving and shaping to the engines and exhausts sold it to me compared to the Airfix one. If all goes well, it may be jned later by a Comet 1 (source still undecided), so as to have first and last versions. This was also part of my reasoning for choosing the Amodel 4C, rather than their 4B or the Airfix one. I may revisit this for a 1:72 one in the future (as the Welsh Models ones do look good!), but at the moment the length & width of a Comet at that scale is just too big for my current display space. Thank you all again for your advice and feedback! Thank you - been having a look at the 26 decal options but still trying to decide whether to stick with the Amodel Dan Air decals or choose something else. Btw, if of interest to anyone, Hannants have both the BEA 4B & the Dan Air 4C versions in stock - the 4C being restocked earlier today & when I was searching, they were the only ones to have the 4C version. That looks very smart! Whilst what Amodel has shown may perhaps not be 100% scale accurate, I probably wouldn't be applying any washes to make the engraving stand out too much due to the scale, so hopefully the panel line details will look appropriate. However this will be my first airliner model so this is all conjecture (& perhaps wishful thinking) on my part. I've seen a few threads about converting from a Nimrod - somewhat more work than I am aiming for, but very impressive! I am currently trying to resist the temptation....!!!!
  11. Whilst there isn't info on its source here http://ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Hersteller_News/Revell_News_2020.html according to another forum, the 300SL is probably the old Renwal one.
  12. On the vehicle front, quite a few interesting new items in 1:24 as well as the new E Type FHC However the pic they show looks like it's the ancient 1:8 Monogram one though, due to the scale of the wire wheels and slightly wonky headlight bezels (not only is the shape not right but the bezels are too high compared to the bumper and sidelight / indicator cluster - hopefully Revell will get this area right on the new one! VW T2 late type bay window (snap fit) and also a camper version of their recent T1 Split screen
  13. I've been giving this further thought and have done a lot more research in light of all the very useful info posted above - my findings and thoughts are included below, should these be of use / interest to anyone else considering a Comet kit. Unfortunately the Authentic Airliners kits are more than I am prepared to pay for 1:144, especially as Welsh Models' all resin variant in the same scale is quite a bit less and includes decals too. Turns out that Airfix's newest release does indeed have the fuselage windows filled in, but the portholes are now part of the decal sheet. The rest does seem very crude compared to the other injection moulded 1:144 kits though due to the lack of engraved panel lines. Interesting about the scaling issues of the Amodel - this review provides more info, as well as comparion to the Airfix http://www.modellversium.de/kit/artikel.php?id=11209 Incidentally, the German language wikipedia page for the Comet appears to have better dimension info than the English language one! As for fit, based on this build thread, the Amodel doesn't seem as bad as I thought: https://uamf.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=12305 It is certainly quite a dilemma, and I fully understand what you mean! I've now managed to find a few good build threads on it: From reading these and other threads, weak undercarriage does seem to be a theme which marrs an otherwise very interesting model. Whichever variant I go for will almost certainly be displayed on its undercarriage though. How did you find the undercarriage on the one you built, or did you replace it as others have? Thank you - I've done some research into the Frog one, and it does look pretty decent, but cannot find any available for sensible money. Good call on the diecasts, and certainly something to consider! Hadn't considered vac form kits, but prompted by your recommendation, what I've found out about these ones is certainly very positive - these links in particular about Welsh Models' Comets (both Comet 1s, but the only build links I have found so far): http://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=4286 However the Comet 1 is probably more than I had in mind to spend, and their Comet 4 is certainly more than I can justify. They do look really tempting though! In terms of scale alone, 1:72 would mean it would display very nicely along side the Mosquito and Dragon Rapide that I already have (both part built) but would take up significantly more space than 1:144. However I don't see myself getting any other 1:144 planes, whereas also I have a few others in 1:72 waiting to be built. I've never done a vacformed kit before, but the Welsh Models ones sound so much better than my perception of the reputation that vac form kits seem to have. A Comet 1 rather than a 4 would also have a size advantage in 1:72 too, being about 100mm shorter... Mach 2's Comet - well, I still can find very little info, and comments from those who have seen it raise doubts over the accuracy of the wing and engine shaping. Whether those are things I would notice is another matter - the issue of flash etc and clean up required for a low volume kit doesn't bother me but the reported issue with the lining up of the cabin windows would certainly annoy me. As such, I think that combined with the issue of size (for storing / displaying), that is 1:72 scale ruled out for me. In 1:144, looking at the injection moulded options, it seems that the Amodel, despite being slightly underscale, is a good option for a 4, whereas the F-RSIN is the only choice for a 1, but with the questions over the undercarriage. In that company, and with it not being that much cheaper, Airfix's one is relegated to last place. Post 66 in this thread seems to summarize the Amodel's merits and flaws, especially compared to the Airfix one. In other media, the Welsh Models also do most variants of the Comet in 1:144, but would be more expensive. In 1:144, I am leaning strongly towards the Amodel, as the slight sizing issue won't be noticiable to me, and it's detail is high. I am reserving judgement on 1:72, as I want more info on the Mach 2 before deciding on whether their 4C or one of Welsh Models' offerings (probably a Comet 1) is the best option in that scale. There is also the question of whether 1:72 will fit my display cabinet... And then of course, which airline's livery to choose, which may well sway my final decision... I shall be blaming the friend who kindly lent me his copy of a book on the history of de Havilland, that was published in 1960, and which sparked my interest in the Comet. I was reading it purely to find out more about de Havilland's Gipsy engine as back in the summer I'd been helping him put a Gipsy II that he has just rebuilt onto the dyno in his test cell (for running in and airworthiness certification purposes prior to being reinstalled in its airframe). Anyhow, apologies for my rambling, and thank you to all again for your advice & suggestions.
  14. Many thanks all - given me lots to think about and the extra suggestions are very appreciated!
  15. I am looking at buying a model of a de Havilland Comet & would very much appreciate some advice as to which one to choose. From what I can make out, the options in 1:144 are the old Airfix 4B, Amodel 4B or 4C, and the F-RSIN Comet 1, whereas in 1:72, there is Mach 2's 4B. I have read individual reviews of each, and all clearly have their good (& not so good) features - e.g. Airfix has raised panel lines but seems to fit ok (at least for its age!), whereas Amodel has engraved lines but reviews suggest fit isn't great. However, I have not been able to find any direct comparison reviews between the 1:144 ones or build reviews of the Mach 2. I do not mind whether it is a Comet 1, or a Comet 4 - what I am after is a decent representation of a Comet, and one that is not going to take (too) much work to build, to display. With that in mind, which would be the best one to go for?
×
×
  • Create New...