Neil Lambess

retool of 72nd Bristol superfreighter to Bristol freighter (much as they did with the friendship kit) New 72nd comet racer........ (pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee......... we will all re-buy the black magic and green uns again )

well if you compare the airfix wing/fuselage ratio to a good birds eye (plan view) Photo of the aircraft then the proportions "appear" spot on. other kits such as the hobbyboss and KP "appear" a good scale two feet short in the rear fuselage.... theres several really nice plan view shots in various episodes of "wings of russia" as Mig 15s roll over onto their bellys and the Airfix kits matches them nicely...... the other kits just look too short in their fuselages dont forget it was also "established fact " that the Mach 2 valiant was a massive 2cm short in the nose ! (in fact the Airfix kits nose is a couple of millimetres shorter than the Mach 2 kit and yet the airfix kits nose is deemed to be correct..... ( the problem with the Mach 2 kit is that the wing intakes are massivley too deep, and the canopy blister is also too large which creates the optical illusion that the kits nose is too short..... anyway...Im still eagerly awaiting the Eduard mig 15 as im sure it will be the best version yet.....but i wouldnt be surprised if its overall proportions are closer to the Airfix than the Hobbyboss (if its the other way around then i may just have to melt the Airfix kit onto toast and eat it haha )

the Hobbyboss kit IMHO is very underscale in the rear fuselage , for my money the Airfix retool is more accurate the problem is that there are two major sets of quoted dimensions for the Mig 15 ,one with a fuselage and wingspan of aprox 33 feet each (giving the airframe a "square" look ) the other plans (and William f Green) gave the fuselage length as over 35 feet.... I go with the latter dimensions as looking at plan view photos of mig 15s the fuselage is always longer than the wingspan.......(ie its a rectangular airframe) having said that , at rest a soviet era Mig 15 always slopes backwards in side profile due to having small diameter mainwheels, (which means the ground line length will always be smaller than a true datum line length due to the angle of the slope ) MOST of the Airshow,or US based aircraft flying today have much larger mainwheels (which may have also been introduced on late production soviet airframes.......(the larger wheels are on the tamiya and monogram 48th Migs and to me the "sit" of those kits looks totally wrong.......they tend to be more parallell to the ground that the "tail almost touching the ground " look of early soviet photos its looks like the Eduard kit has the longer nose , and bulkier rear fuselage of the Airfix version and appears to have a far more promising shape than the Hobbyboss disaster..... BUT due to some of the points ive raised above the true shape of a Mig15 is vary elusive , so lets hope they have actually measured a real one! I eagerly look forward to its release so i can compare it to both the Airfix and hobbyboss sprues......

it fits pretty well, however compared to the warpaint plans and photos i had to shorten the rear fuselage extension a bit ( its possible there "may" be two versions of the flightpath kit with different length rear extensions tho ...... some built up Lincolns look way too long, others look spot on , so i suspect the molds were altered at some point.) the Revell kits "flatter" wing means you dont have to remove the excess dihedral , but the downsides were a few gaps where the nacelles join the wing underside , and the need to widen the inner nacelles/undercarriage bays at the front, to match the wider engine resin (i think thats a problem with using the Airfix kit too....) Ill try and post some pix soon ,as its still sans paint, and you can see the problem areas (having said that the more i look at Lincolns, the more i realise its not as easy as "just" converting a lancaster , theres all sorts of panel line differences, access doors, rear turret changes as well as the rudders and mainwheels been completley different (not addressed in the flightpath conv but a2zee do replacement rudders and ive sourced some treaded mainwheels....) My BIG problem at the moment is trying to work out wether RF555 has the medium sea grey engine top panels and the Black overwing "exhaust" stripes OR medium sea grey engine top panels and NO Black overwing "exhaust" stripes OR Black engine top panels and the Black overwing "exhaust" stripes OR Black engine top panels and NO Black overwing "exhaust" stripes (theres conflicting colour profiles showing different versions of the above, and not a lot of photographs )

well this has inspired me to finish off my flightpath conversion Using the new Revell Lanc AND you guys have done RF555 Yay! (and im way down in NZ...... im sure we could find 500 Lincoln fans worldwide, ild happily build a few more lincolns ) awesome

Glad ya back online man...... this is the best Javelin ever totally inspiring

AWESOME ! (which one? ......and having just snagged the extra modeldecal 48 inch serials to make RF555 part of my brain is going "Doh" ) but count me in for your sheet (especially if youve worked out a definitive answer to the Black wing stripes vs Medium sea grey engine cowlings conundrum for some of the Mau Mau aircraft ) (I tend to favor Black wing stripes means all black cowlings but there are conflicting sources on this IE the lincoln Warpaint )

WOW that would be a cool scheme to model !

what about the Heritage conversion? its looks good and would be a cheap simple alternative for the airfix kit..... their t17 conversion definatly is

deleted double posting

deleted !

In Spanish (or Catalan to be precise) the CH sound is replaced by an X so they spell CHILE and CHINA as XILE and XINA...... what we would need to find is a country spelt with an X in its own Native language.... i suspect thant some mediterranean countries may fit the bill.........

Awsome build ! its Looking very nice and im VERY tempted to get one..... Im currently building an Xtrakit FAW2 armed with Roy Sutherlands book ,most of that kits faults can be corrected with carefull and extensive sanding hopefully none of these faults have been duplicated on the Cyber Hobby version *IMHO the major errors on the Xtrakit concern the shape of the Microcell launchers (which "throws" the whole nose shape out) in side profile they are too deep at the rear and way too shallow at the front .correcting this improves the look of the front end considerably its a fairly simple fix to sand the rear of them flush with the underfuselage and to razorsaw the front half and shim them out with Plasticard and filler to make the front end deeper (thats where the first major amount of sanding begins... and its a big help to compare it with the airfix kit as you sand) *the shape of the front of the FAW2 saddle tank booms in plan view (or a birds eye view) is staggeringly too fat and blunt (sand for a couple of hours then sand some more.....) they are also a little too pointy in side profile , but comparison with photos and the Airfix kit will immediatly show what needs to be removed.....taking the bluntness out of the booms also makes the nose section look better, as the intake area is now much better proportioned....( I feel the "blunt" booms and the dodgy shape of the microcell launchers create an nasty optical illusion that somethings wrong with the front end when its actually very close to the Airfix kit in proportions ) (fortunatly the plastic is thick enough to take all the sanding ) *the booms are slightly too long at the rear (sand some more off the front face of the rear boom sections - a good guide as to how much to remove is to get the NACA intake to line up with the cutout for it on the saddle tanks) *the obsevers window is too low (more sanding and filling) *the rain guards on the canopy need major reshaping (sand) and shims to build the groove) *theres still a lot of minor niggles , some people say the underfuselage looks "pregnant" yet compared to a side profile of a FAW 1 on the thunder and lightnings site it appears to be the correct depth and curvature (just hold the xtrakit in front of the image on your computer monitor untill its the same size as the image , and it looks spot on...) but in saying that it it may need a bit of sanding to take some of the bulk or roundness out of the belly as it curves into the engine bulges.... * (did i mention you need to do quite a bit of sanding? )

yep theyve taken the excessive depth out of the V (in cross section) ...... what i meant in my earlier post was the fuselages "side" profile still has a fault .... in your last pic you can see the > shape more on the trumpy kit but its still there on the neomega ....its gives the impression that the lightnings engines are conical as they blend into the forward fuselage , rather than tubular.... IE: from the back of the fuselage the exhaust depressions look like this > (pointing towards the cockpit) like a V on its side instead of a U or H on their side...... fortunatly ive discovered that judicious sanding helps the neomega set to take on a less pointy shape....... its a subtle fault but quite annoying once you spot it... the Whirlykits version seems to have this area spot on tho (as do the Aries and Heritage rear end conversions for the Trumpy kits and the Airfix 48th )

theres another problem with the neomega in that the blending of the exhausts into the fuselage is in a "V" shape indentation same as the trumpy kit ....the exhaust trunking dosent have the apperance of two parallel tubes . in real life the shape should be more like a cross between half the letter "H" on its side...and the letter "U" it DEFINATLY shouldnt look like the letter "V" on its side

Oh IF ONLY ! there would be so many HAPPY people on here if that had happened...... (sadly it was a reboxing of an old mold from the 60s)

No im saying that since Hobbico took over Revell USA they have produced very very few new tools ....probably 5% of what Revell AGs new output has been ....(.if that.) the concern is that Revell AGS varied subject matter and large output of new kits will be cut back drasticly I suspect part of the incentive was to get the Revell AG licence for the new tool STAR WARS kits.... (which Hobbico have been reboxing in the US ) I actually hope youre right and Hobbico have purchased the Revell AG R&D team and to tool new 72nd F102 and 106s ,Stirlings, and obscure variants of the BV222 and continue Revell AGs output of up 20 plus new tools a year ) but in a way youve agreed with my concerns by suggesting "Surely it's far more likely that Hobbico wants to grow (again?) in the plastic kits market and thinks that re-merging with Revell AG is a quicker and easier way to do it than investing in more new kits of their own?" History shows that when other model companies have been purchased its often just to obtain their tool bank and to severly cut back new development. (for example: Frog, Monogram,Heller,Matchbox,Esci,AMT, MPC, Polar Lights, Aurora, and Airfix under Palitoy/ CPG/Humbrol to name but a couple ) . the one notable exception is AIRFIX under Hornby and long may that continue !

realisticly though........ in the last 15 years how many brand new mold aircraft subjects have been made by Revell USA.......? im struggling to think of a single new tool 1/72nd scale model...... was the last the voodoo? or the F 89 scorpion?....from memory both were issued around 1990 ? compare that to how many Revell Germany have made and you will see why most of us dont think this deal looks promising...... (but then again Revell USA did manage to do a 1 48th Ventura (but who builds 1/48th?...... )

wonderfull work ! and glad to hear youre feeling better ! youve inspired me to restart my Trumpy f6 and it would be great if the Mods could make your build a sticky even better could some magazine pay ya to have it reprinted? .....it would tide us over until the Academy kit becomes a reality heres hoping

They are surprisingly close in overall shape and dimensions But the Mach 2 kit has several major errors ....namely that the engine intakes are way too deep and large and its a massive amount of sanding work to get them looking right...(not impossible but just annoying and time consuming.....) secondly the Mach 2 wingroot shape is quite different to reality . and the cockpit blister is too long (sand the clear part back by about 7 mm ) its the oversized canopy and deep engine intakes that make the nose look "short"( which was the major criticisim thrown at the Mach2 kit ,) in actual fact its nose is fractionally LONGER than the Airfix kit . (both noses look fine tho ) my advice would be to grab the Airfix version as its much more accurate and easier to build by far......and when you compare the two side by side theres really no argument

totally ! sorry if it seemed i was knocking the Airfix kit as im not , i think its brilliant and very happy ive got it...... from memory the short nose on the Mach2 kit myth came from a dutch? modeller who had a build article on the kit where he added a almost 2cm nose extension (from memory there was a link on here to his webpage ) however he may have got the misinformation from another source....

Remember all the endless debates about the Mach 2 nose been way to short, etc etc, and all those 2 cm scratchbuilt extensions people added to try and get things looking accurate..... well geuss what folks................ the Airfix Nose is fractionally SHORTER.....! Im not suggesting Airfix are wrong , just that Mach2 were a lot more accurate than people thought... however as i suggested at the time, the shape of the engine intakes (and the wing root in general ) are WAY way too deep on the Mach 2 kit which throws the whole look off , (and therefore makes the nose look whacked..... having said that i may still finish my mach 2 kit ive corrected most of the wingroot problem..) still thats what modelings all about and at least the debate was fun..... as punishment for been mostly right the Gods of modelling delivered two completly soggy lumps of wet and mushy Airfix Valiant box to my door today , apparently 36.57 GBP of Parcelforce -signed for delivery from the UK to New Zealand entitles ones parcel to be submerged underwater... the smell of wet soggy delamanated airfix cardboard is DELIGHTFULL .

except....... we need the booms from those xtrakits to build a FAW2 ! (maybe they will fit the dragon kit better ) xtrakit didnt do a FAW 1 , only MPM boo hoo still hard work to get a decent FAW2 from the Dragon kit

Hey man I think I found your flight sim version on the net tonight haha I was just going to mention it but you have beaten me to it...,( if its yours it looks pretty good to me) thats not good news about the lack of any plans.....having said that the flight deck was tthe signifigant structural change so maybe they could be mated to the earlier fit plans? (hmmm)

Im aware that quite a few of us ( including a non ship modeller like me ! ) have always wanted a 1/350th kit of ARK ROYAL IV in 70s configuration for me it was the Airfix kit i hoped for in the summer of 1976 whilst watching her star turn in the BBC show SAILOR ....and i still WANT ONE ! the thought struck me tonight that with a good set of 1/350th CAD plans a certain resin kin manufacturer in the far east could easily print a set of master patterns out and produce a kit fairly cheaply. the has already been a precident for this as anybody who owns an ANIGRAND IMPERIAL STAR DESTROYER kit will tell you ,( the Star destroyer being the famous ship from STAR WARS episode IV ) ANIGRANDS model was about 2 1/2 feet long and had an incredible amount of superfine detail , (due to exactly the form of CAD printing im suggesting) most of the detail on the kit is actually duplicating original plastic warship details scaled down even further than the actual kitset parts..... (the original filming miniature been kitbashed from many battleship models in the first place) Anigrand produced this in a limited run of 100 copies and sold them for around $150 US dollars (or possibly $200 i can remember and i bought one) so it was clearly cost effective for them and there was a thread about this kit in the SF section on Britmodeller.... The main thing is a 350th ARK ROYAL would be a far simpler kit to design than the STAR DESTROYER as it has much much less surface detail, the tricky bit would be finding a good CAD designer to do the wireframe model so that it could be printed out on a 3d printer and then cast in resin (as are a lot of recent ANIGRAND kits) so my CRAZY idea was that if enough of us expressed an interest in a resin kit at around the $150-200 US mark we would only need 100 of us to sign up and make it cost effective...(as per the STAR DESTROYER) Anigrand are already producing aircraft kits for what was NOSTALGIC PLASTIC and the CAD designed spacecraft resin model genre is very big internationally (as a visit to the starship modeller forums wil show) if nostalic plastic can produce 72nd scale MERCATORS via anigrand and turn a profit on them then a group collective of us could do the same thing (and keep the costs down ) or the trick would be to get a manufacturer to approcah a company like anigrand based on initial intrest expressed on here. and subcontract them to produce it.(or maybe it could become a britmodeller moderaters sceme? _ that way once a firm quote came back from the manufacturer then the idea could be floated (pun intended) and confirmed orders taken and the kit produced and distributed via britmodeller or a friendly retail outlet on here? (somebody who takes paypal tho please ! ) what do the rest of you think? a poll could be easily set up on britmodeller to guage numbers..... any CAD designers out there? any good sets of plans for the ark?