Oldynewby
-
Posts
133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Oldynewby
-
-
Over a grand for a toy spitfire? I don't care how many bells and whistles it's got, they're having a laugh!
-
It's only a modest bomb bay. If the aircraft is being converted the CG is liable to change depending on what equipment is fitted. Heck, it's only a whif!
-
1
-
-
How about an ELINT model like the Sentinel? I think if the original Concorde had been militarised it wouldn't have carried any external stores as that would have ruined the top speed due to drag. I also think there would have been room for a modest bomb bay as the fuselage isn't that narrow compared to other bombers.
-
23 hours ago, wmcgill said:
Does the OP really expect Revell to print a 10 colour (this is how many inks would be required for top and bottom lozenge) decal sheet and supply it with the model for the same very low price?
These extra ink colours are exactly why the aftermarket decals cost much more than the original Revell model.
Of course, if the model cost 3x what it does and still didn't include colour lozenge decals then that is another story.
Hi, OP here...
No I don't expect Revell to go nuts printing a Gucci decal sheet for a cheap (old) kit, neither do I expect them to waste their own resources printing a big sheet of nothing. Just give us a simple set of decals commensurate with the value of the kit, then if the builder wanted to spend more on a/m decals, that's their choice.
-
3 hours ago, Bonhoff said:
I might be in the minority here but when I discovered that the lozenge was only supplied in outline form....
I painted them!
Took a couple of evenings but was strangely therapeutic.
IanJ
Nothing wrong with that, I'll be doing the same. I just thought it strange that Revell would go to the trouble of printing a "blank" decal. How did yours turn out?
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, bhouse said:
Many are printed using spot colours rather than CMYK.
Fair do's. But I still don't see the point of Revell printing the thing with no colour. Why not just choose a simpler design?
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:
The more colours on a transfer sheet the more expensive it is, so yes, it would have taken more investment. That's why 607 Sq markings on Xtradecal sheets are red and yellow rather than the correct mauve and stone. (Poor references don't help, of course.)
Surely if the decals are printed using the CMYK system all of the colours are available.
-
3 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:
So it's like the paint-by-numbers paintings we used to do as children - at least I did.
Yup!
2 hours ago, tony.t said:Peculiar omission, but there are a bunch of AM options, e.g.
HTH
Tony
I've seen those. £14.40 per sheet against £4.99 for the kit...
2 hours ago, JackG said:The original kit was from a 1964 tooling - guess they didn't want to put more money into it? Given it's age/quality, not sure I would bother spending $$ for aftermarket decals for the lozenge, unless you get enough decals for another kit and plan to build another?
regards,
Jack
Well they've gone to the trouble of printing a new full colour decal sheet so I can't believe that "colouring in" the lozenge would have taken any more investment.
-
I'm speechless! I just bought a Revell Fokker D VIII and I couldn't believe it when I saw the decal sheet. The colour scheme calls for a 'lozenge' pattern on the underside but Revell in their wisdom have printed it in white with a colour callout for you to paint yourself. Surely the whole point of decals is to provide the finer markings so that you don't have to paint them. Revell, if you're not going to bother printing your decals in colour then offer the model with a different scheme!🤬
BTW Where can I get a job folding Revell instruction sheets? I'm guessing I don't need a black belt in origami!
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, MDriskill said:
They speculate that the stripe might have been a simple unit insignia, a theater marking for the Oder river area, or a formation-keeping device for poor visibility conditions.
I can't see a theatre or unit marking being allowed to obscure the swastika, it being the force identifier. Also I don't think that the Luftwaffe flew such regimented formations as to warrant a formation marker, why not just use the swastika?
14 hours ago, MDriskill said:I’ve often wondered if there might have subtle political undertones to this, though.
Could be. Although the Nazi Party weren't really known for their compassion in the face of dissent!
Could it (they) have been captured aircraft used for evaluation, or as Bish states, defectors?
-
15 minutes ago, Sturmovik said:
Most likely the white stripe was photoshopped in modern times to make it less prominent and avoid prosecution on countries than have the Swastka banned.
Doesn't look like it, the stripe extends onto the rudder. Besides there're more convincing ways to Photoshop out a swastika.
-
I see the Skyraiders are carrying the (relatively) new AN/APS-20 Hard to think that it wasn't particularly good in the first place yet it lasted for 40 years in UK service. Where did we get this talent for taking the mediocre and wringing the nuts off it to great effect?
-
Buccs might have been capable of holding stores with the wings folded but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a feature used by the RAF as the necessity for them to be squeezed into small spaces wasn't really a requirement. There are some photos on the web showing RAF Buccs with their wings folded but I don't think these aircraft are 'operational', rather than retired examples on display.
As ever, happy to be proved wrong.
Paul.
-
1
-
-
Looks like the top pic shows the seat pack parachute with its back panel against the seat back and the shoulder straps draped outside the cockpit, while the lower pic has the parachute back folded forward to show the seat and aircraft harness.
-
Why not just buy a 1/72 sheet from Hannants and scale it up on your scanner?
-
7 minutes ago, tempestfan said:
2. That's a bit unkind, the Airfix has decent (for one-parters) MB Mk 10s, but with the original "cross" headbox IIRC, the same as on their venerable Hawk.
It's not unkind, The seats are rudimentary at best, certainly not the multi part luxury of the Revell. I fancy they're a bit undersized as well; not a problem if your pilots are midgets! Seriously though, compared to the Revell the whole kit is undernourished, although, in the interests of fairness I will say that the Revell undercarriage is so finely moulded as to look a bit flimsy. That's just my opinion though, having not built it yet I can't comment.
Given that the original incarnation of the Airfix Tornado was based on the MRCA prototype and preceded the type going into service by three years it's only to be expected that iit cann't compete against a product that has the benefit of hindsight and twenty five years of industry development.
The Airfix Tornado is "of its time" and shouldn't be expected to compete with more modern offerings as so many Airfix products are. I personally think that they should drop anything that's been superceded by anything better and concentrate on filling the gaps that still exist, like a new tool 1/72nd Buccaneer. They've proved that they can still turn out quality products at pocket money prices but stepping up to fill more vacant areas of the market would be hugely appreciated.
Sorry Tempestfan for spouting on and please don't take this as a criticism of your comments or your opinion. It's just a reply or the rantings of a crazy person. I don't get out much you know!
Regards,
Paul.
-
Possibly because it's designed for 1/24th and could be a bit big. Plus there are plenty of more suitable motors out there. Try mobile phone vibrator motors. You'll need a puller of some type to remove the weight but they should slot in just about anywhere.
-
Although I haven't yet built either the Airfix or the Revell, I'm looking at them both on my desk as I write this and I can safely say don't go for the Airfix! To put it kindly, it's basic; very, very basic. My kit is dated 1992 and comes moulded in the old style light grey styrene (the brittle type) with raised panel lines and no real cockpit to speak of. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure somebody will...) but I think it's an adaptation of the original Panavia MRCA kit from 1976 and first coming on sale in 1983. The same kit was rehashed with extra sprues as the GR4/4A in 2004 so it's definitely been around the block a few times.
The Revell, on the other hand, came out as a new tooling in around 2000 and it shows. While Airfix has their pilots perched on boxes, the Revell has a very nicely detailed cockpit with multi part seats and proper control columns. It comes moulded in their usual silver-grey styrene and the panel details are so finely engraved that too thick a coat of paint will obliterate them completely.
Cockpit and panel details apart, the Revell model is much better engineered with the fuselage split into front and rear sub assemblies and separate parts for lights, undercarriage struts etc.
All-in-all I'd go for the Revell as well.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:
Oh, and HRH KGVI getting a good talking to.
Oi! That'll be HM KGVI to you young fella me lad! Show some respect and get yer 'air cut, you 'orrible little man!
Seriously though, there's a very good description of the Sutton Harness here:http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-sutton-harness-on-the-spitfire.html
-
3
-
1
-
-
Sorry mate. If I'd seen it sooner I'd have mentioned it.
-
Great work so far Rich. Unfortunately I must point out an error but keep it in mind for future reference as it's too late to deal with it now. On a swb Landy, as well as a shorter (88") chassis, the bodywork behind the rear axle is also shorter resulting in the bottom edge of the overhang lying at a steeper angle. Sorry!
-
Looking at those last two pics, I would suggest that the builders sprayed the airframe cockpit green/zinc chromate before fitting the canopy then painted the camo pattern when the build was completed. This would leave the coaming area "unfinished" in green.
-
I doubt I'll be following this. I don't like tractors anymore, I'm an ex-tractor fan!
Boom-Boom...
-
2
-
-
I'm thinking of doing an homage to Black Buck 1, seeing as it's never been done (By me!). Obviously I'll be starting out with the Airfix Vulcan, which, allegedly, comes with the correct Olympus 301 engines and I'll be using the AN/ALQ101 pod off the last issue of the Buccaneer - a case of art imitating life. My questions are fairly minor but I haven't been able to find photographic proof so I'm putting the feelers out...
Firstly I've confirmed the overall colour scheme on 607 was faded camouflage uppers and new EDSG below. The ECM pod seems to be olive green. For the mission the squadron markings were painted over. Would that have been with a brush/roller or properly masked and sprayed?
Referring to the wing hardpoints, the ECM pod was mounted on the right (starboard) wing on a homemade plinth
attached to the original hardpoint rack. Obviously the leading edge of this was rounded, but was the trailing edge streamlined to a point or rounded, like the LE? Was the port hardpoint also fitted at that stage?
Very grateful thanks in advance for any answers but don't get too hung up as it won't be a superdetailing job, just a basic representation.
Paul.
-
1
-
Aston Martin DB5 with modifications
in Work In Progress - Vehicles
Posted
The moulds were probably in better nick then!😉