Jump to content

ptarmigan

Members
  • Posts

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brno

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ptarmigan's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)

49

Reputation

  1. Yep, this has been officially confirmed: Two sets of sprues, masks and photoetched parts, together with a large decal sheet.
  2. You have a point. But bailing-out/ditching (preferably near you carrier) still sound possible. Would be nice to know, whether (and when) the controls were used in practice. Anyway, can't wait to get my hands on the kit, I've been waiting for a new SDB in 1/72 for ages...
  3. I vaguely remember that the second set of controls was intended to allow the gunner to pull out from a dive or to prepare for bail out if pilot gets incapacitated (e.g. hit, blacked out...)
  4. Just treat them normally, as mentioned above, while taking into account that the carrier film is thinner. (Actually thinner carrier film is what many modellers requested. I do not care either way, but we all have our preferences.) I guess lots of misunderstanding concerning the "new" decals comes from the fact that many modellers feel they have to/should remove the carrier film. Some may feel this way because there is more carrier film around tiny stencils than they are used to. The last Eduard model I did was a 1:144 P-47D Razorback, where many decals are quite tiny, and I didn't find this to be a problem.
  5. In my experience, the only "problem" is that many modellers are trying to apply them using the same techniques which work for e.g. Cartograph decals (and which served them very well for many years). If you accept Eduard decals use a different technology and change your technique, they work very well (at least for me). Case in point: since the carrier film is thinner, applying stencils using tweezers can result in stencil folding onto itself. Just slide it in place. Also use enough water (or setting solution) so you can position the decal precisely.
  6. Revell Aqua is probably the closest you can get to MM. As long as you don't mind mixing your own colours, I find them to be really an excellent choice for brush painting. Otherwise sapperastro's post roughly agrees with my experience. You can find more on brushpainting acrylics here: http://www.dogma72.com/ (paint reviews are referenced in the right-hand column)
  7. You mean this Luftwaffe colours chart? Yep, that's what I am after. Positives: accuracy, price (£7.95) Negatives: not available for US Navy, USAF, RAF..., shipping (£18.99)
  8. Yep, I absolutely understand that. I would be happy even with printed chips, if they are of the RAF Museum book quality. Unfortunately, many of the books containing paint chips have been out of print for decades. Since such books were published in the past, one wonders why there are almost none today. And a paint chip chart on its own should be significantly cheaper than a book containing a paint chip chart.
  9. This is a pet peeve of mine. I am ok with mixing my own paint, if need be. It would be better to be able to buy the correct coloured (i.e. the period look of a brand new paint) water based brushable acrylic paint, but I can live in the world where such paints are not available. What I really really really hate is the fact there is no easy way to buy period correct paint chip charts of the shelf for a reasonable price. Such a shame. Give me the RAF, USAF, US Navy, Luftwaffe... WWII paint chip charts and I'll be happy for the rest of my modelling life.
  10. Haven't built one, but here are some photos of the plastic compared to Revell (KP grey, Revell khaki): https://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?p=2399160#p2399160
  11. Ok, so not only EZ316 is Harvard III (and not Harvard II as claimed), but according to the "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft" book (by R. Sturtivant) it has arrived to AAU Martin Hearn, Hooton Park on 10.5.1944. Definitely not "Royal Navy, 1943". Considering this, the colour scheme may be completely bogus.
  12. I'm (very) slowly building a collection of FAA WWII aircraft (in 1/72) and I intend to include a Harvard, especially given the recent release of the SH kit. Unfortunately I cannot find much period photographic evidence from the wartime years. (Most of the photos are either FAA postwar, or RAF/RCAF... instead of FAA.) Can anybody point me in the right direction?
  13. Thanks, missed that one , scanning quickly for the FAA acronym Unfortunately, I do not trust the veracity of this scheme. From what I have found, EZ316 (built as AT-6D-NT 42-84460) was really an Mk. III bird and I could not find any photographic evidence from WWII (only from 1953, when the scheme was already "trainer silver": https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p390954246/h5ca0364e#h5ca0364e)
  14. Less than two weeks ago Mr. Sulc has noted that "21UM is slowly taking shape" And U/UM/US (plus F) have been several times last year mentioned by Eduard as "work in progress".
×
×
  • Create New...