Guy Aceto

My apologies to Mr. Miljevic. I had searched to see if there was a previous thread on the subject and didn’t find anything so I thought I’d ask the question in any case. I appreciate the help and will try to dig deeper next time. Again, my apologies to everyone. Thanks

I know the story that Lawson told. I just find it odd that the other designs are so simple in comparison. Hari-Carrier does seem to be the only bomber with photographic evidence to support the art. Believe me, I’ve seen nearly every image that’s out there, but you never know what might be out there ... somewhere. I also think I find most depictions of the duck huge by comparison, but thats a personal preference. Thanks guys.

As I look to start the “new” 1/72 B-25B as a Doolittle raider I’m curious. The kit carries the ‘nose art’ for airplane #11 ‘Hari Carrier’ but I’ve seen some sort of art for a couple other aircraft. I know not every bomber had art, Hari Carrier is well documented, but the others I found were all very simple, white line work (chalk?) with the exception of the famous ‘Ruptured Duck.’ Everything I see seems to be color, however I’ve never seen any photos? What gives? Anyone out there know?

Thanks for the typo correction, lol. Fat fingers. At least I didn’t type Me 109! wishing for a retool but till then ...

My apologies for (a) not posting enough, and (b) asking a question that might have been covered already. I did a quick search and didn’t find anything. I can assume that the just released 1/48 Airfix Bf 108 is NOT a new tool kit but the older one with new decals? thanks

If you go to HistoryNet.com and search Wade, you should find it. I understand the modeling column should be up on the site later.

Months later, I'll echo Brian's question. You have quite the build here, and I hope it looks incredible by now. I've been working on the same kit for a while now and I'm almost 'there' but there have been bumps along the way. I'm a bit disappointed that all of the available kits have Gulf War markings. I'm currently looking for Two Bobs Kosovo sheet.

Not that I'm willing to start yet another kitbash, but does anyone have a couple of photos of Harl's airplane? Anyone willing to attempt a 1/48 'E' model let me know, I've just gone down that road. I'd be happy to chat and help you to not bang your head against a wall as much as I did. ;-)

Now you have me curious to see the results! If you need an image ...

I'll take the milk toast response of, "it depends." You're one of the few who even ask the question, though! Yes, you need to be careful with anything you see on the Internet. Everything is not free, no matter how many times Bob has taken it from Ted's website who copied it from Stan's who found it on a message board, etc. But ... It can get wonderfully murky, the U.S. Government says that images taken by US Army photographers ( for example ) are by nature, free of copyright and in the public domain. Doesn't matter if it was taken by an Army Signal Corp guy in WWII or by a SSgt. In Afghanistan. That's the good news, and the reason my job takes me to our National Archives, laptop and scanner in tow, at least once a month. The bad news? It also means that stock agencies can also scan/download imagery and make them part of their archives an charge you a fee for use. Sounds wrong but there it is. The same image I might run online credited 'National Archives' you might find somewhere else credited 'Getty Images' or 'Associated Press.' That's us, the UK? Totally different. The way I understand it 'Crown Copyright' still holds even for an image taken in WWI. I have to go through the IWM and order a scan, then pay a liscence fee to run the image in a magazine. I'm giving you way too much info aren't I? lol If all you're doing is using a photo of an airfield in the South Pacific as a background for that awesome F4U Corsair you just finished. You make it look like it's part of the photo or something ... Wonderful use of photoshop, etc. you're probably ok, it would be considered a derivative work (sounds like a cool idea actually, if I do say so). At any rate, there's more info to totally confuse you.

Jack, I deal with historical images from a variety of sources every day. The Internet, such as it it, makes it difficult sometimes to know what you're really looking at. Colorized images should be advertised as such, and usually are initially, by the person colorizing the photo. Hey, the guy is justifiably proud of his work. Unfortunately, people copy and paste and often those notes disappear. That's what makes it hard for the rest of us. It's our collaborative efforts that look at these photos with a more educated, and critical eye. Different b/w film can treat colors differently. There's still a debate about Malta Spitfire colors, the Hawaiian Depot colors, etc. As far as the colorized images, they are only as good as the person colorizing, and their background and knowledge. As far as you shooting your models, using historical images or 're-creating' images with your work, it's great stuff. Photoshop can be a wonderful thing. However we all should remember, You should always watermark your work, get your name on it. As a photographer, I try never to post my photography without my name on the shot. Sometimes that watermark has to be in a spot so that folks out there can't crop it out if you want to control how your work gets used, never worry about 'messing up' your image with your name. So ... to answer your question (finally), lol you don't necessarily need to copyright the image but you should always watermark it.

Don't think its new stands, however it can be ordered online. Shoot me a pm.

Should be on the news stands by now. If anyone can't find it, pm me, especially those of you 'over there'

I'm a 1/48 guy too. Lately, through no fault of my own, I've gone the other way, back to 1/72. Just for a couple kits, then back to quarter scale. But after seeing that Harrier, I just might have to make an exception!

I've decided to take my Airfix Gr.3 out of the stash. Looking for a replacement seat and thought I'd ask for opinions first. Haven't used Aeroclub's metal seats before, their quality vs. Pavla Something else?

A big yes to the new Spits, my Mk.I was a fun build. The Hurricane is awesome. I've been thinking about the Lightning just because of the 'over, under' shotgun look of the engines, something different for the shelf. I've heard the 1/48 is a nice kit as well. Not sure what sort of grief I'd get though (here in the US) ... Just finished a SHAR and keep getting asked why I didn't do an AV-8.

Point taken. I'd admit, there are plenty of schemes in both roundels and stars. Haven't built a Saber in a while. Question though, being someone who can't resist using a resin set from time to time. Would you rather have a kit, detailed and engineered well enough to just build OOB, or is it just too much fun to bend and fumble tiny etched metal parts?

If I can toss my hat in from the other side of the pond? I know it's been said before, but 1/48th scale new tool Harriers are at the top of this Yanks list. With the new Tom Hanks Cold War flick about to hit the streets, a nice early U-2 (naturally in 1/48) would be well received. I'd like a quarter scale Swift too, please. Believe it or not, I do think there's a market for subjects more interesting than yet another Mustang, P-40, or F-86. Not that there's anything wrong with that ;-) says the guy thinking about tackling the Airfix Lightning (in 1/48 scale)

Indeed, Bish. I'm having a hard time just finding the right word to describe the jets. It seems that Paul Allen's project is an original jet with WWII history. I would say that falls into the category of a restoration. The others all go back to a project conceived to recreate as 'new' built Me 262s. The project, from what I've heard, had been too much for the original folks to complete. The two seater was picked up by The Collings Foundation, here in the US. I believe there are a couple of the jets in Europe. One belongs to the 'Flugmuseum Messerschmitt' a flying museum that EADS supports. The 'recreations' are good enough that I think they (EADS) have given their jet an actual Wr number. I sorta like 'recreation.' To me 'replica' sounds a little plastic, but maybe that's my own personal battle of semantics.

Couple of nice shots to show the cockpit differences http://www.aetc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/136/Article/263294/coming-in-for-a-landing-t-38-retires-one-model-paves-the-runway-for-another.aspx The new seat isa Martin-Baker Mk 16 I believe

Thinking about opening up the top and detailing the engine, but then I'm sort of a glutton for punishment.

Decals? Must have been asleep? Who put out decals?

Sorry, it's late here. Harrier GR1.

I know, the kit has its faults, but I picked it up for next to nothing yesterday. How could I resist? I'll admit when I gave it a look, maybe I should have resisted. However ... I've decided to take a positive spin and look at it as a challenge. There will probably be some replacement resin and a little etched brass. Any advice/suggestions as I get started? (Don't tell me to just chuck the thing in the trash, lol)

OK I hope this works out to be a little larger on your screen. Drilled out the APU and added the fuel dump vents with stretched sprue. Added that 'fence' at the base of the Horz. Stab and reconfigured the pieces so I could give them that 'droop. clearly haven't figured outfit photo bucket size thing. My apologies