Paul Thompson

Lighter (whether 4 or 5 colour) lozenge, meant for the underside only, was oftne used for top surfaces when the darker stuff was in short supply. $ colour was mixed with 5 colour for the same reason. Lastly, rib tapes cpould be several colours, or cut from lozenge bolts. Their applications was similarly subject to transgressing the rules. Regarding the photos showing the lower wings clearly lighter, considering the knock the top wing must have taken I think it's simply shifted a bit, so the incidence is slightly different to that of the lower wings, and is reflecting less light. Lozenge can be glared out in orthochrome phos quite easily when you can't get the exposure right for both wings, which is why it isn't even clear in many period shots if it's 4 or 5 colour. The simplest explanation for the darker rib tapes visible on the top of the port lower wing, since they look blotchy to me, is if this is cut from lozenge while the top wing uses blue, pink or CDL. Lozenge tapes could be cut and matched to the bolt pattern to the extent they could be very hard to see, but that only happened when there was both time and material enough. Also bear in mind (for any casual reader who doesn't know) that the upper wing centre section, lower tailplane and all the fuselage except the cowling panels was plywood with fabric doped on top, usually painted with larger lozenges to match the original fabric, but then often oversprayed with (usually) Prussian blue, so don't be mislead by the darker finish. Definitely a wormy smell to the contents of this can. This is based on my dim memory of reading before I built my last (Eduard) one, but I've just looked at the Wingnut kit instructions for slightly more up to date (and joined up) thinking, and I suggest everyone should read the introduction to the instruction sheet ehich sums it all up. http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/v98C7274C/www/products/model_kitsets/32024/online_instructions/32024 Hannover Cl.II Instructions.pdf Paul. P.S. Datafile 168, page 11, aerial photo from above of a Hannover with a large number 6 on the fuselage. Same type of upper wing markings, described as being to remind the observer not to shoot at the propellor.

Impressive. Paul.

If the BE2c is bigger than 1/72nd, then it'll probably be a 1/48th vac by Falcon, fairly accurate but superceded by the Roden and Aeroclub injection moulded kits. As above, the Tripehound is most likely by Koster Aero Enterprises. It should also have many of the difficult bits done in whitemetal, and decals. The only other apart from Aurora's was the early-ish Eduard kit AFAIK. Paul.

The Be2e was one of their later kits, and typically so. Fiddly, but very good if you can do low pressure limited run. Somehow combining thick, soft plastic with sharp, crisp detail. It takes much more effort to get it done than the Airfix kit, but it's worth it if you want one. Cleanup is the hardest thing, but thinning the cockpit sides and replacing the floor and bulkheads also needed. The Eduard PE set for the Airfix kit would be handy for fitting out the interior. This is what you get: I hopt that helps. Paul.

Trying this again, had a problem with posting. Have a look at this, tells you all you need to know: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234983173-building-vacformed-models/ Paul.

Trying to post a reply to someone in the WW1 section, pasting in a URL from Britmodeller, both times got a 'Something went wrong embedding the link' message and was dumped back to the editor after trying to submit the post. Stopped after two tries in caseit resolves and posts multiply, which has happened years ago. Didn't want to start a new thread for that, because there seems to be one common factor between this thread's problem, and one I've been having with another modelling forum which won't retain the results of Captchas but keeps all the cookie and password related stuff with no trouble - both use Cloudflare. No problems I'm aware of with any other sites. Paul.

I stopped building for nearly 20 years. many have, it's a common story. While I was away, the whole aftermarket thing had kicked off, acrylic paint had moved out of the school art room, and someone started using resin for kits as well small snotty things. And the whole Harry Woodman/PE thing. Overwhelming, can be. But depending on your aptitudes, and what you enjoy doing, there's no reason you have to adopt anything unless you've seen the end result and it attracts you more than your current technique. Including airbrushes, particularly in the field of WW1 aviation, if you're proficient enough with a hairy stick, then fine. As for letting kits intimidate you............. Indeed, for confidence restoration, building a few of the old clunkers could be good as a refresher course, and cheaper than experimenting with the newer ones. If you need any help, do ask me. I'm not brilliant but have been doing this a fair while so whereas I may not avoid the pitfalls, at least I can usually say where they are. Paul.

Scalemates can be a bit of a blunt instrument. Can be useful for resolving provenance issues, but how it's layed out can easily lead you astray. Whatever, they say 4580 is from 2004, and I'm afraid that the instructions show the Aurora kit, as carried by Revell/Monogram for decades. The decals are probably quite nice but unless you need to practice on a seriously ancient kit, I'm afraid that one is only really useable as a paint mule. You can make something passable with a huge amount of effort, and nothing wrong with doing that of course, and I have before the Blue Max kit came out when we had nothing better, but, seriously, not a contender these days. Makes a nice toy, I did one when our son was still a child, and crude enough to be robust, so playable with (the kit, not the son). Paul.

That's incredibly cheap. I'll certainly get one, but because it'll be big relative to the space I have left, and wanting to keep on the good side of the wife, just the one. Paul.

Also the Spad XIII, Bristol Fighter and (I think) Roland C.II. Paul.

Careful, Albatros two-seaters are very infectious. From the subjects you mention I suspect this is all 1/72nd, so are the Albatrosses Xtrakit vacs? Paul.

The only other one Revell did was the ancient Aurora kit previously reboxed by Monogram, so if it has more than 30 parts, and any degree of refinement whatsover, it'll be the first Eduard Camel, which was fine except for plank like exagerrated wing ribs. FWIW Revell also reboxed many other Eduard WW1 kits. Anyway, a nice enough kit, although we're spoiled now by the more recent one. Paul.

Never sure about the past these days, but on the bright side I've at least lasted this long. No, if it came out in 98 then I'm off a couple of years at least, because I didn't start modelling again until 1999, after a friend insisted I have a look at LHS. I never found any cheap at LHS by the way, only at the two old-style modelling shops in Leiden and Arnhem, and the usual Revell stock held by normal toyshops like Intertoys. Paul.

A word of caution , at least as far as the Hunter goes. I was living in the Netherlands when both 1/72nd and 1/32nd Hunters came out, and bought several of all 4 types. Didn't cost me much, because I waited a year and paid 3 Eoros each for the 1/72nd kits, and 15 for the 1/32nd. And the Netherlands flew the type, unlike many other countries. So, something went wrong for Revell there. Since coming to Scotland I've seen the 1/32nd F6 (I think it was) dumped at Wonderland Models, Edinburgh, for £15 a throw (that's be about 10 years back now). Paul.

Result! Paul.