Paul Thompson

And having just checked the FGA.9 I prepared (over a decade) earlier, they're in place on the headbox, so 'twas always so. Paul.

Oh. Just checked Scalemates for the FGA 9 instructions, and there the Mk 2A seat has decals 220 and 221. The Swiss seat uses 213 and 209. Paul.

I only have the F6, but that does have numbers for the two seat decals on the headbox. I doubt the numbering is the same on the FGA 9 version, but just in case, both MB 2 and 3 seats have the same decals, numbers 161 and 162. Not the end of the story, sadly, as the decal sheet in the F.6 kit only goes up to 160, and has several other numbering errors.................... Paul.

Furious was an odd one. It had a loom of longitudinal wires on the rear landing on deck for the gear mounted hooks to catch on, leading up a slightly inclined platform to a pair of posts supporting a rope network for the aircraft to be caught in if it didn't stop in time. Lots of fun building that when I made the Loose Canon 1/700 kit of Furious in its later WW1 configuration. Probably relatively easy in 1/72nd, but would still take a lot of space, and although there are plenty of photos around it's hard to find any clear enough to be sure of many of the details. As for the forward deck, that seems to have been modified somewhat at the same time the ship had the rear deck and hangar added. Markings are different, as well as the configuration of the raisable palisade. Paul.

So did Aeroclub, but no matter how often you wash them they never shrink down to 1/72nd. . Paul.

There's always the old Formaplane conversion kit, a vac sheet of wings, tail surfaces, and nose. Meant for use with their BE2c kit but possibly adaptable to the Airfix one. Fairly easily available, a Be12 is among the options you can use it for. Paul.

The stars are right.................... Paul.

Nice. BTW, if you're feeling obsessive, I think adding the bracing wire from the Parabellum drum to the end of the barrel on the Hannover makes an inordinate amount of difference for the amount of effort (one bit of HSP or wire and it's done). It's a nice old kit, and yours looks very good. You're distracting me now, making me want to build another Pup and a Hannover, while what I really have to do is finish a 1/48th Canberra TT18........... Paul. Paul.

Ray, At least it isn't the Spad VII wings. They can be used as rhythm instrument, if you have a stick, even with a baggy-period moulding. The latest ones are ridiculous. I sanded one down as much as safe, decided to fill the rest of the valleys, and the whole wing dissolved using Tamiya putty. Ended up making newones from decal strip ribs and the much lamented long gone Rosemont Hobby Shop vac wing blanks. Regarding the internal bracing, if you cut a lead pencil to a chisel shaped end, and are both careful and lucky, you can get a good result by highlighting the moulded detail with it. If you can sharpen the lead enough you can also get a very realistic result on kits without moulded bracing - obviously here you need the pointiest of points to get right into the corners, and scraps of card work wonders as mini rulers to get straight lines. OTOH, if you have the space to fit wire in it will do too, it's just that sometimes (not with the Pup though) the geometry can present problems with wire. While I'm in full wittering mode - for the breather pipes you can stretch plastic cotton bud bodies (with a wire inserted so it doesn't collapse) like sprue, then roll lightly under a sharp knife blade after painting to cut. Unless you're a master of drilling out thin plastic rod ends (I never found any plastic tube that was fine enough, and never succesfully stretched a Contrail or Aeroclub tube to make it thinner). In 1/48th I found recently that the thinnest of Albion Alloys aluminium rod cuts easily and looks okay so long as you widen the internal diameter with a drill. Fortunately the metal is soft enough for this. Last thing, making non-German rib tapes is a good use for the single colour tapes supplied in Pegasus and Blue Max kits if the German model needs lozenge tapes so that they become spare. Also a good use for the tapes in old Almark sets. In all cases, you need to slice the deals to the required width against a steel ruler, because the clear carrier spreads too far either side. Also applies to what I regularly use for tapes which is Xtradecal coloured stripes. The finest of those is about right without trimming, for 1/72nd scale. Whatever the source I always seal them with a coat of varnish once dried before final painting. Good progress so far. Paul.

I remember an early seventies mag article where the otherwise wise modeller had glued tissue paper to the wings to give a nice fabric effect. Aaagh. You can't even see a fabric effect on real aeroplanes close up. Just as well, or they wouldn't be able to fly. Just one of those things old kits came automatically festooned with, same as the hills and valleys rib effect seen on no real serviceable aircraft (one of the things clear dope did, apart from fill the weave to make the surface airworthy, was shrink the fabric drum-taught). Rib tapes, OTOH, are another matter, but as ever, more is less (as in less believable). To each his own, but in 1/72nd I'd either use really thin decal strip, or (preferably) scribe each tape postion using 2 blades glued together, guided by Dymo tape. I'd not bother with anything else on the top of a camouflaged wing, but for the under surface maybe run in some thin paint of a slightly different colour. Some aircraft show darker rib tapes, some lighter (unless the top surface is CDL in which case the tape will look darker due to light from above). However, with the Blue Rider scheme you're using I wouldn't bother TBH. Of the fixes Rimell recommends, the ones that make the most difference IMHO are reducing the control horns to the correct number, cutting the nipple of each wheel, (again, I'd do it by sanding and scribing) the fuselage stringer correction you're already tackling, and cuttinmg or filing the slot at the rear of the fuselage and putting a bit of sprue in to act as a kingpost. The vee-shaped cooling vent you'll only see if you're in the habit of often turning the nodel upside down, but is easy enough to do if you have the inclination (2 razor saw cuts, 2 triangles of plastic card, a drop or two of glue). You could mess with the indercarriage to do the split axle, but if not can at least splay the wheels by about 10 degrees, as they are when the aircraft is on the ground. The Scale Models article was the first I followed through to completion back in the day, which is why it still looms large in my advanced mind substitute, prompting reflex re-telling every time I see someone making a Pup. The thing is, having done it once, it becomes really easy if you do it again - and I've used all the Blue Rider sheets since then, plus a few more from photos and profiles. Paul.

Rereading what you said earlier, I assumed you had a different Windsock with the easy improvements to the Pup kit - I was wrong. Which one are you using? I can then check if I have it and see if the old Scale Models article has more in it. Paul.

.............but H74 is far too yellow IMHO. Useable for French aircraft in their yellow peiod, just match a slightly different shade for painted bits like wood and metal, as opposed to fabric areas. I used the original Authentic recently out of interest, and it is almost a dead ringer for H74. The Satin Oak suggestion is a bit more suitable, but for RFC and RAF aircraft I use either acolour from one of the many others on offer, both acrylic and enamel, from lots of manufacturers, or if using Humbrol then white or cream with a drop of leather. AFAIK Revell never claimed tohave a CDL in their lineup. Their old WWI kits would call out buff, same as Airfix used to. There's probably something suitable these days if you can get to a Real Model Shop and browse what they have. If you can get them in your area, the Xtracolor enamel is very good, but takes an age to dry unless you airbrush it. Depending on age of the tin it may be named Bleached Linen or RFC Doped Natural Fabric. Hannants stock them, stock levels can vary wildly. The White Ensign Colourcoats enamel is different but also a good colour. Again, dries faster if airbrushed. Paul.

Clarification. I like Roden kits, a lot. Just starting the new 1/32nd Spad XIII now, and it isn't even my scale. Paul.

Classic Plane did the DH9a (and 9) vac. Not bad, if a little rough. I have a couple. The Eastern Bloc kit you're thinking of had several manufacturers releasing it over the years, and I think the last to do so may have been Maquette. Again, not a bad kit, but also by no means modern, with the added joy of the flying surface tops having exagerated rib detail needing sanding down, and none at all on the undersides, needing taping or scribing. I have 3 of those somewhere languishing in woe. Got as far as finishing the sanding, and by then had lost mo-jo. Paul.

I know you said major manufacturer, but you can at least hack a reasonable Junkers Cl.1 from the Pegasus kit, although it isn't (IMHO) one of their better kits. And the HR injection plastic Hanriot is, like their Sopwith Pup, quite a buildable kit, at least until something better comes along. A shame there's only the nigh on impossible to find at a reasonable price Sierra Caudron R.11, AFAIK. And for the DH9, bafflingly, you only have old conversions available. I've built an old resin Nie. triplane, the version illustrated for this KP kit, by RVHP if I recall correctly, and it was okay but I'll certainly get a KP kit as well. Paul.

I know it's a minor point, but the box illo is to me more irritating than using the wrong image file for the profile - the aircraft lettering isn't flipped, so the illustrator has coloured the lights wrong, which he's probably mortified by, or flipped the image before adding the serials and lettering for composition prurposes but forgotten to ammend the tip lights. Paul.

And that's just the one shown. There was another, quite distinct, just as ugly................. Paul.

At least the CMR kit was a good one. Optimistic about this - the photo on Homebee's link at the top shows the inside of the fuselage, and the idiosyncratic fuselage structure looks good, at least at first glance. Anyone else getting dire Mcaffee warnings when clicking on the pictures above? Paul.

And both aircraft on the box lid have the wing tip light colours flipped. Correct on the profiles though. Paul.

Dave, okay, just took these. I don't know why the top wing and fuselage look so different to the other PC10 surfaces, they're all painted and varnished the same way, and the mainplanes are at the same incidence. I can just about see a slight difference in sheen in real life, but nothing like in the photo. I'll have to assume this is a model of the aeroplane after a short, sharp rain shower. Or never photograph it again, which is most likely. This emphasises the bowed top wing. Not quite so bad without the fish-eye effect of the lens. Camel 2 by Paul Thompson, on Flickr This really exagerates the mystery sheen difference. Camel 4 by Paul Thompson, on Flickr And this just had to happen. Camel 3 by Paul Thompson, on Flickr Paul.

All very true, but I have no excuse with this one except old age - I've built 3 of these, and used one with a (BlueMax) nightfighter conversion. Actually, the 2F1 Camel was a lot more fun for some reason, perhaps because with the cabanes for that version were different, and anyway there was no trouble with the lower wing. Perhaps also I moan too much in writing - I actually had a lot of fun building this one, I was just disappointed that despite knowing the danger and making some effort to avoid it I've nonetheless gotten the bent wing effect. In fact the photo I've put up is from about the only angle except straight above where it doesn't look far too bad. It's still a good kit by current standards, could do with better strut mounts but no deal breaker. The think I never liked was the rib representation on the wings, I much prefer the Blue Max treatment, their Camel also being a nice kit but quite limited run. Built 3 of those as well, way back when. A pity the engineering of both kits differs enough to prevent using the Blue Max wings on the Eduard kit without getting all hot and bothered, but maybe the new (I'll beleive it when I see it) kit will be an improvement. Then I can moan about it not being a challenge.......................... Hairtrigger, maybe I'm still too close to the finish line but I can't see it as anything but too thick. Keith, thanks. Nice, crisp moulding to work with, helps when masking. Thanks everyone. Paul.

A quick build conducted just to find out once and for all which struts were reversed in the instructions. This came up in the thread 'First build First World War 1/48th scale aircraft recommendations'. Years ago I'd stated somewhere or other as if handed down carved in stone from the mountain that the centre struts had the numbering mixed up, and this has been repeated here and there - I was reminded in this thread that someone else thought it was the interplane struts that were reversed, and by now I couldn't remember any of the details. Long story short, I thought the best way to be sure was to build another one. This is the result, and the upshot is it's the numbering of the front and rear interplane struts that is reversed. This is carried through into the current Revell re-boxing, so be warned. Also check the lower wing dihedral. It's moulded as one piece, and far too late in the day (i.e. when I'd already stuck the top wing to the centre struts) I found out that unmodified, the interplane struts were 2mm too short to fill the gap. Camel top wings were completely straight, so you need to bend the dihedral back at the lower wing roots. I just about did this to match the Windsock Datafile plans and continued assembly, but over a few days they went back down. The interplane struts were glued well enough that they stayed put, so the **** top wing bowed instead. Not happy. The avoidance behaviour you should adopt (apart from waiting for the new Eduard kit to come along) is to score the lower wing and bend it to the right dihedral before attaching it to the fuselage. Even then, I think for the next one I'll be a bit more exteme, cut them off, pin and re-attach. Anyway, I've not made a very good model from this - the elastic I used for rigging turned out far too thick, and being in a rush I left the axle/spreader bar as it was, which means the wheels don't splay as they should (Sopwith types usually had a split axle, takes about half an hour to replace the kit part, should have, didn't, regret regret regret). I'm also not at all sure how the streamers (supplied as decals) were attached. I've a photo of the aircraft in question but the angle is wrong. You'd expect them to be tied to the struts but they seem to be stuck to the top wing somehow. Only attached with white glue, so I can change it later if I ever find out. Camel by Paul Thompson, on Flickr Nice enough kit, can be built up much better than I did, and it leaves hald a spares box of unused parts as a memento, including from this Profipack version a load of PE bits, and a pre-painted Sutton Harness. Eduard used to put one of these invirtually everything RAF or RFC that they made a kit of, and as in this case a broad lap belt is more appropriate (I happened to have a PE one to hand so used it, but they're not hard to make from masking tape and fusewire). Paul.

I've finished the Camel - photo in RFI. Paul.

I check mine every day. Also the BT run spam folder (since they're my internet provider). They tend to treat as suspect anything from Ebay and my bank, which is rather annoying. Mail from Airfix does sometimes also end up there, but nothing at the moment. Oddly enough, the fraudulent emails occasionally pretending to be from the bank, Ebay, or BT almost always get through unflagged. Go, as they say, figure. Paul.

Pretty awful, and I've never seen anything like as bad with a Roden (or Toko) kit. Someflash, and some kits worse that way than others, but the worst wasn't more than a few minutes worth of clean-up. And I may be using them rose-tinted glasses again but don't recall ever having a short shot from them, except the end of strut once. Can't remember now, was this also an Eastern Express re-issue? The moulds may not be banjaxed, it could be down to a poorly adjusted injecting machine and zero quality control. The biggest problem with Roden I've found is flash that is very fine and not immediatly visible - I was looking for it because I'd read reports of very poor fuselage fit on their 1/48th Strutters, and found it too, using a headband magnifier. It was very minor in terms of clean-up, but so placed as to cause out of proportion fit problems. Having zapped it, the kit went together absolutley fine (except the struts, which as with the 1/72nd kits needed the centre section W struts adjusting). So no problem really, but I think there should be some sort of award for the rotten moulding in that Albatros. I'll have to have a lie down now to recover from the ghastly image. Paul.