The original Kit Builder

I asked Mr Airfix the very same question regarding a single seater in 1/48 after the release of Trumpy's misbegotten effort. The reply was that there were no current plans to do so. Perhaps a sufficient expression of interest might impel them to reconsider.

The "olive drab" and "field drab" chips are interesting. They look very like Humbrol 66 and 155 respectively. Also interesting is the spelling mistake in the body text of the document: "Dessert".

In respect of the metallurgy, the variance of apparent shade is caused by the alignment of the panel in relation to its granular structure. Heating and rolling metal into thin sheets causes the crystalline structure of the material to lengthen and align in one direction due to stretching effects. This structure is clearly visible, particularly in lighter alloys and it scatters reflected light in a particular way. Where the metal is aligned with the grain at right angles to the reflected light, it appears a differnt shade to that aligned parallel to the light, hence the evident light and dark areas. In surfaces that have been treated, by painting or other means and subsequently stripped, the effects of oxidation and chemical contact will also affect the appearance of the underlying metal.

That takes me back a few decades. Outstanding work.

Airfix have been a bit off the ball lately with these issues, but they are getting back to normal, I think, after the Typhoon canopy fiasco. I e mailed them at 10 pm on Wednesday night with a request for a replacement decal sheet and it arrived this morning in the post. They do still seem to be having quality control issues with India, though.

Tamiya thinner is not much more than iPA, anyway, with a few bits added. As has been said, X-11 is a little grainy, as are a number of blues for some reason. It also seems a even more sensitive to distance than other shades, or so my impression goes. What you could try, is flitting between coats with a fine production paper, used wet. Don't use too much pressure, though. You can get a pretty smooth finish by doing so and if you do go right through, another coat will see it right. It's how car modellers and bodywork finishers get such good shines, especially if over coating with a lacquer or varnish.

The inside of all WW1 British tanks was a sort of very slightly off white. The best colour for the exterior is Humbrol 26 khaki. British uniforms were closer to the colour called khaki drill, than they were to khaki drab. Tamiya's seems a fair match. Puttees were darker, closer to the drab shade and webbing was a biscuity colour.

I pre-ordered a set of these back in the late summer and took delivery on Friday last week. I assembled them, got them painted, mounted and tensioned in less time than it took to make 14 links from the original set from the kit. They are superb.

It is worthy of note that the first two USAF F-35 squadrons slated to operate outside the U.S. will be based at Lakenheath, though.

And yet, automotive paint finishers have little trouble matching colours that were laid down years or even decades ago.

In my experience, Italeri's decals are often somewhat lacking in absolute accuracy, especially where non-Italian types are in question, which is sad really, as they were once among the very best. This thread is a timely reminder that I need to get repalacements for most of the Italeri kits in my stash.

That's exactly how I dealt with it. Do be careful, though, as the moulding is very thin and fine and it is easy to cause it to crack along the centreline as you work.

Klear sometimes does need thinning and the best thing I've found for this is Tamiya thinner. Flush your brush with water as soon as you finish spraying and it should be OK. If you do get dried Klear in the brush, ammonia will get rid of it in short order, but use a cleaning jar, or hold a cloth over the nozzle if you spray the ammonia through the brush. It's best to strip the brush and soak the parts. Keep any o-rings out of the way, too, just in case.

Yes, that's correct. The canopy is designed so that the fixed part is moulded into the underside of the "open" part as a relief representation. The idea is that you paint the inside bit in outer, then inner colours from the inside. Quite a few modellers didn't like the arrangement, however clever it seemed at the time and Airfix did away with it in later Spitfire releases.

I hope it's a 1/24 scale Typhoon canopy!

As far as I can see, the screens are OK, but on closer inspection under better light, one of the two sets has the midline crack that gave rise to this sorry saga in the first place. I've also measured the sprue gates and they are actually exactly the same as the originals, so I have no idea what tool changes have been made, unless these latest replacements aren't from the new tool after all. I'm now quite fed up with Airfix and will only now pursue this any further to obtain restitution for having to purchase after market parts. I will also think long about buying anything else in a red box at least without seeing it the flesh, which means I am almost certain never to buy another 1/24 scale kit. Airfix's loss. Just to explain, I need the second set for one I'm building for a relative.

Well, I arrived home this evening and my wonderful wife had been all the way to the sorting office to collect the parcel containing the newest set of replacements. After the usual domestic niceties, I opened the box, removed the contents, unwrapped them and peered closely at the items contained within. They are absolutely the worst piece of perfectly transparent, undimpled, thin and uncracked plastic I've seen today. Finally. It looks as though the new tool has a wider sprue gate at the top of the canopy arch, but I might be mistaken. If it has, it would lower the stress at that point. Good luck to everyone else that's been trying to get this sorted out.

Today, I've apparently missed an attempted delivery of a parcel by the Postie and, on checking my e-mails, have found a further communication from Airfix dated yesterday, (23 Oct) telling me that they had sent replacement "Q" sprues from their new tool. I'm glad they've finally taken the point about the design of the tool being as much part of the problem as the process. My wonderful other half will try to get to the sorting office in the morning, (a 3 hour return trip on the bus) as I'm out all weekend. I'll let you know the outcome.

I pre-ordered one of Airfix's big Tiffies from my local model shop in expectation of the sort of quality displayed at the release at Telford. When it arrived, I had heard about the canopy issues and opened the box with a mix of hope and dread in roughly equal parts. Sadly, the hope soon dissipated, as the canopy was cracked. I immediately rang Airfix's customer care line, only to be told by a recorded message to e-mail. Luckily, I have that ability, so I did e-mail them. After over a month of waiting, I finally recieved a replacement from the second line, as there "is an issue with the parts coming from one line". These were worse. Not cracked, but dimpled and uneven, with areas of varying thickness and clarity. I contacted Airfix once again and told them that they actually had problems with both lines and asking for replacements that they would be prepared to accept themselves. I also took the opportunity to point out that they had incorrectly addressed the package, so it is lucky that the postman knew my name. Another 6-8 weeks went by and I eventually got an e-mail saying that they had had the parts back from the Post Office, marked "undeliverable", which means they had been stuck in the sorting office for over two weeks, improperly addressed again and asking whether I still needed them. I said I did, but once again, was prepared to wait for something useable. Two weeks ago, I had another message from Airifx, saying that they were terribly sorry but they were still trying their best to rectify the problem and were expecting new samples early the following week and would contact me if they passed muster, going on to offer me more replacements with "less visible dimpling". Imagine my reply. Given that there is no subsequent mention of the new samples they were awaiting two weeks ago, I assume that these have also failed to live up to expectation. I am now less than impressed with Airfix's response to this, very disappointed with them and would much rather have seen the release delayed until the canopies were sorted out. My earlier suggestion that they compensate me for the additional expense of obtaining Alley Cat's resin replacement seems to have been met with stony silence. I'm sorry that's all a bit long winded, but I had to set the scene for the question, "Is it personal, am I being unreasonable, or is everyone being messed around by Airfix over what should be a bread and butter piece of production?" Chris

The 190 was more durable than the 109,with a wider track under cart, making it more stable on the rough strips used in the east. It was also easier to maintain, particularly as it had no cooling system, which also meant it was more likely to be available in the extreme cold of an eastern winter. The 109 was prone to having ice and snow freeze in its landing gear, which caused many crashes, whilst the 190's lower doors could be removed to prevent the build up in the first place. The 190 was also more suited to the increased operational radius demanded by flying over the Russian Front, having a greater range than the 109, so in terms of your question and the context I took it to be in, the 190 was better due to it's greater effectiveness.

I found this thread whilst looking in to coastal mossie colours. I am planning to build the Tamiya 1/48 kit in these colours and have noticed that Tamiya call for deck teak undersides, despite the presence of "sky" in their range. This got me thinking about the old Airfix kit, which required their "parchment" to be used on the undersides, even though they also had a sky in their range. Taking this in to account, is it possible that the undersides of coastal mosquitoes were actually something other than "Sky"? The apparent coloration in the photo's a the top of this thread look more like a parchment or teak-ish hue than what I've come to expect from "Sky".

Certainly gives a sense of just how big the bugger is. Nicely done!

The retractable dam is known as the LIDS Fence. When the aircraft entered the hover, the fence automatically extended, as did the air brake. Between them, they closed off the gap between the gun pods, or more often on British Harriers, the strakes. This created a well into which some of the exhaust gas recirculated, boosting the effect of jet borne flight and improving the hover performance. When on the ground, the fence was retracted unless undergoing maintenance, or the computer BIT test was being carried out, which is something it took a bit of getting used to if you were sitting in the cockpit, as the aircraft was on jacks for the test and the flaps, air rake and LIDS fence deployed and retracted quite violently, causing the aircraft to jump around.

NavDoc, if it's any consolation, I can see the pre-shading at every stage of your photography. The end result looks pretty good to my eye.

I've been meaning to make a contribution to this for some while now, but you know how it goes... I came across some stuff online some months ago relating to a vehicle mounted night vision system introduced just prior to the war on British Army equipment. The system was known as "Tabby" and stemmed from an initial interest by the Royal Navy for a night IFF system. "Tabby" used a near-infrared emitted from the vehicle's head-lights, which used a normal bulb, shining through an infrared diffuser made of red plastic. The diffuser absorbed all but the near-infrared light which illuminated the terrain ahead. The reflected light was then viewed through a pair of suitably filtered binoculars, known until 1943 as "RG Binoculars, Type 6" The key part of the description in the context of this topic is: "Tabby Type F This was a monocular for RAF use. The converter tube was sealed within the plastic body; there was no provision for replacing the tube. There is no eyepiece focus adjustment, although the object lens has a means of alignment during manufacture. Unlike some viewers used for signalling the image is the correct way up, but the viewer is not very portable, as there is only a short screened cable tocarry the high voltage from the bulky power unit. Night fighters and bombers of the RAF were fitted with Tabby, principally as a friend or foe system. The tails of friendly aircraft could be identified by their infra-red beacons." From "Tabby Tales" by Clive Elliott. The document is available online at http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/Tabby01.pdf and includes diagrams and photo's drawn from official sources.