Stuart Wilson

No doubt Hasegawa are watching e-bay. If you want them to re-pop it pay £50 for one. The reason the Mosquito is cheaper second hand is that the Tamiya one is still available and it's better than the Hase anyway. I found a shop in Florida in 2006 that had all of them. I picked up the Mk I with the flat tailplanes. I only saw one once in the UK before they'd all gone. This is one of the things that annoys me about Hasegawa. How long before the Lancaster fades into memory. I don't think the He111 is available any more (although Revell are selling it for 15 quid). Having said that I saw the JU88 A-6 the other day and was going to buy it till I saw the price. £40! It's just the A-4 with a small photo-etch sheet and new decals. So even if they re-release it it'll cost a fortune. You'd think an aircraft as important as the Beaufughter would sell well enough for a company to keep it on the shelves all the time. Especially given the number of paint schemes and versions that can be made. Maybe Airfix will come to the rescue after they've done the '110. Stuart Wilson

Hi, I'm buliding the new Airfix Hawk T2 and I'm wondering about the rails for Sidewinder type missiles on the wingtips. A quick look at photos seems to show that the most recent photos show the rails on quite a lot of the time, often without any of those intert missile bodies they use for air-air training. While the older photos seem not to show them. Does this mean that in the future these aircraft will pretty much have the rails on permanently? I mean why remove them unless they have a noticable affect on drag (which they might). If so then I'll glue them on. Btw are these aircraft able to carry 'winders or ASSRAM on the rails? I mean the rails are there and there must be some wiring for the pods they carry to work. I know the RAF a/c are not equipped to carry weapons (shame) but what about the rails? Thanks in advance for any answers. Stuart Wilson

Lovely, makes me wish I still had my A-5, I'll have to build another one. Wanted one of these since I was a kid. When it finally came out I realised why no one had kitted one before. It's huge! Ended up on top of the wardrobe and got too dusty/damaged. I'll have to find a box big enough for one before I try again. Wonder if they'll do a 390? Doubt mine will look as good though. Stuart

Hi, This seems to be a reccurring problem with Xtracolours, I don't use Xtracrylic much but with the enamels the Ocean Grey looks like EDSG, I've got RLM 75 that's darker than 74, 71 that's as dark as 70, Dark Earth that's as dark as the Dark Green and so on. They seemed to be ok a few years ago but they're changing over time. I hope they sort it out. Stuart Wilson

You could also try Wonderland models in Edinburgh. They've supplied me with Xtracolour without a kit before. Stuart Wilson

Hi, No model stands at US airshows? That's saved me from a potentially expensive wasted journey. I've missed entire Flying Legends from inside the Hannants tent. I was at Manchester recently at a conference in the Hilton and the Modelzone nearby was much better than the ones here in the North East (Newcastle and Metrocentre). They had books! The Waterstones nearby had an excellent Military section too. I suppose the obvious answer to your question about model shops is what we're all talking on. If I wanted to start a model shop or any specialist retailer I'd use the internet. On the plus side look at the things we can get on it these days. It's not as much fun as browsing a new shop but part of the fun used to be caused by the fact you couldn't get much stuff. I remember when I was at school in the late seventies some kid had a Tamiya catalouge! I bought it off him just to drool. I'd been building for years and had never seen a Tamiya kit. I never did until I went to Kent on holiday. We had Machbox, Airfix and Revell. And the odd Monogram. I'll sign off now before I start sounding like I'm in a Monty Python sketch. "I used to get up in the morning half an hour before I went to bed. Build a Matchbox FW-190. and when I got home........." Stuart Wilson

Hi, I think the new release has some improvements, the underwing flaps and the interior of those doors on the fuselage sides that are always open are improved. There may be more, I can't speak to this myself as I've only built the new FG1. And very nice it is too. I would think the older release would still do for an FAA bird but I'm sure others know more. Now we need a brand new Buccaneer to go with it! Stuart Wilson

Thanks for the reply, I've gone with the pylon location points on the instructions. If I instsall a weapon on them it'll be the bombs unless I can prove the rocket pods were used that early. I found the fuselage wouldn't close without some surgery on the cockpit interior so if anyone's building it make sure you test fit. A nice build so far. If it goes ok I'll try the PR9. And I'll buy some references! Stuart Wilson

Hi, I'm starting the new 1/72 Airfix B(I)8 and I've got a few queries. I'm planning on using the Model Alliance sheet to do an 88 sqd one from 1961 with black undersides and the gunpack. The underwing pylons are confusing. The instructions indicate the use of the second of the four cut-outs (second from the engine that is) for the bomb. Is this correct? I've not been able to make it out on photos and I don't have any references on the Canberra as there aren't any good kits (till now that is). Also when were the rocket pods introduced? are they suitable for a '61 a/c. Lastly I assume the flaps would be raised on a parked a/c. Is this right? Thanks in advance for any replies Stuart Wilson

Hi, You'll also need new props/spinners and that circular direction finding arial on the upper fuselage wasn't there either. I think the A-5 was used in the Battle of Britain too. Pretty much the same as the A-1 but with the A-4 wings. Note if you go down the A-5 route be careful with references as they were in production/service after the A-4 was introduced and later ones got a lot of A-4 equipment, such as the canopy. Good luck Stuart Wilson

Thanks, I've mixed some satin and gloss varnish together and the result looks ok Stuart Wilson

Hi, I'm building the Fujimi kit and the decals are almost finished. The model Alliance sheet says the EDSG is satin finish with a gloss white underside. Most of the photos I can find however seem to show the uppersurfaces with a glossy finish. I know it would have weathered and there's the scale effect to consider but would the undersurfaces have been noticeably glossier? I'm planning on leaving them Tamiya gloss white without a varnish coat to prevent yellowing and spray a varnish on the Xtracolour EDSG. Should I use a glossier finish (I'm not one for weathering). Any thoughts? Stuart Wilson

Thanks for the response. I guess the jury's still out on this one. Of course that means whatever I do It can't be proved wrong... Cheers Stuart Wilson

Hi, I havn't built anything before 1939 for 15 years or more so I'm looking for an easy build and have thought about the above using the Eduard kit. I have a set of Superscale decals from years back that say the a/c is red with a white tail and underside to the nose. However looking on the net it seems it had a white cowl as well but some images of models, drawings etc show the underside remaining in light blue. Is there any consesus on how it would have looked? Would the underside of the fuselage and wings been painted red? Part of me thinks if you've gone to the trouble to paint the uppersurface red you would paint the underside too. Clearly camoflage wasn't uppermost in Rabens mind and as staffelkapitan he would have been able to order it. Needless to say the only photo I could find dosen't show the underside. Thanks in advance for any replies Stuart Wilson

Forgot to mention... X8147 would have been an early VI and may have had the flat tail. I have PD decals sheet that includes markings for X8138 that state it had a flat tail and I think the more experienced pilots preferred them (the "V" tail increased stability but made the plane less manouveable). Stuart Wilson

Hi, I have the MkI kit in the stash (will get round to it one day) and after a quick look in the box the only difference is the B sprue with the flat tailplanes instead of the C sprue in the Mk 21 kit (apart from a couple of extra things for the 21 like the bulge on the nose). I can't scan the instructions right now unfortunately. Some late Mk1s did have the dehiedral tail mind you. It was the engines that made a Mk VI so check your references. There were also aircraft re-fit with it. I don't know why Hasegawa don't re-issue the MkI as it seemed to be available for about a fortnight. I found mine in a shop in Florida that seemed to have every Hase Beau (including two MkIs) as late as 2006. Presumably the Americans don't want to build them. Good luck with the build Stuart Wilson

Thanks for the replies, I think I'll use the plastic wheels. The rubber looks gimicky and I'm not sure how long they'd last. Jury's still out on the airbrakes, I'm leaning towards not deploying them. Might try to find more photo's. Havn't built a Spey Phantom since around the 70's early 80's and any F-4 for twenty years so I'm not exactly loaded with reference material. However I might get the bug as the new Dual combo of F-4Bs from Hasegawa is looking very attractive. As far as the photo goes it's difficult to see that airbrake area. Nice photo though. Very nostalgic. I wonder if we'll ever see a line up of similarly marked F-35s? Somehow I doubt it. Even if they do get bought they'll be painted grey, with grey markings countershaded grey. Cheers Stuart Wilson

Hi, I've just got the FG1 kit and it has optional open/closed airbrakes on the underside behind the landing gear. Would these have been open when the aircraft was parked? I've tried googleing for images but it's a bit inconclusive and my Phantom references are only for USN versions and they seem to indicate they were normally closed, however the Spey engined ones were quite different and practice in the RN could differ. Also are the rubber tyres needed? Is it possible to use the all plastic wheels or are they the wrong type? Thanks in advance for any replies Stuart Wilson

Thanks for that. It looks as though there are no "bumps" on the wing according to the photo though they may have been added later. I think I'll fit them to ring the changes from my F6s, as long as they're not a late 70's fitting they won't be far wrong. As far as the aerials I may leave them off the wings as I can't find them on older photos (I can always add them later if I'm wrong) but the fuselage ones seem to be common. Thanks again. I may be back when the two seater conversion is delivered from Hannants! Stuart Wilson

Hi, This is my first post here so I'll be brief. I'm building a Hunter FGA9 in 1/72 and I'm not sure about the arials in the Revell kit. The marking options are for late seventies early eighties aircraft but I plan on one from the sixties. There are four small arials two under the fuselage and one on top of each wing (parts 70 & 74) as well as a smaller one on the fuselage spine (part 71). Are these correct for a early-mid sixties machine? Also the two bumps on the upper outer wing (part 76), were they on all FGR9s? they don't seem to be there on FR10s which I thought were identical to the 9 apart from the nose. Specifically I'm planning on building XE552 from 8/43 Sqdns in Aden in '66 from the Xtradecal sheet. Thanks in advance for any replies Stuart Wilson