John R

'but I made a mess of the Cranwell blue fuselage stripes' My hero - a mistake - Oh Chris, say it wasn't so! More seriously do you flow the paint into the panel lines before or after painting? I thought that if you do it before, it will get covered up but if you do it afterwards it could get rather messy. Or have I missed the point? Is the paint there to give a smooth finish to the line? Nice job John

Not exactly definitive information but they may help John

Thanks Aerofan - you made me pick it up and start work again and guess what - another discrepancy and something to look out for on the updated kit - the canopy is completely wrong! The glazed panels should be flat and form a 'V' shape which blends into the rounded section above the observers cockpit. John

I had dreadful problems with the top coat not setting and the undercoat bleeding through when using polished aluminium over Alclad basic black. I was advised to let the undercoat dry for a few days. Also I think (I'm still learning!) that you need the nozzle adjusted to give a very fine spray. John

I've seen the actual model and it is admirable but I think he should have described the fun and games involved in assembling the engine nacelles and intakes! John

I started a thread about what to fix on the 1/72 version and this is how far I've got. It's a long slow job and I keep stopping until I have regained the will to live! I had a chance to make a quick comparison between the latest 1/72 version and what I believe to reasonably correct drawings and it looks as if the shape is right but there is a problem with the markings of the glazing on the canopy. If the 1/48 version matches it you should be able to make something that closely resembles an Arrow John PS the original thread http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234918500-correcting-the-hobbycraft-172-cf-105-arrow/ generated 3300 hits so there must be a lot of interest in a decent Arrow.

Cutting Edge Modelworks did a set for 1/48 and 1/32. The Falcon conversion, by the way, is for the Italeri F4B John

The Falcon kit does not have the earliest nose with the flush inlets. Something I discovered when I went to fit it. To add to my frustration I have just found that the decals I got for the prototype are 1/48 and not 1/72 so if anybody needs them... John

I've just taken a look at the uncropped version of the heading picture and it looks as if the panel is, at that stage of construction, solid. It's not easy to see as it's where the pages join. I've also taken another look at the top view, this time at the cockpit forward of the pilot, and it looks as if all the instruments are exposed. How do you model that! The more you look the more trouble you find. I just noticed that there is something odd about the markings on the nose probe. They make it look as if the probe is bent upwards. In fact the probe is aligned with the fuselage but the markings at the tip of the nose appear to be aligned with nose axis whereas the markings on the probe are aligned with its axis. Painting the probe markings looks to be tricky. Does anybody have any bright ideas? John

A bit of Photoshopping gave this You can see the ejection seat rails Is that panel over the ADF transparent? John

Thanks Tailspin. I had previously made good use of your blogs and the latest answered one of my questions. The question now is, what was in the rear cockpit? A blank sheet of bare aluminum (aluminium to us Brits!), or was it painted black, or were there empty instrument racks and what was the colour scheme of the rear hole? John

I'm trying to convert a Fujimi RF-4B into the XF4H-1 and have a couple of questions. That section between the pilots' seats. How solid is it? The kit leaves it open. Some photos appear to show that there are openings between front and rear sections. In the photo of the prototype in the workshop it looks pretty solid. Also what does it look like from the rear seat? In the intakes there are what appear to be horizontal stiffeners on the splitter plate but in a colour picture of it, when painted, the surface looks plain. Did anything stand proud of the surface? Any help would be appreciated. John

Will these help? It was the best Hawk scheme. John

There is this thread... http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234925729-something-that-might-interest-hawk-fans/ I could probably find a few more if you are interested John

Thank you but you have not seen it close up! According to the drawing I have in 'Soviet Heavy Interceptors' the fuselage datum is level but the drooping nose makes it look as if the a/c is nose down. If you you at the nosewheel the the angle of the assembly holding the wheel is not right. If that was corrected to match the photos I think the attitude would be OK. Can you help with a question about the missiles. The kit missiles have a nose probe wheres those in the pictures, painted black and white, do not appear to have them. Is this correct? John

How about the prototype in 1/72? John

Thanks to all who posted the links and photos. There is something wrong with model regarding the missiles and their mountings. Either the missiles are too small or the mountings are in the wrong place. Here is a picture of the model as it stands. It has problems with the finish and with the attitude (too nose down). After all the problems getting it to this stage I am wondering if I am strong enough to deal with them... John

Will, Mine came direct from Prop and Jet. Delivery is about 3-4 weeks. You can also get them from Linden Hill John

Not a very significant a/c. It first flew in 1948. Powered by the Russian equivalent of the RR Nene it lost out to the Mig 15. This kit arrived just after Christmas. As I had spent some time struggling with an A Model La 250, and knowing how good Prop & Jet kits were, I decided to give myself a present and leave the 250 whilst I built this. The parts are beautifully moulded and the surface finish is excellent with a complete absence of pinholes. They fit together well and very little filler is required. One part that gave a little trouble was the u/c bay which has to be fitted into the fuselage before the halves are joined. Something didn't quite fit and since the mating parts can't be seen when the halves trial fitted this gave rise to a certain amount of frustration. This resulted in a major error as once I got the halves fitting I quickly applied the glue and then realised that I had forgotten to put in the 4 grams of balance weight which has to be put behind the cockpit! I then had to drill a hole in the bottom of the fuselage to add it. One other thing that I did wrong was to assume that as the fuselage was moulded in grey I wouldn't need to paint the inside. Big mistake! It looks almost white when the model is finished. The amazingly thin wing fences are moulded integral with the wing which saves a lot of fiddling. The wing leading edge needs a little cleaning up and whilst the wing to fuselage fit is very good a there is a hardly noticeable mismatch on the underside. I found that the leading edge of the fin projected a bit too far forward but a little sanding brought it back into line. The kit says to use transparent tape to cover over the landing light in the intake but I used a folded piece of plastic from a drinks bottle. Two canopies are supplied. They are strong and of excellent quality. You should only need one. The main u/c legs are intriguing as the tops are moulded in such a way that, when fitted, they automatically fit at the correct angle. The kit instructions for fitting the u/c jacks are not very clear and the ones fitted to the doors are a little too long but I believe that this will be corrected. This is a delightful kit and thoroughly recommended especially if it's your first resin kit. John I don't think that they are available in this country but if you want one contact Musa Zekoreev at [email protected]. 25 euro plus 8 euro packaging

Somebody just sent me this John

Thanks Pin. I should have started this topic earlier as I have just finished it. However they could be a great help to someone else. Dimitry - Ihave just mounted the missiles where your picture shows them and the missile fins line up nicely with the strange excrecences on the underside of the wings. I wondered what they were for. John

I wondered if that might be the case but the photo didn't have enough detail to be sure. Thank you John

Thank you both for the quick replies and invaluable information. The problem now is where were the other two mounting points? I'm quite happy with the black and white as my interest is prototypes and experimentals Regards John

EDIT: A better picture here: http://www.secretpro...33.msg7400.html This link worked but there were no pictures - only a few comments The first link had some drawings that matched those in 'Soviet Heavy Interceptors' which appear to show the pylons much firther forward on the wing.Maybe they were moved at some stage in the development program. 04 didn't have radar and I believe only caried missiles for test purposes. John

I'm just finishing an A Model 1/72 La 250 and the kit instructions for mounting the missiles on the rails seem to be at variance with the drawings in the Red Star book ' Heavy Interceptors'. To get the missiles in the right place according to the drawings they need to mounted so far forward that the attachment point is right at the end of the missile body, which doesn't seem to be right for aerodynamic and balance reasons. Is the kit rail in the wrong place? Are the drawings wrong? The photos I have seen are inconclusive. Do the missiles have red noses as I have seen on some models. The kit says that they are white. Can anyone please help? John