Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

MilneBay

Members
  • Content Count

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

310 Excellent

About MilneBay

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,067 profile views
  1. Here's the 1/72 vacuform one I did about 30 years ago.
  2. Why not push the boat out and go for a Fairy Hendon - a monoplane and all one colour.
  3. MilneBay

    PB4 Privateer

    I built the Matchbox kit ten years ago, or actually used it as a basis for a scratch build of all the bits it missed. There are many problems with the kit, not the least of which is the totally erroneous depiction of the side blister guns, and all the turrets' interiors for that matter. Which is important because these interiors are clearly visible unlike the cockpit area which required far less work. Probably the hardest part were the side blisters which required the complete fabrication of the interiors so that externally they didn't look like some chap just stood there and hosed at enemy aircraft as he would in a B17. I admit to giving up when I got to the engines.
  4. I'm not disparaging the idea of building classic kits, especially Airfix. But we do have to be honest about it and the truth is that Airfix (before the rejuvenated company we see now) used their moulds for years with no attempt to clean them up or even make sure they were still properly aligned. The standard was woeful and the cost was still excessive - I have always suspected that more people were put off building models by their first exposure to modelling in the form of an Airfix kit in the old company's later years than were encouraged to pursue the hobby. Up until a few years ago they were still issuing kits using moulds made in the 1950s which were absolutely clapped out in boxes with new art work - talk about blatant deception. There may have been a classic Airfix period but the company itself ruined anything that might be considered classic about it. People might like raised lines and oversized rivets because it reminds them of their childhood but the reality is that most of the old Airfix kits have been thoroughly bypassed by history. One need only look at how long it took for them to finally retire monstrosities like their Defiant or the original Spitfire Mk IX. Build them by all means if you are interested in the history of aircraft kits, but if you want accurate and better kits then they aren't worth the trouble or the cost.
  5. At the risk of creating more thread creep. The really important question is not the colour of the crowbar but how often was it used?
  6. I must admit that whenever I have built a kit with white metal parts I have treated them the same way I would treat styrene as far as cleaning up etc. goes. White metal is malleable, and the inevitable flashing and sprue marks can be removed with a sharp blade. It can be gently polished to remove scratches as you would with styrene, but if the moulding is crisp then you won't have to worry. For fixing the white metal parts together or to the styrene I suggest using CA in a gel form - it gives you time to position parts properly, unlike the liquid CA which either set instantaneously or sits around for ages deciding whether it set or not. On larger white metal joints I'd recommend 5 minute epoxies as they give far better strength - however as they cure in about five minutes then they can be a waste if you have a large number of parts to consider. I also admit that I prefer white metal to a lot of resins which can be difficult to work with - either too hard or too brittle.
  7. Yes attach the fuselage insets to their respective sides first so that you get the exteriors to line up without any major filling. I've built a couple and the easiest fix for the less than a millimetre gap where the insets meet when you join the fuselage halves, is a thin strip of plastic. I used a small section of Evergreen square rod. Glue it in place, lightly sand it to a flush fit and apply a smidge of filler if necessary. Overall its a problem free kit.
  8. Sorry as I said I don't do alternate history scenarios - too much has gone on in real history.
  9. Although I don't really get the idea of alternate history etc. I'd make one suggestion. The aircraft types, in particular fighters produced by the main powers Britain, the US, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia were all fairly similar in performance and the main strengths of their combat use. Germany had two very successful types in production the Me 109 and the FW 190/Ta 152. As the war progressed each type in those families evolved in response to the evolution of their competitors and combat needs. There was never a shortage of them, only of pilots. So why would Germany go to the trouble of putting into production a clone of an enemy aircraft - they didn't need it. Yes the Germans used captured technology small arms (quoted above) and also armoured vehicles and tanks. But that was just common sense given the vast numbers they captured or took from occupied countries, plus the production lines were in place to continue the production because the process of occupation had not destroyed the factories. Putting an aircraft type into production by reverse engineering requires that you set up tooling, production lines and new factories and given the overall closeness in performance to your own aircraft already in production why bother? The answer to the OP's question lies in the time it took the Russians to reverse engineer the B29 from the few intact samples they interned. In the end they wound up with an already obsolescent design. The only benefit gained was a quick lesson in American aircraft technology but even that was a little redundant as their own designers were quite capable. The whole what-if scenario lacks plausibility, as the only reason a captured Spitfire was reengined was simply some self indulgent whim allowed by the RLM because at that stage of the war they were convinced they were winning. A year later it would not have been allowed.
  10. There's an interesting piece on the use of the orthochromatic and panchromatic type film here - https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/howto/2018/07/panchromatic-orthochromatic-film/ It would appear that the early movie makers had the same problems. I suspect, although I might be wrong, that in the pre-Grouping days in Britain that is why prototype steam locomotives were often fully lined out in the company livery but were painted a basic grey rather than whatever a particular company's overall base livery colour was (green, blue, red, brown, yellow etc.). The reason being that for the as-built photographs of a prototype in the days before reliable colour films were invented, use of orthochromatic stock would often render some particular colours too dark or muddy thus losing the detail required. For instance basic colours in the green/blue area would swamp lighter lining such as white line bordering while conversely the use of warmer hues like reds or browns would swamp darker lining colours. The use of grey would also have the advantage of alerting railway staff of a locomotive still undergoing tests. Just a thought really.
  11. Yes the perils of orthochromatic film - when I started building model aircraft which was so long ago that the flying machine had only just been invented I used to wonder why Airfix insisted on putting those yellow rings around roundels that in the B/W images available always had a dark ring almost black in colour. Being about 7 or 8 at the time I innocently thought that there were two types of roundels and I really wanted to build one with that dark ring as a change but Airfix never seem to provide those decals.. But then I discovered that there was a thing called orthochromatic film which rendered colours like yellow and red in very dark hues and colours like blue in very light hues. I was extremely disappointed, however I learnt to live with this cruel trick of photography. Good old orthochromatic film fooling modelling acolytes since Pontius was a pilot and Mortis was a rigger.
  12. The two kits are virtually identical but there is one important difference. For some reason the PM kit which is very near clone of the Frog has longer u/c legs as they are moulded with the leg in the extended flight position. To replicate how the D XXI looked on the ground you have to cut a section out of leg above the wheel covers. Overall both are rather primitive and you really have to rely on a lot of optical illusions if you want to replicate the interior framing behind the seat as the canopies are very thick.
  13. In 1/48 I built an MPM D21 - this being the reissue of the CA kit IIRC. The one I did has the PW Twin Wasp engine.
  14. MilneBay

    Wellington Window

    I suspect that the post went immediately OT.
×
×
  • Create New...