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. :)

mike romeo

Gold Member
  • Content Count

    1,267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

mike romeo last won the day on April 26 2015

mike romeo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,448 Excellent

About mike romeo

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 04/18/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South 'ampshire
  • Interests
    WWII aircraft modelling, 1/72 for preference, obsolete kits a speciality . . .

Recent Profile Visitors

3,923 profile views
  1. mike romeo

    Ta152H kit

    Yet another detailed point on the Revell / FROG Ta152H: there is a step moulded between the wing lower surface and the centre section which is not present on the Aoshima kit or indeed any other FW190 kit I've seen. I assumed this was incorrect so dremelled off the step (luckily the plastic on the centre section is thick enough) and mounted the wing lower on the fuse to make it flush. I added some plastic to the sides of the cowlings in front of the cockpit to make it wider. Oh also, aren't the prop blades moulded with the trailing edge forward if installed as per instructions? And the spinner is a horrible shape and could stand replacing. Unfortunately, the update I was planning on my 152H ended up being trashed because my scribing skills were not up to the job. Having been inspired be adey's build linked above, I might have another go. Regards Martin
  2. Apologies @HP42 for the late response; I hadn't seen your post previously. I have also built the SH kit and, although a superior moulding with recessed panel lines, it is not an easy build. Some of this is due to its short run nature, but some is due to poor design: as examples, if assembled as is, the wings have about 10° dihedral; and the spinners are of a smaller diameter than the engine cowlings, so look silly when added. Finally, the kit is not accurate: the windscreen and nose are incorrect and to me this spoils the look of the aircraft; also the upper wings and tailplanes have many panel lines that don't exist on the real aircraft. Taking all the above into account, I think the that it'd probably be about as difficult to get an accurate Hornet out of it than just starting from the FROG kit. There is definitely a gap in the 1:72 market for a new tool accurate and detailed Hornet at a reasonable price. Imho only, of course. Happy modelling! Martin
  3. Hi Wombat, Not a Lysander, but some Albemarles and Stirlings had stripes. Does the BC finish count as a night finish? Some Mossie intruders had stripes, which is a similar scheme to the Lizzie. Also didn't some all-black Swordfishes and P-61s have stripes? Regards Martin
  4. Hi Tim, Re oil dots for the black, I'd start with greys (darker and lighter) and brown. Obvs use an acrylic clear coat beforehand. 're brushing filters, I have tried this in the past. Use a wide flat good quality brush and very well thinned - and mixed - paint; brush in even strokes in the airflow direction on the wings and vertically on the fuse. Even doing all the above, I found it very difficult to achieve a non-streaky finish. With the benefit of hindsight, I should probably have thinned the paint even further and built the filter up more slowly. However, if using multiple layers, it may be necessary to seal each layer with clear acrylic to prevent 'lifting' when applying the next coat of filter. As you can probably tell, I am far from an expert in this technique, so maybe someone more skilled will come along and enlighten us both! Regards Martin
  5. Also, Special Hobby do a BV155 what if boxing.
  6. As Graham Boak may pop up to tell you, percentage error in a dimension is a reasonable guide as to whether something the wrong size will look wrong. 10mm length difference in a 300mm fuselage may not look wrong if the length error is spread over the whole distance (3.3% error). However, if the length error is in one particular section of fuselage, of say 50mm length (ie 20% error), it is likely that something will look 'off'. As others have said, the 10mm error over a 20mm baseline (50%) is likely to look very odd when compared to the rest of the airframe. This of course starts from the premise that the viewer has an idea of what the original should look like. So, up to you, as it's your model, but if you planned to show it off to a knowledgeable audience . . . Regards, Martin
  7. Great work, Rob. I always enjoy seeing people giving classic plastic some TLC. Regards Martin
  8. How long 'til the next update? Enquiring minds need to know.
  9. Never been done before on a ship (outside of a very hairy emergency with a SHAR and a very early sea trial of a Harrier GR1 that tried and ended up in the scuppers of the aircraft carrier concerned) and not by F-35 on QEC. There is risk on trialling any 'novel' flight evolution. Nevertheless, I suspect there was some skilful editing for added drama. You are right that it should be less stressful than doing a conventional arrested recovery. You can believe whatever you want, Matt; if however you want some facts, PM me. Regards Martin
  10. Very tidy scratch building, Serge! You truly have the eye. Regards Martin
  11. Thank you. I think the Hornet would be a good candidate for an Airfix re-tool just on its looks alone. Regards Martin
  12. Another finisher from the FROG Squad GB, this was my attempt at improving what FROG provided. Off the top of my head, I did the following: - removed the moulded in interior detail and scratched a 'pit - removed the fin and dorsal fillet; replaced with a cut down Airfix Mossie fin and scratch-built strake - reshaped nose and tail cone with milliput - removed raised lip at rear of cockpit opening - opened up and enlarged radiator inlets; added scratchbuilt rad detail - thinned down wing leading edges drastically, moving point of max thickness rearward - cleaned up landing gear legs and added support stays from brass tube - replaced tailwheel with Vampire nose gear - replaced main wheels with resin examples - reshaped and rescribed engine nacelles - added spar caps, and fuse main spar cover from Tamiya tape - added nav lights from clear styrene - drilled out cannon troughs - windscreen cut from clear sheet to dimensions supplied by @David A Collins - smash moulded canopy - added bomb racks from Airfix Typhoon and bombs from Tamiya Mosquito - substituted rocket tail fins from the Hobbyboss Typhoon Phew! Not surprising it took me over 3 months. The decals are from the kit and Xtradecal RAF roundels. Paint was xtracrylics PRU blue and dark sea grey plus Tamiya dark green rattle can (not the RAF dark green, I later realised!). The observant will spot the howler I made when painting the camouflage. Enjoy! Martin
×
×
  • Create New...