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. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

208 Excellent

1 Follower

About warhawk

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 04/06/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Pančevo, Serbia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,367 profile views
  1. Another thing popped to my mind (if not too late): Why not duplicate the front (floor) part, but in lead?
  2. Agreed. The under-surfaces (and often wheel wells - particularly on N1K2-J/-Ja) are also NMF in these cases.
  3. One common mistake I often see on early A6Ms is that the modeler chips the Ame-iro paint right down to the aluminium. Unlike the late-war greens, this paint was very durable, being specifically developed for use in harsh sea climates. Later, when green was added to top surfaces to improve camouflage, it would chip exposing the Ame-iro patches, but rarely would it go down through to the metal... pilot step-way being the sole possible case
  4. If You are going to mask that frame-less vacu-form, You can just raise the lower edge of the mask It's not a Spit or a '109, so no experts to point fingers and laugh OR... why not dremel-out the floor 'tub' as much as the resin allows, fill it with lead balls, and then replace the floor with a thin sheet of styrene?
  5. You can add two lead plates (1 or 1.5 mm thick), shaped like the floor onto it from above. It will raise the floor slightly, but will serve as counterweight.
  6. Now THAT's a tail! keep up with the good work on a rather unusual 109 spawn.
  7. You're welcome, Mark The most obvious ones (to me, at least) are the weapons (with its respective wing panels), as well as different widths of the undercarriage fairings across these operators. But You can avoid most of the trouble just by picking the right box for You. If it's a Dutch bird You're after, I suggest MPM Box No. 72571 ('Dutch Patrol'), as it has some nice resin additions. Indeed... That is the one of few short-run kits I chose to sell off... And I quite like making those thing fit! Quite expensive too (if You manage to find it), especially the "High-tech" box with some resin goodies. There are also some older (and even rarer) resin kits of the G.I that I was not able to get for a decent price. Seems we''l have to hope Mikro-Mir scales down their JachtKruiser to 72nd one day
  8. I have laid the MPM's D.XXI onto plans from Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia publication, and it checks out pretty good in terms of shape accuracy. One thing You have to take note is that there were some minor differences between Dutch, Danish and Finnish versions. Here's a great WIP thread by BaddEdd (Romanian forum), explaining these differences. On a side note - as well as MPM D.XXI is done, stay away from their Fokker G.I if You want an accurate model of a Dutch aircraft... Plenty of nearly in-correctable shape errors, and not worth the effort, IMHO... Regards, Aleksandar
  9. Fantastic job on the cammo! If You allow a minor nitpick - the landing gear legs seem bit too long to me.
  10. Even if it doesn't - You can always add wedges or sand it along the longitudinal joint line later to get a perfect fit.
  11. Not necessarily. Just assemble and align all left fuselage parts neatly together (as well as the right ones). You will then end up with two neat huge fuselage halves to assemble, and You only need to address the longitudinal seam (the easiest one to re-scribe). This method is also very useful for final adjusting of the fuselage to the canopy width.
  12. A little ugly? Next to a Sea Spit or a Firefly, it looks like a car-accident (especially with the wings folded)! And I want one in 72nd, precisely because of that (especially with the wings folded)!
  13. The point where I agree with You is that, regardless of authenticity of a paint for a certain period, the warbird owner is free to pick whatever colors/insignia he wants and not go into discussion whether they are accurate or not. However my question was "is it historically authentic (for my model trying to depict a particular trainer during WWII)?", regardless of what the owner of the bird flying now wanted or achieved. Also, this reasoning behind treating every current livery as a completely new paint-job (regardless of its historical context) reminds me of those 'If You see "X" then you have a dirty mind' images. Those images are clearly arranged/cropped to evoke a sexual connotation at a first glance, same as Texan from my first post was clearly made to evoke a USAAF pre-war trainer at a first glance. Regards, Aleksandar
  14. I suppose the main reason for the lack of care towards authenticity in some war-birds is that those owners bought them with specific intent to fly them and have fun with them, not keep them in museum conditions.
  • Create New...