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. :)

warhawk

Members
  • Content Count

    430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

147 Excellent

About warhawk

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday 04/06/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://bmk.ipmssrbija.com/?cat=22
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pančevo, Serbia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,153 profile views
  1. Yes, but they did exponentially better with the 109s. Which means the Buffalo was actually holding them back This two-part video sums it up nicely: Sorry for an off-topic post!
  2. IMHO, one thing You should avoid adding to an aircraft model is mud. Unlike on tanks, mud can be a serious interference to operation of an aircraft landing gear, and is thus promptly removed from wheels / struts / wheel-wells, whenever it is noticed by the ground crew. Paint chipping is also a "less-is-more" deal with aircraft. (There are exceptions, of course, such as late-war IJA/IJN aircraft, where primer was not used and paint chipped in large chunks). Regards, Aleksandar
  3. I beg to differ. Laying any wing from a Sword Spitfire (and Xtrakit - since the author of these toolings was the same) onto plans reveals that the error is in the length of the ailerons. Comparing the Sword/Xtrakit ailerons to Eduard Mk.IX aileron seems to confirm this: The results are exactly the same with Sword PR Mk.IV, Sword Mk.XVI, and the Xtrakit Mk.XII (pictured above) - each aileron is 1.35 mm shorter The good news it that all Sword/Xtrakit fuselages are spot-on, using the same method. BTW, I have used the excellent plans drawn by Junpei Temma, scaled exactly to dimensions from the Montforton book. Regards, Aleksandar
  4. Great work, especially on the central gondola!
  5. Just be aware - that photo is a colorized B/W one
  6. warhawk

    German Jets

    Revell's Ho229 is nicely detailed and builds into a great kit (I have no comment on accuracy though, since I don't have it in stash) But if You want a "Turbo-Mega-Kit-3000" of the same aircraft, You could wait a bit for this bad boy: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/zoukei-mura-horten-ho-229--1079738# https://www.72news.eu/2017/11/zoukei-mura-horten-ho229.html
  7. One thing I did notice is that the spine of their "hump-back" Yak-1 has a bit of a squarish section at the top of the back fuselage: Looking at the photos, the top of spine shows no "angle" here (look at the rear edge of the canopy and its shape) Also, I believe this detail around the spinner is a bit over-exaggerated: However, these are only minor nit-picks - nothing a few passes with a finer sand-paper couldn't fix Regards, Aleksandar
  8. That's a shame. Their range comprised almost exclusively of rare and exotic types...
  9. There are, actually, quite a few, I'm afraid. I have made these observations regarding its accuracy: Landing gear legs are too long. Shortening them (as well as their covers) is an easy fix, preventing the model from looking like a caricature Front panel of the windscreen is too wide. I solved this with a spare windscreen from KP kit. Most vac replacements (Pavla, Rob Taurus, etc) also replicate this Front of cowling (part No. 32 and/or 43) is too short and blunt. It needs a circular styrene insert at the back and reshaping. Unfortunately, KP part is narrower and can't be used as a replacement, although it has better shape Spinner is a bit off (should have a subtle double curve). There is a replacement made by SBS Model, but I chose to correct mine on a lathe (not a difficult fix). Or you can find a spare from KP kit This kit is a down-scaled Gavia/Eduard 1/48th scale model, which has received some criticism for rear fuselage being too narrow. But I don't think this is noticeable in 72nd... I believe most of these mistakes are made because the kit is based on plans from MBI book, which show all these errors (when compared to photos). The Steelworks 1/72 upgrade set corrects issues with the fuselage, and i'ts a simple fix if you are not into plastic surgery. For an even longer discussion on this kit than my mini-rant here, please have a look at THIS topic. Regards, Aleksandar
  10. IMHO, Airfix new-tool has panel lines that are too deep, and canopy that is too thick (with frames too pronounced). FM and Tamiya produce much finer replicas with the same amount of effort.
  11. Marvelous build and photos. Can You please tell me what error does the SBS set correct on ICM's Chaika?
  12. I wrote to Pavla recently about some Defiant missing vacu parts, and received both the quick answer and the parts. I have to commend them for having as great a spares service as the "big-boys", such as Revell, Airfix, etc. If they do not reply, there are some vac canopies for Your machine on sale at German e-bay (link below) https://www.ebay.de/itm/Modellbauzubehor-PE-S-Vakukanzel-Fi-167-1-72-Pavla/283414373631?epid=639272512&hash=item41fcd024ff:g:PvQAAOSw5GZbQL0R Regards, Aleksandar
  13. warhawk

    Best P-38 in 1/72?

    I remember building the Italeri/Dragon(DML) P-38J kit, and using "literally" tons of putty mating the twin booms to the wing. IIRC, the central (cockpit) nacelle/gondola looked too narrow to me when finished, but at the time I haven't had discovered the joys of frustrating over scale plans yet. If someone has this model in finished state, please confirm or disprove this (I no longer do). Reghards, Aleksandar
  14. Hello, @Troy Smith, could You please elaborate what You mean by 'wasp waist'? I cannot seem to find anything odd with my Airfix kit fuselage just by looking at the assembled halves...
  15. Wow, that aircraft looks sleek, yet absolutely ridiculous with those cartoon-size main wheels. I love it!
×
×
  • Create New...