warhawk

Haven't heard from him since the above-mentioned interaction (which was back in 2018).

Well, for starters, the windscreen in MBI plans is obviously too wide, and the nose is too blunt. They clearly served as a basis for all contemporary models in 48th and 72nd... No idea really. Even if the general dimensions (e.g. overall fuselage length and wingspan) are correct, we still don't know what exactly is wrong with the cowling - should we add a couple of mm and reshape ('a' is incorrect, but 'b' is ok) or just reshape 'a' and move the fastening ring a few mm back (both are incorrect, but a+b is ok)? This would also be tricky to measure on the real machine. Plans in my illustration above are borrowed from the comprehensive La-5/7 set done a few years ago by Johann on Sovietwarplanes forum. These plans do seem to show a more accurate cowling and windscreen, but differ in other places from the MBI ones, especially in the vertical stabilizer (which is larger). When I reached to the author about these discrepancies, he replied with "All sizes and values of La 5 and La 7 were taken from factory-made metrics and books of technical description of La-5/7 publications of TsAGI Institute and factory manuals, which I found in the archives. Part took with proektsy and photographer. But I did not take any size from third-party and untrusted drawings from the network". Unfortunately, he didn't elaborate about my cowling dimensions question.

I think the main problem with getting an accurate La-7 is that most scale plans of the thing disagree wildly with each other. And nobody has made the effort to 3D scan either of the surviving examples. I mean, we all know that 1/48 Gavia (and its 1/72 Eduard and HobbyBoss derivatives) obviously have a blunt nose. But is the overall fuselage length correct?

To be more precise, they were trying to solve the same problem Brits and Germans had, and that is avoid repetition of the same pattern on the ground (which is, surprisingly, very conspicuous from above, even if the colors match their surroundings perfectly). The British solved this easily by mirroring the same cammo pattern on half the machines, while Germans made it even simpler - each factory producing the same aircraft had a slightly different wing cammo pattern. The French were like 'Naaaah, too efficient!' and gave complete freedom to the camouflage...r. Only two conditions - all colors had to be represented about equally in total area, and there should be no two repeating patterns. At first glance, this would seem like the easiest and quickest way by far, but imagine your job is to paint e.g. 50 aircraft that week, and having to come up with a pattern completely different from the last. And the one before it. And the one before it... And nobody thought of us poor nerds trying to research all thiss stuff 80 years later To be completely sure what the cammo pattern for Your specific Potez was, You'd need to have photos from all angles (including the above), which is almost impossible to exist.

I used to think so myself, but was corrected in my WIP thread:

Apart from the comically over-sized prop blades and rubbish decals, still a decent and well-detiled kit.

1) MJ250, used over Italy. Please see topic below:

Quickboost is known for making mistakes, as well as offering "correction" sets that don't actually correct anything (one-to-one copies of kit parts part with just better panel lines)... See 1/72 cowlings for Fw190, S.79, etc...

As already explanined by others, yellow fuselage band was a standard recognition measure for all axis aircraft flying over the Eastern front in WWII. However, yellow nose + yellow rudder combination (as depicted on the boxart) is accurate for combined invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece in April '41, where Schlachtflieger 109E units certainly did take a part in. In some cases, even a yellow band and/or yellow wingtips were added (unrelated to the easten front), just for that extra bit of safety (as both Yugoslav and Greek airforce used many German-built aircraft types) https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/JG77-Balkans.html Some of these machines continued straight to the Eastern front in June, without a yellow band being added to the fuselage: https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/LG2-EF.html Yellow wing tips were an extra non-standard measure (especially on upper surfaces), so this varied from unit to unit. I'd advise finding a photo of a particular airfcart You have marking for, and using it as a source. Regards, Aleksandar

Only thing that I find a bit off with the AM 1/48 kit (and its Academy 1/72 derivatives) is the spinner, which looks a bit too bulbous.

Slightly O/T, but I'd appreciate opinions on the cammo colors, too. No.307 Sqn Defiants are often depicted in profiles and scale models with only the lower color over-painted in black: source: Polish Squadrons Remembered But looking at the photos from this webpage, seems that all of the Defiants were painted overall black. Then it got weathered, so original DE/DG cammo started showing through (?)

Here's what I see on the enhanced photo: A puddle below seems more likely to me than a cloud, since his feet have a shadow, suggesting he's not jumped high (or even at all)... Could also be a reference to some ocean. Overall design might be similar to (or even inspired by) L-4 Grashopper emblem: source: USMC Patches Regards, Aleksandar

Please take a look here (especially the comparison GIFs): https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/72nd_aircraft/ju-87-d-g-academy-anf-fujimi-nose-length-comparisi-t9601.html You'll have to decide which plans You believe and make an informed decision which kit's nose is more accurate.

Hello, While browsing plans and photos, I noticed two distinct wing fuel tank configurations. As both were present during wartime (photos below), were they variant-dependent?

Or alternatively cut just the white star and bars out of the spare decal (or another random decal w/ similar white) and stick it over the already applied decal. No masking required, thus no danger of lifting..