This site uses cookies! Learn More
warhawk
-
Content Count
464 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
If You look at the image below, You will see that each 'V' frame has a vertical metal plate holding the gun-sight from each side (one plate on port, one on starboard of the gun-sight), which itself is a bit lower than the frames
-
I know, but i needed to differentiate them from the standard armed variants for table purposes I couldn't mark them as 'D' type, as they were not completely equipped with fuel tanks... Already listed in the table as separate items. I did. Not anymore Table revised, thanks for the suggestions.
-
Could You please specify? Should they be variants of their respective 'armed' counterparts ('c' and 'e')?
-
Thanks for the input, I have already allocated the 'T' (or 'Trainer' type) wing as a possibility to both Mk.VIII and Mk.IX respectively; So, if I'm not mistaken, nothing needs to change.
-
I have finally taken the time to update the table. Expanded with the info from the Airfix magazine chart, but left me with a conundrum: I'm not sure what 'Integral air intake' is (Seafire Mk.47 is the only one to have it acc. to the table) Thanks for comments and looking!
- 101 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Spitfire
- Supermarine
- (and 1 more)
-
IMHO, the panel lines are finer on the Revell Kit, as are the canopy frames (these two things put me off from Selling my Revell and searching for Airfix new-tool one). Revell does have its share of relatively small inaccuracies, but I'm willing to work with it: Wrong dihedral Wrong panels on the rear fuselage Wrong engine nacelle main and side intakes Tires a tad too big and 'squarish' Fuselage dorsal window at wrong place There's been some discussion on a need to fill in all small wing panels (in line with the direction of flight), but available photos show these panels existed... Regards, Aleksandar
-
Exactly. That is the reason of spraying distance being farther than usual. Of course, this does mean masking a larger area around the mask, but it prevents the mask (that has been pushed down too tightly into the corrugations) pulling the paint with it, when removed.
-
It is not, if You always keep Your airbrush far away and exactly perpendicular to it (i.e. for corrugations this 'depth', You can get away with applying them flat over the corrugated surface, without burnishing them in). I managed to do it, and in 1/72nd scale, the over-spray is virtually invisible.
-
Great choice. Please note that the snake in the decal sheet is missing its tongue. You could just paint it in with a fine brush at the end, or use Montex Super Mask 72002 to mask the whole thing and avoid troubles with decals on corrugated surfaces
-
While I get round to revising my table, Here's a cropped-to-page PDF of the article above, that I made for easier viewing Regards, Aleksandar
- 101 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Spitfire
- Supermarine
- (and 1 more)
-
They do. I like how someone had the exact same approach to this topic as me, but almost half a century ago At least, I can take a look at his Spitfire variants and see if it makes sense to organize it that way. I can also copy data directly from there for variants less known to me - e.g. Griffon Seafires Regards, Aleksandar
- 101 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Spitfire
- Supermarine
- (and 1 more)
-
Thanks for the info. I'll try to source it and see.
-
Great video. Seems to confirm that the inner frames on the back canopy were a late-war feature.
-
None of those are my property, and are linked here for descriptive purposes only. But, You're welcome nonetheless. However, IMHO, I see two distinct primer colors here (not counting the dark blue one) - Curtiss (or some other) green and raw ('yellow') Zinc Chromate: My supposition is that the cockpit was primed with Zinc Chromate (as You can see in the row of aircraft at the back left), then painted in Curtiss interior green because the ZC could distract the pilot with its strong hue. Regards, Aleksandar
