Troy Smith

Pics... or it didn't happen Seriously, photos really help determine what you are doing, right or wrong (FWIW, if it gets you the results you wanted that is 'the right way') but very hard to give feedback without any. You don't need to be David Bailey either, as long as they show what's going on, they'll do, so if you have a reasonable phone camera, use that. Or just get a cheap camera for model work, I ended up getting off ebay for a fiver, posted, the model up from the first digital camera I ever had. all the pics here were taken on this, using desk light, or natural light. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235052380-hurricane-airfix-72nd-fabric-wing-mki-oob/ You will need a photo hosting site, there are threads on this, say if you can't find a thread. cheers T

@Linescriber hopefully can fill in the detail, but I presume it's at the Indian Airforce Museum, being done now, I'd be interested in the detail of the stripped Hurricane in the foreground, as well as the serial of the Spitfire in the background. @Linescriber, are you involved with the IAF museum restorations as well?

this is the Sea Venom review

good advice from @spaddad, tips and advice, have trawl through some build, tip- add 'britmodeller' into a search term, there is not masses of SF modelling here, but enough to get some ideas. Best way, do a WIP, (work in progress), say what what your abilities are, ask for suggestions, (you may be better than you think), and you will receive plenty of support and helpful advice, one of the biggest sins here is to, well, to be rude or unhelpful... And, you might be surprised, one you do some photos, and see your work in this context, that is really helpful, as you then see it they way you see other builds, a useful perspective. People (who me?) use this as their social media, I'll look in on build that seems interesting, regardless of subject, but you will learn a lot of different techniques, and ways of problem solving. SF builds, @Nigel Heath has done some great build threads, and gives a good idea of the banter here, and Nigel's diet... HTH PS this AMT Voyager kit?

This is much too vague a question, both companies have been going a long time, but in various guises and owners, Airfix had 'classic Airfix 50-s- 81, then a variety of owners of the name, becoming part of Humbrol, joining with Heller, and others owners since, currently Hornby, which has affected their output and/or quality. The Revell story is even more complex, joining with Monogram, and what is Revell US and Revell of Germany, Promodeller, etc Getting off the point, but trying to illustrate some of the complexities of your question. So, I just look at kit specifics... of any manufacturer, it's rare you can't get a reasonable idea of any kit with a bit of searching. If you mean recent past/now? This is my over view about aircraft kits, In recent times, Airfix have worked to improve their research, and done some excellent kits, but too often get let down by poor quality control. Revell have better quality control, but have managed to make some, glitches, some serious (by this I mean hard to correct errors) in research. I appreciate you are new here, so I'm not sure quite what you are asking, I hope the above is of some use, even if just refining your question, but there is no 'best' manufacturer *, and the best thing is ask about something specific HTH? *well, maybe Wingnut Wings, who from what I read are THE modellers company, just as long as you like 1/32nd WW1 ....

FWIW = for what's it's worth if you hover your mouse pointer over an abbreviation/acronym on here that has dots under it, it should display the full text. HTH

It's a good question Tim, and got useful answers. DIY is great, and bit of successful scratch building does make you feel better about your abilities, but can be a rabbit hole, so I see where you are coming from. Please do a WIP if you go the CMK route, as it adds to the knowledge base.... cheers T

there's even a "thanks" reaction button.... Happy with that myself when I give answers. Might also be noticeable here as overall people do say thanks.

or.... you could make one, or try, as the below shows, it's a pretty simple shape. If you don't like your DIY efforts, then go CMK, but unless displayed on a mirror, this maybe a worth a go. pic from the above thread, which is worth a read Very useful. What up with the Cutting Edge set? I have it, came with a Typhoon package many years ago.

Hmm, if it was visible from outside, I suggest that it would be the external colour. (see note below) folks who will know more would be @Mike Starmer and @Das Abteilung I don't know how much you know about Allied armour colours, so it would be worth mentioning when and where your model will represent, a brief reminder of what a Sexton (for me) brings up the following question, basic built in Canada, so Olive Drab? 25 pdr's added in Canada, or UK? This can make a difference, for example, Shermans converted to Fireflies were built in US Olive Drab, but were partially/fully repainted in British SCC 15 Olive Drab when converted. Others will know more, and maybe driven by my best guess assertions to give the proper answer! HTH

Not a Corsair expert, but, the British gave different mark numbers to US Aircraft built by different factories, So, in the world of the Corsair, Corsair II = Vought built F4U-1, Corsair III = Brewster built F3A-1, Corsair IV = Goodyear built FG-1, but for the purposes of a Frog model without AMS, are the same thing ..... Ill stick an @Dana Bell here, as he'll know for sure. IIRC Frog called their kit a F4U-6.... There is no F4U-6, there is an AU-1, which is .... well, what would have been a F4U-6, except the AU-1 was a specialised Attack model (USN naming conventions) which is a modified F4U-5, and that is quite different beast to the Corsair II/III/IV we are talking about. one point, the NZ marking experts @LDSModeller say that Frog did a good job on the NZ roundel blue. HTH A brief PS USN naming conventions F4U F = fighter 4 = model number from company U= company designation, which explains the off Brewster and Goodyear numbers, as F3A again, Fighter, company model number 3, company designation A , and FG-1 , G = Goodyear and 1 as first plane built for the navy. It's probably got some more bureaucratic loops and.... here's the wiki page on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_United_States_Navy_aircraft_designation_system and thus explains why what would be the F4U-6 becomes the AU-1.... (as the first attack type built by Vought...) one detail caught my eye

Not designed to be built gear up, I suspect. Worth bearing in mind that gear doors often don't fit as well as you might think..... pic from here https://www.balettie.com/zenphoto/vacation-photos/virginia-2010/national-museum-of-the-marine-corps/ Like with the non folded wing, it maybe better to have fixed the doors in before assembly, allowing adding tabs to support the gear doors inside to be fitted. Try using plastic rod or stretched sprue, or even the fixing off the ordnance to fill holes like these. Plastic glued in with superglue can be trimmed off as soon as it has has set. On the odd occasion I do get to mangle plastic I find superglue really useful, for assembly and gap filling. Comments more for future use, greatly enjoyable and creative build happening here. cheers T

the K-4 also switched the positions of the DF loop and fuel filler, and had tailwheel doors, though these were often wired shut IIRC, so just scribe in the lines. here's a G-10 for comparison the old Monogram book on the K-4 is here, with more on yellow 1, Wnr 334176 above, as the serail on the rudder was cut out and survived, https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Monogram-Close-up/16-Bf109K-Messerschmitt Here's a K in colour Always worth asking or searching for a photo of the plane you wish to model to pin down the details. HTH T

First, you need to ask one of the mods to move this to the WW2 section.... as for the G-10 http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2011/09/erich-hartmanns-last-bf-109-g-10.html which shows it's an Erla built plane. small wing bulges and a tall tail wheel were pretty standard on Erla built planes IIRC, but others will know more @FalkeEins is a member here as well. HTH

for Vallejo, this is a good red, 301 Light Rust. roundel centres overpainted with it, and the cap with it over the RAF museum chart 50620611 by losethekibble, on Flickr