Jump to content

Troy Smith

Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Troy Smith



    Hmm, so from the announcement Eduard are basically doing the versions Hobby Boss did.  Though HB  did mess up the FM-2 though. 


    9 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

    Here you would need a Wildcat expert to show how many changes are needed from F4F-3 or F4F-4 to have the earlier Martlets. Then it would be possible to assess how many new parts are needed and thus how much more expensive the whole project would be.


    10 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

    Looking at the balance between the cost of investment and the needs of the target group I suppose there will also be a Martlet IV, because quite a few were produced and it's hard to say about them that they were "very marginal".


    Martlets I-III need major changes and since not all Martlet versions will be released, that's where I would look for cuts.

    at this point, I suggest a  read of this, and then sit down in darkened room for a while until the headache passes....



    the info in the link was put together by @Bruce Archer


    Note the the Martlet I and Martlet IV have shorter cowlings, but longer noses behind.      


    There are many other small variation in wing, folding/non folding, and amount of guns, and their position.   There is a chart down the page with a list of which version had what.


    A Martlet IV would make doing a Martlet I a lot easier, but Eduard do sometimes have a near Tamiya ability to not actually do an interesting version, like not doing the first gen MiG-21F-13,  or more oddly, not doing a Mig-21 FL, even though they do all the bits and it was used in combat by various Arab AF and the Indian AF...


    Which is my way of saying  don't hold your breath for a Cyclone engined version...   (which has not been kitted in 1/48th, and it not an easy conversion)


    Perhaps I'm wrong, they may do a Martlet IV, as from looking at the info in the link, it has the same wing as F4F-4,  6 gun, folding,  but requires a whole new fuselage,  but looking at the details the both  FM-1 could use the F4F-4 fuselage with a new cowl,  but the FM-2 needs a new fuselage as different length and taller fin,  though I think they share the same wing, 4 gun, folding.

    the F4F-3 variants use the same wing, 4 gun, non-folding.


    Have a read of the links as I may have made mistakes.   

    Jumei Temma has done extensive research on the Wildcat/Martlet family 






    • Thanks 1
  2. 9 hours ago, WLJayne said:


    So having done that, my instinct was to try the two on the left - being the British Standard colour and the colour matched scan of the paint chip in the book. In the end my feeling was that the paint chip looked "better" against Dark Earth and Dark Green, it has more blue in the hue and I've picked up on some references to hints of blue in it while reading around.

    A good chap to talk to, and you may wish to order some paint as well, as it is matched to the MAP chart you have, is @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies, who runs Colourcoats, who are noted as being the best matched paint for models overall.   

    Certainly the only company I have seen that is an active poster on a model forum.   


    As for Medium Sea Grey,   as I prefer acrylic (If I wanted enamel I'd just use Colourcoats)  I've been checking various paint I have, by Xtracylix, AK Interactive, various Vaellejo and Tamiya

    Not been happy comparing swatches with the RAF Museum book MAP paint chip chart...


    Anyway, as best I can make out Medium Sea Grey has a very slight purple hue, rather than blue,  or if you prefer, a purple-blue I don't have any proper colourimeter devices,   but bear in mind the paint tended to be reasonably simple pigment mixes, so that maybe just a bit of ultramarine, which is a purple-blue. 

    (oddly enough my best simple tamiya mix so far involves adding white to their XF -82 Ocean Grey, which is quite blue...Ocean Grey has a subtle green hue, but I've not got it quite to match the chip, I mentions this as I have spent a lot of time doing mixes and looking at tints in greys...) 


    Nick Millman, who is still a member here, but no longer posts, due to the hard of thinking I seem to remember, which is a great shame.  has done a lot of research on RAF colours, and has provided information for Colourcoats research,  would be a good chap to talk to,  try the contact details on here



    this Life Image of a Spitfire Va of 54 Sq from June 1941 shows the Temperate Land Scheme colours very well

    3052829500_de0f2d4e84_h.jpgSpitfire in England by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr


    3757129355_49b1217a52_h.jpgSpitfire II. 1941. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr


    4181500566_a0b7749748_h.jpgSpitfire in England. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr


    rare private colour shot in spring 1940

    5605745796_b5e0559923_h.jpgSpitfire patrol          Spring 1940. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr


    this is well known image of a 72 Sq Spitfire

    5480779565_08b3c5c056_b.jpgSpitfire II        April 1941. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr



    period colour is rare, these are some of the few, perhaps of use.  


    all from here

    Flickr Search

    @Etiennedup Flickr account of period colour.



    • Like 6
  3. On 13/10/2021 at 21:55, 112 Squadron said:

    @72modeler @FinnAndersen Thank you for your helpful comments. As far as I know all of the MK XIV prototypes were actually MK VIII airframes. So the rudder I have to use is a board chord rudder. Would it be correct to source a spare board chord rudder from an Eduard Spitfire kit for the construction of JF321 or do I have to stick with the rudder of a standard MK XIV and just modify the fin?



    On 13/10/2021 at 23:53, FinnAndersen said:

    You should be alright with the standard rudder. I compared the Eduard rudder with the rudder of a Sword XIV and they were similar. 



    This surprised me, and I think it was posted, or confirmed by @gingerbob,   the standard Mk.XIV rudder , the rear part, is the same as the broad chord pointed tip rudder as fitted to the VII/VIII/IX/XII/XVI.... 


    Just the horn balance is different, being bigger, but not as deep,  and the fin height was taller.  


    There is a later broad rudder, as seen on the Mk.XVIII 

    These differences are discussed here


    • Like 1
  4. 15 hours ago, fatalbert said:

    Oh,just a thought,could i use one of the prop/spinner options from the new Airfix Vc Spitfire?

    No. Nosering is too big.   

    The prop you need for a Sea Hurricane IB is the De Havilland Hurricane type,  which is the one in the Airfix fabric wing kit, recent boxing's have the early parts tree,  with 2 blade prop, so they are out there in spares land.  I don't have the Pavla to comment.



  5. If they don't materialise,  and you want something a bit different @Julien, the USAAF used some NF.VI as nighfighters in Italy 

    see page 13 here



    Most are  quite easy,  just stars and bars, with a serial


    Here's one by Tony O' Toole




    colour pic here



    I've seen one in colour with a trim tab painted,  but its in the background of another plane..... 


    This turned up...Hey Doc, with a Bugs Bunny cartoon...



    Maybe of interest?  Apologies if not.



    • Like 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, Jonny said:

    Does anyone have the instructions for this kit, please?

    Up on scalemates, pdf here



    pay attention,  as in test fit, scrape/sand adjust the nacelle to wing fit, and in particular the cannon belly panel,  this may need some additional tabs to support it. 

    These gave me problems in my youth, but I'd not learned to adjust and trim /shim kits before gluing, and tried to sort of the mess with filler later.


    The Kit is based on the 1980 FB.VI with a load of new parts,  upperwing, engine nacelles, and you need to cut off the kit nose and attach the new bull nose. 

    This will need some filler.  

    It's does not say it, but you can build it as a FB.VI, or one of the earlier 'bull nose' NF variants with the single stage engines.   



  7. 7 minutes ago, Ade H said:

    We can agree to disagree about Vallejo, then. I've given plenty of tips about how to use it in the past.

    I'll have to look those up, unless you have links to hand.   I'm not at my best today, getting over a wonderful cold and am full of snot.  :snorkle:


    I like Vallejo,  perhaps we mean different things by durable,  I note it it's fragile, as in easily scratched on plastic without a primer,  but seems fine once varnished.   I have seen a lot of negativity about the paint, basically about it not sticking and being fragile,  and read your comment as another negative.


    • Like 1
  8. 21 minutes ago, Muchmirth said:

    Also with pigments does anyone else just make their own, seems mad to buy something like brick dust/ rubble dust which could be made with a lump hammer and old bit of masonary?

    that is not a pigment, but rubble.

    Pigments are something else,  there is load of info in this, which may answer some questions, including my cheapskate options.


    22 minutes ago, Muchmirth said:

    I've seen lots of videos and blogs and guides on how to apply oil washes and the recommended brands of oil paints to use but my question is why? Not meaning to found flippant but what advantage does this have over acrylic or any other medium?


    There are a variety of reasons.   An oil wash won't react over a hard  acrylic varnish.


    water is reasonably 'thick' due to it's chemical structure structure,  'surface tension' being the main point,  so won't flow in the same way. 


    I'm a big fan of using zippo type lighter fuel,  as it's really thin,  and  flashes off in seconds,  I just use some old artist oils for this. 


    White spirit is horribly sticky gunk in comparison.  Use it to clean brushes,  or clean up, not to thin paint or washes. Again, see the link.




    29 minutes ago, Muchmirth said:

    recommended brands of oil paints

    eg adverts.



    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  9. 37 minutes ago, Ade H said:

    if you meant that Vallejo is not noted for being durable, that is a myth which I keep trying to puncture!

    I'd got bogged down in the above.

    Correct, Vallejo is not durable, it works a lot better over a primer though, and a coat of varnish protects it well.   I like it for ease of use, and ease of clean up.


    46 minutes ago, Ade H said:

    I'm not aware of any cheaper products which are still sufficiently refined for our needs

    The lighter fuel is not about cost, but volatility, I use it as it makes super thin washes and flashes off almost instantly. .    If you burn it, it burns very cleanly.   

    If nothing else,  I can assure you that is very handy stuff to have around the house, as  degreaser, label remover etc, the can I have says

    "use in the home and art studio"  can be used thin oil based paint, 

    DIY tip, household alkyd enamel thinned with it flows on smooth and thin, and dries fast, useful in cold weather.


    I tried it for applying pastel chalk as an experiment,  which has produced results I was happy with.    Hence my sig line...





    • Like 1
  10. Just now, DOD said:

    This was the first book I bought in getting back into aircraft modelling and seemed a good alround source of information. I shall proceed with caution now.

    Not one I have, but I have seen a list of errors in the Boomerang book, and similar comments to mine on their Mosquito book.    The author produces a lot of books on many types, he may well be an expert on some, but the sheer volume of work makes me dubious.   They often have some good photos, though again the captioning can be suspect....  

    The profile artist is usually Richard Caruana, who is also very very prolific,  and not noted for accuracy in details..... 

    The big problems with this kind of things is just tends to recycle the same wrong information.  



    THE book for Merlin PR Spitfires is the Ventura one




    Seems to have vanished into the void, along with  the other volume I have never seen a hard copy of for sale, but was floating around the net as pdf, ,  that covered markings and operations, superb book,  best I have seen on the subject. 





     Note, for the PR XIX, 




    I was lucky enough to get one by chance, really cheap,  it has a lot of very interesting detail about the XIX that I have not seen elsewhere.


    You may find the still here, and the link to the full film, of interest/use, the film is an absolute treasure trove of fine detail.



  11. 18 minutes ago, Ade H said:

    Is it more toxic in the atmosphere than odourless enamel thinner?

    It's Light Naptha, or light petrol,   It's very very volatile, it's not plastered with health warnings, but says don't breathe the vapour.....  it's very flammable obviously,  but I only use it in tiny amounts.  

    Google will turn up any health and data sheets you want.



    21 minutes ago, Ade H said:

    The rule of thumb is that blending performance is related to refinement

    it's naptha aka light petrol,  given it's volatility,  I have assumed it to be basically Hexane,  it's a 6 carbon molecule.  Anything lighter is a gas a room temperature (eg butane, the compressed lighter gas, is carbon 4)  

    as for cost? a small can for a pound is worth experimenting with.

    In comparison, white spirit is cheap oily gunk, it's around carbon 15 in molecule size, eg Parrafin /Kerosene,  Petrol is around 8 carbon,  and diesel is 25-30, tar is 45-50,  they are all forms of saturated hydrocarbons.


    Given it's volatilty, it's going to be a quite specfic 

    eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha


    Various qualifiers have been added to the term "naphtha" by different sources in an effort to make it more specific:

    One source[12] distinguishes by boiling point:

    Light naphtha is the fraction boiling between 30 °C and 90 °C and consists of molecules with 5–6 carbon atoms. Heavy naphtha boils between 90 °C and 200 °C and consists of molecules with 6–12 carbon atoms.

    Another source[13] which differentiates light and heavy comments on the hydrocarbon structure, but offers a less precise dividing line:

    Light [is] a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from five to six carbon atoms per molecule. Heavy [is] a mixture consisting mainly of straight-chained and cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons having from seven to nine carbon atoms per molecule.

    Both of these are useful definitions, but they are incompatible with one another and the latter does not provide for mixes containing both six and seven carbon atoms per molecule. These terms are also sufficiently broad that they are not widely useful."



    23 minutes ago, Ade H said:

    For example, Abt 502 is a little stronger than AK and does not perform quite as well with OPR.

    I have no idea.  In suspect that an awful of  modelling products can be obtained far more cheaply when not sold in little packets and bottles for modellers. 

    Note, you can of course intermix those various hydrocarbons,  to obtain different blends. 


    One final point, I have used lighter fuel/oil paint washes straight over Vallejo, and it's has not affected the acrylic base coats,  and Vallejo is noted noted for being very durable.

    When dried, and it dries fast,  I have used acrylic varnish over the dried oil wash. 



    • Like 1
  12. 4 minutes ago, junglierating said:

    dunno why I didnt think of looking 

    They are not mentioned in the instructions?  Interestingly the 1/48 Airfix Spitfire I and Hurricane I kits have the same plastic in all their boxing's,   and seems now the 72nd non starter kits have all the bits too.  

    We had a chap here recently with an Airfix Lanc, he wanted one with the H2S blister, the schemes didn't have it,  but it was in the kit...   Always good to know what alternate parts are in what kit that can be used elsewhere    ......  it's 'free' aftermarket!




    • Like 4
  13. 3 hours ago, Doggy said:

    Zippo lighter fuel,

    No idea what the other is, but zippo  type lighter fuel is what I mean, usually available in pound shops.    I use it to make washes from oil paint, or to streak neat oil paint for thick oil, and as a carrier ground pastel chalk.


    these are the pastel chalk I have




    by mixing different stick you get a range of colours,  I use them for aircraft exhaust deposits as well.   

    Experiment, a mix of several colours gives quite a subtle effect. 

    For say desert sand, the far left yellow browin but then add in some of the greys and a little of the burnt umber on the right side.  


    These are cheap,  in the link they are £4.18 posted in the UK, not tried a higher quality,   but they seem OK. 

    Use  a very fine grade of abrasive, and you get a very fine dust, and a little goes a long way.  a rougher grade maybe good for ground work.



    • Like 1
  14. 6 hours ago, LorenSharp said:

    What do you get as an offspring if an Avro Lancaster and a Westland Lysander mate? druuuum rollll.... rim shot! The Westland Wendover!

    my modelling buddy @Adrian Hills did one of the in IIRC, 1/32nd, but scratchbuilt I think.  He maybe able to add some pointers or suggestions,  and if nothing else I'm sure will enjoy the build.



    • Like 1
  15. 5 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

    You would obviously have to ensure that the Vallejo bottles were 100% clean of their old contents. The paints would probably not mix well, at all. 



    Indeed.   Note, you can buy small dropper type bottles on ebay.  I presume something simialr would be available in Canada.   I did buy some Vallejo bottles off Creative, they were listed with the paint, I think they were 17p each....   not got any off ebay as yet. 


    5 hours ago, bmwh548 said:


    Gunze bottles all their thinners (including what seems to be lacquer thinner) in plastic containers. However it's most likely plastic designed to handle that type of solvent. Vallejo's bottles are designed for water based paints.

    I'd say you were overthinking this,  most plastic bottles for  chemicals are high density polyethylene,   it has a distinctive feel.   

    It's used for a lot of storage, I've seen it used for  bleach, acid descaler,  alcohols, petrol and oil containers.    In comparison Tamiya acylic is pretty. inert.

    And, it wouldn't   be hard to check what the plastic is, and what's safe for.


      if you want to check, look at the recycling arrow, 



    • Like 1
  16. 1 hour ago, junglierating said:

    Well done they are like rocking horse poo...cant even get the old 3 in 1 revell kit

    Someone on here will have done one of these as  a Mk.II , and will have the early parts in their spares box,  sorth of thing to ask for in the wanted section,  your just after the 3 blade prop and flat canopy.

    Bit of cross checking, according to this




    this kit has the additional parts for the Mk.II.VA, but also the early parts, as they are on the same tree







    which is all the plastic for an early Mk.I, and in this case, surplus.     There are decals available, or leftover from the initial boxing...



    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  17. 10 minutes ago, bmwh548 said:

    I would imagine the solvent in Tamiya (alcohol based or something like that) is far more volatile and might escape through the plastic that makes up the dropper style bottle (and it's cap). 

    I have litre bottles of isopropyl alcohol,  in what looks to be the same material as the Vallejo bottles,  some type of polyethylene.   

    So, no, should not be a problem. 


    39 minutes ago, Of Models & Monsters said:

    So i'm curious, has anyone here ever tried transferring their Tamiya paints to dropper bottles (either plastic or glass)?  I'd like to know if it would work or just instantly dry up due to a adverse reaction.

    Can't see a problem, just make  been meaning to try it, as the Tamiya paints are a limited range of colours, and have been working on mixes,  and ideally want to make up batches.

    @Stef N. comments seems sensible, as Tamiya is a bit thick out the jar.   I do notice that there is often drying or dried paint about the jar rims as well. 


    I know I have some spare Vallejo bottles,  so I'll experiment at some point.   




  18. if you right click, and  select "copy video URL at present time" 

    [EDIT, this sounds abrupt, I didn't know what it meant either, until I found out, it takes you to a specific time point in a youtube video, and is a neat little feature]

    anyway... this takes you to 34.26


    note film has been reversed


    this rang a dim bell....


    a quick google

    "cromwell tank textured rubber covering"



    "The British however did not have any Zimmerit material for testing at the time but even so conducted their own experiments into textured camouflage. One of these experiments in August 1944 involved the fitting of ribbed rubber material to the outside of the turrets of Cromwell tanks belonging to C Squadron, 2nd Northants. Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division."



    "Cromwell tanks of C Squadron, 2nd Northants, Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division with rubber material glued to turret
    As a camouflage, Zimmerit was drawing attention from Field Marshal Montgomery who expressed the need for improved camouflage. On the 21st February 1945 he remarked that “a satisfactory camouflage is required which will eliminate all shine and reflection from the armour plate. Some form of plaster like the German ‘ZIMMERIT’ should be produced and incorporated in the manufacture of all future tanks”. Stocks of captured German Zimmerit were not available until August 1945 though, and in the meantime further experiments included test applications were carried out. These experiments used a Ram Sexton Self Propelled Gun, a Churchill tank, a Cromwell tank, and the gun shield of a 25 pdr field gun."


    more pics in link, and an interesting article as well.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  19. 20 hours ago, DOD said:

    In “Airframe and Miniature No 12” it states they had a ‘blown’ canopy but I can find no other references that confirms this.

    I don't have the Spitfire books,  I do have the Hurricane book and it is, in a word, shoddy.

    Very professional looking,   but a jam packed error and omission fest. I can do 5 minutes without getting rather cross.    If this is the only source that states this, treat with caution.  


    AFAIK, the Spitfire had the initial flat sided canopy, for the very early Mk.I,  then one which was slightly blown at the top, and then a more blown hood which came in with the Mk.V, and this is the 'blown' canopy, which became the standard high back Spitfire canopy.


    For added vision, there are of course the specific PR canopies with the side blisters. 


    I'll @gingerbob as he's rather good at this kind of Spitfire detail.   

    • Like 1
  20. 10 hours ago, CharlieNZ said:

    As far as I can tell most Mossie decals sets don't appear to have the underwing roundels.

    A Mosquito sheet has the 54 inch, which is what you wanted,  the other roundels I mentioned are standard size for fighter types, and thus are easily sourceable,  and are often surplus, eg a Spitfire kit with type A and c roundels would have spares. 

    I said standard,  I forget that what is blinkin' obvious to me is not always the case. 


    I'm a great believer in knowing what can be used elsewhere, decals, leftover kit bite etc,  so was just trying to make clear that they were easy to get from other decal sheets.

    11 hours ago, CharlieNZ said:

    I still might try the masking option with the Montex masks, that will be a whole new skill to try

    @(ex)Sgtrafman  has just been using masks on his Tempest build, 


     Note, I don't know what paint you use, if using Tamiya,  you'll need to mix to get the RAF roundel colours,  



  21. 9 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

    I really dont want to order aftermarket if I can avoid it, but all the 5 spoke wheels i have are from spitfires and are smaller tyre diameter and larger spoke size....trying to think of what other 1/72 british kits i could 'liberate' some from

    The Airfix tyres are slighlty too large, try fitting them in through the well openings! 

    If you, or someone, has built an Eduard Spitfire, they all come with 3 wheel, hubs, 4 spoke/5spoke/flat,  so there are loads in spares boxes.....

    The hubs are the same,  so you can just drill out the Airfix hubs and then use those. Not sure if you have any local modeller friends, but I know we have a few NZ members on here who maybe able to send you a pair.


    If you can be faffed you could add some plastic strip to a Spitfire tyre and sand to shape.    


    If you are bothered, you also need to fill and sand flat the fabric effect behind the gun bays, this was metal.   the line runs back from the main edge of the panel, not the small side out crop part, note the change in colour between metal and fabric areas,  not sure if the fabric faded faster, or was just a matter finish and looks lighter,  but is commonly seen on early Hurricanes

    2527541716_722f54a43f_b.jpgHurricane by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr


    you can see the line here if you look carefully, and shows why this area was metal.  The pic will greatly enlarge if clicked.





    • Like 1
  22. 10 hours ago, Nikola Topalov said:

    from Malta as I find this scheme very appealing to my eye

    The Italeri profile is wrong, as a most you will find on the net.

    In depth thread here on the subject


    The Italeri kit does not have the right spinner,   and the kit spinners are horrible as well for what they are supposed to be... note this drawing from the kit



    shows the correct shape and size.... while the kit contents are, different to this.   


    I can link you to a glitch list for the Italeri kit.......


    despite what the instructions show, the escape hatch is not hinged, and was not a cockpit access door, and no wartime Hurricane ever had 3 spoke wheel hubs.

    And the upperwing roundels are in the wrong place on the decal placement guide, ( though it does show the correct layout of the spent cartridge slots)

    this shows the correct place



    Hope of use

    • Like 2
  23. 22 minutes ago, Tokyo Raider said:

    Does anyone know that the wing gun configuration was for the serials listed in the table above?  I see (in Eduard mkv kit) that you can have a Vc with twin cannons, a cannon and a faired over gun, or just single cannon...  I am sure you guys could tell from the serial number which type of c wing these had...

    No,  it was a universal wing,  so the gun fit could be changed.  The 4 cannon set up was found to be too heavy, and is very rarely seen.

    This required a wide flat bulge.

    The commonest set up was a 20mm in the inner bay, then a blanked stub and then 2x 0.303

    This usually has a slim bulge in the inner position, but  is also seen with the wide flat bulge. 

    the bulge was to the Chatellerualt cannon feed mechanism,


    The Eduard kit, if shows a single cannon, you are most likely looking at a B wing.    Very rarely was the outer stub completely removed on a C wing.  

    the B wing has bulges above and below the wing, and are a different shape and position, as the cannon was fed by a drum. 


    I linked a guide to the wing types, which will explain more.

    Page 2 here http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2 explains the above in more detail. 


    22 minutes ago, Tokyo Raider said:


    Anyone know where to find that out?

    photos of you chosen subject. 


    There is a list of Spitfire production here,  by serial, 


    which will list what variant it was.



  • Create New...