Michael louey

Hi Sten, Similar problem to the 1/48th model by the sounds of it. The stencil layout is shown here in a review on AMI: http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/pages/Rev..._Boomerang.html Hope this is the same as the 1/72 kit (I hope so as I have the same kit and haven't checked if it has a stencil instruction sheet). Regards Michael

Hi Robert, First thing - very nicely made and finished kit. The item that prompted me to comment about this was there has been a query regarding 'best' 190D kits in 1/72 by Paul in the WW2 forums. I've pasted a reply to him (which I had done a while back for another forum). It reminded me about the Academy kit. Most of the issues you've mentioned, however your photos confirmed the last item I had vague recollections about. The pitot tube on the Academy kit is on the wrong wing. I really don't know why Academy did this since they seemed to be cloning the Hasegawa kit and adding more detail. This should be an easy fix if you want to go through with it. By the way I built Romm's aircraft ages ago using the Italeri kit which includes this as one of the decal options. I painted it in the same scheme as you (overall RLM75 top colours based on narrative in a then current Bernd Barbas Aces book). These days I'd use the Japo/Eagle books and have a 2 tone scheme. Cheers Michael

Hi Paul, This question comes up every now and again. I posted a response to a similar query on the Luftwaffe Experten Message Board (LEMB) at the start of the year: Here are my opinions: I've built a number of 1/72 Doras and had a look at the alternative kits a number of times. Your most likely kit choices are: * Hasegawa. I personally have built this kit a couple of times and I think it captures the lines a bit better than the Tamiya (Personal Choice). * Academy. Looks like a clone of the Hasegawa but with a more detailed cockpit, also a lot cheaper (half price here in Aust). Down side is the missing trim tabs and fuselage stiffeners and (to me) less subtle flying surfaces. The pitot tube is on the wrong side, but this is an easy fix. I've heard getting the canopy off is a bit of a pain, but I've never had the kit so can't confirm. * Tamiya. If it is a copy of their 1/48th kit, the overall undercarriage may sit a bit low (Search Hyperscale site for a reference article on their 1/48th Dora) Just a few more notes, especially about some of the other kits - 1 - Italeri. I'd forgotten about this kit, however I have built this one in the past too (3 times in fact). In the past I thought this was the best of the then available kits (alternatives being the original tool Hasegawa, an ancient version of the Airfix kit and the caricature Lindberg kit). It does look quite nice, however talking to 1/72 Luftwaffe 'experten' modeller Glen Irvine (google his Fw190D build on Hyperscale), he mentioned its shape is quite 'off'. The main issue is the under wing shape - The real Fw190D has a 'flat' centre section for the wing underside, the Italeri has a curve (i.e. a modest version of the style of a mid wing fighter like the Buffalo). In addition, I don't think the kit has fuselage stiffeners (Something I think is distinctive in Doras) and probably more importantly the wing appears thin in section. 2. Airfix - 2nd mould. Glen says the shape is quite good, in fact he cast the rear tail wheel saying it is the best in the market (I think the other kits might be under size). In general the parts are a bit 'thick' and less refined. Also the canopy needs a lot of work to pose 'open' as the rear combing is moulded as part of the fuselage. Their is a comparison build on 'Modelling Madness'. 3. Hasegawa - There were actually 2 moulds. I've built the first a couple of times and looking back, the shape does appear a bit 'off'. I think the tail shape is wrong and the cockpit position is 'off''. The exhausts are also very 'soft'. The 2nd version is a completely new kit. I know about the incorrect wheel covers, however just leaving them off as per the Italeri is only part of the work. An engine/engine plug is also required otherwise you just have an unrealistic void. I actually fitted a Do335 engine in my Dragon Ta152c for this very reason. A lot of work for very little visible result. If another kit had equivalent shape/detail to the Hasegawa/Tamiya and with open wheel wells, I'd be quite happy to use it as a new benchmark. Other than, that I don't see any problem with the Hasegawa wings. They certainly have removed the outboard panel and cannons in the kits I have. By the way, there are a couple of other kits - I understand the AML kit is a reboxed 1st mould Hasegawa kit.. Planet have some expensive resin kits of exotic variants (e.g. Fw190D-11, D-13) I thnk they may even have a big tailed Fw190D-9. Some made up versions on Hyperscale look quite nice, however I'm not sure the nose captures the 'pugnaciousness' of a Dora. I'd reserve judgement on this though until I saw one in the flesh. Hope this helps Michael

On top of the tips about micromesh, I use a plastic polish called 'Plexus'. It comes in a spray can. I spray it into a polishing cloth (the type you buy for spectacles) and polish away. I hear there may be a similar product called Novus. I got my product at a motorcycle shop where they sell it to polish out the windscreens on motor bikes. Cheers Michael

Hi, As the others have said, the Smer kit is the Heller kit reboxed with some extra bits to make the relevant mark and some new decals. The new decals to me would be the nicest bit as they have the 'correct' sky blue codes (very hard to get in 1/72 - any decal producers listening ) I had a look at the kit at the store, but decided the decals alone weren't worth picking up another 'Heller' Mk V. I actually have/had 2 of these which I picked up for $2Aus each at a 'Reject' shop which had heaps of all the 'Series 1' boxed Heller kits. (This was a long, long time ago). The main item of use for me now is the nice Tropical filter that came with the kit as I can used these to convert Airfix Mk Vb's into RAAF Mk Vc's. Ok, down to problems: 1. As discussed, no gull wing affect. 2. No, it is not a user error, the wings have no dihedral if build OOB. They look really wrong if built this way. 3. The exhausts are 'strange' in shape. 4. The fuselage looks undernourished compared with the Airfix kit. To me item 2 is the worst of the issues. I have relegated one of my kits to an airbrush mule. The other I have given to my teenage son for simulated dogfights with the Hasegawa 109E I gave him. Cheers Michael

Hi Simon, Another late update - I noted that the other candidate aircraft was mentioned - W7756. The 462 Squadron book has this to say about it: W7756 Code letter 'K' Crashed 29 Nov 92 Stalled on landing at LG09 and crashed. DBR Gibbons. SOC 1 Jan 47 Maybe of help? Perhaps with 2 'L's in the squadron, this one was changed to 'K'? Cheers Michael

Hi Jerry, Back in the mid 80's, while on holiday in New Zealand, I bought a number of Airfix kits there. These were apparently local productions (Toltoys NZ?). One of these kits was the 2nd Airfix Westland Whirlwind and my memory is that it was moulded in green. Cheers Michael

Hi, Back home now with the references. 'To See the Dawn Again' does have an extensive listing of the Mk II Halifaxes in use with 462 Squadron with many, but not all, associated with one or more Squadron codes. It appears that except for a few early examples still in 10 Squadron codes, they have single letter codes. The only aircraft listed with code letter 'L' is W7702 which is noted to have used the codes 'L' and 'E'. It crashed at El Adem on landing on 16 Jan 44 after abandoning ops. In the book, the early Mk II's inherited from 10 and 76 Squadron still have the nose and mid upper turrets though the photos are taken in North Africa - One example is W7717 ZA-J for which a photo is supplied showing a desert background (Note: This aircraft had already been taken on charge with 462 Squadron). It is noted that within months, all the aircraft had had the front and mid upper turrets removed due to the lower fighter opposition in the theatre. Later the rear gun turret was reduced from 4 to 2 guns for similar reasons. The list of codes does not include DT681. Hope this helps. Cheers Michael

Hi Simon, A history of 462 Squadron RAAF has been published here in Australia. The book is called 'To See the Dawn Again' by Mark Lax. I'll have a look in my copy and see if I can see anything of interest. Cheers Michael

Hi Paul, Another option is the old Hasegawa Mk 1 kit. It contained optional parts for an early Spitfire with the 2 bladed wooden prop and the flat style canopy. It would be questionable how good the fit of the canopy would be though. Cheers Michael

Hi Tim, Tried to look up my Beaufighter books for more photos or detail of 'Marge'. Other than basic details, there was not much more than in this thread. If you want to get in touch with Peter, try the Aussie Modeller forum here: http://forum.aussiemodeller.com.au/ Best of Luck Michael

Hi Danuleson, There are photos of 618 Sqdn Mosquitos in David Vincent's book 'Mosquito Monograph'. I'll look it up tonight. Not sure how I'll get copies to you as i am a duffer with the scanner. Might have to wait for my son to show me how to scan them and send to you. Cheers Michael

Hi Steve, As Manuel says, the Fine Molds kit is tbe best F in 1/72. I have the kit with Marseille markings (The supply at least 3 of his planes from memory!). Glen Porter also recommends the AModel F which he thinks is nearly as good (may be a bit more 'Flashy') and is a lot cheaper. I think he did a review on Hyperscale so do a search for the review. He has a built up model on the new 72nd Scale Aircraft modelling forum. The advantage of the Fine Molds kit would be that you wouldn't need to buy aftermarket decals. Cheers Michael

Hi Seahawk, Thanks very much for your opinion. As per the Monkees Song, all we have to worry about is 'Shades of Grey' I'll mull over it over the next month or so as the model gets closer to completion. It may also be limited to what decals I have in the stash. I am now leaning to modelling this aircraft due to the very dubious multiple codings of PZ-V in all the other lists and as i said, I like modelling aircraft based on photos rather than documents. I will probably use the serial of a plane transferred to 256 squadron as JT-H and hope they kept the same aircraft code. Cheers Michael

Hello Seahawk (and others with a copy of Turret Fighters), I finally managed to get a copy of the page in 'Turret Fighters' with the 456 Squadron Defiant (page 110). Looking at the codes, they appear a lot darker than other instances where sky grey codes are used (e.g 256 Sqdn aircraft such as JT-T, the Airfix machine from the Ducimus Camouflage & Markins on the Defiant) and the colours look a lot lighter - nearly white. From your viewing of the 1st gen copy in the book, any ideas about the exact colour? Is it just 'dirty' sky grey, medium sea grey as on bombers, or red? I've discussed this by Ed Russell and he thinks they are not red as they don't match the roundel colour. Perhaps the codes have been stained by exhaust (or rubbing of the sooty RDM2A finish? Cheers Michael

Hi Guys, Thanks for all the banter. Just for interest, 456 Squadron definitely used the SA code for a brief time. The book 'Fighter Nights' shows 2 photos of Beaufighter Mk II's with this code with serials. The Turret Fighters picture of the Defiant 1 definitely was a SA code and the caption said it was 456 Sqaudron. There are also photos from 'Fighter Nights' with Beaufighter II's with RX codes so the transition must have occurred during the time they operated this type and before they transitioned onto Beaufighter VI's. Cheers Michael

Hi Seahawk, Thank you for all your investigations. Relating to the serial/Code tie ups, it is confusing isn't it. In the book 'Fighter Nights' by John Bennett, there are quite a few Defiant serials listed however only 2 have Code letters supplied. These are N3477 PZ-V and T3940 also PZ-V. N1706 is listed as a 456 Squadron aircraft however it has no code associated. I prefer to model aircraft with at least one photo existant such as the one in Turret Fighters, but I would also like to have a 'real' serial rather than guesswork. Based on this I am leaning to doing N3477 as at least I have the whole serial/code listing and it seems to be consistent over more than 1 reference. I my opt for grey codes as if SA-H had them, it is likely earlier aircraft such as PZ-V would too. Cheers Michael

Hi, I have just finished off one of my projects and am starting to decide on the next one... One of the possibilities is the MPM BP Defiant 1. I want to build it in the colours of 456 Squadron RAAF, however there are a couple of questions - The only photo I have ever seen of a 456 Sqd Defiant was in the book 'The Turret Fighters' showing a plane marked SA-H. Unfortunately the serial is not shown nor is it mentioned in the text while I quickly skimmed it at the book shop. Does anyone have further details of this aircraft? The codes looked grey in the photo (It would be nice if anyone had a copy of this photo that they can post!). I have a number of possible aircraft with serial details and code letters taken from the book on 456 Squadon 'Fighter Nights' however if I chose these aircraft I am not sure what colour codes the aircraft would have had (red or grey?). The codes are all in the earlier PZ series of codes. Was there any guidelines as to when the codes changed from red to grey or vice versa? Thanks Michael

Hi Johnny, I think it all depends on the country of manufacter - I'm pretty sure the USA used primers, however Ken Merrick/Michael Ullman in their Luftwaffe Camouflage & Markings books notes that one of the German paint manufactureres (I think Warneke & Bohm) had patented a new single coat paint (Ikarol?) which did not need a primer. This would reduce manpower and weight and I think it was used on Geman WW2 aircraft. Not sure if they still needed primer on non metal surfaces without re reading the books. Cheers Michael

Hi Paul, I have just finished combining the ICM and Tamiya kits to build a BoB aircraft. I agree with the comments already made by others regarding these 2 kits. The only other point worth noting is that I think the Tamiya canopy appears a lot clearer than the ICM items. I used the Tamiya item with the ICM fuselage. If you didn't want to get a Tamiya as well as an ICM, I think the Falcon vac form canopies would fit the ICM (as they are designed for the Tamiya). Eventually I'll post photos of my model (especially to give some feedback to the guys who helped me with the research about a year ago) when I find time to set up the photo gear. I do plan to use up the 'left over' bits and build the rest of the ICM kit with the Tamiya fuselage knowing it is slightly short. Best Wishes for your project. Cheers Michael

Hi Simon, If you don't mind working with 'Short Run' kits, you might try the High Planes kits made here in Australia. Web site - http://www.hiplanes.com/new/intropage.htm Note: kits are 1/72 They make Mk II and Mk III Seafires in various markings. Probably a bit more expensive than Airfix but over here they are similar in price to a similar size Pavla/Special Hobby kit. I believe there shape is better than the Pavla/Octopus maybe without as much 'detail' internally but the surface detail of High Planes is always very good. I have their Mk Vc and it is a very nice kit albeit with a bit of real modelling involved. Edit: I have changed the reference to the other 1/72 kit from Special Hobby to Pavla/Octopus. After thinking over, I think Special Hobby only make a 1/48 Seafire. I'm pretty sure Pavla/Octopus did one and some online reviews mentioned shape issues (gull wing effect perhaps). You may search up the UK stockists to see who has it locally, otherwise you can order from High Planes direct. Cheers Michael

Hi, There was a detailed response in AMI (Aussie Modeller International) a while ago about the RAAF PRU buffalos (with diagrams) - See this link http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thre...thers+-+did+the If the link doesn't work, just search PRU Buffalo Regards Michael

Hi Adrian, I'm not great at Chemistry, but here in Australia our hardware stores sell both White Spirits and Enamel Thinners. I have used both, Xtracolour recommends White Spirits as a thinner so I used to use that only with that range of paints however due to slow drying (a common issue with Xtracolour) I switched to the Xtracolour thinners and haven't looked back (now dries in 1 day). I still have issues with some xtracolour paints regarding their coverage though. As for primers, I paint exclusively with enamel paints so an 'acrylic' primer would be a no-no for me due to paint compatibility issues (never paint an enamel over an acrylic). Cheers Michael

Hi Adrian, I used this as my sole primer for ages however on my last project that I used it on I had the same problem (I used a generic enamel thinner, not white spirit though). After it stayed 'tacky' for about a week I bought a new bottle and resprayed and this fixed things up. I have read on ARC that someone else had the problem so I have suspicions there has been a 'dodgy' batch out there. In any case, after rave write ups about Tamiya Spray can primers (white and grey), I switched over to these on the next project. I must admit the white has limited use as it can show through very starkly when the top coat scuffs of at edges however the grey primer is still fine enough grain so I am using that for the last 2/3 projects. I was a bit doubtful about the lack of control of a spray can but they spray well and saves a lot of set up/clean up with the airbrush. I still have some MM primer but I ditched the dodgy bottle. You could try another bottle and use enamel thnners on a test kit or try your current primer with enamel thinners. Cheers Michael

Hi Clive, Just a quick reply as I'm not at home and don't have my references with me. I have just been using 'spare parts' from a junked Dragon Ta 152C to improve a Fw190C prototype kit. A few comments - Undercarriage Legs - They do look the same as far as I'm concerned so I swapped them. Retraction Jacks - These are definitely different between a Fw190 and a Ta 152. The 190 had electrical retraction, the 152 had hydraulic, the retraction jacks are quite different and attach at different points within the wing - you'll need to search up some photos/plans to see what I mean. Wheels - The ones from the Dragon 152 kit and my MPM 190 kit look quite different. I'd do a bit more of research before considering swapping them. I kept my 190 wheels for my kit rather than using the 152 wheels. For an inspirational build have a look here - http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/ta152hgi_1.htm Glen is a really great modeller, but I don't think the majority of us would go to such extremes to 'correct' a kit. Glen completely rebuilt the wheels. Personally I'd build the Aoshima kit these days - there are some reviews of it on the web. The Dragon kit would be a 2nd choice is a more complicated build (e.g. photo etch that takes a bit of effort to fit and a weird reversed tail wheel.) Cheers Michael