Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

MarkoZG

Members
  • Content Count

    426
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

About MarkoZG

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Croatia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,452 profile views
  1. Excellent job and marvelous piece of engineering and advance planning. It is so rare to see the building process of a huge kit which is not from injected plastic and needs special solutions for its technological vices. Thank you so much for this one! Out of the pure curiosity, can you tell us what is the final weight of your model? Thanks.
  2. Do 23 was announced by Mars models, not Bat project.
  3. Airbrakes are there and this is another mislabeled photo. If you look at the shape of canopy under the cover, it has usual downward slope to the rear, unlike the drawings of alleged H version where the upper contour starts with slope, but then continues straight in paralel to the datum line till the rear end.
  4. Thanks, but those things mentioned in this reports aren't Stuka subversions, so H mentioned in the report doesn't refer to H subversion. That is quite obvious from other suffixes as there were for sure no such things as B-6, A-3, C-3, C-4 and H-6 (this one caused misinterpretation).
  5. For many years, each publication about Stuka mentions trainer versions in H series, with subversions in similar division to D series. Many of these publications further support it with side drawings showing different rear part of canopy. However it seems that so far no photo of this version is known to exist, so I am not sure if H version was ever actually built or it just remained a project that never left a drawing board. After all, even the most obscure trainers used by Luftwaffe are well documented with photos, so there should be no reason not to have any photo of trainer Stuka. I would appreciate to hear your opinion on this. Thanks. Marko
  6. I saw most of the early pre/re-views of new La-5 kits and noticed grossly overlooked facts regarding Clear Prop's product. Everyone seem to be fascinated by their technology, but it seems that few people have "the eye" to judge the kit's shape. Only most recent posts adressed this finally. Despite promising CADs, Clear Prop made a huge miss with final product. The canopy is most obvious fault, being to tall and disrupting the first impression, but if you look better, you will see there is something wrong with the entire airframe. This model looks like someone tried to make a joke out of La-5, like a caricature. There is something very wrong with many other proportions on this kit. I do not underestimate the top technology this kit was made with and very fine and detailed small parts that look as if they raised the bar for 1/72nd scale, but if you want a faithful replica of La-5, then all of these advantages do not suffice.
  7. Well that is pretty bold and interesting claim, which might not belong here. What makes me even more suspicious is that browser blocks IRMA's page from opening due to threat. Based on that and photos provided here, my 5 cents are at VSV-Product
  8. Why? He is very relaxed and Bf 109 doesn't show any intention of attacking him. Combined with the title this is totally idyllic. Boxart doesn't claim to portrait post September 1939 scene
  9. Unfortunately not That was one of the threads search function found and I saw it but this is not what I remember. There is only one post in your thread remotely mentioning frontal glazing, while I remember more extensive description supported with comparative photos of Airfix' CADs and real things. Also the Stuka should be included in the same discussion. Thanks anyway.
  10. Hi guys, not sure if this fits here, so please accept my appologize if I am wrong. I used search function in vain while trying to locate a post (or posts) from the time when Airfix was releasing their new Whitley and Stuka kits in 1/72nd scale. If I remember well, it was in Rumourmonger subforum, but I am not sure. The post (or more of them) was about small inaccuracies of both kits where the poster pointed to 3D CADs Airfix published and immediately noticed discrepancies in Whitley's lower nose glazing as well as a part under the side of Stuka's windshield. Can you help me locate these posts please? Thank you!
  11. Despite the tempting range, one must emphasize these are drape molded vacuforms (male molds) - the method which prevents any surface details, unlike the cavity molded vacuformes we all are more used to. Furthermore, these kits do not include any decals and unlike original Execuforms from the previous century, current Herril kits do not have any injected parts. The biggest minus of current Herril kits is also complete lack of any clear parts as well as all minor parts. This means you only got VERY basic shapes without any surface details and even soft edges and that is all! Now having all of this in mind take another look at these prices. They are roughly comparable to much more refined kits of similar sized planes.
×
×
  • Create New...