Jump to content

MarkoZG

Members
  • Posts

    541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Croatia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,208 profile views

MarkoZG's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)

202

Reputation

  1. Thanks Markus. However, how do you plan to reconstruct the markings if you don't know what was from the fuselage cross to the tail in terms of markings? Also, which version should this Fw 190 be?
  2. Do you have any other photos of your grandfather's machine? Especially those that would help determine the version and markings? These intakes and the eagle insignia make his plane a very interesting modeling subject.
  3. This is exactly what I wrote. I know about this photo and it doesn't show this machine with 97-2 markings and again MM is not readable. Also, the photo doesn't have the yellow nose like in decal sheet.
  4. This particular machine MM.7712, "97-2." is quite elusive as I never found a photo of it no matter how much I tried. There are some alleged photos but none of them with readable Matricola Militare. I also never found a photo of C.202 from the boxart of Supermodel kit. Machines from Cavallino Rampante unit have almost non-discernable numbers on the fuselage and MM is hard to read. If anyone could help with a credible photo of 97-2 or 97-4, I would be very grateful.
  5. The SH kit is basically Academy kit with additional clear and resin parts. However, the propeller hasn't been adressed by SH although it looks toy like. The blades are not such a problem , but the hub is. It is so basic and simple that it can't be made any worse than it is. Strange move from Academy in the first place and completely ignored by SH in the second. Heller and Airfix Texan/Harvard kits are of no help here either (Academy looks mostly like engraved Heller kit). If, according to Geoffrey's post above, the Kingfisher used the same propeller, no help could be found here either as neither Revell, Airfix or Pavla/AZ offerings provide anything good. I wonder if there is any aftermarket solution in this scale?
  6. Hi guys, can anyone suggest a realistic and accurate propeller in 1/72nd scale to replace the toy-like one in Academy kit? Thanks.
  7. Whatever they do, let's just hope its surface detailing will be on the level of their Yak-1, not Ki-84. Whatever they wrote about their Ki-84 seems hard to buy, like pure propaganda.
  8. That was a typo which you correctly noticed - would not.
  9. I noticed that HPM already advertises Catalina sets under their brand. Are these the same as the ones this thread is about?
  10. Given the past records of both Kagero and MMP, I wouldn't take their drawings as too reliable for determining the accuracy of any kit.
  11. So we are still waiting for the answer about the most accurate Hs 123. This is especially interesting because Fly and Avis kit differ one from each other in many shape aspects.
  12. Hi Alain, what a great collection! What caught my eye are two special versions shown on the 4th photo from top, which you explained as: "The darker one with more exaus pipes is "Black Bess" modified Buffalo from 243 Sq RAF Kallang, Singapore for night defense december 1941. The one just on the right is another modified one without armement for PRU duties 67 Sq RAF Mingaladon Burma also in december 41." I would like to ask you if you could share with us which references you used to recreate these interesting versions and especially if there are any photos of them which you could share? Thanks. Marko
  13. There are 3 injection molded Val kits in 1/72nd scale. The first one is the Airfix which has recently also been sold under Polish ZTS brand. I don't have this kit so can't comment on its vices/virtues. Then came Fujimi, covering both A1 and A2 versions. Excellent kit but lacking interior and some other details. The latest one is from Dragon/DML in two boxings, but both only A1 version. This kit has most details but falls short in some other aspects like the canopy. To summarize, I think the best choice would be Fujimi due to more correct overall shape, lower price and somewhat better availability.
  14. The reason is simple and obvious and I am sure that anyone with professional knowledge of optics, lenses and photography could give you much better explanation. Simple drawing over the photos is childish understanding of perspective and this is just what he does. I have been following his work long before he became famous and even contacted him and discussed his methods. For him this is "good enough" and I am fine with that as long as it is only for him. Problem arises when other people start using him and his work as relevant reference because they lack the above mentioned knowledge and/or information. This is just one and most visible issue of using his work for anything serious, but there are many more to that. I really don't have the time to elaborate it in detail you can see everything on his pages. Just don't get blinded by nice finish and professionally looking drawings, this is (and never was) a guarantee of accuracy. For the proper method of translating photos to accurate drawings, I suggest you to look at French sites (Patrouille Simple for example) and see how should it be properly done.
×
×
  • Create New...