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. :)

Patrik

Members
  • Content Count

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,462 Excellent

About Patrik

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bilovice nad Svitavou, Czech Republic
  • Interests
    Interwar RAF and FAA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,133 profile views
  1. Not much modelling time since last weekend and I am afraid it is not going to be improved next two weeks or so. Nevertheless, I managed to remove/correct the superfluous panel lines on the port side and add the missing ones on the starboard one.
  2. Hi, found the scanned plans still on my laptop. Send me a PM with your email address. The plans are for Skoda D.1. Patrik
  3. Some heavier work done before switching to the interior. The bomber/observer hatch would have been fine for the bomber/army-cooperation versions. As the underside of the fighter versions looked rather different, I filled in the hatch and the cutout for its sliding cover with plastic sheets. I will smooth out the section later, after I join the fuselage halves. And I have scratchbuild the bulkhead behind the pilot too.
  4. No harm done, I enjoyed the research.
  5. I used the Air-Britain's K-File as the primary reference to the Turret Demon s/n. Therefore I wrote that only No. 23, No. 29 and No. 64 were safe bet. For the rest, unless I see some hard photographic evidence, I am of the same opinion as you, Graham. The Auxiliaries' Demons are quite well documented with photography and there is not a single Turret Demon photo among them. Though some of the Turret Demon s/n are listed among the airplanes in service with various Auxiliary Squadrons.
  6. Intriguing question which led me to a research which occupied my afternoon today. The photographic evidence of the Turret Demon in service seems to be as rare as ... something very rare. I hunted my reference library for the photos, and found just 13 confirmed s/n from the Squadron service, including K 4496 depicted in AAEE after modification to Turret Demon, but still with No. 604 badge on the fin. Compare with 75 s/n, I was able to identify for the standard Demon in the same references. According to K-file, only 63 of the 238 (including the six Hart Fighters, excluding the venerable J 9933 prototype) Demons delivered to the RAF were either build or modified with the turret. And they served in substantial numbers only in three Service Squadrons, No. 23, No. 29 and No. 64. So the answer is yes, they saw some service, some of them even after the Munich Crisis, however, compared to the standard Demon, which saw service with at least seven regular squadrons, plus five more auxiliaries, it is rather rare bird.
  7. Guys, thanks for the comments and links. However, let us please keep this thread for the Turret Demon.
  8. Started by cleaning up the fuselage halves and modifying the rear cockpit, The bulkhead behind the pilot needs serious reconstruction, so I removed it first. Nasty fit. But, in fact, something I enjoy as a kind of masochistic handiwork therapy .
  9. Here she is. J 8 s/n 233 of F 8 tested on skis in winter 1937/38. The build thread is here. I used Eduard PE parts (mainly for the interior) and Eduard cockpit canopy masks. Both were of great help. Moreover, the utilization of the PE parts was almost 100 %. Brush painted with Humbrol, Model Master and Revell enamels. The decals by SBS Model were an absolute delight to work with, including the numerous perfectly readable stencils in Swedish, where e.g. LYFT HÄR looks like adopted directly from a Monty Python’s Vikings’ sketch (no offence meant, my dear Swedish comrades). Without rigging as usual. Some may consider the scheme dull, but I think you cannot deny her certain monochromatic charm. It was the fastest build in years for me. The kit engineering is clever, similar to the old Matchbox biplanes, and I would not hesitate recommending the Airfix Gladiator as the first kit for a biplane novice. Usually, with the type of kits I build, I do not feel like building the same one again soon, especially after the ordeal I had been through (more often than not). Here, I think, I will build another of the little gems soon. I am particularly proud that I managed assembling the tiny s/n below the fin, as I had to combine 231 and 235 into 233, and the numbers are in fact less than 1 mm high. However, the quality of the decals helped a lot. Eventually, compare with the Matchbox Gladiator I built almost exactly 20 years ago as my very first kit after emerging from the Dark Age. The Matchbox does not look bad at all on the shelf, but it shows its age, and the direct comparison reveals evident shape issues, especially around the cockpit, including the cockpit canopy as such. One more reason to build another Airfix soon.
  10. Completely forgot about this one, thanks for reminding me @JWM. I have the Avis DH.60X floatplane boxing in my stash, I suppose the floats would be the same. They are quite nice in fact, just around 16' long.
  11. They would be too massive for the Rota, I am afraid.
  12. Kora makes (rather crude) resin conversion for Tiger Moth on floats. The floats are some 16'3'' long - see the photos below. A/Z floats in their Queen Bee kit are 16'10''. Both in 1/72.
  13. I am sorry, John, you may have misunderstood my questions, I apologize for not expressing myself clearly. I am convinced that the frames differed between the in-line and radial versions. The question was, if it would be safe to assume that the frames of e.g. Swedish Hart and Persian Hind were identical, Patrik
×
×
  • Create New...