Jump to content


Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chuck1945

  1. Wow, I’ve seen the photo before, but never paid particular attention to it beyond noting the well faded camouflage. The linked photo attributes it to the 313 TCG, I was assigned with its successor, the 313 TAW that was flying C-130Es 1972-73 when it was disbanded.
  2. As it turns out, the Tamiya B.IV kit the alternate wing tips intended for use with the FB.VI have the RESIN stubs so I’m going with those. Thanks for mod reference.
  3. It isn’t so much concern about a rather small detail,(RESIN lights), but what I’m hoping to avoid is fitting any more itty-bitty clear part wingtip lights as possible. I ended using UV curing clear resin for Beaufort lights when I botched the kit parts. Since the Tamiya kit radiator area matches Airfix’s and was not considered a goof on Airfix’s part, I’m calling that good and have already addressed the fin/rudder.
  4. I started a Mosquito project a little over a year ago when I was able to get the the Airfix B.XVI. I proceeded to make a couple of major blunders with the fuselage so scrapped that plan and decided since the wing/engine parts had assembled without difficulties, I could graft those onto a Tamiya B.IV to produce an early B.IX without the bulged bay. The entire project was subsequently set aside when my interest switched to different projects. Those got finished and I returned to the Mossie, finishing all the camo painting last week. Since the Airfix wings would slide onto at least the forward spars of the Tamiya kit, I had left them off to make painting easier. Then disaster struck once again as one of the exhaust assemblies dislodged itself into the nacelle. Now attempting once more to salvage something from this, I decided since I still had the entire Tamiya kit, I would simply finish it as a B.IV. This leads to my question, any idea when the rear wing tip formation light was removed and the RESIN light was added to the trailing edge? The recent Wing Leader publication points out this change on a photo of DZ599 taken in May 1943. My likely subjects are Oboe equipped and probably in the DK and DZ serial ranges
  5. I’m not sure about false advertising, they do need to be soaked in water like traditional decals to release from the backing, Quinta also needs a water soaking to release. Perhaps it is not so much false advertising as it is a case of not yet finding an appropriate name for that type of product?
  6. I’ve used KW decals a couple of times, while not commenting on accuracy, the decals themselves were well behaved. Likewise I have used their 3D printed decal seatbelts (Quinta hasn’t done much in 1/72 for kits in which I’m interested) and those were ‘ok’. I liked Eduard’s’ Super Fabric better. I do have some of the KW 3D instrument panel sets but have not yet used any of those.
  7. Yes, click on the pictures and they become full screen
  8. According to Dana’s monograph on WWII OD, even though ANA 613 had been established as the ‘standard’ color by 1943, the Material Division of the USAAF kept OD 41 as long as camo was required on new aircraft, supposedly even telling paint producers to put ANA 613 labels on OD 41 if anyone insisted on getting 613.
  9. As I remember Dana Bell’s writing, the USAAF pretty much stuck with OD 41 although there could be quite a bit of variability in actual paint applied especially when exposed to the elements. I’ve seen pictures of C-47 aircraft that looked almost a light tan.
  10. For added ‘insurance’ against bleeding, you could also spray a second coat of white after marking the X, this will result in white bleeding under the tape and also finishing the seal before you apply black
  11. Suggestion for adding the light: just drill an indentation rather than a hole, then use either one of the chrome marking pens (https://www.amazon.com/Molotow-ONE4ALL-Acrylic-Marker-703-103/dp/B01E7EGARQ/ref=asc_df_B01E7EGARQ/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198060274994&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16290434221587015321&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9033713&hvtargid=pla-393676528541&psc=1) or paint in the depression, add a drop of UV curing resin and top it off with Tamiya (or other brand) clear yellow.
  12. It is currently packed away, but when I researching potential SEAC RAF Thunderbolts, I don’t recall any mention of rockets in Geoff Thomas’ book; bombs and drop tanks yes, rockets no.
  13. Years ago Monogram did a B-26 as a Snap-Tite kit, it is a reasonably accurate early B-26, assuming of course one can be found today. The early model not only had a different rear gun position, but also a shorter tail fin and shorter wing span. I don’t have the Valom kit, but from what I’ve read it has some serious shape issues such as a fuselage that is more oval than round.
  14. I can’t add anything particularly helpful. I recognize the names and I built a vac Ta 154 from a Wings 72 kit in the late 80s. My memory is separate firms but some similar subject.
  15. Skip the copper completely. Paint the ring steel or aluminum (burnt metal is even better if your favorite paints have that) first then use layers of clear orange, red, blue or even yellow to get the end result.
  16. IIRC, the pre-war “yellow wing” era in USN aviation used an orange-yellow rather similar to that Hellcat drone. Perhaps the same pre-war color was used on your drone
  17. That 109 box really irritated me at the time. I had built the kit previously in an earlier boxing (original 1953 edition) when I was eight years old. By the time the kit appeared in the new box (1960 according to Scalemates) I knew enough to recognize the box depicted a 109G and was rather disgruntled to spend my hard earned lawn mowing funds only to discover it was the same old kit inside!
  18. My thought would be to sand away the raised details and use the decal, saves the worry of getting the decal instruments aligned with the raised detail. After suggesting that course of action I must also confess to usually applying the decal over the raised details and using a softening solution to settle the decal into place. Never know until it has dried if the alignment had been correct though. On the other hand, unless there is an open canopy and a viewer with a penlight and magnifier, you can’t tell anyway
  19. I have a PRU Pink color chip via Edgar from several years ago. What Ed and Bruce suggest is good. The mix needs to look like white with a pinkish cast viewed next to white. If it looks pinkish on its own, you’ve probably added too much red.
  20. Don’t you hate it when real world gets in the way of fun stuff
  21. It’s only in the last 3-4 years that I have bought two sets of metric drill bits ranging 0.01-2.0mm. Before that for 40+ years it was a loose assortment of various AWG sized bits kept in an old 35mm film container. Just sort through them to find the size needed
  22. I’m 99.99% a 1/72 aircraft modeler, but I do have the Vespid Comet I and just completed the IBG Pz.Kpfw III Ausf. A This could well tempt me into the larger scale.
  23. I really do like the models with a story behind them. I didn’t get the Arma FM-1 & FM-2 double kit but when I saw your picture with the scribing template to do the ammo box doors… Anyway, all I wanted to do is point out that except perhaps for some British specific details, the FM-1 and Wildcat V are the same airframe. The conversion you had accomplish was due to Arma putting the F4F-4 kit in a different box with new decals and calling it an FM-1
  24. Very nice Ed. Always nice to have a story along with the model. The FM-1/Wildcat V was only equipped with 2x.50 guns per wing, if Arma did 3/wing, the kit had F4F-4 wings rather than FM-1 wings. The USN aviators bitterly objected to the -4s switch to 6 guns since it reduced the actual engagement time because of less ammo/gun. When production switched to General Motors, the reduction in armament (along with an increase in ammo per gun) was part of the changeover to FM-1.
  • Create New...