Chuck1945

2 Group had at least two Ventura squadrons

Just an aside here, iirc the Il-2 in its various configurations was produced in more numbers than any other WWII aircraft so it isn't too surprising that there have been various editions of Il-2 kits. What is perhaps more surprising is that there haven't been more, especially considering the number of different kits produced of the second most produced WWII aircraft.

Heyford - Matchbox/Revell Harrow - Contrail vac iirc

The Italeri kit was originally Accurate Minatures and is quite good. Monogram did an Avenger around 1959-61, it featured folding wings and retractable landing gear as I vaguely recall and is on the schedule for re-release by Revell in 2012 as a classic kit. When I originally built the Monogram kit it was one of those 'since the plastic is already blue, why bother to paint it' kits

Perhaps the best single web site is Lynn Ritger's 109 Lair. A couple of the links on the front page didnt work for me (database), but there are several drawings of the G-10 and K-4 available there as well as walkarounds, etc of various Messerschmitts.

Cant help with specific MPM/SH Blenheim IV issues, but I did build their Blenheim I several years ago. IIRC the interior bulkheads needed some reduction in width to fit, but then I didn't discover till it was too late that, as Graham noted, the fuselage isn't quite wide enough for the front canopy parts to fit properly. The Blenheim I was definitely buildable and probably less effort than I expended many, many years ago using the Frog Blenheim I fuselage with Airfix's Blenheim IV nose to make a 'better' Blenheim IV. I dont recall any specifics, but supposedly the Airfix fuselage had some shape issues and Frog had done a better job of it.

Steve and Dave, Well said. I think all of us at or beyond a 'certain age' started that way. I still remember the Aurora P-40 I built the night the before a family trip in the early 1950s. Slapped it together with copious quantities of tube glue, probably had the landing gear wrong way around and proudly took it with me when we departed. The first sharp turn we made (less than a mile from home) it went skidding across the rear window deck, collided with the side and lost gear and probably prop. In the late 50s we must have purchased an appliance of some sort because I can remember having the double thickness cardboard box flattened as a backstop on the far side of the basement, in front of which I would dangle models that had become 'surplus to requirements' and work on my BB gun accuracy. Now we decry some models as being toylike, but in our youth, that is truely what the models were, our toys. Before I gave up model building for girls and a drivers license, one of the high points on my eventual evolution as a builder was finishing the Monogram A6M Zero without having any finger prints in paint. By the time I had kids of my own, modelling had become a serious hobby. My boys each spent time sitting on my lap as I assembled something trying to work around the small shape perched between myself and the work bench. Unfortuantely, I suspect this actualy worked against any of them becoming modellers since they missed the early 'models are toys' stages we went through and began their solo building efforts at least sub conciously expecting to get 'results like Dad'. Since they had missed seeing the 'fun' we had as we acquired our skills, they were disappointed and didn't stick with it. These days, while I try to use appropriate colors and prefer models that are essentially accurate in shape (or at least 'close enough'), I also remember that this is a hobby and it is supposed to be fun. When it isn't, it is time to step back, take a deep cleansing breath (or two) and remind myself that I am doing this for the enjoyment of recreating some object that has at least passing historical significance.

no doubt your effort is what helped bring the Revell kit to fruition

Search Hannants for Falcon, they do vac canopies, both WWII and modern. Not sure if they ever did a A-1 Skyraider though. I couldn't find it any of the sets Squadron had, but they also appeared to be missing some - also Squadron has packaged individual canopies from the Falcon range.

Methinks the observers had more fun than the movers

Now if Tamiya would scale down their 1/48 P-51B/C ... In the absence of that however, the choice is between Revell and Academy. I liked the Revell kit when it was released because it had a much closer to correct wing then the older Hasegawa 'B'. Academy does provide two tails to allow either with or without the vertical tail forward extension but this results in a potential join flurb. Neither kit gets the wing quite right, but both are better than Hasegawa's. While I have multiples of both kits, the one I would build first is the Academy version.

tell me about it ... not Halis in my case but the stockpile of Hasegawa Ju 88A-4 kits now that Revell is releasing one. At least I did get mine either direct from HLJ or via various Sprue Bros sales so the pocketbook hit wasn't as bad as it could have been. Not that the Hasegawa kit is bad, but more that I accumulated all the kits 'just because' and have yet to actually complete one (although two are in process).

FWIW, those paint designations (H3, H54, etc) are probably Gunze colours (gawd, I'm slippin', used the Brit spelling for color )

Continuing the 1/72 Spitfire discussion, the AZ Spitfires are at least as well detailed as the Tamiya Mk I and Vb and quite accurate, shapewise, with very fine engraved panel lines. That said, after building one (the AZ Spitfire II) as well as the new-tool Airfix Spitfire I, I would pick Airfix in a heartbeat if I wanted a Spitfire I/II. It (Airfix) may be simplified (landing gear/doors) and have heavy engraving, but it is much easier to build than the AZ kit. The Tamiya Spitfire I (and Vb) are nice, and while I am hard pressed to see the shape discrepencies, I will still choose Airfix, (again for the I/II) partly due to price differences but also the slightly improved shape of Airfix over Tamiya.

Funny you should say that ... At the IPMS/USA National Convention in 2009 I ran into an old friend from years ago. He had a model of an early Grumman ASW aircraft (don't recall the designation) that was based on a short run kit but was largely scratchbuilt. While we were chatting, a fellow came along, admired the model and said he had crewed on one back in the 50s and proceeded to comment on a detail or two that seemed wrong ...

I remember converting the Airfix He 111H-20 back to a BoB version back in the very late 60s and wishing there was a decent kit of the earlier H or P series. These days a new H-20 would be nice

I was thinking more of just cutting back and reshaping the Airfix nacelles - guess I need to start one to see if that is feasible

What the others said If, however, you are really determined to make a Ventura via conversion, a Harpoon (also done by MPM/SH) is a better starting point than a Hudson, at least the fuselage and central portion of the wings are the same

As a fairly devout 1/72 builder, I dont always pay attention to 1/48 releases (the new Airfix Spit XII and Seafire XVII being notable exceptions) and was unaware Revell did a 1/48 Mossie, other than perhaps re-releasing the ancient Monogram Mosquito from the very early 60s. If this is a new kit, it sure slipped past me.

Jes, Regarding the Airfix nacelles, did you consider reshaping them? Since I have a couple of the new Airfix kits, I am interested in any thoughts you may have since it looks as though the effort in fitting the Monogram wing uppers and splicing in the wing root would have been at least as challenging as reshaping the Airfix nacelles.

I just received an advert from Amazon regarding a new book on the BPF. Any recommendations or comments - is it worth getting?

too bad overseas shipping isnt an option ... It would be a wonderful companion mug to go with this one

The ICM series of Do 215 kits is 1/72, the Revell is mentioned as 1/48 ... although it is possible the '1/48' is a typo and at one time Revell was considering a rebox deal with ICM

Steve, Sorry if you took offense, I know my comment was not directed at you - I was commenting on the flak Nic got when he posted some observations and findings.

ditto While I am not a particular fan of modeling Japanese aircraft, I do have a couple stashed away "just in case". So learning more about the colors is never a bad thing as far as I am concerned.