Jump to content

Seawinder

Members
  • Posts

    1,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Seawinder

  • Birthday 06/03/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Lincoln, MA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,106 profile views

Seawinder's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

746

Reputation

  1. Seawinder

    A good mitchell

    Thanks for the support, Paul. I built a Monogram B-25J back in the late 1980s. Its kit landing gear parts are still supporting the model quite well, but the main landing gear, which was inclined to splay outward somewhat (engineering issue, I think), has splayed out more over the years. If/when I build the Monogram H in my stash, I will probably try to do something to get the main gear more vertical and therefore, hopefully, more stable.
  2. Seawinder

    A good mitchell

    Why does this misconception keep popping up? If the kit is tail-heavy, it requires weight ahead of the center of gravity to bring the nose down. However, the bulk of the model's weight is not carried by the nose gear (which presumably ends up with just enough weight to sit), but rather on the main gear. To boot, most of the aftermarket metal gear legs with which I'm familiar are soft metal, which won't give much more strength than the original kit parts.
  3. Seawinder

    RAF Dark Green

    I've got a couple of bottles of Mr. Color C-333 which they call BS381C/614 Dark Green. I think it looks pretty good, although it's a tad lighter and less gray than the chip in the MSAP set.
  4. I'd say definitely OD ANA 613 for a P-51 anti-glare panel. I used Model Master enamel for my recent P-51, but I imagine the MRP 138 will get you pretty close. The color looks pretty dark in period color photos — compare with the black instrument panel coaming:
  5. Hmm, what do you do if you want a C wing? I'm contemplating kitbashing an Airfix XIV and an Eduard VIII with all but the front and rear fuselage coming from the Eduard.
  6. FWIW, here's a photo of the P-40B I built, painted with MRP Neutral Gray. I personally don't think the color is too dark. Also FWIW, the OD is a 50-50 mix of MRP OD 41 and Mr. Color OD C-12. The mix came out very close to the 41 chip in Archer's Monogram Guide.
  7. There were two wartime Neutral Grays. The later one, ANA 613, was matched to British Dark Sea Grey. The earlier one, 43, was lighter. 43 was used much more widely than 613. Dana Bell at some point gave FS 36173 as a good approximation for 43; I've also seen 36176 posited. The chip in my copy of Archer's Monogram Guide is a good match to 36173. 36176 is close, but a bit bluer. FWIW, I used MRP Neutral Gray 43 on a recent project and thought it looked just fine.
  8. Yes, it's the small Mk. IX intake -- more bulbous than the Mk. V type. As for the fuel cooler intake, is that a small hole at the port wing root? All the Eduard Mk. VIII, IX and XVI kits provide two sets of parts for the forward wing roots. Both port-side pieces have a small rectangular panel scribed near the front. One set of the parts feature small, ovoid bulges in the surface creases; the starboard one is a bit longer than the port one. None of the pieces have holes, but the instructions in some kits call for drilling a 1 mm hole in one side or the other. I assume the starboard one is for the gun camera? For me, not being familiar with those details, it begs the question as to which marques had the gun camera and which had the fuel cooler intake. I wonder if Eduard got it right: they only call for a port-side hole for the Mk. VIII and a starboard-side hole for the late Mk. IX.
  9. I'm pretty sure the small intake in the ICM kit would be appropriate for a Mk. V, not a Mk. IX.
  10. Presumably the rest of us are chopped liver.
  11. The parts for the small carb intake are actually in all the Eduard Mk. IX boxings (two pieces, split in the middle), but only the early Mk. IX kit provides the wing part to receive it. In fact, the early kit provides two complete wings for either early or late configuration of both the carb intake and the cannon bulges. One thing the early kit doesn't provide are the early propeller blades, which I believe were metal with rounded tips. It's not to hard to get a decent approximation with a bit of filing/sanding.
  12. ... and as I mentioned above, the Hasegawa kit doesn't provide it.
  13. Yup, thanks. I wasn't sure about gloss vs. matte. I imagine they got dirty enough quickly enough that it wouldn't really matter.
  14. In 1972 it would have been 36440 (matte) and 17875 (gloss). Not sure about the wheel wells.
×
×
  • Create New...