Ken

You misinterpreted my response. If you (as did I and many other no doubt) actually supplied references then criticism of how that information is interpreted is justified. The individuals that I object to are those who stand back and complain about so-called 'accuracy' without either being directly involved or use a micrometer or a magnifying glass to justify their opinions without actually buying or building a kit Ken

And can I ask how many references you supplied to SH regarding the Sunderland. ? Ken

Visit Cooper Craft Models and search under 'Vehicles' and you'll find various Matador variants, early WW2 Bedfords and even the towed oil trailer. Ken

I do not profess to be an expert but, if one looks closely at the 'bumps' shown above, that looks remarkably like a piece of pressed metal stretching across the top of the fuselage starting from the leading edge of the elevators and ending half way down Ken

All the front cover says 'Type History' so where's me bleedin' Lincoln ? Ken

Trying to build the MMS Commer Q2 but I am faced with a faiirly bleak interior Can anyone please help with photos of the interior please ? Many thanks Ken

I'm not so much interested in modelling an aircraft as a 'killing' machine but rather in exploring the scientific view. WW2 started with bi-planes and ended with jets. Speeds went from 250+ to over 500 and we saw the development (and demise) of aircraft designed to perform a particular role. Armament went from those used in the First World War to guns capable of destroying a tank while the Mark I eyeball was replaced with various forms of radar in some circumsatnces. Paint finishes also evolved due to different requirements and areas If we start developing 'moral' questions in terms of modelling then when do we stop ? A famous wartime ace once stated that it was not the man he was trying to kill but rather the machine Ken

Look for Air Enthusiast No. 18 which has a full article on the Bombay + photos + cutaway. You could also try Flight Global Aeroplane Jan/Feb, 1999 has a 2-part article on the Botha Ken

I have just rung them and got through immediately to a charming young lady. She informed me that they had printing problems with the Club Membership and renewals etc. and these will be sent out very soon. As to the web site, I couldn't access it with Windows XP so went through via Google Chrome (Ugh !) with no problems Hope this helps Ken

I haste to be a Jonah but, if my memory serves me correct, Ian Huntley wrote a very good series of articles about the DC-4+ family where he stated that the Argonaut actually had a slightly longer fuselage than the standard DC-4 Ken

Bloody Hell ! I didn't have me micrometer with me nor a tape measure but what I saw looked very nice during the fleeting visit. The hull has obviously been produced in such a way as to enable all military versions to be be produced and there ain't no trenches to worry about. The wings looked OK at first glance but then I moved on to other matters. No doubt that when it does finally appear, the kit will either be applauded or panned Ken

Many thanks for that, Alan as it confirms my suspicions that Eduard were going to make the same mistake not to mention Italeri (again), Fortunately the test shots of the SH Sunderland that I saw a few weeks ago have the correct wing detailing Ken