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. :)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

133 Excellent

About AaCee26

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Northern Europe

Recent Profile Visitors

656 profile views
  1. AaCee26

    Heritage Models Grob Tutor

    Hi all, Sorry to be off-topic but is this model available anywhere? I have been looking after it quite some time without result. Cheers, AaCee
  2. AaCee26

    Free French (and Finnish) Blenheims

    Hi Enzo, I should have clarified, that Finnish "series IV" means locally built Mk I. Finnish long-noses were "series III" (British built) and "series VI" (locally built partially from Jugoslavian Ikarus parts and rest domestically made). Series I was British Mk Is and series II locally-built Mk I. BL-189 was from Finnish built series V and it had longer bomb bays. They were lengthened forward, medium grey interior, different landing lights on wing tip and some added small windows on fuselage sides and gunner roof hatch. For example SBS decal sheet instructions shows them. Gunner's mg was a Browning IIRC. Cheers, AaCee
  3. Hi! I built this kit when it was released. What I recall was some fiddling with with front edge to front fuselage, maybe a shim would help and checking the location of the Estonian serial from a photograph a bit different location. SOme additional support for the engine part would have been be helpful too... Cheers, AaCee
  4. AaCee26

    Free French (and Finnish) Blenheims

    Hi Enzo, Looks like you are building Finnish Blenheim from IV series (during Winter War delivered ex-RAF Blenheims BL-134 to BL-145), as cockpit interior is interior green and no mention to changes of the bomb hatches? Cheers, AaCee
  5. Hi, A little trivia of this Tiger Moth "159". It was flown from Norway to Finland on wheels and ended to the Finnish Air Force as MO-159. Cheers, AaCee
  6. Hi A, For me it is Especially the rear portion's rear end leaves clear step. BUt I think we agree that this little kit has more potential than generally thought! Cheers, An another A
  7. Hi all! This is one of my favorite kits which I see often overlooked as a snap one. Simplification is certainly clear because of the way it is intended to be built but the overall accuracy is better than in FineMolds Bf-109F/Gs and clearly better than AZ/KP-long nose F/early Gs. As seen on Mitch photos cockpit detailing is certainly enough for closed cockpit after adding the seat belts and a gun sight. Also surface detailing is petite and wheels are possiböe best injection ones for a spoked Bf 09. There are some issues too late for Mitch to take care but which might be helpful for others considering building this model: - Filing fin thinner from inside to get fuselage halves to fit better, - Removing the shrink mark on both sides of wings, or at least upper surfaces. A couple of times Mr Surfacer 500 was enough IIRC, - For better fuselage - wing root fittings as well as helping with too wide canopy adding plugs on both sides of the firewall inside the fuselage and lower fuselage seam would help. Removing the fuselage - wing tabs need to be removed. - Opening the compressor air intake, - Adding the aileron ballast, - Dropping flaps if thought to be appropriate. It is not difficult, been there, done that! So far I have built a Bf 109F-2 and considering also later sub-types until G-2 from this kit. In my opinion Zvezda's snap series this is better than Yak-3 but not on par with FW 190 or Stuka. Cheers, AaCee
  8. AaCee26

    Eduard MiG-21MF in 72nd scale

    Hi Gabor, I stand corrected. Looks like I just had better luck with my kit. When Fujimi kit was released it was huge disappointment at least here as couple of gents knowing the MiG found it dimensionally and shapevise pretty hopeless being over-inflated like on air balloon. They said that KP had got at least wing and tail correct but with too slim fuselage. So the average would have been correct... I have never built Fujimi. Great as a kit but less as an MiG-21 That's why I'm waiting either hopefully correct spine from KP or converting he Eduard. Cheers, AaCee
  9. Hi, An interesting built. I built IVL when it was released close to twenty years ago. What I recall from it was a missing strut between float and fuselage close to the trailing edge and flat wing when looked from ahead. I tried to get feeling that the wing has it's thickest point in the middle but I didn't manage with this correction very well. Maybe some day I give it another try? As others say I have too found Broplan kits pretty nice to built among vacs. Cheers, AaCee
  10. AaCee26

    Eduard MiG-21MF in 72nd scale

    Hi Gabor, I just compared your pictures of the test shot with my production standard kit. In it tail and wing are not as bad as yours but missiles are not that much better. The Gorkiy one is the one to start for us if KP fails and who can't wait several years for Eduard BIS? Cheers, AaCee
  11. Thank You, Jerzy! I have to dig up mine and put it into my to-do pile. It sounds not to be so bad as I have earlier thought :) Cheers, AaCee
  12. Hi JWM, A nice collection. How was the Gamecock as a kit? I suppose this is the Broplan short-run one. Ceers, AaCee
  13. AaCee26


    Hi all, One thing I have never discussed is the shape of the Ju 88 wing tip. Revell has clearly narrower and longer tips than either Hasegawa or Zvezda. After comparing thi to good top and bottom in-flight pictures I believe that H and Z are correct in this. Revell just looks plain wrong. And I have my suspicion that their 1/32 kit has this same problem. For me Hasegawa has much sharper engraving although Revell is more detailed especially in the office compartment. My vote to Hasegawa. Cheerrs, AaCee
  14. AaCee26

    A code of Gamcock capturing DB3 on 29 Jan 1940?

    Hi J-W, Good question... But a difficult one! I browsed several books which have this incident mentioned but no serial for the Gamecock. If it helps possible aircraft in Täydennyslentolaivue 29 at that time were GA-45, GA-55 and GA-58. Cheers, AaCee
  15. Hi all, Both are nice models. A few notes of the kits... SH Twin Wasp canopy fits better if a wedge shim is added to the fuselage upper seam both in front and rear of the canopy. IIRC SH is using same prop for the Mercury and the Twin Wasp. Unfortunately, they were running opposite directions. Frog is old and basic model. Most serious faults in it are height of the landing gear and location of the canopy too far forward. Cheers, AaCee