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. :)

MDriskill

Members
  • Content Count

    517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

345 Excellent

About MDriskill

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 08/28/1954

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    kyofu

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Knoxville Tennessee USA
  • Interests
    1/72 WW2 aircraft

Recent Profile Visitors

1,507 profile views
  1. Those are great! At least half new to me, too. Thanks from an old Wildcat fan.
  2. Thanks for this excellent photo. Many reference sources, including kit instructions, incorrectly show the shoulder belt anchors mounted on top of the decking behind the seat, rather than its front face. The 190 cockpit had better thought-out ergonomics that most fighters of the era. It just occurred to me that the belts do not have any sort of mechanism to help the pilot lean forward, as US belts and the Sutton harness typically did, so perhaps one could reach all the controls with no need for that?
  3. It must have been a very effective earful...Britmodeller has magically returned to my AT&T-served iPad this morning. Whoever is responsible - thanks!
  4. A trick I’ve often used to hide minor fit issues, is to use the kit windscreen, and only the opening section of a vac-form canopy (and maybe the rear section too, depending on which type of 109). The 109’s side-hinged affair will look fine this way, even if it would have been a poor fit in the closed position.
  5. For what it's worth: I live in the southeastern US. I can (obviously!) connect from some computers. But both my home Wi-Fi system (AT&T) and my iPhone when working from AT&T data, refuse to acknowledge that Britmodeller exists. Enjoying the site from work is probably not a wise option in the long term!
  6. You might have better luck with a good old fashioned printed book. Quaint but effective, LOL... Kagero has recently published an excellent volume on the Fw 190D in their "Top Drawings" series, which includes a very detailed set of riveted plans. The series also covers the Fw 190A, Fw 190F-G-S, and Ta 152 in separate volumes. Google "fw 190d rivets," hit the Images tab and it will bring up some views including this one: http://ipmsmalta.forumotion.net/t1845p15-fw190-d9-of-jg26
  7. MDriskill

    Great Italian Kits?

    Italian a/c are a favorite of mine and this has been a very interesting thread! A few random observations, all in 1/72 scale: + Sword has recently done a very nice series of Reggiane fighters, covering the Re.2000, 2001, 2002, and 2005. The Re.2002 includes two different variants of the cowl. Not “shake’n’bake” kits but very nice by lim-run standards. I also like the Sword FIAT G.55 better than the Special Hobby one. + Other quite nice lim-run kits: Special Hobby Caproni Ca.310, 311, and 311M radial-engined twins; RS Models Re.2005, and SAI 207 and 403 light fighters. + Not in the ”easy build” category, but the AZ Models Breda 65 (two variants); and Special Hobby Breda 88 attack aircraft and Ro.57 twin-engined fighter are certainly interesting aircraft. + In spite of its detailing issues, the Hobby Boss Macchi C.200 captures the Saetta’s basic airframe shape very well, especially the distinctive sharp wing leading edge. The AML, Special Hobby, and Flying Machine 1/72 kits have very chunky wings, but both contain beautiful resin parts for the engine and cowl, and SH covers the early bubble-canopy variant. + The old Supermodel/Italeri Reggiane Re.2000, 2001, and 2002 fighters are well below modern standards of accuracy and detail, but still make nice representations. They are crisply molded, assemble easily, and can be found very cheap. Same can be said of their FIAT CR.32 and G.55 kits, the latter including the unusual torpedo-carrying prototype. I don’t recommend their inaccurate Macchi C.202 and C.205 (though they do contain some interesting variant and prototype parts, including drop tanks, wing gun gondolas, and a nose radiator for the 202!). + The vintage Supermodel/Italeri kits of larger Italian aircraft, limited though they may be by today’s standards, may never be bettered: Cant Z.501 flying boat, Cant Z.506 3-engined floatplane, FIAT BR.20 and BR.20M bombers, Cant Z.1007 and Z.1007 bis bombers, Savoia SM.81 transport, and the attractive Caproni Ca. 311, 313, 314 light twins (311 not as nice as Special Hobby, but no inline-engined Ca.313, 314 from SH as yet). + More recently Italeri has done very nice kits of the uber-classic SM.79 torpedo bomber, giant SM.82 transport, FIAT CR.42 fighter, and has improved and re-issued the old CR.32 and SM.81 molds. + The Italeri Macchi C.202 appears to copy the exterior shape of the Hasegawa kit exactly, though the parts breakdown is different. There is somewhat more interior detail, though other parts are quite crudely molded and the fit is poor. Their C.205 is a solid step up from the old Supermodel one, though.
  8. I would begin with that great but under-appreciated British contribution to modeling culture: the no. 3 Swann-Morton scalpel, LOL. (In all seriousness, IMHO the world’s most indispensable tool for small-scale modeling...an X-Acto is a bludgeon in comparison.) I'd start that job by scraping them down with a small curved blade (a no. 14 maybe). That ought to get ya close enough to finish up with a narrow sanding stick or rolled-up fine sandpaper.
  9. It’s been a long time since I looked at it, and no two modelers will interpret plastic-vs.-paper quite the same I guess. But I recall thinking the fuselage looked like it was done by two different teams working from Bentley’s drawings...one starting at the front, the other at the back, and each taking a beer break before they met! In other words: align the rudder post with Bentley’s profile, moving forward all is well until you get to the cockpit; align the cowl front and move rearward, same thing. Note in particular the panels just below the cockpit sides (i.e., the former door location). The bottom edge is the correct length, but the rear edge is vertical where it should be sloped. The amount of length that would have been taken up by the slope corresponds closely to the fuselage’s shortfall, so this seemed like the spot to add a splice. My thought was the splice might be L-shaped. Cut downward at the rear of the cockpit opening, upward at the aft wing-fuselage joint, and lengthwise at some point to join the two. Only a little more fiddly than getting the PE fishplates onto the Brengun kit, LOL...
  10. IMHO the fuselage is indeed a bit short. I studied it against Mr. Bentley's superb plans, and it occurred to me that about a 30-thou splice just behind the cockpit opening would not only fix the length but, by moving the tapered rear fuselage aft, cure the slight shallow profile described above Another accuracy quibble is the too-tall fin - an easy fix thanks to Airfix's soft plastic. Doing only this mod improves the overall proportions significantly, IMHO. The worst accuracy issue may be the wing section's being too shallow at the root, though. That would be so hard to fix that you might as well start with the Brengun kit. The kit is excellently engineered and a fun, easy build (the combination cockpit floor/radiator roof/wheel well is one of the most ingeniously designed kit parts I've ever seen, LOL). And the option to display full detail in one or both wing gun bays is a unique advantage, especially if you like to build to IPMS "out of the box" (US terminology) rules.
  11. I wouldn’t bet my next paycheck on it or anything, but I think the “flapjack” was originally molded by a company called NC Models. They also did the J7W Shinden and J8M Shusui (Me 163 copy) that Hasegawa later released under their own label.
  12. The first two F4F-3’s, which would more accurately be described as pre-production prototypes, had (2) .30 MG’s in the nose, and (1) .50 MG in each wing. This was of course considerably revised for the main production series. All Wildcats did retain the nose gun bay and access door, though. I highly recommend the recent F4F books by Dana Bell and David Doyle. Lots of great photos, and good info on the evolution of the early beast.
  13. Just my un-scientific opinion...if you compare the latest 109 version to the very best fighters available world-wide at a given time, it never fell too far behind, but was never vastly superior either. In terms of actual battle situations, it seems to me that E’s in early eastern-front battle against mainly Polikarpovs; and late F’s and early G’s in Mediterranean skies full of Hurricanes and P-40’s; had the biggest advantages. And the G-6/G-14 in the west, hunting bombers against superior numbers of Merlin-engined P-51’s, had the worst time of it.
  14. Real-plane-wise, the “dash 4” had the 14-cylinder, 2-row Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp engine. The Martlet IV had the 9-cylinder, single-row Wright Cyclone, and a different prop. The two were identical aft of the firewall, but quite different in shape forward. Here are two links that will up your Wildcat expertise: Bruce Archer’s famous summary: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/wildcatfaaba_1.htm IMHO the best F4F drawings yet published here, and scroll near the end to see some brilliant comparative Martlet profiles: http://soyuyo.main.jp/fm2/fm2e-1.html
  15. All of your stuff is just about too cool for words, but this one is aesthetically at the head of the class! What an interesting and wonderful model.
×
×
  • Create New...