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

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

263 Excellent

About MDriskill

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday 28/08/1954

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    kyofu

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,363 profile views
  1. MDriskill

    Westland Whirlwind

    If you are into classic reference material to go with your classic kit, LOL, the “Boxart Den” site is worth a look! Here’s theDucimus “Camouflage and Markings” covering the Whirlwind: https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Camoflage-Markings/11-Meteor-Whirlwind And of course, none of us of a “certain age” would begin any project without the Aircraft in Profile monograph: https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Aircraft-Profiles/Britain/WW2/Westland-Whirlwind
  2. MDriskill

    Best 1/72 Hellcat?

    Bob C, thanks for finding that! It’s the very review that I remembered, now that I look at it. And...so filled with detail, that even Andre should be happy...?
  3. MDriskill

    Best 1/72 Hellcat?

    The Eduard kits are to my eye the best available, and priced very reasonably to boot.. Dragon also makes a quite nice 1/72 kit, came out about the same time as Eduard in fact, which has a folding wing option. But harder to find, harder to build, pricier, and I vaguely recall some accuracy gripes (though, I confess, not what they were). The old Hasegawa and Academy kits are probably better than Italeri and Heller, and the ancient Airfix and FROG efforts are not worth considering. IMHO Eduard renders them all of no more than academic interest.
  4. MDriskill

    Revell 1/72 Spitfire VB worth buying or not ?

    I’m no professor of Spitology or anything, but I agree with Graham. I’ve seen both kits in the flesh. The AZ looks superior in both accuracy and detail, and from what I’ve seen on the webs builds well. IMHO it’s one of AZ’s best efforts. I’d love to see Airfix’s current Spitfire I/II/VA family tree sprout a VB branch, but I don’t think the AZ will disappoint.
  5. MDriskill

    TNI use of Ki-61’s in Indonesia 1945-1946

    I don’t know if it specifically has info on Indonesian Ki-61’s or not, but if such info exists it will very likely be covered in the book, "Japanese Aircraft in Foreign Service, vol. 1," by Kecay Publishing. This is a rather amazing book with many previously unpublished photos, and copious color profiles.
  6. MDriskill

    Nakajima B5N2 Kate Fuselage color under Canopy

    I will never be mistaken for the estimable Mr. Millman! But for whatever it's worth, the old but excellent "Maru Mechanic" issue on the B5N shows the front decking in the cockpit color. BTW, have just this week been reading Nick's "Combat Colors" issue on the A6M Zero. "Highly recommended" hardly seems adequate!
  7. MDriskill

    Jumpei strikes again...! (P-40/P-36)

    My favorite part is how you get the best drawings in existence, not just of the P-40B, but also of EVERY other P-36 and P-40 variant!
  8. MDriskill

    22 to 46 a simple conversion? Penultimate Spitfire to Seafire...

    For what it’s worth, here’s a link to an astonishing model build (a Seafire 47 converted from Tamiya’s 1/32 scale Spitfire IX, by Japanese modeler Jumpei Temma), which includes what are, IMHO, the best set of Seafire 47 drawings in existence. The drawings are formatted so that they can be easily saved to your computer, and printed at 1/72 scale. http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/spit47/spit47e-1.html
  9. Although I’m not a big Stuka fan and thus “don’t have a dog in the fight” as we say here in Tennessee, you might be interested in this superb build of the Airfix kit by Japanese master modeler Jumpei Temma: http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/ju87/ju87.html There’s a minimum of English, but it’s very well illustrated. As you can see, he was rather critical of certain aspects of the kit’s accuracy, especially the cross-section shape of the rear fuselage. Then again, he obviously chose this kit over Fujimi to begin with!
  10. MDriskill

    Zvezda Focke Wulf 190A4 snap fit 1:72

    Veering off-topic here, but apparently at least some 109F’s had those joints filled smooth. Zvezda’s astonishing 1/48 kit also has “slick” wing tops.
  11. MDriskill

    Zvezda Focke Wulf 190A4 snap fit 1:72

    OK, I am admittedly WAY too picky where Fw 190's are concerned, but... The early-style metal blades in the Eduard A-5 and A-8 series kits are correct for the A-4, and quite accurate in shape, but also rather on the thick side! Easy enough to refine them, though. The old Hasegawa kit prop is also very good, and Eduard of course offer a very nice "Brassin'" replacement.
  12. MDriskill

    1/72 Zeros - Tamiya vs FineMolds' shape

    I have a soft spot for the Hasegawa kits. The lack of internal detail is quite noticeable compared to the newer kits, and they have been criticized for minor accuracy issues with cowls and canopy (IMHO, VERY minor), but really they look just fine when assembled. They have thin, crisp moldings with fine surface detail, are simple kits that build easily, and here in the US at least you can find them cheaply at online sales, show vendor tables, etc. Hasegawa offers 8 different variants (A6M2a, A6M2b, A6M3 type 22, A6M3 type 32, A6M5a, A6M5c, A6M8, and A6M2-N “Rufe” floatplane). They went to great lengths to get the external details of these correct down to the last panel line, too; the series includes 7 different wings, 4 different fuselages, and 6 different engine cowlings. Neither Tamiya or Fine Molds has done the A6M5c, A6M8, or—most importantly, the Rufe—by the way. For a detailed individual contest model I’d definitely use Tamiya or FM. But as a quick build for the shelf, or for a collection of Zeros that have the same “hand” to their look (and don’t need to be super detailed), Hasegawa is still a great choice.
  13. MDriskill

    1/72 Zeros - Tamiya vs FineMolds' shape

    The only “accuracy issue” that I’ve seen discussed with either kit, is the under-sized cowl diameter on the Fine Molds A6M5. This is quite noticeable to my eye, when comparing to photos of real aircraft (or the Tamiya A6M5). Otherwise, few would argue that both manufacturers’ series of Zeros are among the very best 1/72 kits of WW2 fighters ever produced. The Fine Molds kits have more parts, and a bit more internal detail in general. But the Tamiya kits are also superbly detailed, and have practical advantages in terms of price, availability, and aftermarket accessories in most parts of the world—to the best of my knowledge, the FM kits are available only as part of the odd “package deal” with issues of “Model Graphic” magazines. I believe I’m correct in saying both manufacturers have done the four main production variations of the airframe (A6M2, A6M3 with long and short wings, and 4-gun A6M5). But neither has done the A6M2-N floatplane, later up-gunned A6M5 variants, A6M8, two-seat trainer variants, or other less common versions. You will have to look to the older Hasegawa kits, limited-run manufacturers, or the aftermarket for those. The drawings in the Maru Mechanic issues on the Zero, or in some more recent publications by Model Art and Bunrin-Do, are in my opinion much more useful than those in the older FAOW.
  14. MDriskill

    Supermodel/Italeri aircraft

    I am wresting with 1/72 Macchis at the moment, and can confirm that the old Supermodel molds of the C.202 and C.205 are very different from the modern Italeri ones. While having some daring features for their day (rubber tires, dry-transfer markings), the old kits are thickly molded, and manifestly inaccurate. They include some interesting options, though: a pair of rarely-used drop tanks; and a nose-mounted radiator, and underwing cannon gondolas, for a couple of 202 prototypes. It’s worth obtaining a cheap example if those things interest you, but otherwise I find the old kits forgettable. The modern Italeri 202 is vastly better but still odd. It mimics the Hasegawa kit VERY closely in overall outline, but the parts breakdown is different. Fit is problematic compared to the older Japanese effort, and some details are not nearly so good, such as the already-mentioned heavy-handed landing gear doors, very thick ribbing on fabric surfaces, and weak raised panel lines in a couple places. On the other hand, it does have some detail in the the cockpit and wheel wells (the Hasegawa kit is bare), offers some optional parts like early and late-style tailplanes, and is molded in soft plastic that eases addressing some of the issues. The Italeri C.205 is basically the same kit as their C.202, with the differing parts all on a separate section of one sprue. For all practical purposes it is the only current option for this aircraft in 1/72, though if you were ambitious enough (I am not!), no doubt the Italeri 205 bits could be grafted onto a Hasegawa 202. A quick google will show that very nice models indeed can be coaxed from either brand of kit, it just takes more effort than you might think to get there. IMHO the market could stand a better 1/72 effort on these beautiful and historically significant warplanes; thanks to some of the smaller manufacturers, you can get better kits of some much more obscure Italian wartime machines these days.
  15. MDriskill

    K5Y Willow - help with video info

    I could stand to be corrected as don’t have the AZ kit, but I believe I remember reading it is also derived from the same basic molds, and does not address the main accuracy issues.
×