MDriskill

I would add that there are many web sites, YouTubes, and such aimed at beginners - a little creative googling might be in order. Also many old-fashioned paper monthly modeling magazines will usually have at least one article aimed at less experienced builders, with step-by-step illustrations, etc. "Scale Models," "Scale Aircraft Modelling," and "Model Aircraft Monthly" are good ones likely at your local newstand.

WOW. That is really just amazing. It is possible for an accessory to be TOO good? If that thing were sitting atop a model I built...no one would look at anything else!

As a matter of general interest, this book published late last year takes Fw 190 color analysis, to - literally - another level. Late in the war, the Fw 190's major sub-assemblies (central fuselage, wing, engine/cowl, tail section, tailplanes, and large access panels) were usually painted where they were built. This book looks at aircraft assembled by Norddeutschen Dornier Werk (NDW). Each facility of this consortium and its products are described; then each sub-assembly traced to its source(s), and its finish analyzed. Quite a few wartime documents and some previously unpublished photos are included. Future volumes covering radial-engine Fw 190's from Arado, Fieseler, and AGO are noted on the back cover.

This detailed table of Fw 190D construction, showing manufacturers, production totals, dates, and serials assigned, is in JaPo's Fw 190D Camouflage and Markings. As with all late German aircraft, the first two digits of the serial indicate the manufacturer and model: 21 = FW [Focke Wulf] D-9; 40 = WFG [Roland] D-9; 50 = MME [Mimetall] D-9; 60 = GFW [Fieseler] D-9; 22 = FW D-11; 83 = WFG D-13. And back to the original question, this remarkable variety of underside schemes has been documented on the Dora (note, JaPo here shows the darker upper side color wrapping under the wing; Mr. Crandall's books often show RLM 75 gray beneath): Veering off-topic just a little, this thread devoted to the Fw 190F-8 underside photo which is posted above may be of interest. It's a remarkably clear shot, with an astonishing amount of detail: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/interesting-late-war-fw-190-undersides-t527152.html

I am certainly not an expert on this one, but there are two new (ish) books with excellent info on RAF Mohawks, worth taking a look at: P-36 Hawk Aces of World War 2, by Persyn, Stenman, and Thomas. No. 86 in Osprey's "Aircraft of the Aces" series. A full chapter devoted to RAF service and some very good color profiles. Curtiss Design 75 Hawk, P-36 and International Derivatives, by Hagedorn and Tincopa. This 368-page volume describes the service of every H-75 airframe built, with a full chapter devoted to RAF use. Many rare photos and excellent color profiles.

The online supplement to the original edition of Valiant's Airframe & Miniature volume on the Fw 190A/F/G/S also had a review of the Matchbox kit. They thought the basic shape was OK, but noted a lot of accuracy shortcomings with detail components, panel line locations, etc.; and a general lack of refinement and interior detail. From the same source, here is an image of Roy Sutherland's "Hawkeye" short-nose conversion for the Hasegawa kits, as noted above.

If you don't already have it, get this book: https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Air-Arm-Camouflage-Markings/dp/1905414080 It is outstanding, and has some excellent notes and rare photos on Fulmars. This includes close-ups of the "spaghetti" schemes, and interesting transitional camo that includes both Sky and Sky Grey on the same aircraft.

The AZ Wildcat kits look to be based on Hasegawa. If the overall molding and small bits are a bit soft, they did a good job with the various wing panel differences. AZ F4F-3 wings, attached to the superior Hasegawa fuselage, canopy, landing gear, etc. might be the ticket (caveat: I haven't actually tried this! ). Off-topic...but my least favorite AZ F4F is the Martlet I. Again nice job on the unique wing of this variant, but the fuselage is basically just a re-scribed Hasegawa one. They missed that the larger-diameter Wright Cyclone engine subtly alters everything forward of the firewall (Hasegawa's variants - F4F-3, F4F-4, Martlet II, FM-1/Martlet V - were all P&W Twin Wasp powered).

I agree with you - definitely a hole in the market at the moment! For whatever my opinions are worth... + I'm not familiar with Sword, and no longer have a Matchbox but remember it as pretty crude...it's nearly 50 years old after all. + The Tamiya A-3 kit is the usual choice - crisp detail, simple engineering, trouble-free assembly. But, IMHO it has some rather weird accuracy issues. The cockpit is too far forward; the windscreen's base dimension is too short, making the front panel too vertical; the wheels are much too small; and the prop blades and spinner are not quite right. Easy enuff to fix the latter two with alternate parts, but this old FW nut can't get past the goofy glass angles. + The AZ A-0/1 kit is rather interesting. Better than the average older lim-run kits, but still fairly crude in some ways. It looks like Tamiya inspired some of its nicer details, and the cockpit is in the right place (fuselage pic below has Tamiya above and AZ below; overall lengths precisely match and you can see the cockpit difference). This kit mixed with Tamiya detail parts could be quite nice. + The Zvezda snap-together A-4 is really very good for such a simple kit. As you can imagine some deficiencies in detail, and minor ones in shape, but probably the most accurate early 190 at the moment. + Converting the Eduard A-8 would be a mess, but don't forget their A-5 kits, which have most panel lines in the right places. I don't think converting one of those would be out of the question, mostly a matter of taking out the nose "splice" introduced with this variant. + The older Hasegawa A-5 is a simpler kit, so might be a simpler conversion. If you can find one, Hawkeye actually had a nice short-nose A-3/4 conversion for Hasegawa, that also included other details. It was mastered by Roy Sutherland; a friend built one years ago and it looks excellent.

Thanks - Mike it is. The photos are from the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 title, no. 5 in Osprey's Production Line to Front Line series. It has a couple more photos from this series that I didn't show here. I'd be very interested to learn more about the preliminary coatings used on aluminum sheet stock in German a/c production. Again, I wonder if we see these on finished aircraft more than we realize, especially late in the war.

Take a look at this thread, which describes the use of preliminary shop coatings on WW2 aircraft sheet metal - still a common practice today (the excerpted photo is from Curtiss, which used a blue varnish known as "Lionoil"): https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/ww2-aircraft-sheet-metal-question-t527181.html Such coatings serve three purposes: light corrosion protection for stored material; some scuff resistance when handling; and a base for scribed fabrication lines to be clearly seen. Often the coating was removed before finish painting, but other times not. These photos of early Fw 190's under construction indicate that a similar practice was followed in the German industry: I would suggest that much of what we see on these prototypes - on the fuselage panels at least - is simply a similar shop coating. Whatever it is, it was obviously applied before the panels were riveted. (Such coatings might also explain some of the odd stuff we see on late-war aircraft with reduced painting requirements...but that's a debate for another day. )

It's on the Luftwaffe Resources Group (LRG) forum: https://www.luftwaffe-research-group.com The thread is here: https://www.luftwaffe-research-group.com/threads/basic-he162a-question.31262/ The tail span on the Dragon 1/72 kit is almost 3 scale FEET too wide...wow.

Back to the issue of tailplane span...recently on another forum, a very detailed Russian drawing of the He 162's tailplane - from their post-war "reverse engineering" of a captured example - was posted. It confirmed the 2400 mm span in the drawing linked above is correct. ("Shorty84's" drawing is repeated below; the Russians showed the outboard ends of the elevators were shortened to avoid striking the rudders at least!). One assumes (um...see tag line ) that this was measured from a production machine and not a prototype, so seems to settle the matter. And note exactly what is being measured: the horizontal distance between the intersections of the tailplane and fin structural datum lines - an easy thing to misinterpret. I'd be willing to bet the erroneous longer dimension came from a kit designer's thinking it measured between the upper tips of the fins!

The book Fleet Air Arm Camouflage and Markings - Atlantic and Meditteranean Theaters 1937-1941, by Stuart Lloyd, is excellent. It has the most photos of Sea Gladiators in one place that I've ever seen, and extremely detailed info on camo/markings changes over time.

FWIW, one advantage of the HB kit is the very simple parts breakdown, especially in molding the wing in one piece - guaranteeing correct dihedral and no root joints to fill. The ancient Lindberg kit also has the wings molded together, fitting through slots in the fuselage. Given how tiny the 162 is in 1/72, this would seem fairly easy to do. I'm surprised none of the conventional newer kits did something similar.