Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MDriskill

  • Birthday 08/28/1954

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,409 profile views

MDriskill's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)



  1. Thanks! It probably wasn't really that nice chocolate brown on top either, LOL...! We live and learn.
  2. Nice job on my favorite 109 variant! A very attractive model, and well-studied work on this unusual Erla color scheme. If I might make another photo suggestion (assuming you are using a phone?) - zoom out beyond the default wide-angle setting which the camera has when first turned on. This will give a more natural, less curved perspective (closer to what you see when looking at a full-size aircraft), and better depth-of-field on the focus. 1/72 model, shot with iPhone at default setting: Zoomed out about halfway:
  3. I will date myself here, but I clearly recall purchasing the first late-1980's series of Fine Molds kits. There were 4 of them: Ki-61-II and Ki-100; "fastback" and "bubble top" variant of each. These are better described as conversion sets - each contained a full old Hasegawa Ki-61-I Tei kit, and a new sprue with a rather "lim-run"-looking set of fuselage halves and supporting parts. About 10 years on, 3 of the 4 were re-released. Eric B's description is perfect, the original fuselages remained but the vintage "Tony" was gone, replaced by another Fine Molds sprue with wings, tailplanes, drop tanks, etc. The "bubble top" Ki-61-II did not re-appear that I know of. I wonder if its fuselage molds were damaged, though to my eye they were the worst of the originals to begin with...perhaps FM just decided to pass. I'm not familiar with the RS kits, but the recent Aoshima ones cover the same 4 Ki-61-II and Ki-100 variants, and nice kits of 3 early "short-nose" Ki-61-I variants. They far exceed the FM kits' interior detail, have crisp exterior surfaces, and add features like an openable canopy. But some accuracy points have been questioned, as mentioned the rear fuselage of the "bubble top" ones seems a bit chunky in section. I do prefer Aoshima to FM overall but it's a close call. The Aoshima series does include the K-100-II turbocharged prototype.
  4. Looks great! Very interesting that the plastic is thick enough to just take it straight down like that.
  5. Yes, but the beer's remains are more easily dissipated, LOL! Thin white plastic sheet is translucent enough that you could trace the panel's outline onto it, over a drawing. Then cut it out, and use as a template to draw and make identical copies.
  6. Hi Milos! I'd basically remove the bulges and start over, instead of trying to modify them. Drill closely-spaced holes all around the bulge, on the inner side of its edges. Then cut/punch them completely away; shave down and smooth out the remaining edges as best as I could; then cut a sheet of thin plastic to represent the flat panel and glue over the hole.
  7. Besides the weight, perhaps the MG FF's different ballistics and limited ammo capacity (especially the early 60-round drums) were also "disincentives" to carry it. Just speculation, but they generally seem more useful for ground attack or bomber interception, than fighter vs. fighter combat. One issue with getting older is how often you think, "Hey, I've read that somewhere!"...but then, can't find the source. SO...reserving the right to be totally wrong...I have read that the MG FF installation was not only a "field mod," but also an extra-cost "factory option." That is, RLM-specified for some production batches during production, but omitted (or deferred for later installation) for others.
  8. This will hopefully answer my own question above! First a shout-out to the excellent "STORMO!" web site! Vince Tassone there kindly put me in touch with a friend who owns some original factory drawings. While not available for publication, the owner has graciously allowed me to share related information from them. The 202's fuselage was built around an internal core structure, consisting of 19 individual frames, numbered "0" (the firewall) to "18" (tail wheel and tail cone attachment). The main fuselage skinning panels run the full length of this core, with no intermediate vertical joints. Establishing the relationships of the panel's ends to the frames - i.e. the vertical panel joint locations at each end - thus seems critical to correctly scaling the fuselage. Length dimensions of the other major fuselage sections seem reliably established in available resources, but not this main structural length. The factory drawings provide center-to-center frame spacing, and many other useful detail dimensions, including thicknesses of critical structural frames. After studying photos of the front and rear frames - both of which are complex, with smaller structural members and fastener attachment flanges attached, and various panel overlaps evident - it appears to me the panel lines align very closely with the faces of the frames. Dimensional notes: + Adding up the individual frame spacing shows the distance between the centerlines of frames #0 and #18, is 5175 mm. + FRONT: Frame #0 is 78mm thick. If you look closely, the panels seem to extend slightly past the frame face; but are in turn overlapped by the panels forward of them. The joint line looks flush with the frame's front face; i.e., 39 mm forward of the frame centerline. + REAR: Frame #18 is 51 mm thick. Its rear face, rounding up slightly, thus extends 26 mm aft of the frame centerline. + TOTAL LENGTH: The space between the two critical panel lines is thus: 5175 + 39 + 26 mm = 5240 mm. (This translates to 163.8 mm in 1/32 scale; 109.2 mm in 1/48 scale; and 72.8 mm in 1/72 scale.) ADDITIONAL NOTES: + The drawings show an additional dimension of 35 mm aft of the centerline of frame #18. This may indicate the jog in skinning at the rear of the fin, an interesting detail that published drawings and kits mostly miss (front is to the right in the photo). + The factory drawings similarly show a dimension 52 mm forward of the centerline of frame #0. I am not sure what this represents, but my interpretation of photographs indicates it's not related to the fuselage panel lengths. + The forward fuselage panel line appears to align precisely with panel joints across the wing root fillet, and top surface of the wing. + I'm still studying this; it may be that all panels are not exactly the same length, or I have missed other detail conditions. But if the factory drawing's frame dimensioning is correct, then the dimension between the panel joints cannot be LESS than 5240 mm. These notes are of course strictly my interpretation of the information that I have on hand. Questions, comments, and corrections are absolutely welcome.
  9. Interesting to see such an old thread pop back up, and contemplate how the scene has changed over that time. It's been a fantastic decade for 1/72 scale! My vote today, though, would go to Tamiya. As mentioned above the Zero variants, Bf 109G-6, and Ki-61 have a combination of detail, accuracy, and easy-to-build engineering that are at the top, with the slightly older Corsair and Thunderbolt very close...though a horde of excellent Eastern European manufacturers are right behind them. Unsolicited editorial comment: Tamiya is missing a sure bet by not making equal quality kits of some other WW2 Japanese fighters!
  10. Very exciting - one of my very favorite aircraft of all time. As others have said, I sure hope they do their homework on some subtle shape and detail aspects of this beautiful machine that are usually missed. And in my childish fantasies, it has options for early and late variants, and is followed by a C.205 Veltro. And just a little later - properly re-tooled 1/72 scale spin-offs, LOL...
  11. Another thumb's up for the Wingleader Hurricane book, it's amazing and my favorite in the series thus far. There are several examples in the book of identical photos, taken with varied colored filters on the camera lens. Very interesting indeed, this can have effects as much or more dramatic as different film types.
  12. Great question! I don't know the answer, but speculate that wartime Japan had some familiarity with western culture - especially within the armed forces, where France and the UK had an active hand in developing aircraft for the Army and Navy respectively - and that the Latin alphabet simply lends itself rather well to sequential nomenclature. Latin letters in IJNAF tail codes were also sometimes (but not always) a sequencing device, to distinguish different units sharing a large air base for example. The "short" designation system under discussion was just one of several used by the IJNAF, too. The J2M1 prototype was the "M-20 Navy Experimental 14-shi Interceptor Fighter," and J2M service versions the "Navy Interceptor Fighter Raiden." No wonder we went with "Jack," eh...?
  13. Francillon's classic Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War notes the P1Y Frances was conceptually a fast, hard-hitting machine like the B-25, B-26, or the IJAAF's Ki-67 Peggy, optimized for low-level ops. The G3M Nell and G4M Betty were longer-ranged strategic bombers, functionally more equivalent to US or British 4-engine types, with the 4-engined G4N Rita under development at war's end. E was "reconnaissance seaplane," long-ranged machines like the E13A Jake with 3-man crew, cameras, etc. F was "observation seaplane," smaller short-range defensive/spotter aircraft like the F1M Pete.
  14. The Japanese Navy's short designation system went through 19 letters of the English alphabet for type designators, which is a lot! But each one was a single letter, which kept designations short. When they needed something new they assigned the next letter, instead of combining them like the USN (SB = scout bomber, PTB = patrol torpedo bomber, etc.).
  15. Well, part of it was because "N" was already taken by the government-owned Naval Aircraft Factory at Philadelphia...but it sounds like you have some juicy little snippet of inside knowledge to add to that!
  • Create New...