Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MDriskill

  1. With the giant caveat that I'm 90% a 1/72 builder, I agree with socjo1's comments. ICM's newer 1/48 single-seaters - LaGG-3, I-16, I-153 - are of a later design generation than the Mustangs and Spitfires, and VERY nice kits.
  2. I'd be very interested to know the source of either hard-copy or digital versions of the "Les Ailes de Gloire" series. They are excellent and the D.510 issue is actually the only one I have!
  3. No. 13 in the excellent compact French-language "Les Ailes de Gloire" series covers the D.500 - 501 - 510 series very well. It has a history of wartime 510's (no combat or Vichy markings it seems) and three nice color profiles from 1940: D.500 of CIC (training unit) at Etampes D.510 of ERC 573 at Rabat, Morocco D.510 of CIC at Montpellier-Frejorgues Also a wide selection of other profiles, interior details, nice 1/48 drawings (as a loose fold-out insert), and quite thorough coverage of Chinese 510's against the Japanese.
  4. Thank you Kari! I would add that vintage manual scans on CMPR's site are a real treasure for anyone interested in Italian aircraft! I refer to it frequently: http://www.cmpr.it/manuali.htm Published overall fuselage lengths of WW2 aircraft can be unreliable, and here we have an excellent example: 8845 mm per CMPR...8870 mm per Stormo...maybe up to 8940 mm per Ali d'Italia! That's why I feel establishing the length of the monolithic structural module (image below from Valiant's superb "The Macchi MC.202 Technical Guide") is a more solid basis on which to evaluate the kit.
  5. MDriskill

    Japanese Zero

    I was also thinking the classic "In Action" would fulfill your needs. Another excellent English-language reference is the AeroDetail volume. More expensive, but with lots of details and comprehensive 1/48 scale drawings of each variant. https://www.abebooks.com/Aero-Detail-Mitsubishi-A6M-Zero-Fighter/30710500514/bd Not too surprisingly, many of the best Japanese aircraft references are written in Japanese! The classic Koku-Fan "FAOW" (famous aircraft of the world) series has covered the A6M several times, and can be found inexpensively. Even if you can't read 'em, the variant drawings are pretty much self-explanatory and the color work excellent.
  6. I'm working on the vintage Hasegawa 1/72 kit of the Macchi C.202 Folgore, and would appreciate input on the correct length of the real machine's fuselage (discussed here before...but not definitively settled I think), specifically the length of the main structural "core" assembly, from the firewall to the rudder post. This well-known diagram is a C.205 Veltro from the excellent "Stormo!" web site. The dimensions are reputedly from factory documentation - though variations in Macchi factory info have often been noted. The core length is 5210 mm (red text additions are mine): The two best sets of scale drawings in my references are Carmine di Napoli's work in the "AeroDetail" volume; and Angelo Brioschi's efforts in the excellent "Ali d'Italia" monograph series. After careful scaling the larger 1/48 drawings in each, AeroDetail's dimensions appear to follow the "Stormo" notes very closely. But the Ali d'Italia ones show the core's being longer, at about 5280 mm. Back to the issue at hand: the little Hasegawa kit is frequently criticized for the rear fuselage's being too short. If the Stormo/AeroDetail numbers are correct, the kit's core length shortfall is negligible, about 0.5 mm. But if Ali d'Italia is correct, it's more like 1.5 mm - over 4 scale inches - which gets to be noticeable even in this small scale. What would really solve the riddle would be a proper dimensioned fuselage station diagram, which I've never seen! Oh well...one final note though - I believe the core length is the same on the whole "family" of designs (C.200, C.202, and C.205), so info on any of them would be very helpful.
  7. Mr. Bell's book on the Wildcat does not go into great detail on this, but states that British Wildcats used the "equivalent colors" (as opposed to US colors that were only kinda sorta close). All FM-2's / Wildcat VI's were built by Eastern Aircraft (General Motors).
  8. Hasegawa did the Fw 190A-5 in 1/32 - not TOO big a stretch to convert that to an A-3. Biggest job would be excising the A-5's nose extension just behind the cowl. Easier than starting with an A-8 at least. If the Zoukei kits ever appear (they've been pending for 4+ years!), they will be the top of the heap though.
  9. I defer to "Toryu" Michael and Nick Millman on the specifics of the Ki-84! But aotake was generally not used as a finish coating in crew areas. It was a protective material with no particular hue specified, much like US zinc chromate, German RLM 99, or Italian anti-corrosion green.
  10. Some random thoughts on your comments... + The old Hobbycraft 1/48 109 kits (repackaged by Academy I think?) are also old and have some accuracy issues for the aficionado. But they did the entire range of variants from B to K (only mfr. to ever do this AFAIK), which makes it a great way to get two variants with the same "hand" to the detail. And their late G and K variants are basically Revell copies with sharpened surface detail and greatly improved cockpits. + Hasegawa did an excellent range of 1/48 F, G, and K variants which are very nice and pretty simple to build. Done later than the Revell or HCraft kits, crisp and basically accurate with nice interiors. For the earlier 109E the Tamiya kit is a good choice. + The current crop of Eduard F's and G's and Tamiya G-6 are the state of the art, but more complex builds. + The natural developed-for-the-whole-war Allied counterpart to the 109 has to be the Spitfire (will let my UK friends chime in on best kits, LOL). An American alternative might be the P-36/P-40 series.
  11. I'm no expert either, but strongly suspect comrade fishplanebeer is on the right track. Remember also that the design was developed pretty quickly (further incentive to stick with the tried-and-true), and was originally designed for two different engines requiring changes in the airframe (the Vulture-engined Tornado prototypes had a taller nose, lowered wing, and other differences from the Typhoon). I would think this would be easier to accomplish with the steel tube frame.
  12. I vote Stuka. A friend recently did one and it really looked great.
  13. Thanks for that! Very interesting read. One of the points made is that smooth rebar is better at stretching without breaking - which we may be seeing proof of in the "sagged" structure here.
  14. Thanks - I stand corrected! On the earlier, smaller version of the photo, I "read" the dark ends of the rods as hollow. I know nothing of wartime German construction practices, but I believe smooth rebar was more commonly used in the past. Large rods clustered in a column like that would certainly increase resistance to compressive loads. The most interesting aspect of this structure might have been the scaffolding and form work for the concrete.
  15. Old architect here...fascinating thread! Don't have much to add except to say the depth of the concrete beams at the front and rear is not far out of line considering how far they span. The last photos showing two similar structures, hint the "sagged" one has had significant failure of concrete and rebar at the bottoms of the long beams! I might hesitate to stand under it, LOL. It makes sense that there were probably gantry cranes above; the structure looks tall enough to have two "layers" of aircraft in it. There might have been a double layer of rails beneath the stout internal cross-beams in your very first photo, i.e. so a crane could move along both the long and short dimensions to any point in the space. Such dynamic loads up high may be another reason the beams are so deep. Maybe the beams also anchored crane rails, requiring the depth to remain across the short ends. In plan, I'd guess the main enclosure was kept clear for moving aircraft about, and the lower structure at the "stem of the T" was parts storage, utility rooms, etc. One last trivial point, the bent metal items in one of the previous color photos are not rebar, but some sort of pipe or conduit (edit: not correct! See following.)
  16. You are to be commended for that long-ago effort! "Seawings" is a really wonderful site.
  17. This additional page from Mr. Temma's Wildcat work shows the relative lengths and positions of the cowls on the three Cyclone-engined variants. Cowl length varies, but it appears the overall fuselage length is very close to the same. I would assume the location of the engine must have been pretty similar too. Red lines are his, blue ones are mine. (Off topic...but note the shorter canopy and more rearward windscreen position on the Mk I. I believe these are the only published drawings to show that correctly.)
  18. Have you looked at the "Seawings" site yet? The Walrus manual has 43 images of this quality. Not sure you can do much better.
  19. The best set of general arrangement Walrus drawings that I have are in the older MMP book on the Walrus and Stanraer. Very nice 1/72 drawings of both types on a large fold-out sheet. The book has very good detail photos and other info as well. Unfortunately I believe it's currently out of print, but... http://mmpbooks.biz/ksiazki/70 ...I would assume the same drawing set, in 1/72 and 1/48, is contained in their newer "Scale Drawings" monograph on the Walrus. http://mmpbooks.biz/ksiazki/354 As brewerjerry noted, the "Seawings" site is great. It has a good set of Walrus drawings, a factory maintenance manual with dozens of detailed illustrations, and a set of "walkaround" photos (can't link these directly, but it's easy enough to browse the site): http://www.seawings.co.uk
  20. Very nice build! Always found the Devon a handsome machine and this is a lovely rendition.
  21. Very possible IMHO! There were two "official" Luftwaffe yellows - colors 04 (a rich chrome yellow) and 27 (a more pale tone). And of course many other factors can vary the appearance of any color as applied. And if I'm correct about this machine being an early A-8, it might have been 8 months old or more when these shots were taken, and subject to quite a bit of re-painting, technical updates, etc. This is really a reach, but if the number and fin are a lighter shade of yellow...then the rudder - which seems to match the tail band? - might be interpreted as the darker yellow, plus some repair patchwork.
  22. Thank you! Will archive for future updates of my faulty memory banks. For the record, Schiffer's US edition of Barbas's Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces II has the two photos below, on pp. 90 and 91. I would guess the aircraft is an early-production A-8 (it appears to lack the "flat bulge" over the outboard wing gun bay seen on later A-8's and F-8's; well shown in the OP's photos so I edited my first post), which has been retrofitted with the later style canopy. These pics don't help with the tail color (!), but verifies the nose MG 131's and metal prop blades at least. Also note the lack of an ETC rack or drop tank in the "before" photo:
  23. I've puzzled over this one for years! And have no definitive answers, but some points to note: + This aircraft definitely has the MG 131 guns in the nose, but lacks the "flat bulge" over the outer gun bay seen on most late radial 190's. My guess is it's an early A-8 with a later canopy retrofitted. + Both the "flat" and "bulged" canopies could be fit to any 190 - not proof of variant. + Three different props could be fit to any late 190 - also not proof of variant. This one does not appear to have the wide wood blades. + The small extension on the main landing gear cover has simply been removed (note the bright strip at the very bottom), so doesn't indicate an early variant. + (As an aside - not all A-9/F-9's had the 14-blade cooling fan. This gave problems, so many reverted to the previous 12-blade one.) + As noted above, the tail band and horizontal bar have neat dark outlines. The "1" does not, and might be interpreted as a lighter color (arrows). + The tail band has often been assumed to be yellow, and thus identified as JG 11. But it's much too narrow to be a proper late-war RVD band, so could also be a theater marking. + It appears to me the rudder has camo colors, but the rest of the tail has a new color applied. Note the lack of serial number and stenciling in this area (overpainted?), and how the light color does not follow the tail joint (circle). But...the fact that the hakenkreuz is so cleanly outlined, might argue the other direction! + The top cowl panel looks to be a lighter color than the side panel. Now that I think about it, I vaguely recall seeing a second photo of this aircraft, and reading a convincing discussion of its identity...but of course have forgotten where!
  24. Wow, what a fantastic selection of photos! Many thanks for that. I would add that Putnam's "Japanese Aircraft 1910-1941" by Mikesh and Abe, has a useful short history of the type.
  • Create New...