MDriskill

Graham, my intent was to show that the C.200 and C.202 evolved in an orderly way, with even more basic structural and geometric similarities than are generally realized; not that they shared every single small detail. And that the C.201 prototype appears to fit in rather nicely. My post clearly failed to make that point - which in any case was an irrelevant side excursion from your original question - so I took it down. Thanks for your comments on the new book. I'm impatiently waiting for my copy to arrive.

I don't know the answers to your questions, but here is the book: https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/85058?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuKO38_fMhQMVKJ5aBR0wRQYqEAQYASABEgJiavD_BwE

(Never mind)

Photos from Michael O'Leary's Building the P-51 Mustang. A really excellent book, with many previously unpublished factory archive photos. Early Allison-engine airframe: Two shots under a P-51B wing. The filled area underneath did not extend as far aft as on top: I am not qualified to question "Mr. Eduard," but of course the entire wing was not puttied; and any access hatches, removable sections, etc. in the sealed forward portions would also have visible gaps.

Very nicely done!

There's a good detailed build of the 1/35 Border Fw 190A-6 here that should answer most of your questions: https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/97808-border-135-fw-190a-6-nowotny-double-chevron/#comment-1420206 As noted above, there are some ridiculous misprints on the instruction sheet...apparently done by someone who didn't know a Focke-Wulf from a Messerschmitt! But the kit itself is outstanding. There are some very minor surface-detail inaccuracies from some slight confusion between variants (discussed in the linked thread). But the kit's shape accuracy, level of detail, and engineering are excellent.

I really love this scheme! But...how "real" is it? Is it based on a photo or other reliable documentation?

I agree that Osprey can be hit or miss - especially the older titles. But they've steadily improved, and the four authored by the Millman / Olsthoorn team are absolutely exemplary in research, writing, and graphics. Another extremely well researched and superbly illustrated book on this "family" of fighter aircraft is the "AeroDetail" monograph on the Ki-100 by Giuseppe Picarella, who oversaw the restoration of the only surviving example, at the RAF Museum. (And Mr. Picarella's new two-volume set on the Mitsubishi "Babs" must be seen to be believed...WOW.)

Total shot in the dark from a non-expert here, but I notice the SBS set includes the engine. Could the diff be there instead of the cowl? Arrangement of the little intakes between the cylinders, cowl braces details, etc.?

Thanks much for this info! It coincides with perhaps the best of all Matchbox kits, IMHO.

That's beautiful! One of the best Heller kits and you've done a wonderful job with it.

Here is a proper Hamilton Standard logo: And this terrible fuzzy image is from the Kora decal sheet of Italian prop logos that I mentioned. The instructions describe them as "FIAT-Hamilton" on the left, and "Piaggio" on the right. SO...I vote for FIAT-Hamilton on your S.73 photo! No doubt the small script near the propeller blade in the logo was different; the lower line must have referred to "FIAT" instead of "Nash Kelvinator," for instance. Wikipedia says the S.73's engines were Piaggio P.IX's, copies of a French Gnome-Rhone design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_Stella_P.IX . Various Alfa radials (copies of the Bristol Mercury and Jupiter) were often used on similar types of aircraft.

I am only guessing as I know nothing about historic Italian propeller production, but I'd guess it was more likely the actual manufacturer of the prop in Italy, even if they were working under a Hamilton Standard license. Then again, for a pre-war civilian airliner like the S.73...who knows.

Giampiero nailed it! The propeller was a Piaggio design, the P.1001. The light color on the front of the blades was called "Celeste," on Macchis typically a blue-gray color, and the blue-and-white oval is the Piaggio logo. Later on props were finished in black though. The C.202 Folgore also used the P.1001. The C.205 Veltro used the P.2001, which looks very simiilar but had slightly wider blades. (If you are working in 1/72 scale, look at the 3D printed P.1001 from Airone Hobby. MUCH better than any kit prop, really a great boost on a model.) You will sometimes see this same prop with the airframe manufacturer's logo on the prop blades - Macchi (below) or Breda. Kora makes a nice small decal sheet with Italian propeller logos, in 1/72 and 1/48.

I appreciate the kind words on the gear jig. To be honest it's been a while since I did it, and I've forgotten most of the particulars! I might try again with a simpler, more compact design, and keep better track of details as I go.

Like most oldsters I'm not a social media buff...but if your interests include WW2 Italian aircraft, there are Facebook discussion groups worth exploring. They get a lot of posts from Italy, and new-to-me photos appear regularly. These three superbly clear photos of a brand new Macchi C.200 (note the empty white octagon on the rear fuselage apparenty awaiting its 1st Stormo "Archer"), from the "Regia Aeronautica" FB group, are an example. They are the best pics of a wartime Saetta I've ever seen.

I took photo-copies of Arthur Bentley's drawings, and cut them up to use as templates. It has supports only at the wingtips and rear fuselage joint, and thus doesn't interfere with any intermediate protruberances, so theoretically should work with any reasonably accurate 1/72 Fw 190A or D kit. It holds the model upside-down (lets you see the strut sockets, and check strut cover door angles); and sloped a bit nose-down (keeps the vertical bits more compact than if the model were supported horizontally). In retrospect...well, I over-thought it somewhat! I would take a simpler approach next time, but it worked well enough.

That is absolutely true! And nothing looks worse than an Fw 190 with the gear struts at the wrong angles. And it might be the very worst point of Eduard's 1/72 kits. The strut sockets are a very loose fit, so you are completely on your own to get things right. I ended up making a jig for mine.

No, they are fine. It seems a little counterintuitive, but the smaller-caliber MG 17's troughs were significantly longer than the MG 131's. Both guns' barrels sat at precisely the same height above the fuselage datum, but the MG131's were spaced farther from the center of the arched top of the cowl. Thus their troughs did not need to drop as deeply into its surface.

Here's another older thread on the use of "Celeste."

Good eye, Cyberdan! I had never noticed that before. Some of the pics you posted are also in the respective Ali d'Italia monographs, for what it's worth. This shot of a newly prepped C.205 does not look like bare metal to me, but on the vertical blade, you can clearly see the difference between the front and rear colors. I wonder if this bears any relation to the use of the blue "Celeste" color on many 1930's and early-war propeller fronts? If not literally the old paint, perhaps someone had the idea to do something similar. Apparently they didn't think black was best for Egypt anyhow!

I haven't seen the Kora sheet - but at least one C.200, and one C.202, carried ANR markings. Perhaps others were used as trainers, unit hacks, etc.?

Wm. B, you are very kind! It's interesting to compare the classic 1990's-vintage Hasegawa, and recent Eduard 1/72 Fw 190's. Overall, both are quite accurate - obviously based on Arthur Bentley's landmark drawings - but interpret some details differently. To my eye, the 1/72 Hasegawa kits render the MG 131 nose gun bulges the best of ANY kit, in ANY scale. The 1/72 Eduard version is similar to their 1/48 kits. Hasegawa also did a better job with the gun troughs in the engine top cowl panel (which were were shorter than those for the earlier MG 17's). Eduard's are too long. Some pics for comparison. The Hasegawa build is out-of-the-box. On the Eduard, I ran a thin putty wash over the bulges' top and side creases, and tweaked the troughs with dabs of filler.

The Eduard kit would be considered the current state of the art. It's generally accurate, with excellent interior detail, appropriately petite exterior riveting, and some subtle touches like "open" and "closed" versions of the canopy. But as Mycapt65's lovely build demonstrates, the Tamiya kit has much to recommend it. (Personal pet peeve / pedantic aside warning!) Most kits miss the subtle shape of the nose gun cover panel - its bulges were rounded, smoothly blending into the panel and stopping short of the front; the small cylindrical hood over the gun muzzle is a separate form. Most kits render them as exaggerated pear-shaped things, with sharp creases on the sides and top that simply DID NOT exist. To my eye Tamiya captured the correct form better than any other 1/48 kit, including Eduard.

I forgot to mention - definitely bookmark this site if you haven't already. It's detail drawings from dozens of original Italian aircraft manuals, including the Macchi fighters. Many of these images appear in books but it's great to have them all at your electronic fingertips...GREAT stuff! https://www.cmpr.it/manuali.htm