Michael51

A beautiful model of a beautiful aeroplane. In my youth these were using Essendon Airport and along with the Comet were the star shows of a day at the perimeter fence. Michael

Just looked up my Boy's Own Spotter Guide to German Luftwaffe Deck Chairs. Apparently these chairs were in plentiful supply from 1940.... That really is a fine piece of modelling work on that FW190. Michael

A great build. And very inspirational. As soon as I get through the pile of Fortresses. Liberators and Lancasters, I WILL start on my Halifax. Well the Vulcan , then the Halifax. Michael

It looks great. A fine job on the paintwork. Michael

Thanks Habu, The pictures are much appreciated. I never thought of that approach, that is, one layer over another. I have always tried to pre-mix a "pink ". Like Luftwaffe colours, the quest of the right USAAF "pink " has always resulted in me concluding that there is no single correct source from which all others must flow. Looking at my copy of Roger Freeman's The Ploesti Raid: Through the Lense, I really do feel there are quite a few variations (the "green "ones aside). It really looks - to me at least - very, very convincing. Thank you again. Michael

What a brilliant build. My Kitsworld decals are somewhere in the post, as is a Hasegawa B-24D, so this kit of yours is quite inspirational . That is a very interesting interpretation of the so-called "desert pink ". To me it looks very realistic. Would you be able to outline how you created this colour? I have had several tries at it on other Ploesti attempts but always seem to get it too pink., Michael

In response to the original question, "is there a definitive answer? " I would say "no ".

There is mention of it in Roger Freeman's The Mighty Eighth in Colour, p.122, Crash-landed at Ridgewell, 27 March 1945 after catching fire whilst on a training flight. Crew escaped unharmed. Michael

That sums it up for me. The last thing we need is an over-arching, fundamentalist, extreme orthodoxy on what is "correct". Transparencies too thick, panel lines too deep, matching RLM colours for a 1/72 model against supposedly correct colour samples,whether desert pink is really desert pink, etc, etc. I hold to the view that these are for the maker of the model to decide. After all, it is supposed to be fun......isn't it? Michael

Didn't even notice the dihedral until it was mentioned. Still, it looks great to me. Well done! Michael

Brilliant! A beautiful build. Michael

As an Arts graduate I maintain my rights to innumeracy over accuracy and effect over precision. I am going out to get a fresh can of Tamiya grey primer. That'll do the job. Michael

Yes, and others have touched on these issues in this thread. Just had a look at my unbuilt 1/72 Trumpeter Wellington Mk 1C and depending on how one holds it to the light, the fabric looks alright to me. Would not a bit of primer assist those still concerned with raised levels? Michael

Yes, of course, Dan Snow. So, if you locked Dan Snow (who would be required to talk only in the past tense) and James Holland (talking in the present tense) in a dis-used bunker and gave them the topic "Hitler's secret teddy bear", how long do you think they would last? Michael

I concur, a great build. Is the hut in the background scratch built or commercially available as a kit? Michael

Brilliant work, absolutely brilliant. I agree with Hans J on this. I am grown up and I just cannot do this sort of stuff! Michael

So pleased to learn I am not the only one suffering from the effects of gratuitous editing. All these years I thought it was just me..... The Hitler Channel certainly is among the worst offenders here, especially with standard Tommy infantry helmets popping up all over Oosterbeek when they run short of Airborne footage. Michael

Steve, Your point is very well made. In most cases, there seems to be a subtle difference between how a kit 'looks' and 'accuracy'. It is more important to some than others. Personally, I let others worry about it. I respect those who compare the kit to plans although I do wonder about those plans. How accurate are they? Whose plans are they? Do they have official provenance or have they been run up against a secondary and potentially inaccurate source? It is up to the modeller whether precision is paramount. Other sites do go on about it a bit 'though. I wonder if accuracy arguments rage because the stakes are so small. The most realistic Lancaster was the first Airfix issue, but then I was twelve and imagination overrode accuracy. Michael

Just to muddy the waters further, I recall the aircraft in the original Fleming book being a Valiant. Well, sniperUK - if indeed that is your real name - thank you for pointing out my error. You know, I could have sworn that in my long-discarded copy, it was a Valiant. Oh well, I stand corrected. Must be all those vodka martinis and cigarettes from my gunmetal cigarette case finally getting to me.... Michael

it looks great just as it is. It has provenance. Michael

Just to muddy the waters further, I recall the aircraft in the original Fleming book being a Valiant.

Mike, Falke Eins, great material. Quite a few are new to me. I add this site although I suspect you would already be aware of it, http://www.worldwarphotos.info/ Michael

well they would say that wouldn't they. Michael

Mike, Yes, the instructions are challenging. I wonder if you have looked over Messerschmitt Bf109F, G and K Series by Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike? I find it the most to-the-point and least ambiguous reference to those 109 variants. Apparently the G-5 was introduced into the extant G-6 production line and only 475 were built. Being in the main interspersed with G-6s, it seems that permutations of both 6s and 5s abounded. Michael

Hello Duncan, Well, I certainly respect your point of view. And Mr McEnroe is a fine tennis player. Regards, Michael