Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

sharkmouth

Members
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sharkmouth

  1. I think that the resin canopy you are referring to is the injected molded one. It is slightly strange looking so I could see why some may think it was resin but mine is still on the sprue tree as mounted for an injection molding press. My parts still look like these: I am quite curious to see your work when I get home. I thought the kit surfaces were quite nice, the wheel bays are very good but I had bought Eduard's Fw 190 A-5 & A-8 in case I wanted to use their parts. Friends told me of fit issues so I also picked up the same kits from Hasegawa (getting some nice ground vehicles at the same time (BMW on one kit). Regards,
  2. While this is true, I had asked that criticism be towards the kit subject at hand. The feelings for the company are irrelevant as their money wasn't spent, it was mine. Instead of wishing me luck (the old American adage of "Better you than me!") would have been met with a chuckle and I would have understood the distaste the person has with what they saw. Telling me the kit belongs is the garbage is tiresome and simply means that they do not care about the reasons I posted. Therefore, I no longer post images of the new kits. Why the new nose? It has a crescent shaped indent at the bottom. Otherwise, it is identical. The MiG-23BN sprue tree with the nose, fuselage halves and instrument panel, was replaced with the new nose sprue tree, another sprue tree with new fuselage halves, main gear doors, instrument panels (two provided with no mention to one), and nose gear mud guard. The fuselage halves, and main gear doors, reflect the bulged appearance yet no large main gear wheels are included. Other extra sprue trees are a clear one from the Su-24MK kit which has the instrument panel and the nose lenses of the air to ground weapons which constitute the extra weapon sprue in this release. The instructions still have spurious load out diagrams. I am more displeased with this release than the MiG-23BN since nothing was corrected and items (like the larger main wheels) omitted. This simply means more business towards aftermarket noses (CWS is one) and wheels from Armory: Equipage: and perhaps a replacement cannon from QuickBoost or barrels from MasterModel (not out yet). Regards,
  3. While the photos are blocked at work, the text about an aftermarket resin canopy for the Fw 190S-8 has my interest. Who makes it? In the kit were two vacuum-formed canopies and one injection molded polystyrene one (to cover the S-5 & S-8 variants). Good to know about the engine. I also have an ExtraTech engine I may try to fit instead. Regards,
  4. Both will be needed for the MiG-27 kits as well as new wheels (although some in Russia already offer them - Armory? Equipage? Elf? Komplekt Zip?). Regards,
  5. Thanks but still no closer to markings... Also, thanks to those who responded on kit recommendations. It seems to be an early Barracuda, which mark would that be (in order to get the correct kit)? Regards,
  6. Any ideas on Mark and other markings? While I'm at it, what kit recommendations in 72nd or 48th? Regards,
  7. I just got Trumpeter's MiG-27 in and it has a new nose sprue. No idea if it is correct as I haven't had time to check. [Edit - I checked and there have been no corrections to the outline of the nose, canopy sills, canopies, or cockpit armor.] Regards,
  8. I was informed that the Trumpeter release is all new and not based on their previous efforts (32nd & 48th scales) but I am leaning towards Airfix to be the one to get. What a strange thing to write since I wouldn't have believed I would a few years ago. Airfix will probably be better than Trumpeter and Bronco. What about AFV Club? < This is how rumors start so... stop it! Regards,
  9. Why, is there a controversy were it doesn't belong? It is the outside color. In many images, the rear quarter Plexiglas (added after painting) makes it seem lighter and even gray but it is the outside exterior color. Regards,
  10. The books are written with insight of people who were there. Regards,
  11. Too bad I can't see the images while at work (they are blocked). However, I took notice of your mercenary comment. Please try to read up about the 100 Hour War (sometimes referred to as the Football War as some believe it is what lit the match). Note that the 100 Hour War may also refer to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Two excellent books by Dan Hagedorn go into detail on the aircraft's involvement and the air war itself. North American F - 51 Mustangs in Latin American Air Force Service Latin American Air Wars 1912-1969 A nice summary is found here should you not want to invest in your library: http://www.laahs.com/content/10-The-100-Hour-War Regards,
  12. First eBay offer... http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bronco-1-48-FB4006-Curtiss-P-40C-Hawk-81-A2-Fighter-AVG-Flying-Tiger-/252389291891?hash=item3ac392f773:g:qpgAAOSw7W5XNqMv Also there is a die cast model so make sure to get the correct one by Bronco: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bronco-Die-Cast-Flying-Tiger-AVG-P-40C-Tomahawk-1-48-airplane-model-new-48bk004-/191864415397?hash=item2cac02a4a5:g:tp8AAOSwrXdXKr3~ Regards,
  13. Thank you BS_w for the explanation. As I wrote, I don't have experience with the early Hawks so I interpreted what Tom Cleaver wrote. good to know the exact angle and depths variance. Regards,
  14. Sorry that I didn't get a chance to answer your questions. I see you found the answer. Thanks BS_w for the input and images. I was trying to gather some references to answer them even though we have strayed away from the kit in question. As a shark mouth fanatic, it should be no surprise that I love the Curtiss Hawks (Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, and Warhawk). Regards,
  15. Well, my friends over at HARP (Historic Aircraft Restoration Project) seem to have fun going through their references to see proof of the floor. Instead, one sent me this page from a booklet published by the Curtiss Aeroplane Division (New York), Export Sales Division, Curtiss-Wright Corporation . The booklet is called "Detailed Specifications for Curtiss Hawk 75-A Airplane" and there is "No. 6895-A" at the top right. I have boxed in the pertinent text since the 'deep cockpit' P-40 are in essence inline engined P-36 (Hawk 75): For those unable to read the text, or see the image, it states: The floor of the cockpit is the upper surface of the wing. It is continuous across the lower portion of the fuselage. Regards,
  16. A wooden plank could be placed between the stringers but his legs are splayed out as though he climbed in from underneath. See the legs of the person in the fuel tank area (behind the scallops)? Nice detail is "Dutch" on the toolbox. Regards,
  17. A fine one to add to a collection (skulls are nice too)> Regards,
  18. It isn't needed in this aircraft. Yes, I am familiar with it. The person who posted the photograph agrees that the workers feet are on the stringers, just like mine were, and can be seen by the position of his legs in the cockpit. Fair enough... it was clear to many. I guess Airfix's CAD must be wrong as I don't see a separate cockpit floor there. Regards,
  19. Here is a cockpit image of P-40D (KittyHawk HS@B found in the desert. Note the accoutrements at each side of the pilot's seat? What purpose would a cockpit floor serve? Click image to visit site from which this photo was borrowed. Regards,
  20. A discussion with one of my friends brought up this question... if this photograph of the Curtiss H81A-2 cockpit shows the upper wing fuselage under the seat and forward from the photographer's perspective, what purpose would a cockpit floor serve? Note that the photograph was taken without the seat in place. Regards,
  21. As someone who helped restore some warbirds, I can state that I clearly understood what was in the manual and it corresponded with what I saw on the aircraft. As a 'Yank' the wording is quite clear to me. The manual is used to help those involved in flying and maintaining the aircraft as built. So, manuals are used in rebuilding the aircraft with concessions made for safety and (if the owner wishes it) comfort. In the erection and maintenance manuals, I find absolutely no instance where a separate cockpit floor is mentioned. Not during assembly or disassembly, not during maintenance to get behind what this floor would cover, not in the parts catalog, nor in the combat repair manuals. I still have copies of most of them. Again, I am limited to later models of the P-40 but for me, there is no separate floor. You'll have to wait for another release or aftermarket decals for the 112 Sqn markings as their shark mouth designs probably won't fit any of the new releases. Regards,
  22. Óttar, I just realized that all your posts on Britmodeller (< Thanks, JasonC) are in this thread. So, first of all, welcome to the Britmodeller forums! Second, I proved my point even if you don't believe it so I won't harp on it. You should be happy to know that there are plenty of aftermarket decals for this aircraft and, since shark mouth schemes do not interest you (or do they?) you don't need to worry about the fit since they would have been designed for the kits available at the time of first printing. Regards,
  23. Actually, it isn't clear. It seems that you are incredulous although you read statements by two claiming to have first hand experience with the aircraft that said aircraft does not have a separate cockpit floor and all references to a cockpit floor is synonymous to the upper wing surface within the cockpit area. I don't have photographs taken during my experiences restoring aircraft (keeping my A & P licenses up to date) and I didn't ask Tom Cleaver for photos either. Tom Cleaver laid it to rest when he mentioned that, until the P-40D, the cock[pit was ten inches deeper than the rest of the production variants. This may not be easy for some to imagine so I will try to illustrate with photos. Here is a P-40C. Take a look at the horizontal line above the crest on the insignia on the fuselage side. Follow it along the left and you will see the hinge line at the top of the fuselage hatch and continue following it left to see it line up with the bottom of the canopy rail: Now we have a P-40N. Follow along the top edge of the hatch and see where the cockpit sill is now. Ten inches lower. P-40E here. Same exercise, same result. Regards,
  24. I hope the cockpit isn't shallow. Over on the Bronco announcement thread, questions were raised about the depth of the cockpit. Tom Cleaver laid it to rest when he mentioned that, until the P-40D, the cock[pit was ten inches deeper than the rest of the production variants. This may not be easy for some to imagine so I will try to illustrate with photos. Here is a P-40C. Take a look at the horizontal line above the crest on the insignia on the fuselage side. Follow it along the left and you will see the hinge line at the top of the fuselage hatch and continue following it left to see it line up with the bottom of the canopy rail: Now we have a P-40N. Follow along the top edge of the hatch and see where the cockpit sill is now. Ten inches lower. P-40E here. Same exercise, same result. Regards,
×
×
  • Create New...