Jump to content

nheather

Gold Member
  • Posts

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About nheather

  • Birthday 10/10/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Horsham, West Sussex

Recent Profile Visitors

3,810 profile views

nheather's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

1.2k

Reputation

  1. Hi, I mostly collect and occasionally build 1:35 Armour but recently, I started to collect 1:72 early WWII British aircraft. Wondering about the black used on bombers and the black/white undersides used on fighters. Was this pure black and pure white - and if so, would you paint with those or use a very dark grey and a very light grey. Also, Eau De Nil - when was it used - is it simply a colour before Sky, was it only used on certain aircraft types?
  2. In the past, I have mostly collected/built 1:35 armour, so in my embarrassingly large stash there are no Airfix models because until very recently they haven’t really competed in that genre. But more recently, I’ve started an interest in 1:72, early WWII, British aircraft and now have a modest stash, mostly Airfix. So I looked at joining the Airfix Club and this, if I have understood it right, is why I am put off doing so. Membership, I’m sure when I looked a couple of years ago there were two ways to join, plain member and deluxe member which came with a special edition kit. Pretty sure that the plain membership gave you most things apart from the kit. Now it seems, as a UK member, I can only join as a deluxe member which is a put-off as I’m not interested in the kit. Flying Hours - I read this, https://support.airfix.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360017083939-Airfix-Club-Flying-Hours which suggests that the number of flying hours is related to the series number of the kit and gives the example that a Series 2 has 2 flying hours. Naturally, with this information I assumed that a Series 1 would have 1 flying hour, a Series 4 would have 4 and so on. But when I look at my models, it seems reality is half that. My Series 2 kits have 1 flying hour, not 2 as the Airfix website suggests and my Series 4 have 2. So to get a Series 2 kit that I can buy delivered for £12 I need to buy over £200 of Airfix products. Did Airfix half the flying hours at some point and not update their website? Flying Hours P&P - the Airfix website says that the completed passport entitles me to a free kit, I just have to pay P&P. But then they magic a P&P of £5.95 out of nowhere when the standard P&P in their shop is £3.95. So what they really mean is that I have to pay P&P plus an extra £2. So essentially, the free kit that I could buy for £12 is costing me £6 and I need to buy over £200 of Airfix products to get that. Overall, I just don’t find it very enticing and won’t be joining and as a benefit I won’t feel obliged to always look first at Airfix. Appreciate everyone is different, just saying for me, the club and the flying hours are simply not that attractive to me. I will of course collect the flying hours but will send them to Help for Heroes instead of using them myself.
  3. Fantastic - I really like OOB builds - gives me something that inspires me because maybe I could do that.
  4. I’d speculate that 1:72 is becoming a problem for manufacturers. It used to be the case that 1:72 kits were much simpler, less detailed, less parts than 1:48 and therefore could be produced and sold more cheaply. But the new 1:72 kits (of all makes) have come on to such a degree that I doubt that there is much difference in the cost of producing a a completely new 1:72 compared with the the same aircraft in 1:48 (particularly for the smaller aircraft). But the public expects to pay significantly less for a 1:72 - so I think that manufacturers would prefer to go with 1:48. Just my thoughts.
  5. Can’t say that I am convinced. I know that the Type 45 is Harpoon compatible and certainly other ships in the class were fitted but I’ve never seen a photo of HMS Dragon with Harpoon fitted. Cheers, Nigel
  6. Looks fantastic - question though, was HMS Dragon ever fitted with Harpoon?
  7. Thanks for this, very useful. Shows SCC2 as a chocolate brown much as Starmer describes rather than the Dark Earth that is commonly used on models. What I do find strange though is that given that SCC2 was the standard colour for 1942 to 1944 (3 years) it is extremely rare to find any photos of tanks painted in that colour. I wonder whether this is because the fighting by the British Army was in North Africa and Italy during that time so we’re using the desert schemes. So could it be that only those tanks reserved for home defence or serving in training units were painted in SCC2 - plus those arriving from the US, Sherman’s, Stuart’s, Grants, etc., would have been in Olive Drab and would have been left that way, or repainted if being deployed to North Africa. So the only tanks painted in SCC2 would have been locally built (like the Churchill, Matilda and Centaur) and then only if they were serving in the UK. By the time that D-Day came around the UK had switched to SCC15 so any new tanks were painted in that (I still wonder whether the US stuff would have actually been US Olive Drab or SCC15, seems pointless to repaint with practically the same colour or were the US manufacturers instructed to use SCC15). The question is whether the Centaurs were left in SCC2, repainted in SCC15 or a mixture. Cheers, Nigel
  8. I had quite a chat with the curator at Bovington a few years back. He advised me not to use the exhibits as references for correct colours because, unfortunately, when restored the job was often given to cadets using whatever paint was available in the storeroom. He admitted this was very much the practice in the 70s, 80s and 90s but said that, fortunately, there is more effort to research and get the colours right. Even so, he admitted that the colours of many of the exhibits were wrong - and that possibly the only way to tell the correct colour would be to remove tool boxes to see if the original colour was still underneath. I have since revisited recently, and noticed that a number of their exhibits have been repainted more accurately, such as the infamous Matilda which now sports an accurate caunter, and the pink panther. Cheers, Nigel
  9. Always loved the Centaur, I have one in my stash so will follow this thread with interest. One thing that I’ve never been convinced by is the colour - the Tamiya kit calls out for SCC2 which is usually depicted like RAF Dark Earth but in reality is a much darker chocolate colour. But when I look at existing examples and photos they all look more like SCC15 - althoug( I admit that it is difficult to tell from black and white photos. I did ask a curator about SCC2 once when I visited the tank museum (Bovington) but he was unable to show me any examples of SCC2. I’m going to paint mine in the ‘dark earth’ colour because I like the way it looks but I remain unconvinced about what colour the Centaurs actually were. The story behind the SCC2 scheme was that was the colour being used before SCC15 was introduced and as the Centaurs were going to remain on the beach / landing craft for fire support (hence the bearing markings on the turret) there was no point repainting them in SCC15. But the crews chose to take them inland. But still doesn’t gel with me, because I can’t say that I have seen any tanks that were ever painted in all over SCC2. Cheers, Nigel
  10. When you think you are buying a generic, the trick is to do a search on Amazon and eBay and see if you see the same thing or very similar with lots of different branding - if you do then it i generic, the same item just with different branding. The price can vary quite a lot so if you have decided to go for one of those you may as well buy the cheapest because they are all the same, and none of the suppliers are going to offer any warranty or support. Note that you also see products being sold but reputable brands like Trumpeter and Badger - but again, look carefully because quite often they are the same cheap generic but with superior branding, presentation and packaging - I guess the warrant6 and support situation may be better though. If you want one that may have a better design and support then you need to look at the genuine scientific instruments. You will pay a lot more though you often see them second hand. But remember, at the end of the day, professional vortex mixers are designed for mixing liquids in test tubes which are usually a lot more fluid than our settled paints - as modellers, I imagine that we put a lot more load on vortex mixers than they were ever intended for. My one is still holding up after several years. It looks solidly made even though it only cost me around £25 at the time. My guess is the weak area is going to be the rubber top - eventually I can see that wearing and tearing and once that happens the mixer is useless. With cheap generics I suspect the only option is to buy a new one, but with proper branded scientific versions you may be able to buy spares - though the cost of a spare might be more than the cost of a new generic.
  11. I have a badger stirrer, a nail polish shaker and a vortex mixer. If you can get into the bottle/tin then the badger stirrer (or even a coffee stirring stick) wins hands down. I went for the shakers because I predominantly use dropper bottles and it is a pain to use stirrers with those. I started with a nail polish shaker - it's okay but it struggles where the paint medium has separated out a lot - also pretty noisy. I then switched to a vortex mixer - much better, works for most but sometimes struggles - sometimes there is no option but to remove the top and use the badger stirrer - tight fit to get past the neck of the bottle though. I have ball bearings in all my dropper bottles which helps a lot. It really depends on what they cost now - the nail polish shaker cost about £8 and the vortex mixer about £25 but they were from China in the days when it was easy to order without import taxes and courier fees. Cheers, Nigel
  12. I don't smoke so this is my excuse for owning a cool Zippo lighter - pull the tube, hold in flame for a few seconds, reinsert tube - all clear. The trouble with pushing pins or wire down the tube is that it has a very thin internal diameter - pins/needles are generally too thick and any wire that is thin enough is not usually strong enough to push the obstruction out
  13. I bought my Optivosor some time ago on a trip to the US. The stuff was a a lot cheaper there plus the exchange rate was very good at the time. So when I bought it I also got the 'old-style' light system (which is really good) and the loupe too. But I've not really used the loupe - when I tried it I find it a little inconvenient. Get what you mean about changing lenses - it really is not viable especially with the light system fitted - too much faff - so I would be looking at a second OptiVisor.
  14. I use an Optivisor, couldn’t be without it, tried alternatives, other magnifiers, spectacles, but always come back to the OptiVisor. But here is the question. I have DA-5 (2.5X) lens and I firmly believe this is the sweet spot for compromise of magnification and focal distance. But from time to time I fancy a little more magnification, like belt buckles on miniature figures, so I keep looking at the DA-10 (3.5X) but I’ve been put off but the very short focal distance. The DA-10 has a focal distance of 4” (10cm) and I imagine that the depth of field will be very shallow - so I wonder whether it will bring the figure that I am painting into fantastic clear magnified view but will be so close that I can’t get the paintbrush in to use it. Son interested if anyone here uses a 3.5X Optivisor or similar and if so what do you think?
×
×
  • Create New...