nheather

Appreciate these types of track are impervious to normal glues but wondering whether there are any solvents that will bond them - or is melting the pins, sewing thread or staples the only option. Cheers, Nigel

Yes that is correct. In these wargame models they will simply attach to the thread and I have even seen some suggestions to use guitar string as this rigging, even more over scale but it gives the jib a fighting chance of staying in place.

Looks interesting - it's Black Seas BTW, or is that to avoid copyright.

I absolutely want them to be overstate, they wouldn't last 5 minutes otherwise. Also the triangular sails at the front hang off the rigging so it needs a bit of substance to it. I'm just trying to work out what which one I need to buy. Specifying it in Denier is crazy because as @Fukuryu correctly states, denier doesn't refer to a diameter but a weight - may make sense in the fashion industry but for model rigging makes no sense at all.

I had assumed that the +- number is a tolerance - though it is weird that they give the nominal dimension in one unit (denier) and tolerance is a different unit (mm). I've reason to believe that 110D is 0.121 mm (According to the Infini Model products) https://www.scalemodelshop.co.uk/1-350-1-200-145ft-white-ship-rigging-medium-infini-model-ir-1102w-p15138/ Cheers, Nigel

Yes I expect it to be overscale, war-gaming models are over-scale, reduced in detail or both - has to be to withstand hand-fisted gamers, with a couple of beers under their belts moving them around the table. I don't mind buying one to find out it's just a case of which one. They some in four sizes Mega Thin - thickness 20D Hyper Thin - thickness 40D Super Thin - thickness 70D Thin - thickness 110D But no idea how to equate those sizes into normal millimetres or micrometres I've asked AK - no response I've looked at their website - they show pictures but they don't indicate which size of product is shown, nor what scale of model it is on. Cheers, Nigel

I’ve already tried the dedicated wargaming forums and discord and had no responses at all so I thought there could be no harm in trying here. I have some Napoleonic wargaming ships by Warlord Games. They are 1:700 scale and they are intended to be handled on the gaming table so detail is limited and/or exaggerated to keep the models as robust as possible. The kits come with some thread for basic rigging, the rat lines are printed on acetate sheets, the sails and flags are paper. I probably won’t bother with the rat lines but I would like to add some basic rigging - especially as some sails hang from it. The models some with a spool of fine thread for the purpose, no size information, I’ve tried measuring it with my callipers and I reckon in the range 0.08 to 0.1 mm. I’d like to use elastic rigging because the normal thread sags, but I don’t know much about it. I’m attracted to the AK rigging primarily because you get a decent amount for a reasonable price. The problem with it is understanding the sizes - they give suggestions of what type and scale of models it would be good for but I suspect that is scale and my need is over scale. They do provide a size but it is like 40D +- 0.03 mm. I don’t know what that means, the only thing I could imagine is ‘denier’ but when I look that up it is not a straight forward measure as it factors in the material being measured. I have emailed AK but got nothing back from them. Any advice, suggestions, in particular is the AK stuff any good, are there better/cheaper options, and what do the sizes mean?

So any different that the Vallejo Air that I already have?

What do you think of Mig Ammo Interior Light Green - MIG-219, FS-3426, BS283 It looks a good shade, but I’ve never used them before so don’t know what they are like to hand brush.

Can anyone recommend an acrylic paint “that’s a close enough” match for RAF Interior Green that can be brush painted easily - no mixing please - just out of the bottle, close enough. I have the Vallejo Model Air that looks quite good but it is very watery - good for airbrushing, but I have tried hand brushing and it needs loads of coats. Just want something where I have just a small amount to paint in small, barely visible cockpits when it seems a faff to break out the airbrush.

That look’s fantastic.

Different matter coming out of the factory, but I always imagined tha5 when vehicles were painted in the field the maintainers just slapped paint on with a big brush - I doubt they bothered much with masking tape. So even if it was deliberate for camouflage reasons I can easily imagine that pimple, couplings etc simply got painted over. Another good example is the D-Day invasion stripes - we modellers go to great lengths to mask them to get pin sharp stripes, correcting any creep. But if you look at actual archive footage you’ll plenty of examples where they have been painted toughly by hand, probably using a big brush whose bristles have seen better days.

If you are using third party modules (rather than creating your own) they should specify the scale which is what you get when you print at 100%. To get a different scale you need to change the print scale from 100% to an appropriate value. Sometimes the model instructions will advise what print scale to use to get different model scales but you may have to do the maths yourself. Example Say a model is designed for 1:48, that will be for a print scale of 100%. If you want to print in 1:72 then you need to set the print scale to (48/72)*100% = 66.6% Bear in mind that the printer will attempt all detail but some detail that is achievable at 1:48 might fail when scaled down to 1:72.

I mostly do 1:35 armour (when I say ‘do’, that is more collect than build) but I also fancied adding some aircraft and after much thinking decided to specialise on 1:72 British WWII (with a leaning towards the earlier part of the war). Several times, I have seen half-tempting deals on the newer Airfix Lancaster but what puts me off is the lack of a bomb load - not impressed with the instructions suggestion to go buy the ground support collection just to get a few bombs. I have my first resin 3D Printer arriving soon, more as a gadget to play with as I don’t have any real defined need to justify the purchase. But it does occur to me that printing some bombs would be a good use. Not planning in getting into my own CAD designs so wondering if there are any pre-made model files (preferably free) that I could use? Cheers, Nigel

Much like others are saying, aircraft and ships would not be the same scale unless the aircraft are sat on carrier decks or on catapults. What collection of scales would depend on the focus of the diorama. If the focus is on the aircraft - like behind the aircraft attacking the ship then you would use a bigger scale for the airc4aft and a smaller one for the ships. But if you are focusing on the ship, the viewpoint is close to the ship looking into the distance of aircraft attacking then the ship scale would be larger than the aircraft scale. Cheers, Nigel

Just posing an idea without any real insight - earlier aircraft were started by a mechanic swinging the prop with his arms and then vehicles with motorised starting axles were used. Could it be that the early Bf-109 was a hang over from those days, where a starting truck would be used to swing the prop to start the engine and that the hole in the spinner was the coupling for the starting truck axle? And of course with technology moving on the starting struck was no longer needed so different spinners were introduced. Of course, the other idea is that a machine gun or cannon through the nose was always envisioned - why else would the design have the engine mounted upside down?

Many thanks. This has opened up a whole new world, I never realised that there were so many different spinners on the Bf-109E. Note that in my posts when I say the blunt or flattened spinner I referring to the one that has a definite flat on the end with a big hole in the centre. And when I refer to rounded I was referring to spinners that didn't have that flat/hole. At that point I had absolutely no idea that there were four different types of non-flat spinners, some more rounded and some more pointed, I'd just lumped those into a single 'not flat' category. Just to add some context - I'm making an off-scale radio control Bf-109. It is definitely an 'E' or before because it has tail struts, but any scale modeller will be able to point out so many things that are not right - it is designed for flying and to look reasonable in the air. I plan to use a flattened spinner because a) it is much easier and cheaper to take a generic RC model spinner, lop off the tip and have it look reasonably correct than find an RC spinner that will pass for a non-flat spinner and b) having a hole down the centre will assist with cooling the motor and speed controller. Thinking of colour schemes I fancied doing a desert scheme but this is where it appeared that tropical versions did not have the flat spinner. It's a very off-scale model so I could simply ignore that but I wanted to stay reasonable accurate. So with what I have found so far I'm going to finish in a temperate 'Battle of Britain' scheme - as an E-3 or an early E-4. Cheers, Nigel

Thanks, this is really useful, possibly what I am seeing is that the desert E-4s are later builds (or servicing) so have the rounded spinner. Cheers, Nigel

Looking at photos and models on the internet and books that have at hand, none of the desert 'Emils' have blunt spinners. That includes E-4s and E-7s. In fact I have a World Air Power book that shows a non-desert E-7 that has a blunt spinner. Basically, what I am finding is that if it is a 'Trop' version, whether E-4 or E-7 then it has a rounded spinner but if non-desert then the E-4s seem to have flatted spinners and even sometimes the E-7s, but mostly the E-7s have rounded spinners. Be interested to see a photo of a Trop E-4 with a flattened spinner.

My mistake, typo which is now corrected, I meant E-2 not E-3.

What I have been reading since starting this thread definitely backs up that the ‘E’ did not generally have a centreline cannon. I’ve read that the E-2 did but was only produced in limited numbers - I imagine that was where issues were discovered and why it was dropped for the E-4. Getting back to the ‘Trop’ versions, I have yet to see a photo of a ‘E-4 Trop’ with a flattened spinner. So was it the case that when the E-4 was adapted for desert use a different spinner was used, or was there a cap that could be fitted to the blunt spinner? I can imagine this was to stop the ingestion of sand.

I never realised that, I always assumed it was for a cannon. It is also very interesting, because my research is for a radio controlled model, I’m adapting a design originally intended for two stroke motor to electric. One of the benefits of going electric is that I can contain the motor wholly within the cowling so it looks more scale, but a disadvantage is keeping the motor and speed controller cool. My plan is to use a cut off spinner that will allow air to pass over the motor to keep it cool. Had no idea that was the original purpose. But not all ‘Emils’ had the flattened spinner - am I correct. I was planning to do a ‘Trop’ scheme but as far as I can tell they didn’t have the flattened spinner.

Hi, A common impression of the BF-109E is that it had a flattened spinner accommodating the ‘motorkanone’. Later marks had a rounded spinner, but I thought all ‘Emils’ had the flattened spinner. But I have started to look at more images that show that isn’t the case. In particular, if aI look at the ‘Trop’ versions they don’t appear to have flattened spinners. So what am I seeing, was it only some sub-versions of the E that had flattened spinners, or was there a cap that could be fitted when the nose cannon was not part of the mission. Also wondering whether the ‘Trop’ versions didn’t have them because of the risk of sand ingression. Cheers, Nigel

Just from my experience of working on the programme. I am from the UK side of the business so I know how little of the aircraft that the UK (as the most significant partner) is responsible for. And in terms of operations, the US operate 10x as many aircraft as the UK. Be in no doubt, that despite all the countries in the partnership, it is a US-run show. When you work on the programme you are left in no doubt of that. What I was saying, is that it is so predominately US that I doubt they were even aware of the English Electric Lightning so saying that the ‘II’ certainly wasn’t referring to that. And in the UK (industry) it is definitely referred to as Lightning II (the numerals are definitely there) - see here https://www.baesystems.com/en/capability/aircraft I think in industry it is Lightning II because that is the product name but operationally it is just F-35. Cheers, Nigel

I beg to differ. Maybe not in the services but it certainly is at Lockheed Martin. I worked on the programme in the US at Lockheed Martin and still have a lanyard and a polo shirt provided to US employees and both are branded F35 Lightning II. I always assumed that the it was called a Lightning II because this is the second Lockheed Lightning, the first being the P-38. It will be nothing to do with the English Electric Lightning - remember this is a US built, US operated aircraft, the UK operation and involvement is just a minor side-show by comparison. Cheers, Nigel