nheather

Thanks for the info. I did see the picture of the tanks on what looks like railway flat cars. I can't tell whether they are leaving a factory or just being transported and that is a railway building. Also the finish doesn't look that solid - quite patchy at the front and areas missing under the gun barrel. So I'm not convinced that this isn't just a thorough whitewash or a field paint job over the top of russian greed.Cheers, Nigel

Trouble with Tamiya's new releases is that they have a ludicrous RRP. Clearly we don't know yet but I bet the SU-76 turns up with a £40-£50 price tag. There is already a Miniart SU-76 which has some minor flaws but will be a good deal cheaper. Cheers, Nigel

That's great to know - just ordered a bottle of each to try them out. Thanks for all the prompt responses. Cheers, Nigel

As well as model building I am into board and war gaming (total Geekdom). I played a fair bit of X-Wing Miniatures. People will buy the cards because they have different pilots and equipment. For example, people generally start by buying two base sets which gives them Four Tie Fighters and Two X-Wings plus two sets of dice and manoeuvre templates. But it does mean that the pilot and equipment cards are also duplicated. But if you buy an X-Wing or Tie Fighter as an expansion then it will come with a different set of pilots and equipment. So players are quite keen to buy the cards on their own because it increases the variety of ways they can play their existing ships. And although the cards may look expensive it is only the third the price of a Tie Fighter which they don't want because they already have four. Cheers, Nigel

I usually build 1:35 armour, but as I am a big Battlestar Galactica fan I got a surprise Christmas from the family - the Revell 1:6 Cylon Centurion. Not started yet but having looked at the parts and tried a few dry fit tests I am a little daunted 1 - from the limited dry fit test so far it looks like it is going to be okay but it will a good amount of filler and TLC. 2 - although the front of the instructions call out a multitude of subtly different metallic colours, other than the box art there isn't much in the way of guidance of how it should be painted 3 - but it is the painting itself that I find most daunting. The basic structure of a cylon is a skeleton which is a dark gunmetal, and external armour that is highly chromed. My immediate thought is that it needs to be painted from the inside out, painting the skeleton and then assembling the armour and painting that. But much of the armour forms tubes around the arms and the legs and I just know that those pieces are going to need a lot of work to hide the joins - can't see it being a case of paint the armour first, fit and then a quick touch up on the joins. So I'd appreciate any advice on how best to assemble and paint one of these - it is simply so different to anything I normally do. Cheers, Nigel

That is simply amazing. Fantastic job. Cheers, Nigel

Very nice, when I was a kid it was all about building the most famous tanks and planes and putting the most formidable armament on them. Now I am more attracted by the more unusual and obscure. This ticks the box well. Cheers, Nigel

Has anyone tried the Ultimate Airbrush and Acrylic Thinners - I have been Youtube videos saying how good they are, and they do look it, but these videos are mostly presented by people with connections to the manufacturer/distributer so it would be nice to hear some independent thoughts. Cheers, Nigel

Not sure they are laquer based but a lot of modellers do swear by using the Tamiya lacquer thinners rather than the normal stuff.Tamiya acrylics are not water based though they will thin with water. The standard Tamiya is pretty much IPA - Iso propyl alcohol, not the beer. I find a mix of 80% IPA and 20% distilled water is pretty close to Tamiya thinners. I think this is why Tamiya paints dry so quckly. Sorry, again talking about acyrlics - should read the OP properly. Yes the the Tamiya enamels are lacquer based. Cheers, Nigel

Do Hobbycraft still not sell Tamiya paint? Sorry, should have read the post better - it clearly says enamels but I read acrylics. Cheers, Nigel

Thanks for the tip, I'll have to try this. I do some miniature painting and have a few old models to strip and repaint. I have tried Dettol, which is cheap and works but the smell seems to stick in the plastic and linger for ages. I have also tried Fairy Power Spray which is also very good but quite expensive and can be quite tricky to find. Will pick up some of this Tescos stuff on the next shopping trip. Cheers, Nigel

Does anyone know whether any T-34s came out of the factory painted white. I'm familiar with thise that were whitewashed in the field but these have a patchy incomplete look. But I have just bought an AFV Club T34/76 and 3 of the 4 colour schemes call for overall flat white. I have also seen some museum pieces that are clearly painted white (not just white washed) , though I accept that might be inaccurate. Also I have seen a few actual wartime finishes where the coverage is regular and complete, suggesting that it isn't just field applued whitewash. Appreciate any views? Cheers, Nigel

If anyone in the UK is interested in this kit, you might like to know that 'The Works' highstreet discount bookshops has them for just £10. Cheers, Nigel

That would make them around 400mm in full size. And the decal diagonal would be 17mm which is tie up with the measurements I have done on the kit part. Nice to have confirmation - thanks very much. Unfortunately it does mean that the cheap Xtradecal decals won't do and I'll have to go for the more expensive Aeromaster ones. Cheers, Nigel

I have always assumed that is the length of the side. So the diagonal would be Sqrt (13.44 x 13.44 x 2) = 19mm From what I have seen of archive the diagonal of the swastike fits between the trim tab on the rudder to the rudder hinge. On my model that is no more than 17mm. Cheers, Nigel

Many thanks. If I have my maths right, that would make them 19mm across the diagonal for 1:32 which seems to be on the large side against the kit rudder compared with archive photos.Hang on though, just googled Hakenkreuz and that is the red rectangle, white circle, plain black swastika. Like this one Cheers, Nigel

Thanks for the info. Could you do be a favour? Would you measure the length of the side of the 1:32 swastika? - Measuring along the length of the join for example. I'm expecting it to be around 11-12mm from the guesswork I have done. Many thanks, Nigel

The Emil for me. Like the truncated spinner and the tail-plane struts. Cheers, Nigel

I'm by no means a historian and I'm not too bothered if it isn't 100% accurate. All the photos I have seen (including real archive ones) have been like this I'll have to work out what dimension that would be in 1/32. Should be fairly easy to work at as the diagonal seems to be about the width of the rudder. Will get the kit out and measure. Cheers, Nigel

Deleted - not the wanted area and the 100 post rule.

@Fatfingers The end result looks excellent. The first shot of the Cromwell looks wrong though - nothing like SCC 2, though quite like how Tamiya and others like to portray it in their artwork. So how did you manage the transition because it looks great - just like the famous Centaur picture that appears on the front of the 'Tank Men' book. Agreed, and the fact that you have to mix Humbrol Chocolate and Dark Earth in ratio 5:4 illustrates that it is a very different colour. Cheers, Nigel

Hi, Ted has sent me some more photos and I think this one clears up the mystery As you can see the colour I'm getting matches the SCC 2 chip pretty well. You can see the two Revell paint colours which gives you an idea of the starting point. You can also see that the base colour of that lorry matches the SCC 2 and looks very different to how it appeared in the earlier pictures (where to me it looks lighter than dark earth) - what a difference lighting can make. So in summary, it does appear that SCC 2 is the chocolate brown colour that I am getting rather than the dark sand that is often depicted. Cheers, Nigel

Okay, I've looked at Mike Starmer's latest set of mixes, linked above and all three (Revell, Humbrol and Tamiya) are going to produce pretty much the same colour, and it will be a dark chocolate brown as I have shown in my swatch above. From this I can conclude (i) All mixes are consistent and producing the same colour - so no chance of paint number mix ups (ii) The colour is massively different to that commonly portrayed and in the colour photograph above. This is not just a weathering, fading difference - they are totally different colours. (iii) So has Mike Starmer got it totally wrong? (iv) Were there two different SCC 2s (v) Is the colour in the photograph not SCC 2 but another colour Cheers, Nigel

I have tried the new mix ratio and I am still a little perplexed. It still comes out much darker and browner than the base in your pictures – quite similar to my original mix but a little lighter and less red. What is puzzling me is this Revell 84 is called Leather Brown and is a dark, rich chestnut colour Revel 86 is called Olive Brown and is quite similar to the SCC2 in your pictures but a little darker and greener. So I struggle to understand how you can mix two colours which are both darker than the colour you are trying to achieve – and any mix with so much Revell 84 Leather Brown is going to end up as a dark brown colour. Here are some swatches to explain what I mean As you can see, even the revised mix is quite a dark brown and that is understandable when you look at unmixed Revell 84 and 86 colours. There seems to be some disjoint to me. The Mike Starmer mix produces a dark chocolate brown much much different to any version of SCC 2 I have seen presented. The mix seems so off, that I can only think he has listed the wrong paint numbers or that Revell have changed their paint numbers since. Cheers, Nigel Having said that, looking at his Humbrol mix, Mike has 5 parts 98 (choclate brown) and 4 parts 29 (dark earth) which would make the humbrol mix significantly darker than dark earth, whereas the representations including the colour photo above is lighter than dark earth.

Ted has very kindly sent me some photos for which I am very grateful. I said that I would post them here on his behalf, the only change I have made is to reduce the file size to make them more suitable for internet use - just reduced the resolution so no cropping. Ted also included this description Once again, a big thank you to Ted for providing the photos and information. Cheers, Nigel