James Venables

It's a damn loooong time ago but I'm pretty sure that the old (1968) Airfix Blenheim Mk.IV had the blister windows. Maybe the modeller you bought it from salvaged the windows from the older boxing?

I was wondering the exact same thing about 12 months ago when I was keen on doing a MB.5. I compared sprue shots of each kit and the only difference was the canopy. I felt fairly sure I could probably find a vacform canopy that looked enough like the Mb.5 to satisfy myself but I didn't look into that possibility. The MB.6 kit seems easy enough to find but the MB.5 seems to have become as rare as rocking horse poo. I wonder why AZ don't re-release it? To be sold out and so hard to find on the 2nd hand market, it's a fair assumption that people must have bought the kit and either built it or are holding onto it, so a re-release seems like a sensible move for AZ.

If anyone asks, just feign ignorance and say you had no idea it was an old crash site. If it isn't marked as such, how is anyone to know? Just say you're looking for truffles!

This should be a good one to watch. I have a couple of Herons stashed away somewhere; one of them was bought many, many years ago with bright ideas to slash & bash it into a Dove but that's not necessary now that I have a couple of the very nice A-Model kits. Those figures would probably look a little better if you cleaned up the "flash" on the mould seams. Admittedly, with the female on the left it seems to be more a case of mould mismatch but it would probably still benefit from a little scraping and a rub down with a sanding stick.

No need to apologise. It just shows the most fundamental aspect of being human: we're not all the same. 👍

I'm with you. Occasionally, I get the urge to build a few of the same subject simply as "canvases" for some interesting markings. In these cases, the colour scheme and markings take a higher priority for me than accuracy & detail. The Zvezda Hurricane looks like a good candidate for this objective.

That's commonly my approach for cabins of 1/72 scale aircraft of this ilk. I don't like to use decal windows however; I reckon they're acceptable in 1:144 scale but in 1:72 or larger, some sort of translucency from one side of the aircraft to the other is more appropriate. Even with windows, the matt black finish still manages to hide the lack of an interior. Works for me...

Nicely done so far but I agree with Richard's comment. Even with the gouges in the earth and the scattered debris, it all seems a bit too "clean" to my eye. For example, if the earth is soft enough to be gouged like that, then you'd probably expect to see some marks remaining from the vehicles. As Ratch commented, the "story" depicts the aircraft following the evacuation of the crew, so there had been emergency vehicles on the site prior to this, and probably others also. Lots of random tyre marks on the grass (with slight muddy residue on the runway where they drove away afterwards) would be appropriate. Also, some tyre scuff marks on the concrete would add realism. Also, if the B-17 skidded off the runway due to a collapsed undercarriage, it seems unlikely to me that the wheel and leg would be on the ground beside the aircraft at its final resting place. Once again, come back to the story: there is no obvious battle damage around the inner starboard nacelle so the undercarriage collapse would most likely be due to hydraulic or minor mechanical failure and the gear would have simply retracted into its bay. There is no ditch or obstruction that would have ripped it out, so it should not really be there. I love the way you have depicted the broken wing and the small debris trail behind it, but the broken section needs more attention. To my eye, the "story" says the break is the result of weakening by battle damage and the wingtip impacting the ground as the undercarriage collapsed. Consider: (a) there is no significant battle damage near the wing spars that could have caused that level of weakness, and (b) the wingtip would have impacted the ground in a location somewhere off the scene represented by the diorama. If it remained attached long enough to be dragged into the scene (or carried by its own momentum), consider the location and symmetry of its resting place. Perhaps give the broken section a little more damage by removing the aileron, or just have the aileron hanging loosely by one hinge? As others have mentioned, I feel the concrete still needs more attention, though perhaps the bluish tinge is an artefact of the photo lighting...? But remember that concrete only stays grey when it is freshly laid. Have a look at a real expanse of concrete at an airport, hotel car park, school yard, etc. It doesn't take long for concrete to become a dirty, yellowish pale buff colour, unless it is meticulously maintained. Your mottled texture of the concrete is great but the colour (and weathering) still needs some attention, methinks. Lastly, whilst your B-17 is beautifully painted and finished (I love the subtle weathering on this one), I couldn't help noticing the outer port nacelle. The subtle blackening suggests a small fire in that engine from battle damage but the battle damage is "clean", looking like it occurred after the fire. Aside from these detail minutiae, this diorama looks great so far. I'm looking forward to seeing the final product!

Thanks for those comments Tony. Pics can be deceiving, so I was just looking for a confirmation. Re the crowbar: as I said, it is only a tiny detail but my eye was drawn to it. That said, it was probably the incorrect red colour of the crowbar that initially caught my attention more than the simplified representation. I suppose there is a reasonable chance the Barracuda resin parts for the Tamiya Mk.IX will fit this kit... or can be made to fit.

I'd love to see you go ahead with this. I don't know much about the aircraft but I am becoming more interested in the more obscure types as I get older. I have read this thread with interest and despite all of the technical information given which suggests a build is not possible, your proposed conversion does not involve a full sized metal aircraft but a scale model in plastic. Sure enough, it will take a fair amount of work but cutting, adding, filling, converting, scratchbuilding, kit-bashing, scribing, modifying, fabricating, etc, etc is all part of the fun of the hobby so have a go! I'm doing a rather less complicated conversion myself at present: a Do-28B in 1/72 scale from a Huma Do.27 with a few parts from a Matchbox/Revell Do-28D and a large amount of scratchbuilding. A few fellow modellers told me it couldn't be done but I am happy with my progress so far. I plan to finish it as an Air America example operated in Laos. Incidentally, I also plan to do a Volpar Beech conversion in 1/72 scale from a Hobbycraft Beech 18. Again, it will be a somewhat complicated conversion) eg. it will require a whole new wing & engines) but it looks do-able to me. Again, it will be an Air America example.

Tony, thanks for those comments. 1/32 scale is not my usual scale but being a Spitfire, I may be interesting in picking one up. I have a small stash of 1/32 scale kits put aside in reserve for the day when old age dictates that my eyesight and/or dexterity will no longer allow the building of 1/72 scale models! I am usually very reluctant to comment on a kit until I see it "in the flesh" for myself but I was just looking at the photos in the OP's link and could not help noticing a couple of things. I am unclear whether those pics are an actual finished model or CAD pics, but I suspect the former. The molded-in crowbar on the cockpit door looks truly awful (a tiny detail but it caught my eye immediately) and the canopy hood seems a little odd to my eye - seems a tad too high and/or oversized. Since you have the kit in hand, I'd really appreciate a comment on these points if you have time. Cheers, James.

Wal, that sounds like a fair price. I have a 1/72 resin DH-86 (by Vami) in the stash that cost me around AUD93.00 about 5 years ago.

Just revisiting this thread, as I was following it when it was active. Did the P-63 get finished? Did it get put away for a while? I was keen to see the finished product in French markings - it was providing me with enthusiasm to get mine under way. Looks like the same length stick that Hollywood uses in its WW2 aircraft, eg. the "Pearl Harbour" P-40s

What he said. I have a couple of these in the stash and have always been waiting to hear/read/see how other modellers approach them before I find the courage to do so myself. Nice work so far. Cheers.

I am a bit late to this thread (was looking for info on the Mach 2 Caravelle and came across this) but I agree. I have built the C-123 and made a start on the DC-4 and found them to be nowhere near as bad as internet forums would have us believe. In fact, I have wondered how many of the critics have actually built a Mach 2 kit? Sure enough, they look rough in the box, with huge sprue gates; commonly with plentiful flash, a rough surface and big ejector pin stubs; usually with foggy canopies; and often with small parts short shot or enclosed within a blob of plastic... but my experience has shown that once cleaned up (requires time and patience, so a job I achieved on a tray in front of the telly) the parts fit together quite well. A few details benefited from raiding the spares box but the typically thick plastic ensures a very sturdy model. Obviously the C-123 has now been surpassed by the Roden kit and the DC-4 is now covered by Revell, both kits being light years ahead of Mach 2, but they were originally the only choice in injection moulded kits and I thought they deserved much less criticism than they were given. I have several other Mach 2 kits in the stash (Seabee, Falcon 20, Coronado, Mariner, Convair and Viscount; plus a Caravelle and a couple of Squirrels on order) and I look forward to building them all. I know they will not fall together, they will present a few challenges and they will require more patience than a mainstream kit but to me, this is what the hobby is about - attaining enjoyment by using skill, patience, forethought, creativity and a little innovation to produce a model that satisfies me... and learn from my mistakes! EDIT: PS: If any of the critics genuinely have Mach 2 kits in the stash and don't want them, feel free to send them to me.