Jump to content

Sanderman

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sanderman

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The real fix for this kit? Someone needs to convince Peter Jackson to make a movie about Ploesti.
  2. OK, so can we talk about the other big error now? Does that look even slightly like this to you? Notice how the cowl profile is wrong - too rounded on the sides vs the almost flat sided profile of the real thing? Never mind how the side air inlets are the wrong shape and lack interior finishing? I know, I just can't lave bad enough alone Joe
  3. Well that certainly doesn't look even slightly like a Davis wing (or a B24). For those of you who think "it looks enough like B24 to me" here are few more pictures of B24s you might enjoy: ;-) Joe
  4. Sigh. I’ve been all around 2 different B24s first hand. The airfoil is wrong. I don’t need an “expert” to tell me. I’ll just shut up now and wait for you to catch up. Joe
  5. Indeed it does. Looking at the ancient Monogram kit in 1/48 it looks like this too to my eye. And the one thing Monogram almost always got got right in their 1/48 kits was shape.
  6. Do we really need a subject matter expert? For anyone who knows B24s even vaguely or can look at pictures of the real thing this wing root error is visible from space.
  7. +1 Please supply evidence thanks! OK, here you go. The Davis wing was extremely thick in cross section just behind its leading edge. It resulted in a distinctly downward sloping profile on the upper wing root that is so steep it looks concave in profile towards the trailing edge. The pics in the post above show it. This one does too (ignoring the shadow): And this one too: Look at how thick the wing is just behind the leading edge and the sharp downward slope of the wing at the wing root towards the trailing edge. And here too: Instead of that, HB gives us this: It completely lacks the dramatic high shouldered leading edge / steep downward slope of the trailing edge at the wing root of the real thing. In fact it actually appears to have a convex profile from leading edge to trailing edge on the upper surface, which is simply wrong. It looks to me that the main error is in the wing being too thin in cross section just past the leading edge Look just how thick the Davis wing actually was. It was one of its most distinctive features: It appears the wing in the model is simply too thin in cross section just past the leading edge which flattens the slope from the leading to trailing edge at the root giving it the wrong profile: I can't unsee it. It's the single most distinctive aspect of the plane to me.
  8. OK, OK, so the turrets suck. But what about the wingroot / fuselage junction where the B24 rubber really meets the road? You want to nitpick turret model variants to the nth degree and ignore a wing root error that's visible from space with the naked eye? I don't get it. The most distinctive feature of the B24 is the wing. And this not only fails the smell test. It fails the faint whiff test and the ever popular "if it looks like a B24 I'm happy" test.
  9. If I built this, I’d be highly tempted to try and sand and polish the internal framework away to give a clear view of the interior. That framework is highly distracting...
  10. How much money is worth saving for surface detail this sketchy? The surface detail on this kit looks like a vac form kit from the 80s.
×
×
  • Create New...