Jump to content

DougN

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    1,951
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DougN

  1. Squadron seems to have it in stock now: https://www.squadron.com/ICM-1-32-I-16-Type-24-WWII-Soviet-Fighter-p/icm32001.htm But I haven't really seen it anywhere else other than eBay...
  2. That's HPH with the Lanc and Me323, not HKM, who have brought you B25's, B17's, Mossies, etc. and hopefully a P-51B and Me110G
  3. I went ahead and ordered one - not at all worried with the PayPal guarantee and it will be fun to see what turns up (if anything).
  4. I think the easiest route to a P-51B is to start with the HobbyCraft P-51A, and modify as appropriate. You could stick a Tamiya or Revell nose on it, change out the belly scoop, etc and you'd be all set.
  5. I think they ban people who do things like this...
  6. Yeah, but that is kind of annoying to have the price set purposely $.01 below the better discount break.
  7. Congrats on getting this one finished, looks great!
  8. The 110's spent a lot of time in depot maintenance, I guess from getting shot down do much, lol, and as you've uncovered in your research, could have a number of different cockpit color options, based on what they did at the depot when repairing the airframe to bring it up to current specs. However, your options seem a little off, they should be: RLM 02 throughout the cockpit RLM 66 pilots cockpit, and RLM 02 rear area RLM 66 pilots cockpit, and lower RLM 02/upper RLM66 rear area RLM 66 throughout the cockpit I've seen no evidence of an RLM 02 pilots cockpit and RLM 66 rear area, but that's not to say it did not exist somewhere at sometime. The reason for these options is the RLM orders which changed the cockpit color from RLM 02 to RLM 66 in Nov 1941. So an airframe built with an all RLM 02 cockpit would get an interior paint job at the depot when it went there for repairs. Some seem to have interpreted the order to be just the pilots area needing to be RLM 66, and others the whole area. For those thinking the whole area, some just did the upper half of the rear area in RLM 66, and left the bottom in RLM 02, as the regulation applied to something to the effect of "areas visible though the canopies" so I guess they thought that would be good enough.
  9. Looks like they are $119.99 + shipping to US, which seems to be about $19.52 extra, minus the $6 coupon for a grand total of $133.51 shipped. Is there a secret coupon that makes them cheaper than that?
  10. There are two late-war greens, a light/bright green and a dark green. It should be RLM 83 dark green with the RLM 75, but depending on whose paint your using it could be RLM 82 or RLM 83. This is because for many years RLM 82 was thought to be the dark green and RLM 83 was thought to be the light/bright green. A few years back new research showed this was reversed, and RLM 82 was bright/light green, and RLM 83 was dark green. So, depending on when the paint manufacturer made their paint formula, it could be either. The key is to make sure it's the one listed as dark green or dunkel grun. It looks like you've got the right green color on your tail planes in the pics above. Hope this helps!
  11. Will you be stocking the I.A.R. 80 kit when it is released Radu?
  12. If its a gray/green upper scheme, then it should be RLM 75 (gray violet) rather than the RLM 74 (dark grey). Looking good, looking forward to more! Doug
  13. Looks like you're off to a great start! Doug
  14. Agreed, I would prefer to buy this conversion rather than the AIM's conversion as I feel the quality would be higher. I'm sure this thread was what got AIM moving again and trying to get his conversion out first otherwise it would likely still be on the back burner. Life is too short for vac canopies so it's doubtful I'll purchase the AIM's set. Guess I'll have to wait and hope HK decides to go forward with a full IM kit if this one is dead.
  15. Yes, the whole tail does move, but you do need to fill the join line near the elevators, as there is no panel line there on the real thing (although one does appear on several drawings). Kit parts assembled: After filling the join line that should not be there: And a pic of the real thing as proof: The rotation is indeed of the whole tail, not just the horizontal stab kit part - but also the section behind the kit join line - as seen here where the lighter RLM 02 section has been exposed:
  16. Kit cockpit is great OOB, just need the extra bits for the G-4 Nachtjager Here is the kit IP vs the Eduard PE IP for comparison:
  17. Same experience here, probably the worst kit I've seen in 1/32. Also add in oval tires, oval engines, mismatched surface details, etc - however the OP's kit does look a lot better than the one I was sent. Good job getting your kit almost done David, looking forward to seeing it completed!
  18. I think this illustrates the issue we all have when discussing any kit's accuracy - everything is subjective. In this example, the differences between the ZM and Revell kit are "glaringly noticeable", while for others, the kits look the same built up. What is important to note here is that both opinions, and opinions of any degree in between are correct. No kit can be perfect, it's just not possible. So it's up to the individual modeler to decide what is important to them for any given kit. For some, "build-ability" will be most important, for others the highest degree of accuracy, and for others cost will be most important. Each modeler will make a personal decision and purchase the kit that gives the best combination based on what is or is not important to them. That being said, I will be the first to agree that having a civil discussion about the accuracy and even build-ability of any kit is one of the greatest values of a forum like this one. I am grateful to have the knowledge of those who have built a kit to determine its "build-ability". I am just as grateful when those who are highly knowledgeable about a given subject can tell us where a kit most accurately replicates the real airframe and where it does not. I am grateful because that dialogue lets me decide if a given kits accuracy, build-ability, and cost make it something worth buying and building, or not, in my personal opinion based on what I am looking for in a kit of a particular subject matter. So thanks to everyone who contributes to the discussion of any kit without making it personal and thinking only one perspective can be correct.
  19. Not sure where this idea that the ZM kit is "correct" keeps coming from. It's not - plain and simple. For example, the rear of the nacelles point up too far. They should point to a spot just under the tailplane, not above it. Revell's does point too far down, so both kits have an issue in that area if you want it to be "correct". I think the problem for both kit makers is that the Smithsonian's 219 is not assembled, which would make getting things like the nacelle angle correct difficult to do. The ZM kit also has a few other minor issues as well. It can certainly be built into a beautiful model OOB, but it won't be "correct" just like the Revell kit won't be "correct".
  20. His E4's had the cap, however, note that there are two types of caps. One "factory" looking one that is more pointed, and one "field applied" looking one that is more blunt. I would suggest picking up the Dragon E4 kit for a Galland 109E4 if you can, as it gives you both types of caps (and looks 100 times better IMHO).
  21. Just an FYI, the ZM kit, while perhaps a little more accurate than the Revell kit, has it's own accuracy issues as well depending on your viewpoint. There was a very lengthy thread here where the pros and cons of each kit compared to photos of the real thing were discussed. However, both kits look very nice when built, with one having to look really hard to see any differences. So it just comes down to what each modeler prefers as I don't think you could go wrong with either kit. And, you only need the Barracuda open cowl flaps if you want to pose them open on your kit, otherwise you can use the kit provided closed cowl flaps
  22. That doesn't look like black/white undersides to me, seems all silver dope. Note that silver dope looks dark in the shade/underside of an aircraft.
  23. Perhaps, but I think the customer for a Fisher F6F is one who wants an accurate F6F and is willing to pay for it. The existing Trumpeter and Hasegawa kits have a number of issues in that area, so I don't think they are competition in this case. Those will be fine for someone who just wants something that looks like an F6F and is willing to live with or doesn't care about the issues. I may be wrong, but I don't think those that just want something that looks like the subject are the customers for high-end, accurate, Fisher product.
  24. Sorry, but that's not really "customer service", it's just an automated ordering system (NetSuite IIRC) combined with a late pickup and good service from the carrier.
×
×
  • Create New...