DougN

IIRC, the Galland Special F-6 kit has parts for the standard F-2 as well.

I agree completely Bill, when assessing whether or not a kit is good enough it is entirely subjective. What matters to me (e.g. new Revell Spit looks to fat in the cockpit/forward fuselage) may not matter to you at all and vice versa. I think the issue comes when someone uses a definitive statement (e.g. kit X needs aftermarket) when discussing a subjective matter, or adds hyperbolic statements that simply aren't true (e.g. claiming others have called a kit unbuildable). If we all remember that this is indeed a subjective hobby, and that one's own opinion is just, and only, that - one's own opinion and is neither more or less correct than anyone else's, perhaps we can reduce the definitive and hyperbolic statements, unless backed by evidence, and avoid more heated discussions.

I'd like a set of those as well Radu

Ok - let me try this a different way. I understand we have guidelines for how to critique a kit. But, I think it is unrealistic to expect anyone who wants to make any critique of a kit to have to build said kit and show how to correct it. While that is great when it happens (like Iain's He219 and Dereks Spitfire for example), but that takes a significant amount of time and effort that everyone doesn't have. If someone has knowledge of something from their own personal experience, then they should feel free to post it. It should be up to each individual reading the critique to decide if it is correct, and most importantly, if it matters to them. That being said, where are the guidlines for the other side of the coin? Where are the guidelines for responding to kit critique? Something like these to get started: 1) no, the mfg is not going to stop making kits because someone points out a flaw, actually they might improve on their next release because of the critique 2) no, we don't need to be grateful some mfg produced a kit of X. It's a business decision and transaction, not personal. 3) you are not morally superior because you think the kit looks fine the way it is 4) just because you like fixing flaws doesn't mean everyone else does. 5) if someone points out a flaw, and you don't agree with them or don't believe them, nicely ask them for further proof. 6) this is an individual hobby, and however anyone chooses to enjoy the hobby is correct, even if it is not the way you do. Moderating here, and the tone of the site, has become heavily biased to those who don't like kit critique. This is a fact. Again, check this thread for a classic example. Where is the moderating to remove the 90+ useless posts of people complaining (even making up facts with no support (like saying everyone is bashing the kit, putting it down, claiming it is unbuildable, etc) that someone would dare want to know if the kit has any issues? Truly balanced moderating is what is really needed here and that means both sides of the coin, not just critiques, if this site is to return to what it once was where we had where members could have a respectful conversation about the pros and cons of a kit. Doug

It's interesting on LSP how this applies to the extreme when anyone dares mention that any new kit is anything but terrific. Yet it doesn't apply to all the posters who feel the need to condemn the person who points out a flaw in a kit and/or tell everyone how morally superior they are because they don't care if a kit has errors or not, as well as make up statements like people are bashing the kit, or that it is unbuidable when that is not at all true. This was seen clearly illustrated in the last HK Mossie thread where the OP asked if there were any major issues with the kit and we had 95 replys with the aforementioned and none with actual answers to the OP question. And why the the standard for critique so high (as mentioned by one moderator - "show me like I'm a 5 year old") when there is absolutely no standard for making the aforementioned snide remarks about/towards those who are interested in a kits flaws, or flat out making up that someone is bashing a kit or saying it is unbuildable, etc.? Are we not all adults who can decide for ourselves if a) the flaw actually exists; or it matters enough to care or fix? Let's take the new Kingfisher as an example. Someone posted that the wings were spot-welded and not riveted. Great. So, as a thinking adult, I can go and check any references I might have and/or look at pics of the real thing to see what the surface of the wing actually looks like and how that compares to the kit. If I think it looks significantly different and too much work for me, then I can pass on the kit, or if I think it looks pretty close, or I don't mind doing the work I can get it and perhaps build it someday. In the end, this is an individual hobby and each individual decides what is best for them. No way is more right or wrong than any other, except here on LSP where it is only right to be happy about any new kit. Unfortunately, there are very few balanced active posters here anymore since it has become a crime to even mention that a kit might have a flaw. Gone are the days when one could hope to come to LSP and hope to get a good overview on the pros & cons of any new kit. But, since it seems even the moderating group is biased against any kit critique at all, then I guess that is the way the majority here want it. Doug

Looking forward to watching this one!

110 C/D/E cockpits can be either 02, 66 or both. The changeover to 66 didn't start until the E series, but often E's were actually upgraded C/D airframes. There is photographic evidence showing 110 cockpits with the lower areas in 02 and upper areas in 66 in the rear cockpit and all 66 in the pilots cockpit areas. My build, link in sig block below, is done that way. When 110's were sent back to regional repair depots (which happened often), they would be "upgraded" and repainted to meet current paint specs. That is why trying to standardize paint colors is almost impossible. If a 110C/D/E was painted all black for night fighting duties, it likely happened at one of regional repair depots. At that time, it would have made sense to repaint the cockpit (at least the upper areas per above) in 66, although this may have been skipped if the aircraft were needed in a hurry. So, if there is no photographic evidence one way or the other for the particular 110D Night fighter you are building, then you can go whichever way you like as either is just as likely to be correct.

Yes, as mentioned above, Luftwaffe paints were semi-gloss from the factory (for all aircraft, not just for Aces)

Finish also differs by country. While the RAF may have had matte finish, Luftwaffe paints were semi-gloss from the factory. And, things change when out in the elements, after a few years matte finishes get smoother/shinier, and semi-gloss get flatter. Quality of the paint and where it is applied will also have an impact on shine or lack thereof. So, it's hard to say "A Subject X should be semi-gloss or dead flat", when in reality a Subject X will be somewhere in between based on a multitude of factors.

They are not a "start-up company" - as if that even matters. The principles at KH have been in the business for many years (such as the former Trumpeter guy, Mr Song). As to giving us any kit we ask for - I have never heard anyone saying "I want a kit of Subject X, but please put some errors in it, and make it hard to build". And - contrary to popular belief, KH, or any model company, does NOT base their product decisions on the wants of a few posters on LSP or any other forum. They produce kits that their research indicates will make them a profit, period the end. It's business, and any good company in business welcomes criticism and feedback so that they can make their products better, so that they can make *wait for it* more profit. Critical comments made here (where we know Glen reads) can help them spot any potential issues early, and get them addressed - almost like free QA. If it was only the kumbaya crowd posting, then we would not see the progress in kits we are seeing these days, with kits getting better and better. And on topic, the initial shots look nice, but I could do without the removable panels.

Looking forward to the HK build, glad to see you're going to do it as well!!

Very nice 109, thanks for sharing! Doug

Still need to see if the HK engine nacelles are flat on top, or slant downwards a bit per the HK drawing, which might actually be a harder fix. I tried to see if I could tell looking at the pics of the completed kit, but sadly the angles are not good enough to say for sure. Need good side shot to see, and none of those seem to exist.

Looks terrific Den! Can't wait to see more

I'm sorry, but where are all the posts where anyone "put down" the HK Mossie kit? Where? Show me please. Otherwise please stop, as while its great you think it an awesome kit (which I agree with), that's not the point of this particular thread. In this thread, a member asks a legitimate question, wanting to know if their are any major inaccuracies in the kit, so that he can decide if he wants to correct them or not, and we get 1 reply on topic, and 90+ posts bemoaning this, telling everyone to just build it (in other words, telling them how they should enjoy their hobby), or self-righteous posts claiming the kit is good enough for them implying anyone that thinks differently has something wrong with them. It used to be that critical thinking was considered a good thing... If this site is truly balanced as claimed, I challenge the mods to remove every single post in this thread that is not directly related to addressing the OP's question. I'm sure it would have already been done if things were the opposite and someone created a post saying how awesome the HK Mossie is, and 90+ other posts came saying it was flawed and a POS (which by the way no one has said here that I have seen). Doug

Looks great Eric. I would presume that when they made lozenge fabric the colors varied slightly between batches. With that, when the manufacturer built aircraft, I would also presume that often they used up one bolt of lozenge fabric, and then started with another bolt of lozenge fabric on the same aircraft, which would have led to exactly what you have on your model - different components with slightly different lozenge. Not sure what you can do about the white showing on the rib tapes - maybe some oil paint applied with a fine brush, let it get absorbed and then wipe away the excess? Doug

Thanks Matt, that makes sense I guess as I can see where the "is it done yet" stuff could get distracting.

As I stated in my first post in this thread, I would indeed prefer a full G-series kit to a conversion. That doesn't mean I'm not at least potentially interested in a conversion. And I am not trying to be antagonistic. Call me stupid, but when you're posting about a conversion, stating you've basically commissioned it, and that you're involved with it, to me, that is an announcement. So, since you've basically announced it, why is the rest a secret, that's what I don't understand - these "various reasons" you mention above - please do go into them, as I don't understand why it is a big deal and needs to stay a secret? Doug

Why the secrecy? If you're going to drop hints, why not just say who is doing it and who is going to be molding it?

I'd rather have the 110G-series kit from Dragon than anyone's conversion set, regardless of how reputable. A conversion always means lots of extra work, no matter how well designed.

If they had, they would have sold at least 34 kits less than they have in 1/32 (the amount sitting in my stash now)

Looks great so far! Just a quick note on the prop - any chipping would be heaviest on the rear of the blades, as that is the part contacting the air (and whatever other debris is there) as it turns, not the forward face. Doug

RLM 02 would be most appropriate on a BoB era Ju87B.

Sorry, not me either. I would probably get a 1/48 Tiger to do in Blue Angles markings (to go with the rest of my jet collection - which is all 1/48)

Just email them and they will send you the correct link.