Jump to content

Iain

LSP Moderator
  • Posts

    9,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    120

Everything posted by Iain

  1. I'm sure readers could easily have clicked on the link I provided to see the images - or if you'd posted a link originally. But it's a lovely build, isn't it! If you're arguing that the Hasegawa IIa (that was based on their earlier Vb with retooled wings - and released at one point by Revell, prior to their newly tooled, but poor, 2014 Mk.IIa release) is a better starting point for an early Spit than the Kotare kits, then you've completely lost me I'm afraid. I built several of the Hasegawa IIa kits back in the day - it was a big step forward in the scale for early Spits at the time - that build really isn't straight kit (the wing and fuselage riveting/engraving for a start) - and the Kotare kits are a far better starting point than the Hasegawa kits in my humble opinion. And I'd be surprised if you find the Hasegawa kit (or the Revell release of it) for £20 these days. Blue skies, Iain
  2. I believe it's a build by Arie Donker, featured here back in Sep '13: https://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/article.php?aid=1699 Iain
  3. 1976 Ray - predates the Fliegerhorst kit by some margin? My understanding is the original kits were done for people who worked on the Alpha Jet programme back in the day - and then marketed in limited numbers by Preiser. Iain
  4. Nope - try again! Even older: https://www.largescaleplanes.com/kitdb/details.php?kit=270 Have one in the loft - somewhere... Iain
  5. I'd love to do the Kate - it does sound *very* good - it just doesn't fit with my 1:32 collection. And the Heinkel renders look excellent. May not be a scale I'm interested in - but wish them well with it - sometimes it's good to have a niche range. Iain
  6. That's a beautiful build - love the paint finish! Iain
  7. I didn't say I wasn't comfortable with Imperial measurements - just that I prefer working using the metric system - but that's what I grew up with. The physical distances between two points are the same - whether counted in mm, or furlongs! Iain
  8. Yup - you guys weren't alone - I thought exactly the same re. Fulmar and Battle! Iain
  9. I've been reading this thread with increasing disbelief... Some really wonderful content and reference images - but this *is* a plastic kit with all the limitations that can bring to play. No kit can, or will, ever be absolutely perfect. I love seeing constructive criticism and research that can point the way towards improvements we can make to our models - but this seems to now be going somewhat overboard with regard to the Kotare Spitfires. I haven't seen anything mentioned that doesn't look easily fixable (if wanted/needed) by any competent modeller - I have all three releases to date and I'm delighted with them - and, yes, they were paid for from my own pocket. Iain
  10. I'll buy 3 if it looks like a Skywarrior! Iain
  11. I've always tended to use a colon for scale - because that's what I was taught was correct in my Engineering Design classes at school - by a very characterful ex. Bristol Aeroplane Company teacher. Iain
  12. Well, I've always used it - and I know absolutely nothing about baseball... But, please, don't use me as an arbiter for anything - I can be distinctly odd in things I've picked up and come from a family that's lived all over the world! Iain
  13. I wouldn't disagree Brian! I'm not a great fan of Imperial measurement anyway - I blame the Brits... Iain
  14. I totally get that Brian! But there is a history of people calling 1:48 'quarter scale' - so I thought the ad/box art might be of interest as they show where it came from - rightly, or wrongly... It's 1:35 for aviation subjects that gives me the personal jitters! Iain
  15. Apologies for a little thread creep Tom - but the people at Old Buck are really wonderful IMHO... In 2009 we flew into Old Buckenham in my friends RV-6. I hadn't qualified for my PPL yet - so the plan was for my friend, Adrian, to fly my father - who lived in Norwich at the time, and had terminal cancer - around his favourite places in Norfolk. Whilst they were airborne my stepmother, half-sister, wife, young son and I were sat outside having coffees from the cafe there. The airfield owner came over to say hello and ask about the flight - so I explained the situation with my father and reason for the flight. Immediately he said - 'are you coming to the airshow at the weekend' - I replied no - as we weren't aware of it. His reply was - if you can get your father here we'll give him complementary tickets - and get a golf car to ferry him from the car park. So, we confirmed that we'd come - and turned up as arranged. Not only did they admit us all for free, they collected my father from the car park, as promised, and deposited him in the VIP enclosure - sat next to Martin Shaw - the British actor and pilot, who had a number of aeroplanes based at Old Buckenham. My father had a hugely memorable day - and I will never forget the kindness of everyone at Old Buckenham. My father died a couple of months later. Blue skies, Iain
  16. A bit out of 'left field' that one - but if it's a good one I'm in! Iain
  17. As a Norfolk boy I'd like to second that! Cracking work - and perfect home - Tom! Iain
  18. I'm surprised re. reference to 'Quarter Scale' being controversial - I remember it as a child looking at the then exotic imports from the USA of 'Monogram' kits - and, yes, always understood it as 1/4 inch to the foot. To check my memory - as I often have to do these days - I found these from the 1960s - advert is dated 1967. And from https://archive.aeroscale.net: Who says nostalgia isn't what it used to be, eh? Iain
  19. Great choice - it's a nice kit, I'm sure you'll enjoy building it! And Mike's comment above is spot on - it's not a competition here, it's about enjoyment and learning. Blue skies, Iain
  20. Well, I was planning on just the one early boxing and completing as a 19 Sqn 2-blader - but just realised one of the markings options is for 609 Sqn PR-E/L1065, which I believe was flown by "Skeets" Ogilvie on a number of occasions - including writing her off in a landing accident (tyre burst on landing). So may just have to order a second... Alternatively I might do a later airframe PR-F X4107 flown by him using the Brian Lane boxing I have. Hmmm - off to look at available figures to see if I can find a suitable representation. Too many squirrels!! Iain
  21. I missed fitting them when I built mine too! Iain
  22. Oooh - that's looking rather fab is that Peter... You have the amazing ability to make things appear so simple and straightforward to do - which belies the skills involved. Iain
  23. Two major things about the 1960's Battle of Britain film that I think mean it will be very difficult for someone to better: - Real aeroplanes, behaving like real aeroplanes and not someone's interpretation on CGI. I've been fortunate in recent years to have spent time in some quite large formations/flying with other aircraft and have observed at close quarter the way they move in relationship to each other, and it just looks *right* in the BofB film - because it is right... - It was made by/flown by/advised by people who were involved in the real battle. You can't do that now - that experience has gone. As a teenager I used to (probably) rant a little about 'wrong mark', 'wrong type', 'wrong colours/markings' etc., etc. - but I now recognise the literal 'air force' they pulled together to make the film was something unique - and probably never to be repeated. Sadly I was too young to remember (would have been in my pram at the time) - but we lived in Cambridge whilst they were flying/filming from nearby Duxford. Mum told me we'd be out on Midsummer Common (around corner from our house, near the Fort St George pub) watching Mahaddie's Air Force 'perform' overhead. Oh to have been a little older!! Iain
×
×
  • Create New...