BiggTim

I don't care about all that, I'm sure as hell gonna watch it, and probably enjoy myself.

I don't care about all that, I'm sure as hell gonna watch it, and probably enjoy myself.

Yes, it's another Galland 109E-4, but as I've always wanted to build one, I finally decided to do it. I'd seen some pictures of his bird showing it VERY dirty and heavily used, so I chose to represent it well worn and chipped. I'll grant you it might be a tad overdone, but I was having fun, so what the hell! 
 
I used the Trumpeter kit, but used a mix of the kit decals and HGW wet transfer stencils (I love them) for the markings. Paint is all Model Master enamels, with dry pastel and wet wash weathering. The chipping was done by painting the plane with MM aluminum metalizer, which leaves a dry powdery finish, that I polish lightly. The color goes over it nicely, and can be chipped off easily anywhere you want to expose the aluminum, because the powdery finish does not allow total adhesion. After a gloss coat for decals, then a matte clear, it's as stable as it can be. Cutting Edge cockpit, Master barrels (blued), QB exhausts, True Details wheels. I didn't scratch much on this except some cabling and brake lines.
 
Hope you like it!

I don't care about all that, I'm sure as hell gonna watch it, and probably enjoy myself.

No chance on 1/32 for now. If money were no object, we would, but Cartograf is $$$.

Thanks guys.  What Wally and I are finding is that despite the fact that Lockheed built over 10,000 P-38s, and that production spanned from before WWII started until the day it ended, and that the P-38 served in every theater of operations the US was involved in, and that three of the top ten highest scoring US aces flew it, a HUGE percentage of what's been written, both in the general aviation history literature and "technical" literature (ie: Detail & Scale, etc) about the Lighting is incomplete and/or just plain wrong.  
 
What I've discovered, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that all P-38s up through the P-38F-5-LO had the side-opening top canopy.  I've heard and read that only the first few, or only the first 100 or so F's had it - factually not true.  Photos prove it.  
 
All P-38Hs had the larger teardrop shaped supercharger intakes of the J/L/M.  Literature is all over the map on this.  Again, photos prove it.
 
The P-38H-5-LO was a unique variant.  The aft canopy section on the H-5-LO (and only the H-5-LO) was a one-piece seamless piece of plexiglass.  I don't know why, but on subsequent batches of H's and on all J/L/M's, it was made in two halves (left/right) with a metal frame down the center.  On earlier variants it was made up of three pieces in a forward, middle, and aft configuration.  Again, photos prove it, and the literature is all in disagreement on this.
 
Ditto on the ring & bead sight.  Not mentioned anywhere, ever (that I can find) in any literature on the P-38.  
 
 

Also no clue about the reason behind the ring-and-bead sights, but they were definitely there. In fact, Miss Virginia (the plane credited with downing Yamamoto's Betty and the main decal option in Tamiya's new kit) had it too.

 

 
Here's a pic of a cockpit (F? G? H?) with the ring sight installed next to the optical sight. As you can see, the bead itself would have to placed left of the plane's centerline in order to line up with the ring, much like the earlier -51's and -47's.

 
So definitely a thing, but I don't know nearly enough about the -38 (more like next to naught) to comment on why.
 
On another note, very cool sheet, Jennings! I like The Japanese Sandman the best, amazing font is amazing. I was trawling thru my Lightning folder for pics of bead sights and ran across The Japanese Sandman II, which also features pretty unique and awesome artwork (no bead sight, though). Check out the tiny Rising Sun flags within the letters themselves, no idea if Lt. R.E. Smith was also the pilot of TJS I but if he was he sure had a good eye for art. Perhaps a worthy candidate for inclusion in the sheet?

 

Why do P-38Fs, Gs, and at least one H (and exactly zero E's so far) have a bead sight mounted on top of the cowling?  Don't believe me?  I didn't believe it either.  Some of these original images are very high res, and you can clearly see the bead at the end of the rather tall stalk mounted forward of the windscreen.  I have not seen a single reference on the P-38 (period) that mentions the presence of a ring and bead sight, especially on the later models that were widely used in combat.  I've yet to find a single photo of anything earlier than an F with one (where you would expect to find them - early production a/c before the war).  
 
Anyone got a clue?
 

 


 


 


 

Honestly, I think you're stuck with brute force, sorry. That's a bummer.
 
Edit: Wait a sec.. could you gently remove the entire engine and cowl from the airframe, and drill through the back of the engine until you reach the shaft? Maybe you could push it out the front once the back is free? That way any damage would be hidden inside the cowl? Just a thought.
Tim

no

100 investors in a 1/32nd B-52?  Maybe.............maybe not. 
However, Id just about guarantee you could get 100 investors for a 1/32nd B-58. Not turning this into a want list, but Im just not confident you could get 100 people to commit to spending that much. There will be a lot who could afford it, but are not interested in a 1/32nd B-52. There  will be some who would 100% get a 1/32nd BUFF, but can't afford it. There will also be those who can afford it and also are also very interested in getting a 32nd BUFF,  but simply don't have anywhere to put a model that is 6' across. Or they do have the room, but the SWMBO says no go to displaying a kiddie pool sized model airplane in the common area. 

Com on Tim Chisel open that wallet I have b-25 but no zm or sws kits at all 

He's been heavy into dioramas and figures for the last year or more, and is even writing/drawing a historical graphic novel about a WWII operation!! He can be reached on facebook pretty easily, and I think he's active on some other dio forums. I'll ask him and post back if he has anything to add.
 
Tim

I've always wondered about this, too, especially as the early version I have in progress is intended to be an H model. I am curious which specific planes you guys are looking at doing.
 
Tim
 
Edit: ask Rutman, he knows more about early P-38s than anyone I'm aware of.

He's been heavy into dioramas and figures for the last year or more, and is even writing/drawing a historical graphic novel about a WWII operation!! He can be reached on facebook pretty easily, and I think he's active on some other dio forums. I'll ask him and post back if he has anything to add.
 
Tim

He's been heavy into dioramas and figures for the last year or more, and is even writing/drawing a historical graphic novel about a WWII operation!! He can be reached on facebook pretty easily, and I think he's active on some other dio forums. I'll ask him and post back if he has anything to add.
 
Tim

I haven't seen Jerry around here in a very long time.

Sources are all over the map on what differentiates a P-38H from the F and G.  Some sources (Detail & Scale) state that H’s were identical externally to the earlier F & G.  Other sources state that only the H-1 was, and that starting with the H-5 the larger teardrop supercharger intake fairing under the trailing edge of the wing on the outboard side of each nacelle was the larger style found on the J & L models.  

That area is always in shadow in photographs, when it’s visible at all.  Does anyone have any hard information (manuals, etc?) that can shed light on this?  We’re trying to figure out if we can safely include H’s in our new decal project, and many of the more famous early P-38s were H’s.  
 
Thanks!

J

The 1:24 Hurricanes are a real treat. I'm currently working on the P-38, and so far, fit and finish have been perfectly acceptable, at least for me.

thanks for answering guys, basically because I have in mind to do the Mig-29, the mig 23 flogger (as far as I know the rear landing gear of the MIG 23 is poorly designed) also the F-100D, and the F105

There is no other company that manufactures these planes at 1:32 scale (as far as I know ...)

The accuracy of recent MiG-29s are quite good whereas the P-40s are so-so... There is no hard rule regarding accuracy of Trumpy LSP and this does not change. Nonetheless, the quality of assembly of the recent kits is quite good. 

Their armor is generally better, but that doesn't help you at this site.

Trumpeter seems to have distinct A and B teams designing their kits.  Some are good, some not so good.  Really have to ask on a specific kit.

Some kits are pretty darn good.  I very much enjoyed building the P-47 Razorback.  I'm enjoying their Dauntless right now.  I've also trashed many Trumpeter kits out of frustration.   I think it's very kit specific. 

Nope,  it's a rocket sled.