Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,003 profile views
  1. No problem at all Keith. The props did always look a little off to me. I don't mind having mistakes pointed out to me at all. I'm not sure I'll have the motivation to fix them now, but maybe someday.
  2. Absolutely. I'll send them right over
  3. Ugh, I'm pretty embarrassed! Sorry about that Dave! Yes, they are Flying Leathernecks Decals. And as expected, they were excellent decals to work with! Sorry again for the mistake, and thanks for a great product!
  4. Sorry, I made a typo in the original post. They are produced by DEF models and are really nicely done. They can be found at a few places online
  5. One that I finished late last year and just got around to taking some photos. I enjoyed the new Academy kit very much and was impressed with the fit and detail. Add ons include the DES Models pilot figures and metal gun barrels, and Werner Wings external fuel tank and Flying Leatherneck decals. Hope you enjoy!
  6. I've had this sitting and waiting to be built for a while, and finally decided to get it done. I really enjoyed the kit overall, with the only complaint being some clarity issues with some of the instructions. Overall though I was impressed. Besides the kit itself, I used some Brassin wheels, Master Model metal gun barrels, AMS prop blades and G Factor metal landing gear. The dragon on the nose and all the markings were done with masks I drew and cut using a Silhouette cutter. I had been going back and forth between doing a strafer or a glass nose version. Ultimately I like the history behind the strafers too much to pass it up. I hope you enjoy the pictures photo credit World War II database and David Stubblebine
  7. It is frustrating how inconsistent shapeways products can be. Maybe some day I’ll break out the stalled square bridge set and try again, but most likely not. Good call on the Radford. When I started this kit that was my plan as well. There are a couple of great photos of Radford after rescuing crew members from another Fletcher that had been sunk. Ultimately though, I liked the idea of scratch building the 20mm tub on the front of the bridge that Jenkins had and Radford did not. It fills the space in between the bridge and the 52 mount.
  8. Thanks Jennings. I actually bought most of the shapeways parts a couple of years ago when they were having a sale. The sale didn't help that much, they are definitely expensive! My issue was with the printing quality. Certain sides of the bridge and other pieces are glass smooth, while the other sides are rough with vertical ridges along the surface. I know it is a limitation of the printing process and could probably be worked out with some filling and sanding, but it was a little disappointing. Also, even after washing the parts, I was having a lot of trouble with paint flaking badly. That project has stalled, but I plan to get back to it one day. If you are thinking about the getting the round bridge fletcher, I highly recommend it. It is a fun kit to build!
  9. Every so often I need a break from planes, and seeing that Fletcher destroyers have always been a favorite of mine, Revell's kit was a great distraction. Now if they would only make a square bridge fletcher! This is the platinum version of the kit with added photoetch that really helps improve the original. I also added some scratch building and shapeways items to create the USS Jenkins early in the war. The primary issue with the Revell kit is that it limits you out of the box to building either the Fletcher or Radford as they looked leaving the shipbuilders. Once they got to the Pacific they had already been modified. Additionally, the decals the kit gives you for the Chevalier can't be used because the armament that comes in the kit doesn't represent that ship. With the constant modifications that the class experienced throughout the war, it would be great to get a couple of extra sprues in the kit to model a range of ships and times. Anyway, all in all it was a great build and I'm happy with the outcome. I hope you enjoy it (big ships are a little hard to photograph!)
  10. HPH L-39. It's pretty close, but it has been sitting unfinished for a couple of years. I need to draw decals for it, which I'm not great at and haven't had much motivation. One day!
  11. What a great build! Excellent work I was thinking the exact same thing!
  12. How can I stare at reference pics for weeks and blow that one! Thanks for pointing it out Starfighter, hopefully I can fix it without too much force!
  13. Thanks Chuck! One side of the gun bay doors fit fairly well, the other was way off and required some work. I used some of your tips from your early F-5 posts as I was building mine. I'm really looking forward to watching yours progress. Thanks Clark. Yes, it is the kit cockpit. While it lacks some accuracy and has an issue with its depth, the cockpit looks fairly good when painted. Especially if you put the pilot in to hide the depth issue.
  14. No work in progress on this one. All in all a very straight forward build though. Besides fixing the right side console in the cockpit, I added some detail inside of the aux air inlets so you can't see through the fuselage. Other than that, just minor gaps in a couple of spots. Thanks for all the nice comments everyone!
  15. Here are some pictures of my recently finished Kittyhawk F-5E in Swiss markings. Despite the shortcomings that have been mentioned about the kit, I enjoyed the build and would call it a good kit overall. I will be building more of Kittyhawk's F-5's in the future. The model was build straight from the box, with LED's added to the landing lights and Swiss decals and masks that I drew using the Matterhorn Circle 1/48 F-5 decals as a guide. Thanks for looking!
  • Create New...