Le Lapin Mal

wow - Brazilian Tigers, nerver heard of these (were these Henschel or Porsche turreted)

What do you mean, "old fashioned modelling skills gradually decline."?
They are all bloody well gone!
Back in the old days if you wanted to make a model you got the plans somewhere and some blocks of wood, preferably balsa, and started carving.
If you were fortunate you had a knife, if not then one's teeth had to suffice.
Back in my day, however, we had to first cut down our own balsa wood tree and strip off its bark, then start carving.
That in itself was a problem since balsa trees are native to southern Brazil and Bolivia and up to southern Mexico.
But we real modelers did not mind, we were real men. We would mount a safari to the deepest, darkest parts of the rain forest to harvest some Balsa trees. 
Unfortunately, on the last safari we lost several members of the group. One got swallowed by a giant snake, one eaten by a tiger and the third was last seen entering a house of ill repute and has never been seen since. All that was left of him was his smile.
Another problem was finding accurate plans. When I started modeling, airplanes had not been invented yet. I had to wait around to 1903 for the Wright Brothers to get off the ground.
And you young whelps complain about injection molded styrene plastic kit accuracy.
In my day....

Yrs truly,
Stephen, the old geezer

What voluminous evidence would that be? You're insinuating people are ignoring facts staring them in face but what's published and readily available online says otherwise. 
 
I understand that the virtue of simply being published doesn't make it a fact any more than repeating the assertion 1000 times.  It will mean though that peoples confusion is understandable given an established norm.
 
I pictured you trying to smile while looking at those Stars and Bars - worth mucking them up just to wind you up.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btn4KwHO0WA

I really like the VVS machines. In fact, most of the Lend-Lease stuff to the Russians, appeals to me.

I need three for the French, Italian, and Russian, but then an RAF one would be fine as well, as would one of the few RAAF machines. Maybe a dozen.

Two options l would like to build the cover a/c and the French AF one.

Having looked in my crystal ball and examined the tea leaves, I definitely see one of these in my future.  Thanks for posting.

Howdy folks,
 
Glen sent me some images of the artwork featured in the upcoming P-39 kit from KittyHawk, so I've published edited versions in a small Industry News article on the website:
 
http://www.largescaleplanes.com/news/news.php?nid=142
 

 
Looks great!
 
Kev

Plus 2

I rest my case.   
 
And again quote our rules of the road.  If it's not constuctive and helpful,  it doesn't belong here.
 

Well I think you are right.
I just did the FS colour mentioned by you with an Insignia Blue mix at 1 in 3.
When run through black and white and with a yellow filter, you get this:

Again, almost no difference between the upper and lower surfaces.
It convinces me DB, how about everyone else?

Well I think you are right.
I just did the FS colour mentioned by you with an Insignia Blue mix at 1 in 3.
When run through black and white and with a yellow filter, you get this:

Again, almost no difference between the upper and lower surfaces.
It convinces me DB, how about everyone else?

It's a real pity no one has done decals for it
 

This is what I have on these P-40's:
 
Upper Surfaces:  Corps of Engineers, Sand No. 3, Supplement B to No. T1213, September, 1942. (my WW II sample is substantially lighter and yellower than ANA Sand 49)
 
Under Surfaces:  Pale blue made by mixing Insignia White with a small amount of Insignia Blue. 
 
IIRC, this information came from Dana Bell.
 
HTH,
 
D.B.

Either that or he's having a bit of a Spinal Tap cucumber moment...urgh...so wrong.

You can definately see some next to the starboard running light, and I am sure more are there!

I don't think your statement is accurate.
Looking at some photos from the Kingfisher at the Smithsonian, it seems to have lots of rivets, most noticeable on the wings and the pontoon.
http://paulmcrae.ca/picture-gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Vought-OS2U-3-Kingfisher.jpg

The decisions made on manufacturing choices, finances and time on R&D, transportation options etc are all ones that's are typically commercial-in-confidence. Speculation -( the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence) is potentially informed or quite possibly uninformed nonsense.
 
We need to knock-off the comments that unambiguously infer other peoples efforts or work ethic is rubbish. Comments that do that will be moderated. If you insist and expect nothing less than perfection then quit torturing us mere mortals and go out and make models for us to buy.
 
Commenting on what you see, what you'll get, what you've got  or even how you might deal would seem to be fine. Thats the intent of hosting discussion pages.
 
e.g Kingfishers spot welded, ergo no rivets->good to know->might need to deal with it->happy better informed modeller, grateful for the info...the speculation on how well someone at KH is doing their job->not cool.
 
 
Matty

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
 
Tim

What gets me is Kitty Hawk had the nerve to make this thing out of plastic. They had to know the real Kingfisher was NOT made of plastic!!        

Same photos I posted here, Peter:
 
http://www.largescaleplanes.com/news/news.php?nid=146
 
Kev

OK, now wait. We are arguing about the representation of rivets. Which are typically represented by small depressions on a plastic model, even though rivets are actually slightly raised in reality.
But wait, the real aircraft may have been spot-welded. Spot welds show as small depressions in sheet metal. So we are saying the kit is 'crap' because the slight depressions are supposed to represent slightly raised flush rivets instead of slight depressions caused by spot welds???

Perhaps it's time to move along from the anecdotes on interpersonal relations and centre it moreso on the topic of the CE resin itself.
 
Thanks guys
 
Matty

Rank has its privileges. There are some well known photos of Adolph Galland's special presentation 109 U's with a mix of armament, one of which shows the fat one H. Goering standing on a well polished wing inspecting the cockpit. It was also raining, but if you can have a cigar lighter and spotting scope installed as standard equipment then you can certainly have that Daimler-Benz shiny paint finish on your ride.
Also, the pre- war finish of yellow wing US aircraft was a nice gloss on and Japanese early aircraft had that nice finish on them like a brand new Rincon Continentar on the showroom floor, or so I'm told. Check your sources and trust your judgement. What I would not give for a few bottles of Pactra flat clear.

I tend to pay attention and retain a fair amount of details when looking at actual period photographs.  I would maintain that the finish on combat aircraft (I am primarily familiar with WWII) runs the spectrum from dead flat to fairly glossy.  The only thing I have never noticed is the true glossy finish like what you see on a lot of restored warbirds.  I understand why restorers paint this way....for durability and ease of maintenance...but I don't think it is ever accurate for aircraft in a wartime environment.
 
Having said that...I prefer pretty much dead flat finishes on models.  Reflections tend to betray the size of an object....I'm not sure why it works that way...but it does.  Flat finishes also hide a lot of errors and imperfections on a model.  Ever had a model that you hated while in the glossy "decal" phase, covered with orange peel and other surface imperfections?  I sure have....then I hit it with the clear flat and suddenly it looks good again.