Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jenshb

  1. Jennings, the header of the Spit XVI claims it's a XIV:) BTW, the main difference between the XVI and the IX was the engine (Packard-built Merlin and RR Merlin respectively) and associated systems and not the fuselage. Hence, you could have high back XVI and a low-back IX. In the book Spitfire International, the South African low-back Spitfires used post-war are given as HF.IXe (with a high-altitude-rated Merlin engine) - in spite of having clipped wings. The XVI vs IX distinction is useful for marketing different variants which is what Tamiya did. Jens
  2. The Phantom in the RAF Museum is a Spey-engined one FGR.2 IIRC. These were painted Barley Grey/Medium Sea Grey/Light Aircraft Grey in the UK, but the F-4J (UK) were painted in the US before delivery in US approximations to these colours. The area that was supposed to be Barley Grey ended up in a gray with a distinct greenish tint, so not Barley Grey at all. The Verlinden Lock-On book should have some photos of these aircraft. Jens
  3. I'm pretty certain the Mk.VIII can be built with the normal elliptical wingtips and the rounded rudder, but I can't think of any concrete examples at the moment. After all, the Mk. VIIs were retrofitted with the elliptical wingtips shortly after D-day. For the XVI, I think the answer is "not if you want an accurate model". With the cut down rear fuselage, the vertical tail area (including the rudder) would need to be increased to maintain yeaw stability, so this would only have the pointed rudder. I can't even recall seeing a photo of a cut-down Merlin Spitfire with the rounded rudder. Jens
  4. Very nice...a convincing representation of an aircraft used and looked after. Jens
  5. jenshb

    too much

    So we have rivet-counters and paint-nazis. Should we have weathering-commies next? A lot of the models I see that suffers the typical preshading are weathered to the same extent all over (it is all equal!), with little regard for how real aircraft weather.Anything that is new and is being used will start to show signs of wear - we all agree on that. However, some areas will get dirtier/faded/chipped quicker than others. Oil leaks from the engine, lubricants from hinges of flaps, dirty hand marks around removableservice panels, bootmarks and grime within walkways - all these features can tell how an aircraft "lives", and means that applying the same look all over is as unrealistic as a model with no weathering at all. Actually even more since the model may portray a brand new or pristine subject. Jens
  6. On a side note to foiling - how does one go about to hide the clear decal film around individual letters when applying decals to foil? Are some decals more invisible than others? The last time I used foil on a model (the belly of a 1:144 Boeing 767), I tried to put decals on the shiny foil, and no matter what I did, the film changed the reflective properties in spite of applying a coat of Future. Lukily I didn't really need any decals on that part, but I did it mainly to see if the decal film would still be visible. I guess the obvious answer is to remove all decal film which is easy on USAF logos for example, but not so easy on serial numbers and rather impractical for stencilling. Rub down transfers are only available for some subjects. Jens
  7. Could you do a flatpack vacform machine too? Say one that would be suitable for canopies... Jens
  8. Hi Radu, Yesterday I tested the panel scriber and "over the edge saw/file that I bought from you in Dublin. I was impressed - the best tools I have used for this purpose, so I'll pick up some more in Telford. Jens
  9. While it is understandable that you do not wish to tear up your work at this stage - would it not be possible to make new wheel wells and forward bulkheads so that the modeller could make the necessary modification to the lower wings to incorporate the correct wheel wells? Alternatively, would you consider modifying the pattern for a future Sea Hornet release as the panel lines and hinge blisters will require a new wing (unless the modeller will be required to scribe the panel lines and add separately cast blisters). The forward bulkhead would be new, but this could be an additional component. The practical impact on the undercarriage should be small as the hinge point would be the same. Jens
  10. Mirek, Looking at the instructions, I have two concerns - both regarding the wheel wells. Would the main wheel actually fit the way it is designed? When trying to get anything useful out of the Classic Airframes kit, the wheel well struck me as being somewhat shallow in spite of the bump in the lower wing (similar to what you have done). The only way I think deHavilland would squeeze that wheel inside the sleek nacelle would be to let the wheel partly be housed inside the wing profile - like they did with the Mosquito. The wheel well should therefore be open between the main and rear spars and then having it boxed off at the sides, making the upper wing skin the roof of the wheel well. The other concern is the position of the forward bulkhead/engine firewall - this looks to be fitting vertically inside the nacelle, and I would have thought this would follow the panel line on the outside to allow enough space for the air intake ducting to the Merlins. As it is now, the panel line doesn't quite follow the structure behind it... I haven't got access to any images that can explain what I mean at the moment. Edit: I have now looked through my Hornet folder on my computer, and the representation of the wheelwell doesn't match what I see in the drawings. The wing structure is hollow between the ribs either side of the wheel well . Regarding the firewall, it looks more upright in this drawing, but the top of the bulkhead is aligned with the position of the main spar of the wing (which makes sense structurally). But looking at the GA of the engine nacelle, the firewall appears to be aligned with the panel line Jens
  11. I'm enjoying it all right:) Please share more when you can. Jens
  12. Do you take credit cards, or will I need to bring cash? Jens
  13. Any progress on the DH Hornet? Would love to pick one up at Telford... Jens
  14. In an IPMS Norway magazine many years ago, Mr Geir Nordrum (then a mechanic at 334 Sqn RNoAF operating CF-104s) was modelling his daytime job from the Hasegawa kit. From what he said, the "hyd hatch" and "electronics hatch" (my translation) were frequently open as they were shut after the aircraft had been started up. Photos show that it is not uncommon to see these open. Jens
  15. It doesn't look too bad...wonder if it will be ready for Scale Model World? http://www.hphmodels.cz/kat163.html Jens
  16. The Lindberg kit doesn't get a good write-up in the Detail&Scale book on the B-1. It has numerous shape problems and is representative of a B-1A (one of the first three with the escape capsule). A better starting point will be to use the Monogram 1:144 kit which is a B-1B to start with. OK, it's a Snap-tite kit and doesn't come with landing gear (stand is provided, but you could take the gear from a Minicraft kit if you're building it on the ground). There are some wrong shapes and features too, but nothing like the Lindberg kit - which you will have to spend a lot of time to convert into a B-1B while fixing problems. Jens
  17. If you're not in a hurry, there will be some F-15A wheels in resin from Sierra Hotel Models at some point. You will need to pester them for release dates though - I just mastered the wheel hubs:) http://sierrahotelmodels.webs.com/32300 The fairing behind the speedbrake is also different between the A/B and the C/D/E. Jens
  18. The B-1 in the strategic scheme was not the same "Europe 1" scheme. The colours in "Europe 1" were two greens and a grey - the B-1 (like other SAC bombers at the time) were two grays and a green: FS34086, FS36081 and FS36118. The Detail and Scale book has schematic drawings of the camouflage pattern and is highly recommended also for detailing your model. Jens
  19. Plastic World Modelling Products make resin bases to convert the Tamiya F-16 kit to an A or AM - naturally these are only applicable to the P&W powered kit (Thunderbirds markings) which I believe has been discontinued? You could of course use the Hasegawa F-16A/C and make the necessary updates. Not as pricey and desirable (I'd say) as the Tamiya kit, but it's a good basis to work on. Jens
  20. Interesting techniques Derek. Looking forward to see your build take shape and how you will tackle those intakes... Jens
  21. Ingenuity at work:) Interesting to see how you make things take shape. That method of making a tube was new to me - wouldn't it be easier to us an Evergreen tube though? Jens
  22. When CMK took the 1:48 Italeri kit and added resin parts and a new decal sheet, they also included a set of drawings in 1:48. I don't know how accurate they are, but on first impressions they *look* decent. I can scan a copy if you want. I wouldn't use the KittyHawk Gripen as gospel and the last word in accuracy - the air intake looks too tall, so not enough space between the canopy and the top of the intake - compare with photos of the side view and the kit. Also, the nose strikes me as being too thin/pointy. here's a shot of the JAS39D at Fairford this year. Jens
  • Create New...