MikeC

The three main aircraft scales (oh and btw, a helicopter is an aircraft: all helicopters are aircraft but not all aircraft are helicopters) have a direct relationship to each other. 1 inch = 6 feet in 1/72 1 inch = 4 feet in 1/48 1 inch = 2 ft 8 in in 1/32. Eh? How is that direct? Multiply by 3, then 3 in = 18 ft in 1/72 3 in = 12 ft in 1/48 3 in = 8 ft in 1/32. It's a ratio of 1:1.5, so any dmension on an LSP is 1.5 times as large as on a 1/48 model. Rather appeals to my tidy mind. Buy and build 1/35 if you like, it's your modelling pound/dollar/euro/other currencies are available; but 1/35 just isn't for me, I have enough in proper scales to be getting on with (see Shoggz's Stash thread).

I thought I was a bit of a slowcoach, but checking my records I find that my most productive year was 2020, when I turned out 5 LSPs, plus another 4 models in 1/48 and 2 in 1/72. That was when I was writing for a now-seemingly-defunct magazine, but some of those were for me, not for said mag.

I suppose it's inevitable, and I've done it myself, but it does get boring if it happens too often. I guess one could develop some sort of formula to find x= number of posts where the thread becomes a wishlist but it won't be me. Fair point. But don't forget those of us who are builders and just don't post many WIPs and RFIs for whatever reason. (I start a thread with the best of intentions, but my photography skills and setup let me down every time).

Thanks for a very comprehensive review, Kev. I'm very sorely tempted!

Very nicely done Max The background makes it all the better, especially as it is more or less the same area - or at least the same county

I believe that's pretty much standard practice anywhere. The silver prevents UV rays from sunlight rotting the fabric. It can then be painted over or left as a final coat.

Nice work

Easy! Spitfire. PT-13/17 Stearman. T-6 Harvard. Sortie profile as on offer (these are all possible in return for money, although I may have to sell a few kits to pay for it all), but ideally would involve some low-level stuff, some gentle aerobatics (but not at exactly the same time) and lots of stick time.

And it's just occurred to me that I forgot about them because they're below all the other aircraft (If you're a Bucc afficionado, you'll understand.)

That's a beauty. Not battered and weathered either, which is as it should be, the Wittering Hunter wing was known for having the best-kept Hunters in the RAF during its brief existence.

The problem with posting in a hurry: how could I of all people forget my Spitfires ? Perhaps because they're down to a mere three: 1x Revell Mk IX 2x Kotare (one of each release). Are we venturing into other scales with this? As I do also have 2 x HKM 1/48 B-17s and 2x new-tool Airfix Buccaneers (1 started) in that scale too.

Not guilty m'lord. Well perhaps a little bit: 2x Tamiya P-51s 2x Revell Hunters. But also a Revell P-51D, does that count as three Ponies?

^^ That's an interesting analysis. Perhaps you should name this classification, as Myers and Briggs did theirs. I'd put myself in groups 1-3, and very definitely more "B" than "A".

Lovely helo, well done.

Always good to see one of Hawker's finest.

It was introduced post-war, and tbh I've only ever seen them that large in proportion to the wings on the Tempest. Even then, some Tempests used a smaller size serial. I'll have another dig in my copy of The Typhoon and Tempest Story (Thomas and Shores) to see if I can find anything more definitive. Edit: It just occurred to me to have a look at the instructions in the SH Tempest II: this provides three marking options, one of which has smaller serials, and two which have large serials, both presented slightly differently. https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/4/6/5/1014465-51-instructions.pdf

14. Perhaps it should have been more, as I was in Woodhall Spa a couple of weeks ago.

Still there, although I think I'm correct in saying it's a replica rather than a real Tiger II.

I aim to be as accurate as I can with the external finish, and I will build a particular aircraft at a point in time; so of course the tail number will match the unit markings, any ordnance will be as correct as I can get it for the unit and its role, etc, and weathering appropriate for the subject. On the other hand, I do not worry too much about the small technical details such as an extra instrument on the panel for a sub-variant, just as long as it looks plausible. After all, 99% of people who look at the model probably won't know, and hopefully the other 1% either won't notice or will be too polite to say anything. That's one thing I like about modelling, everyone is free to pursue it in their own way. Vive la difference!

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but Many Happy Returns

I seem to recall reading that the last batch of RF-4Bs had the C wing, but that may be my memory playing tricks as it was a good while ago. If it is so, that may be an answer, although there may have been other differences. I'm no Phantom expert though, so others may know more/better.

That's really well done. Good photos too. Welcome to the Dark Side Seriously, it does look so much better, and frees you from being restricted to what's available in decals. Yours look great.

Any relation to Helena one wonders ...

A kindred spirit! I've always preferred the Victor.