MikeC

Has that FAA Buccaneer pilot got a moustache? Oops! Clean-shaven or full set in the RN, moustaches are for the Crabs Of course, he could be RAF, there were plenty of RAF aircrew in the Naval Buccaneer force.

Thanks. You were lucky with the kit decals: my kit was a second-hand purchase off eBay, and the decals were unusable (in fairness this was pointed out by the seller, I knew what I was buying. Well done again.

That's a great result, it looks really good. Which unit is it from? I'd guess 15th AF in Italy? I'm particularly pleased to see it as I'm currently doing a similar thing with the Bubbletop kit from the same manufacturer and era, not least to use some spare decals I have. You're quite right, sometimes it's good to forget about all the mods needed and just have a blast building it.

I find Tamiya X22 perfectly adequate for my purposes. As for dipping, what's wrong with a polish? Just a small dab of Micro Gloss abrasive polishing compound and polish it out with a cotton bud or fine cloth. Back in the day, toothpaste was an accepted polishing compound, and it did work.

Plus for we post-war Brit modellers the iconic Landrover would be good, although a full range from Series 1 to Defender via air portable etc would perhaps be too much to hope for.

That's the spirit Max, crack on! Look forward to seeing the finished model in due course.

I believe it was the same engine irl, so subject to rechecking my copy of The Typhoon and Tempest Story there is no reason you shouldn't from an accuracy pov. The only issues will be whether an item designed for one kit will fit another easily.

Should be easy enough, but all you'd end up with would be a "stretch limo" 1/35 Jeep. Increasing everything else in the right proportions would probably be somewhat more difficult.

They do indeed. And I've recently found that when they get coated in paint - I use Tamiya and Mr Hobby acrylics - it cleans up well with strong alcohol. For avoidance of doubt, I mean Surgical spirit, not my best gin

All good here, many thanks for overseeing a seamless user migration experience

Really looking forward to seeing how this progresses. It will certainly build into an impressive model, particularly in Tolga's hands. I have - it is an impressive beast close-up. There's one in the RAFM Cosford https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/boulton-paul-defiant-mk-1/

Very imaginative and certainly unusual. The woman is particularly well done, but the whole thing is great.

They look fine as they are, and I'm glad to see that you've avoided the most common error, which is to try to detail the eyes. It can't be done in this scale, just looks stary, probably scary as well, and cartoonish. But a bit of shading the eye area with a slightly darkened mix might not go amiss.

No idea what happened to those that survived the War: I have a vague memory that Westland used one for a while as a hack, but may be mis-remembering. Apparently, despite the known issues, pilots liked them as they flew well. There were only two squadrons, and pilots tended to be stay with them. But I think the concept of the aircraft - as a platform for four large cannon - was eventually fulfilled by other types, and it was superseded. Funnily enough, future preservation was not high on anyone's agenda at the time.

You and me both! Has to be one of my favourite characters in the entire Discworld. My favourite scene, I think, is where the wizards of Unseen University are performing the rite to summon him. At the climax, there is then a long silence, when apparently nothing happens, broken only by these words from the corner of the room: "ARE WE WAITING FOR ANYONE IN PARTICULAR?"

Think positive! It better enables you to see what you're doing, so you can improve things yourself rather than rely on a/m.

I'm not too far behind you, and that's made me think of another reason for not using it. It generally adds time and complexity to the modelling process (except for canopy masks) so lessens the chances of completing at least a fair portion of the stash.

Joking aside, I'm with @mozart on this - even though I'm a mere youth compared to your claim of 77 (really?) - one's got to go sometime, so may as well enjoy the time we've got. No stupid risks, but no excessive risk-avoidance either.

I built a 1/144 vacform Meteor many years ago, is that a micro-plastic?

I'm certainly using less aftermarket than I have used in the past. It's not just cost: it's breaking an arguably unnecessary habit of using it. Once upon a time, kits were often pretty basic, with minimal detail in many cases. Aftermarket arose to fufil the legitimate wish to improve models built from these kits. But nowadays, kits have better detail from the box, accepting that it may not always be technically 100% correct. So nowadays I try to see what I can do from the box in terms of detail. I do still use a/m, but far more selectively when needed, rather than just replace a kit part because there is a/m available.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that T2 instrument fit varied according to the operator, and a bit of research will show that each operator had a different model number. The kit panel is accurate for the Canadian option in the original kit.

+1

I am, now I've found it.

Apologies, it was the "all classic trainers" that misled me. I have the Magister in the stash: it looks good in the box, but the proof will be in the building when I get around to it.

I agree, although the Bulldog I think you mean was by Scottish Aviation, whereas the Bristol Bulldog was the inter-war biplane fighter. Not sure they'd do a Magister, given that Mikro-Mir have done one in 1/32, but I wouldn't say no if they did.