MikeC

My goal in this build, is to present what could've been what the RAF wanted and needed in the P-38 Lightning.  It seems appropriate that I use the "old school" Revell P-38 kit with its' many faults and inaccuracies.  I purchased it over 35 years ago at a K-Mart for around $12 and I'm glad to finally pull it out of the dungeon of doom.  There is a set of the now defunct Contact Resien-sp tires and props.  They are an example of the resin cottage industry from decades ago.  It's pitted resin with lots of flash and it may not make the final cut but we will see.  The same goes for the "Modelers Weapons Shop" resin replacement wing tips.  Very few of you will remember this company from Fort Worth Texas, I think the owner was Mike West?  They are also over 30 years old and of poor quality in comparison to todays resin products but for the sake of nostalgia I will try to use them.  

Most of us know the P-38 was a world beater in the Pacific where they flew missions in tropical conditions, at lower altitudes and in the hands of pilots with more extensive training.  Our two highest scoring aces of the war were Bong and McGuire who met a stubborn but haggled Japanese military resistance in their P-38s.   It was fast, powerful, had an unmatched climb rate and could carry the same bomb load as a B-25.  The European P-38 story was very different.  Pilots with brief training in the early F and G models found it to be a very demanding aircraft.  They were flying over 30,000 feet, got frostbite due to inferior cockpit heating and the British avgas didn't perform well with the US supercharger system.  Teething problems with the engines and compressibility in a new airframe were very unfortunate when facing the strongest years of the Luftwaffe.   On top of that the US tried to sell a neutered bill of goods to the Brits in the form of a "Lightning" without superchargers and without counter rotating props.

I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of four WnW Sopwith Pups in my stash…
 
Kind regards,
Paul

Mike, Yep 

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?

I think I’ll call it the ‘LSP-Gluehuffer’ scale. 
 
Kind regards,
Paul

Lovely helo, well done.

Some DH83 Fox Moth pictures for reference.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Kind regards,
Paul
 
 
 
 

Under Paul's system, I'd fall into a 2 with aspirations to a 3. While I don't consider myself an Artist, I can see there is artistry, even in model tanks, and the planes the people build here are art. I guess I lean more toward artists than realists and do not feel constrained to make my models look like a particular tank or airplane in most cases. I've used Generic Serials on every Sherman so far.
 
What's interesting is that you can almost break down the car world in the same way.
1. Guys who wash and maintain their car, change the oil, and basic stuff.
2. Guys who do brake jobs and can fix the easy stuff, sensors, etc.
3. Guys the clutch is no problem; can deal with most mechanical stuff, cam swaps, and carb swaps. Engine swaps, rebuilding engines etc.
4. Custom fuel injection system, custom suspension, make own frames, rebuild rear ends and transmissions. Cages, custom turbo or supercharger setups
 
You even have the subcategories.
Stock car guys: They work to achieve factory boring status, right down to the chalk marks and factory labels the dealerships normally remove!
Hotrodders: They want to go fast, fast in a straight line, fast around corners, fast up mountains, fast through deserts, just fast!
 

 

Lovely helo, well done.

@thierry laurent  and @Iain we have a quorum!
 
Kind regards,
Paul
 
 

Seconded - really worthwhile reads - and from a source/eye I trust!
 
Iain

Great analysis Paul.
 
I'd put myself down as a solid 2-B, but I'm trying my hardest to move to a 3!
 
One of the compelling things about scale modelling is that you have to exhibit both a practical and artistic bent within each project. To get a kit constructed you have to be able to apply practical skills, but once it is complete, to finish it, you need to bring to bear your artistic attributes.
 
I'm definitely more of the latter, so most projects - particularly in these larger scales, are me engaged in a fight and struggle to get a completed canvas for me to then bring my artistic side to bear - which I feel is my strong suit.
 
Don't get me wrong - I love the building side, just don't think I'm as good at it!
 

^^ 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". 

Still think they should show some b***s and do a 1:24 Lightning F.6 or Spey Phantom FG.1
 
Tony 

Gosh how few jets make people’s list. I suppose it’s not likely based on the trend. Airfix should make a 1/24 Bearcat or maybe I should just finish mine someday! lol 
 

There has been some good suggestions here for the next Airfix release.  Here's a few of mine, in no particular order.
 
1)  P-40.  It would have to be a later one as the B/C models have been done.  But how about a Merlin powered P-40??
2)  P-51B.  We're all crying out for one.  Bear in mind that Airfix have said they won't de-do an old release, so no likelyhood of a new Spitfire Mk.I, Stuka, P-51D, BF-109E etc.  So I'd suggest a P-51 highback model would sell as we can't be the only people wanting a good model of such a plane.
3)  Griffon powered Spitfire.  Surely a no brainer??  Mk.XIV's look best to me, without the bloated tails of the later ones, and they saw service in WW2  Plenty of choice with markings and would make a good basis for a resin or 3D print conversion set to make it a later version for them as want such a thing.
4)  FW-190D.  The A has been done in 1/24.  Does anyone not want a long nose Dora done as well as the Spitfire IX?? 
5)  P-47 Razorback.  I know there's another of these in 1/24, but it doesn't hold a candle to Airfix's excellent Spitfire IX.  Personally, I always prefer the looks of the original design, be it Spitfire, P-51 or P-47.  They just look right.  And I think the P-47 has been unjustly overshadowed by the P-51 too.  A very worthy plane warranting the Airfix treatment.  An alternative suggestion would be the last variant, the P-47N which was surely the best escort fighter of the Pacific theatre.
6)  Nakajima Ki-84.  A very worthy choice for something from the Pacific theatre and a good match for Airfix's Hellcat.  Possibly Japan's best from that era??  I'd buy it.
7)  Hawker Tempest.  Another outside chance, given their also excellent Typhoon, but a good candidate.  Or they could do a Centaurus powered model.
8)  Bristol Beaufighter.  Another one many here would like to see, and also another plane from WW2 which model companies have unjustly ignored.  It's a bit of an outside chance, and I'm not sure how their Mossie sold, but I'd still like to see one in LSP. 
 
I could go on, but I see these as the best choice for Airfix to make another successful LSP.  Notice I haven't included a 109F or G.  I think there's enough good LSP's there to make that choice less viable for Airfix, though I do not include any of Trumpeter's offerings in that thought.
 
 
Cheers,
Michael

Thank you for your sacrifice, Martin!

I can - a Spitfire Mk I to the same standard as the Mk IX... 

*If* I know the subject reasonably well it has to look right shape-wise - at least to my personal eyes.
 
Actually, if I'm honest, it's the research and challenge of 'fixing' things I find that probably gives me the most satisfaction in modelling...
 
Oh, and I aspire to #5 on that list: which is probably why I can never, actually, finish anything!!
 
Iain

^^ 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". 

There are so many wonderful posts on this thread already! I’ll try to contribute a little something worthwhile.
 
Salvador Dali once famously said “Don’t worry about perfection, you’ll never reach it” and the same could be said for ‘accuracy’ because even if one is building an exact 1:1 replica of the real thing, some compromises will be inevitable. As we get smaller in scale the compromises we all have to make get ever bigger. But whatever compromises we make: what we do should always be enjoyable or else why are we doing it?
 
There is a continuum or hierarchy of model making which is usually dictated by experience (and before anyone gets upset there is nothing wrong with being in any of these groups):
1. Those who are working to assemble a kit they bought without a major mess-up and get it painted and decalled according to the manufacturer’s instructions. 
2. Those who are working to assemble a kit and have it painted and decalled according to some of their secondary source research. 
3. Those who work to build a kit and modify it somewhat according to their primary and secondary source research. This is to further approach a more accurate representation of the overall shape and details of a chosen aircraft type. They then have it painted, decalled and weathered according to their research.
4. Those who are willing and able to wholesale modify a kit to get a particular kit to model a particular airframe at a particular time and who will do a great deal of  primary and secondary source research to enable them to paint, decal and weather their chosen subject.
5.  Scratch builders who do extensive, independent primary source research, who experiment with many methods and materials in creating a one-off and who can create components in a variety of media and can paint, decal, weather their subject in an entirely controlled manner to achieve the result they want.
 
Every one of these groups is represented here. The great thing about LSP is that each group tends to help the others: Group 1 to remind the other four to ‘Just put a model together and have fun like you did when you were a kid!’ Group 4 to help people in groups 1,2 and 3 how they overcame problems when they were less experienced. Group 5 to show to everyone the art of the possible. I won’t list all possible combinations but you get the picture.
 
There are two schools that work within those groups (and the Venn diagram that represents these two groups has a healthy overlap).
A. ‘Realists’: Fidelity to the real original is all: This group would be likely to match colours to chip samples using RLM or Federal Standards. Everyone from group 2 on through 5 could belong here. Modellers like Paul Budzik tend to reside in this space.
B. ‘Artists’: Creating the right impression is all. This group would be likely to simply choose colours from a palette because they simulated particular light conditions or took account of scale or wanted to create an impression of a deeper cockpit opening. The ‘Spanish School’ tend to reside in this group.
 
I mostly belong in groups 1 and 2 and occasionally I venture into 3. Like @mozart I try to get it ‘as accurate as I can’ and like @Stokey Pete I try to have fun while I do that. I get my ambition from @airscale (wow) and sense of perspective and new subjects to research from @Christa (thank you buddy), my hope that I too can do more challenging work from @tomprobert , collaboration from @europapete and awareness of what the industry does and how to correct what they don’t do well from @thierry laurent. And I thank the moderators who keep here the best modelling site on the planet.
 
Are my models ‘accurate’? Nope. But each is as well made as I can do it at the time and I enjoy every minute of it. That is not only due to the building and painting process itself but also down to the great community here. Thank you all.
 
Kind regards,
Paul.

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