MikeC

Hi gentlemen
This is my last construction, something different today ... this is the Wessex  HU 5 from Fly.... the kit is a "short term", the plastic is thick, the engraving is sometimes "soft", especially the multitude of small holes supposed to represent the rivets (they are raised on the real machine) but no matter that works, we have some nice resin parts ( cockpit consoles , rotor head , wheels etc ....)The decals are thin and nice , for 4 different colorful helos .. The instruction sheet is .....not clear , and I dare to say "messy" , ... But stop chatting, there is a complete review of the kit here....... Well, don’t expect a very detailed construction like "Shark 64 did it here some time ago, I’m nowhere near as skillful as he... My main improvement is in the cargo cabin. there is a lack of detail inside, and God knows this area is " occupied," so I scratch built it, and too bad if nothing will be seen afterwards..... I put some raised rivets here and there on some hatches, panels and so on, especially around the windscreen, for a more pleasing effect, I added some "pipes" along the fuselage on both sides , the rotor head needs more details , a good picture is very useful because of this complex area ........ what else ??, the paint scheme is not provided, but it's nothing, I just painted a big D on the fuselage, the decals are from the kit...... Is it perfect ???? no , but despite some issues , it was a cool trip ......so enjoy ....or not thanks for watching
Alain
some in progress pictures





 





 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
 
 
 

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
 
 
 

Thanks for the concern, chaps!
I'm back at the bench making buckles again. 
It got a little scary at times, but I came through in the end.
 
The only thing I'm recovering from at the moment is my pride and some sore ribs. I hit the tarmac this morning while out riding and fell flat on my side, bruising my ribs and cutting open my left eye. Live and learn!
 
Onward and upwards.
Cheers,
Bob
 

Kits-World seat harnesses now added. Tomorrow I'll dirty this up with some washes and get ready to assemble the fuselage halves.
 

And the bomb gets some yellow stripes (Aeromaster RLM 04). I've seen numerous iterations of these rings, and so have elected to do it as shown. Now on to the weathering. Yee-haw.
 

 
 
 
 
 

Centerline bomb now painted, again. I’ve noted that on many bombs of this nature, there seem to be reddish brown bands painted in the area of the shipping rings, so I have now masked and painted these. Bomb stripe decals are pretty much worthless, so I'll just paint those on. Fingers crossed.
 

The beginnings of the main landing gear now taking shape. Still waiting for my seat harnesses to arrive, so I’m working on other bits now. I love the little rotation gears.
 

Progress is progress, albeit slow!
 

 

 

 

 

I think this is close to my attitude and approach, and probably why I build so slowly. I love doing the research almost as much, maybe more, and usually I build to represent a specific aircraft I can document. It depends on the aircraft. Mustangs, or Polish Air Force related aircraft, yes, I will spend time and effort, within my abilities, to get it as accurate as I can . Others, not so much. German aircraft I build out of the box and I try to get all the colours close to what I think looks right...versus...measuring a line of stencils on a Mustang to make sure it's precisely a scale 2.75" from a panel line.
 
And sometimes aircraft I don't know very well capture my imagination and I try to incorporate as much detail as I can, like this MB.152 I've been working on for months. I guess it depends on the most recent rabbit hole I've trapped myself in. 
 
I think the answer is to build obscure aircraft nobody recognizes then you can't be called on accuracy. 
 
Richard

I try to balance between accuracy and my limited abilities.   When I built my Gabreski P 47, I spent a lot of time figuring out what the drop tank plumbing was supposed to look like, and was pretty happy with the result.  
 
I also added corrugated to the floor because when I started, that was the info I had.  Win some, lose some.  
 
I try to build things that really existed, and try to make my model look, to my eye, like the real thing, but the draw for me is the mental distraction that a good hobby provides.  That's why I do this.  When I was young and inpatient, it was a race. N9w I spend years on and off working on a large kit. 
 
 

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!
 

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!
 

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!
 

An accurate model simply does not exist... Moreover the level of accuracy is a very personal matter. As far as a modeller is happy with regard to his model, accuracy is just one parameter amongst multiple ones. I went to a local exhibition yesterday. There were many 'average' models with blemishes, decal silvering and so on. I could not avoid seeing them but did not care as soon as the people who made them talked about them with obvious passion. I just left them half an hour later with a big smile. For sure I'm a detail freak who stays too much time amongst his thousands of aviation books. I love reading and to me research is as fun as modelling. However, my modelling standard is purely individual. This is a typical reason why I really prefer exhibitions rather than contests...

Not a single one of my models can be called accurate. I started out sweating on the little inaccuracies, and found I just didn’t enjoy the hobby. Added to that, I junked models because I deemed them not accurate enough. I was constantly making comparisons between my own, and some of the modelling superstars we have here. That caused a complete lack of enjoyment.  
I soon switched to a system of overlooking shape and proportion inaccuracies. If it looks like what I’m trying to build, that will do for me. 

I’m very much a “if it looks ok from 20 paces then that’s good enough for me” type builder. 
 
I rarely buy after-market ‘corrections’ for models and for me, life is too short to get bogged down with correcting every last detail - I just enjoy sticking bits of plastic together. 
 
I always find it fascinating to watch some builders ‘correct’ a model to the nth degree and then paint and weather it so it bears no resemblance to the real thing whatsoever - over zealous panel shading and patchwork quilt paint effects that simply never existed on that particular aircraft. But, we all approach hobbies in our own way and that’s very much down to personal choice. 
 
It’s also interesting to watch build threads on this and other forums where a builder starts to make adjustments and corrections to a kit and very quickly runs out of steam - it’s all too easy to get bogged down and thus the build stalls. I’m very much the same - which is why I tend to stick with what the kit provides and just enjoy it. As I said, each to their own. 

And you have touched on a very important point there Chris….making inaccurate assumptions! We know that the vast majority of Tiger Moths had the slats so we assume that it’s a deHavilland feature. But, nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces a good reference photograph and careful scrutiny thereof.

When a finished model looks near enough to how I intended, I am happy. 
 
Sometimes one of my builds looks better than I imagined, then I am very happy.
 
Accuracy? Hmm. Recently I realised that Fox Moth G-ACRU did not have leading edge slats. My conversion of a Matchbox Tiger Moth had not touched the top planes before the project limped back to the drawing board for a fuselage rethink. I had been on track to finish that model with slats. However, if I had built it with slats I am certain I would be correcting those top planes already because wrong is wrong. Right?

Of course I WANT my models to be as accurate as possible, but sometimes (...most of the times...) reality kicks in.
 
But I usually have a very relaxed attitude to dimensions (as long as the overall shape is OK), markings and colors, depending on the subject.
 
As long as I have fun buildig the kit and I´m satisfied with the result, I´m happy!
 
After all, not many people except my wife and myself will ever see it!
 
 
Stefan 

After a point, I really don't care. Kit irregularities themselves, if too pronounced, get relegated to the shelf or sold off. Other than that, if it looks OK to me, that's all I want.

As I’ve said many times before, research is as important an element of any model that I build as actually making the model itself, so accuracy is paramount. Having said that, any model has to be a compromise to some degree so there’s always some latitude: “it’s as right as I can make it”. What I’m NOT….is a rivet-counter. 

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!
 

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!