MikeC

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.

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.