Mark_C

I'd like a 1/32 Dinah. It's a lovely plane.

I don't think they have coupons. They have daily specials and weekly sales, and you accumulate rewards as you purchase.

I believe very creditable M1.Cs have already been released by Alley Cat and Special Hobbies, so I rather doubt WnW will also release one.

I don't think they need the D.III to make a W.4. It was based on the D.I, not the D.III. Unless I misunderstood your point?

An Albatros W.4 would be nice . . .

"Why? I know that quite often it is to give the original poster a tip. " I'm pretty sure that's a good idea, and if I were to start a build thread, I'd sure appreciate getting a pointer or two, especially if it helps me improve the build or avoid a problem.

I thought that pic you posted of the underside was interesting, Radu - it looks like the restorers had some overspray problems with the nationalist Chinese star. I wonder how often that happened with the actual Flying Tigers?

I've always had trouble reconciling the difference between scale and actual distance. If your eyesight's good, you can focus down to about a foot, or so (if not closer). But that's a "scale distance" of 32 feet, where you normally would not discern rivets and other small details (unless they're somehow emphasized). But if you were a foot away, you'd certainly notice them. So what's correct, here? Lots of detail which you can see (but which has, at least to me, the side effect of making a model sometimes look "overdone" and garish), or a weirdly smooth model lacking details from a foot's distance? I think one of the most telling examples of this is in figure painting. I've seen wonderful 54mm (1/32, approx) figures with terrific detail . . . but Sheperd Paine also pointed out that at 30+ feet away, you don't see eyes very well, so you can achieve a lot with shadows and highlights and fleshtone eyeballs. As Troy says, these are just my thoughts, etc.

And . . . it's been released, according to ICM: http://www.icm.com.ua/news/610-i-16-type-10-wwii-soviet-fighter.html

I'm sorry to find out these contributors decided to pull their material. I was never involved in any of the kerfuffle(s) that might have afflicted this community, and I would have found build threads very useful. This "I'm taking my stuff and going home!!! SO THERE!!!" attitude just strikes me as petty. Oh, well.

I was interested in seeing peoples' experience with the KH T-28, and after some searching, I found this page: https://www.largescaleplanes.com/kitdb/builds.php?act=related&family=338 However, the last two links come up as Sorry, there is a problem We could not locate the item you are trying to view. Error code: 2F173/1 Is this just a temporary glitch, or have these pages been permanently removed? Thanks, Mark

I'm wondering which harness/belt might be suitable for a T-28C? I know HGW makes a USN/USAAF one (here: https://hgwmodels.cz/en/seatbelts/236-usaaf-us-navy-seatbelts-132-132085.html , ) and RB Productions makes a USN one, which you can see here: http://www.radubstore.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=201 But I don't know if either is appropriate. Also, never having used an HGW product, I get a bit confused by the packaging: is that ONE harness or TWO? Thanks for any info.

I found this link about eggshells, etc: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235017564-bare-metal-foil/ Look for the February 27 post by "Old Man."

Troy, This is what I did: I copied the url of the image you provided, and then clicked on the "insert image from URL" tab on the lower right of the message box. This is what happened:

Just FYI, I remember reading years ago in an issue of FineScale Modeler about someone who stuck aluminum foil in a pot, and boiled it with eggshells. The longer the boil, the more the appearance changed. It made the foil look dull and changed the color a bit, too. Could be worth a shot.