Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wmoran

  • Rank
    LSP Junkie
  • Birthday 05/19/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Monroe, Louisiana, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

248 profile views
  1. The only problem I've found with Airscale decals and PE bezels is that they are actually to-scale (if you can call that a problem when we get upset that a kit is 1-2mm off in total length). When using the decals with kit IPs, the decals are normally a little larger than the kit instrument bezel because the kit maker had to take into account the thickness of the plastics parts and design some parts a little under-scale. Airscale's new decals include colored rings for the bezels of the instruments as needed, e.g., yellow and red for fuel/oil levels and pressures and blue for O2. I like the newer Eduard PE IPs that have separate bezels that you glue on which gives a more realistic look than the panels that just use flat PE for the front of the IP. Bill
  2. Regarding the shrinkage of Oramask 810: I remembered that Bob Booth (Bob's Buckles) had stated that he used Artool Ultra Mask. I PM'd him to ask about shrinkage with that product. He replied that he had experience with both Oramask 810 and Ultra Mask, and the Ultra Mask had much less shrinkage. Of course the Ultra Mask is more expensive as it's an Iwata product (or at least distributed by Iwata in the US). I'm just throwing this out there so you know that there are alternatives to Oramask. You would still need to use some transfer tape for the multi-part/multi-stage masks. Also, I have only been using my Silhouette for a very short time and have very limited experience with Oramask 810 and the Tamiya sheets. I have not personally used Ultra Mask yet. Bill
  3. I'm just the reverse of Brian re: Tamiya paints. They are great to airbrush (I use Gunze Mr Leveling Thinner now - previously used Tamiya lacquer thinner), but I can never get a decent finish hand-brushing. I have a good supply of Vallejo for hand-brushing. I have not tried MRP yet due to the cost. I forgot the info I was going to include re: Neo's original question. I have never used the MIG acrylics, but I've used Vallejo Model Air and the no longer available Color of Eagles acrylics. To me, the pure acrylics have a fairly steep learning curve to figure out the thinning ratio and air pressures needed. I also recommend using the paint brand's thinner, and I found that priming was necessary for me to get a decent finish. Using other types of thinners and/or not priming resulted in splatters, runs, poor adhesion, etc.
  4. Looks more like a full-scale restoration than a model. Incredible work. Bill
  5. I thought the difference between the A-6 and A-7 were the fuselage mounted MGs - A-6 used MG 17 and A-7 used MG 131. Both aircraft used MG 151/20s in all wing positions. NOTE: This statement is relying on my memory, so you're taking your chances if you go with this rather than looking it up in a reputable reference.
  6. If it's not a regular envelope, e.g., padded envelopes & cardstock envelopes, the PO uses parcel rates rather than standard envelope rates. I recently sold some decals and mailed them in a card stock envelope of about 7" x 4". The total weight was probably less than 2 oz., but they charged me $3.78. I can understand thick padded envelopes which won't go through their automated scanners, but this envelope was definitely thin enough not to cause a problem. Stateside mailing is still not as bad as mailing to overseas destinations. I've been selling some things on eBay, and the postage rates make overseas sales too expensive for potential buyers.
  7. D.B., You're right that it matches the drawing (I have a higher resolution version of that particular drawing), but it still doesn't look anything like what I can make out in photos. The "thing" (it might not be a fuel pump) that I can see in the photos of aircraft with the forward section of aerodynamic fairing removed looks much more boxy. I think I'll try scratching something like the pump in Tony's post and the drawing and another that looks more like what I've seen in unclear photos. Thanks for your input, Bill
  8. Thanks Tony, but I don't think that is the same fuel pump. On the photos of the incomplete ETC 501 on the IWM Fw 190, there are four holes for the mounting hardware of the missing fuel pump. The fuel pump you found doesn't appear to mount that way. Thanks, Bill
  9. Thanks Max & D. That's about the best I could get it to look with GIMP. That fingerprint right over the fuel pump really seems to mess up the image enhancement tools. Maru - I have the "Fw 190A-8 handbuch" already. I also have the images of the Fw 190 in the IWM, but the fuel pump and all of the aerodynamic fairing is missing from its ETC 501. Thanks for the effort though. I guess I'll just wing it. If nobody else has detailed photos of the fuel pump, who can say my model of it is wrong? Thanks, Bill
  10. Since I could not find any drawings of the EP-1E fuel pump on the ETC 501 stores rack of the Fw 190, I was hoping someone with expertise in Photoshop would see if they could sharpen this photo to show more detail. I tried several things in GIMP, but I don't really know the program very well, and graphics programs are definitely not my strong point. The main problem to clearing up the image is that there is a fingerprint right on the fuel pump, and that has an effect on any attempts to bring out the details in the shadow. I guess I should mention the fuel pump is the device between the rack and the rear portion of the aerodynamic fairing in the photo. You can just make out the portion of the piano hinge on the fairing that the forward fairing would attach to. Thanks in advance for any assistance anyone can give. Bill
  11. I am trying to modify the Revell Fw 190 ETC 501 rack with part of the fairing removed. I have enough pics and drawings to make most of it except the EP-1E fuel pump. I have a fairly clear depiction of the fuel pump on a couple of Claes Sundin's profiles, but that just gives me what it looks like in profile, and I need to know what it looks like in 3D. I emailed Claes, and he said that he never found any detailed pics/drawings and just did the profile from the pictures of the actual plane he was creating the profile of. Here is the relevant section of Claes' profile: Here is a pic of a partial ETC 501 rack (no fairing and no fuel pump). The red box marks the spot where the fuel pump would be located. Thanks for any help you can provide. Bill
  12. I use the same magnifier that Brian (Out2gtcha) showed. One problem is that after only a few months, the lens easily pops out of the connector on the frame if bumped. I am going to try wrapping a little tape around the connection point on the lens to see if that helps. The other problem is adjusting the lens so it is in the right plane in front of my eyes after moving it away to look at something farther away. It moves in two axes, and I have to pay attention to make sure the lens isn't canted when moving it back in front of my eyes. Plenty of lens cleaner or IPA with a microfiber cloth or lens-safe tissues is also a must with these magnifiers due to having to touch the lens to move it. Your cockpit is looking very good. Bill
  13. What did we average modelers do before the Internet? The access to such knowledgeable individuals such as Vincent, Radu, et. al. on this forum is such a magnificent resource for all modelers. Thanks to Vincent, Radu, et. al. for sharing their knowledge with the rest of us. Bill
  14. When a pilot jettisoned his Erla Haube canopy to bale-out or when making a belly landing, did the structure (rod & attachments) indicated by the arrow go with it? I am working on a G-14 shot down during Bodenplatte, and was considering making a diorama with it on the ground after a belly landing. The photos show the canopy near the aircraft, but I cannot see any details either on the canopy or in the cockpit. If anyone knows exactly what happens when the pilot pulls the emergency canopy release lever, I would really appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Bill
  • Create New...