VintageEagle

PS: also the pitot tube heating indicator and the two fuel indicators were only installed in early production jets. They were later omitted in order to simplify production and reduce parts (so-called “Entfeinerung”). The KG 13B trigger was usually in safe position on the ground. It would be more realistic to print the stick like that. The handle on the lower right if the panel was only installed in late production Me 262s. It was used to regulate the cockpit heating which was only installed in later examples. But it would be easy to remove so that one could build a jet with and without heating.

I am interested too. Looks very nice and the proportion are very good. Please note that the round counters were almost never installed (except in early production Me 262s) since the required electrical connection at the MK 108s was missing and not implemented before production of the MK 108 stopped. There were also variations of the panel. Later production versions did not have the differential pressure gauges and oil pressure gauges. It would be nice if you also include a SWA10 box for the R4M rockets besides the ZSK244 for the drop ordnance. And it would be excellent if you also did a nightfighter panel with the large repeater compass (which was in the same vertical line as the artificial horizon and not offset like in the Eduard detail set). Cheers, Roger

Thank you very much Chuck for the additional details abour how you apply the panel line wash. I will test the TPLAC on a spare part. So far I have used a few of the AK Interactive and Mig washes, but some of them were not good anymore even after I mixed them well. The solid and liquid had separated and I did not get a uniformly diluted paint anymore. Cheers, Roger

OK, I checked my wartime photos of a few captured jets and found the following: W.Nr. 500071 (German museum aircraft) without glass and bracket W.Nr. 500453 (NASM aircraft) most likely with glass and bracket W.Nr. 111711 without glass and bracket I think David Brown narrowed down the W.Nr. block of Yellow 3 to 110xxx, which was not a very late war production. So, it may well have had the bracket and glass, but it may as well not have had the bracket or even a bracket without the glass installed. They installed whatever was available and it may well be that earlier production Revis were fitted to late war production Me 262s.

The Revi 16B in the NASM Me 262 is a replacement as the original was no longer present when they restored it. They went with the manual, which showed one with sun shade glass, but most likely it did have a late production Revi 16B.

Hi John, Late war Revi 16B did not have the sun shade glass anymore. First ones retained the screw holes for the bracket, but in the last production version even the screw holes were not drilled nto the cast casing anymore. See for example the photo below. It would therefore even be more realistic not to install the sun shade glass, but in that case, more often than not, the bracket was also not installed. If the bracket was a separate piece on your model, you could consider removing it instead of adding the sun shade glass back to its previous position. Cheers, Roger

Thank you Chuck for the explanation and the nice photos to illustrate! I agree with you that not all lines should be highlighted to achieve a realistic look. I assume you are using some water-based paint for highlighting the rivets and lines on the unpainted parts (to check the quality of scribing, riveting, etc.)? Cheers, Roger

Chuck, outstanding work and tutorials! Your models are so detailed, accurate and crisp. One question: are you using black ink or water color for highlighting the rivets and panel lines? Is it only to see them better or also because the may darken the rivets and lines even after a coat of the main aircraft color? Cheers, Roger

Congratulations. Looks amazing. The canopy and cockpit is outstanding!

Thank you Andy! By chance, I’ll not only be able to present a color photo of White 48 in Vol.2, but also the full story about how that 190 got to Lippstadt and who the pilot was! :-) Cheers Roger

Thank you John! I have been working on Vol 2 ever since I have published Vol 1. Research and text for about 66% is done, photos for 100% of the book selected, but the pace is slow due to other commitments. Maybe I should focus on writing on Vol 2 rather than working on the Fw 190s. There will be some very rare birds and also some with a very interesting story in Vol. 2. It will come, it's just a matter of time :-)

OK, I know. Ages since my last update. I have been practicing the riveting process using Radu's excellent riveter wheels. I made a few mistakes first and ordered new fuselages from Revell, for which I had to wait a couple of weeks. But finally, I managed to complete the first two fuselage halves (starboard sides; remember I am working on two Fw 190 kits in parallel). I'd say that at least 40-50% of the time was needed to study wartime and actual photos of restored original Fw 190s to understand where the rivets have to go. I soon noticed that basically all rivet patterns in drawings in the various books I own are quite simplified and sometimes also wrong. OK, nobody will ever notice the difference, but it is more for my peace of mind. Once you have spent the time, you know it and if I ever build another 190, it will be much faster. The port sides of the fuselage will now also be much faster as they are almost identical. Here's what I had to change: STARBOARD SIDE: - Access hatch under horizontal stabilizer was not present in the real aircraft. I assume Revell took the former Mistel Fw 190 in the UK as the 1:1 template, which features this access hatch (presumably to get access to the connection point inside the fuselage to the Mistel strut). - Push button to open the cockpit from the outside was missing - Fresh air opening in front of the canopy was only present on the port side, not on the starboard side - I used the MDC tool to add a circle below the horizontal stabilizer where in the original some kind of nut was - The diameter and position of the circle on the aft fuselage just before the tail unit (for jacking the airplane up) had to be changed. It was too small to too far up. PORT SIDE (not complete yet, but what I noticed so far): - Access hatch above the fuselage access door needs to be repositioned (slightly down) in order that it is between the two rivet lines (it would not be exactly in the middle). And here are the photos: Next step is to sand the fuselages to get a smooth surface and then go over the rivets again to open them up. If I had known how much work that is I may have decided not to add the rivets... Cheers, Roger

Revell’s Me 262 A-1a is the first new announcement, but which is the second?

Revell will bring a Me 262 A-1a around June 2019, but of course I’d welcome a Tamiya 262 as well...The Ar 234 from ZM is great news.

Indeed, I first thought so by looking at the shape of the Trumpeter intakes. It was then confirmed by measurement. Apparently the sweep back angle of the wings is also different between the two kits. I just compared my two kits and confirm that there is a visible difference (of about 2-3 degrees), but I haven't compared the kit's angles with factory drawings (yet). So, I can't tell which kit is more accurate in this regard. The overall shape of the engine nacelles is also different between the two kits. The leading edge of the jet intake is much sharper on the Revell kit compared to the Trumpeter kit. So there are differences and in my personal opinion the Revell kit is closer to the original aircraft than the Trumpeter in these details. At least for the intake diameter measurements confirmed my impression. But I may be overly sensitive to such small differences after I have looked at thousands of photos over the years (the Me 262 being my main interest). Others may not even notice a difference and if, they may not be bothered. One can probably say "accuracy" is in the eye of the beholder.