Jump to content

BlackCanopy

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlackCanopy

  1. It's definitvely the first one. The second one is from earlier variants (up to A5 or A6, I think) with the straight gun cowling instead of the blown one represented in your kit. The most visible difference seems to be the shape of the ammo-feeders. Cheers Joerg
  2. Dear Chuck Once you have this bird with your famous gloss black finish on your shelf, you might perhaps one day make another one with no painting at all...? This meticulous surface preparation has its own asthetic, very much so! I seem to remember a model from Rodney Williams, where he painted only one half of a Corsair F4U, to show all the scratchbuilding going on on the other side. Of course, this was back in the time, when truly accurate kits were still a rarity and perhaps this kind of concept modelling is not your thing, but the sight of such a model from you would be very "educational" ;-) Thanks for showing your stuff here. J.
  3. I think these molds were originally done for some factory assembled & painted toy, which would not only explain the screw points, but also the rather poor fidelity and sparse detail of the cockpit and wheel well. The shape of the completed FW seems to be surprisingly accurate, though! And you really make things come to life with your painting, Guy! Can't wait to see the finished "canvas". (It's a shame Peter (airscale) does only natural metal birds—and there are no natural metal and/or civilian Focke Wulfs that I know of—for this kit could've been a worthy victim for his dark arts ;-)) Cheers Joerg
  4. Methinks the weathering will happen all by itself, e.g. when Peter works the wheelbay to install the gazillion gizmos, hydraulic, pneumatic and fuel line stuff, thereby scratching the surface and putting a lot of sweat & grease in there (no need to wear the gloves). This thing is so big, it does need panel accentuation as much as the original: None ;-)
  5. Simply amazing, Patrick. With all this intricate and perfect detailing going on in your build, I just HAVE to to ask, though: Are you planning to do something about the panellines on this kit? They seem to be more like trenches if not downright 'valleys'? ;-) The vertical line where the nose piece meets the baththub in the above picture seems to be just about right, at least to my eye. Please forgive any unwarranted intrusions, I know that eliminating and rescribing the lines would be a tedious business... Cheers Joerg
  6. Great Progress! It was high time to restart the hobby! There is only one suggestion I could make and it would be to add some seatbelts: It's the law, you know ;-)
  7. Sharp little bird. Finally you can keep one of your perfect gloss black undercoats! It was always such a waste to bury them under natural metal finishes or even dirtier camouflage schemes... ;-) Can't wait to see it unfold... Cheers Joerg
  8. The way you built it, I expect it to be fully functional. Fantastic scratchbuilding. To constantly hold and control your breath, while handling all those fiddly bits, must make you into some sort of yoga master, if nothing else. Hats off (& tnx for sharing) Joerg
  9. You think so? Wait until you get around to a closer inspection of the Mustangs wheel bay! To see you tackle this mess will be "grosses Kino" as we say over here ;-) Cheers, J. (Edit: Oops, Mark (dodgem37) already mentioned this. Well then, I second his motion...)
  10. You could blame it on me. I'm beyond jurisdiction. One of my favourite pieces of Mustang perfectly represented! How the pilots were supposed to 'read' the information on the placard in the upper right corner from this steep angle is completely unclear, though. If the placard was put there for maintenance crew, (bending into the cockpit from the wing to do what with the landing gear?) the placard should actually be placed upside down! See where ignorance combined with logic thinking can get you? ... ... Experts to the rescue!
  11. Dear Peter Instead of just adding another heap of praise, I would suggest that the fabric of this cloth-clad-thingy (on the right hand) seems to be waaaaaaay overscale to my eye! To defend my heresy, I would mention that your thread has produced enough knitting-experts on LSP (myself included); And now you have finally presented an opportunity for us to "criticize" your work: That thing looks like it was made out of the extra scratchy, hairy wool used by my grandma for knitting my underpants! Take this, ha! Pleeeze, would you consider to apply some silk instead... ?:o)
  12. It comes with the scale, I think. A monolithic chunk of plastic, however perfectly printed and masterfully painted, will never be up there in the same league with Pete's marvelously handcrafted mixed media assemblies, at least in 18th scale. A strong ingredient to the exceptional realism shown here, after all, is the use of similar materials as in the original machine. A less obvious factor would be the naturally occuring 'simplification' of parts, that comes with direct hand eye coordination while building them, instead of zooming into a milky(ly?) illuminated rectangle, and thereby loosing all sense of scale. Well, I guess I really had to try and find an explanation...
  13. Of course, we expect the hands in these intruments to be fully functional, don't we, as soon as you fill up the tanks of your mustang with fuel, oil, air and water, and crank up the merlin, by moving all those switches and stuff...
  14. Oh, I love the way you represented the "ghosts" of the invasion stripes on the upper wings and landing flats! Very convincing wear&tear, not overdone, even including the perfect shine on the glossy nose! Did you scratchbuild the rudder fin? Cheers Jörg
  15. Depending on what filters are used when taking monochromatic photographs (of the chemical sort), the wavelengths reflected from different color surfaces can be enhanced or suppressed, resulting in darker or lighter representations of those colors in the final picture. So there is really no way of telling colors from old B&W pictures, other than guessing that the sky was propably blue. Whether the grass was green too, you will not be able to tell, it could've been yellow or brownish ;-) If you want to show nice white clouds before a dark sky, put on an orange filter, as a result of which all red, orange and yellow colors in your picture are going to be represented in very bright hues. If you filter out the shorter wavelenghts instead, blue will become a very light gray, while red is going to be almost black. Add to that the different surface quality of different colors (sometimes caused by more or less layers of paint), which results in different reflection grades, which very much *might* have caused a black stripe on a horizontal stabilizer, viewed from a steep angle as in the above picture, to appear lighter than the adjacient color of blue(?). It's complicated. For the above reasons, it would be very cumbersome to make a test, as suggested by Kurok, with a digital camera in B&W mode. Unless you are really a specialist in those things (or your camera has this kind of sophisticated software), you will propably not know according to what principles the algorithms of your camera (or software) are turning colors into fifty (hopefully more) shades of gray. Great representation of a damn fine bird here, whatever its true colors really were! Cheers, joerg
  16. What, you seriously gonna change this?!? Apparently I'm the king of them rivet counting nitpickers who like to point out minor "irregularities" in other peoples work! ... And I hope it's not too late for the file swap... Your bird will fly! (If nothing more)
  17. Ha Pete, gotcha! I spot a grave divergence in your PE IP from the original, wheras in the second row of instrument holes (from the left) the second hole (from the bottom) has this extension in the lefthand bottom corner, which should not be attached to this hole, but to the other one, namely the first hole from the bottom and vice versa. You got it all wrong, got it? ((to the clattering sound of knitting)) A+ Joerg
  18. Can I humbly suggest some (many!) RFI-shots, to share the experience? The "factory fresh" appearance of your model, without any unit markings or—let's face it: often crude and poorly designed nose art brushwork—is rarely seen: No distractions from the basic elegance of this plane. Oh, I just love Mustangs ... (i'm not alone in this, I know) tnx Joerg
  19. Now that you mention it, that seems quite obvious to be the case, otherwise, how would it have worked on planes without the dorsal fin. ;-) It's also true that the offset is barely visible, as there is no indicator (such as a panel line or similar) to mark the centre line in the area where the fin meets the fuselage... Thanks for your response, btw...
  20. Smart progress Quang! To further complicate things a bit: I seem to remember that the tail fin on Mustangs had a slight offset from centre line to the port side (about one degree or such when viewed from above) in order to compensate for the angular momentum (?) of the powerful Merlin engine. I'm sure, there are experts here to provide the actual data and even some pics, for I have none. Cheers, Joerg
  21. Oh, I just love them Mustangs. And yours is apparently coming along very nicely, Mr. Cosby! Did you encounter any problem with the fit of the windscreen? As many other builds have run into bumps in that area, you seem to have avoided them, judging from the pics. Any preemptive fiddling on your part, there? Best regards, Joerg
  22. Unbelievable, Mr. Budee! (I surely know the expression to sound "old" in reference to your build). -- Alas, it must be a real disappointment to see your modeling marvels with just the nacked eye: All this intricately fine detail vanishing due to the natural limitations of the human retinae. -- Not too many models out there, looking even better through magnifiying lenses, I suppose. Joerg
  23. Quick question(s): Could, or do these interfere with the proper sit and alignment of the cowling panels (so that you have to compensate by removing plastic before installing the PE parts), or do you plan to let the panels permanently off, anyway? Spectacular painting prowess ... hats off, Joerg
  24. Impossible Mr. Hepplestone, you could not beat these guys for their hand eye coordination (I mean the total lack thereof): To be fair, the assumption must be that they were given 5 minutes per crate, no more! Hopefully, the pilot was not too much concerned with appearances, it could have dampened his skills a bit. ;-)
  25. This is such a beautiful bird. The only downside of the IAR is the lack of variation when it comes to painting schemes...
×
×
  • Create New...