Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Archimedes

  1. What is it about a resin kit that puts you off?
  2. …and, in 1/32 we can get a Short Scylla, soon we can get a Lockheed SR71, we can have a range of Albatros fighters from BII- DVa (and we can have a 3D printed skeleton version if we want of the DV), there are not one but TWO 1/32 Lancasters out there and we can have the B17 in E/F &G guises, there are gliders galore and now we are about to have both a modern Mk1 Spitfire and a Hurricane MkIIB, if you have a mind there is a Me321 Gigant about to become available, there are a range of 1930’s de Havilland civil aircraft and the Bf109 is available in more guises and price points than we can count. In 1/24 we have most of the principal WWII fighters available to us and now a range of WWI’s most prominent machines (including TWO manufacturer’s takes on the Fokker Dr.I). There are more kits available to us at higher quality than we have ever had in our adult lives (or can probably ever build for that matter). I, for one, believe this is the golden age of Large Scale Planes. I totally agree with @John Stambaugh that 2022 has been a great year for the range and quality of LSP’s available to us! Kind regards, Paul
  3. Ugly pffff. The Short Scylla is a rank amateur in the ugly stakes…. The Dyle et Bacalan DB10 hit every branch of the ugly tree as it fell out of the sky…
  4. …and this is what the Short Scylla looks like:
  5. Surprise, surprise; Currently One Man Model are gearing up to print the Short Scylla in 1/72 and 1/48 but he is posting messages on Britmodeller saying that he is willing to do it in 1/32 as well. Price will be 480 USD in that scale. He is selling the 1/72 and 1/48 versions here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/115612833930 and asks that anyone that wants the 1/32 version to message him. Kind regards, Paul
  6. Hi Max Your work on the rigging I can only aspire to. You have done an amazing job on it. As for the pitot; that looks tricky work. Are you sure that carving a resin casting block is the right way to go? My method for my Tiger Moth will be to use some brass pipe and to solder it (Sandbagger method using soldering paste). But it is great to see your attention to detail and your extremely neat technique on this. It is the details that really make any build so the best of luck with those! I know you will ace it! Kind regards, Paul
  7. @BradG It is great to see the winners: Didn't you also make an executive decision for a fourth build that was 'Hasegawa models'? Best regards, Paul
  8. 100% agreed Mike. My own pet peeve is modellers looking at other modeller’s models who in turn have looked at other modeller’s models and almost no-one has looked at an actual aircraft (but that is my own OCD kicking in). Totally agree that constructive criticism is the way to go. Best regards, Paul
  9. They do and it strikes me that vac may be better from the perspective of sheer weight of the model. I can only imagine what a resin Greif will weigh! It won’t be one I will buy as the design leaves me cold. I am waiting for some poor soul who bought the HpH DC3 to decide they don’t want to build it and to put it up for a better price than HpH are asking. As for the Greif: I am really glad that it toots the horns of some here. I admire the Roy Cross painting for the Airfix kit box top but the aircraft itself doesn’t do a lot for me as it was simply asked to do too much and, as a result did not appear to do anything particularly well.
  10. I’ve had a heads-up that HpH have started development of a 1/32 He177. It is in the HpH not Infinity range so resin. Who knew that we would get a LSP of the Griffin!? This will be an interesting challenge for HpH as I don’t believe there is still one in existence so they’ll be creating this one from drawings and photos if it does come to fruition. Best regards, Paul
  11. Thanks @BradG for being the driver for this! I feel that as I voted for the three that came out on top that I really do need to take part in at least one. I do need to address my abysmal finishing record so will think long and hard about what is the most practical (for which read most straightforward to build and paint in the time we have) from the subjects on offer. Kind regards, Paul
  12. Thank you Troy. This is gold-dust! I agree there appears to be a slight sweepback on the prototype but that it is more pronounced on the production versions. my protractor says roughly 2 degrees sweepback on the prototype in the photo above but about 3 degrees on production Mk1s and on the Bentley drawings. I'd value your measurements on this though to either validate or correct mine. It was interesting reading the 1980 Bentley article as what comes across is almost constant tinkering with the dimensions of the basic design by Hawker as the aircraft was developed. Kind regards, Paul
  13. Y'know, Not only did @quang create the best thread title ever () but this thread demonstrates how much all of the contributors here want a good Hurricane in their collection! We may represent just a small slice of Revell's sales but it is wonderful to see just how much having a state-of-the-art Hurricane matters. It is great to see this Revell offering and to Troy's point above, you never know: Maybe Revell or even Kotare may yet do a MkI. These are good times to be a modeller indeed. Best regards, Paul
  14. Thanks Derek. I have met Arthur once or twice so have messaged his website to ask his thoughts. He probably has far better things to do with his time than answer random questions about drawings he did 42 years ago but ye never know! Best regards, Paul
  15. Thanks Troy - this kind of stuff is fun to investigate! Great points on the photos you showed. Although I usually don’t like lines on photos I also took the liberty of straightening the image I found to vertical and putting a horizontal line across the leading edge with the line touching the centre section. I have some caution on this as the photo is not quite directly overhead. It does however appear to show a slight sweepback or am I kidding myself here? Kind regards, Paul
  16. I’d say I am not unutterably jealous but that would be dishonest of me! Have a great time Max!!! Best regards, Paul
  17. Thank you so much for coming back on this (and so quickly!). Interesting indeed! I am impressed that you are bringing whatever data there is to this. I guess my question is: did Arthur miss the straight wing or did he draw it representing it at a later time when the guns were installed and (perhaps) the wing sweep back was introduced. Thank you for outlining that this is a murky period in the Hurricane’s development. Arthur’s article also makes that clear. the article also appears to indicate that he may not have had access to prototype drawings. Kind regards, Paul
  18. Hi Troy - are you referring to Sheet 2 of the 4 sheet series that Arthur Bentley produced? It is Marked as K5083 and you are correct the wing is drawn with the same small sweep back as the Mk1 which photos show, as first flown, had a straight wing with no sweep-back to the leading edge. Wasn’t this changed later in the prototype’s life to have a marginally swept back wing which became the Mk1 configuration? I am interested to learn your thoughts on this. Kind regards, Paul
  19. Oh me oh my Mike! It is not just the very high standard to which you build, it is also the phenomenal speed at which you do it! Truly remarkable. Your Dolphin is looking tremendous! Kind regards, Paul
  20. Bravo on the wiring especially! That engine looks great! Kind regards, Paul
  21. Great to see this Kev as it is a significant aircraft for sure. If Babs came to visit you could be certain the Kido Butai was not far behind… Kind regards, Paul
  22. Fantastic Progress Chris! I am really looking forward to seeing it painted up! Best regards, Paul
  23. Despite what may be imagined, debates about dihedral are not only confined to our friends' 'Dihedragate' conversation regarding the new Revell Hurricane IIb. @Christa and I have been having some chats about the DH83 Fox Moth wing dihedral and sweepback. If any sweepback is there at all it is very subtle as the photos below show. The first image below of ZK-AGM might make one believe that there is no sweepback to the upper wing. It does however confirm the additional dihedral of the bottom wing: The second show below however, which is pretty much a perfect side-on view of the same airframe seems to confirm a subtle sweepback: Notice that the cabane struts appear slightly ahead of the interplane struts. Again the increase in dihedral of the lower wing versus the upper appears clear. The De Havilland DH.83 3-view drawing below (claimed to be from NACA-AC-16 and scarfed-up from Wikipedia) appears to show a 5 degree sweepback according to my protractor for both the upper and lower wings. Does that confirm your thoughts Chris? Kind regards, Paul
  24. This is an interesting debate: Doesn't the weathering depend on what a modeller is attempting to portray? Let's use a DeHavilland Mosquito FB 26 and FBVI as examples: Here is a nice picture of the beautifully restored FB 26 KA114 in flight - not much weathering needed if modelling this airframe. And here is a picture of a wartime FBVI underside which clearly has dirt around the cannon barrels and some ugly -looking "get-it-done-now-so-it-bloody-well-works!" repairs under the nose. Tons of weathering needed. It totally bears out the notions that aeroplanes do get filthy (take a look out of the window during your next airline flight to see how dirty airframes get when in constant use). Both weathering approaches are perfectly legitimate because it depends on which airframe one is modelling, in what period and to what use it was likely to have been put during that period. Now this Gladiator probably does need a fair amount of weathering... How weathering is achieved however is a totally different question and the techniques listed in posts above all have their place somewhere at some time but not everywhere and not all the time. Kind regards, Paul
  25. A full build is always worth many, many posts. Diedrich's build on Hyperscale, together with @Radub's clearing up of the dihedral question has sold that this is a decent kit to this modeller at least. Thanks @LSP_Kevin for pointing us all in that direction! Kind regards, Paul
  • Create New...