Sabrejet

No news since May: has anyone heard more? I've dropped JETMADS an email but am still waiting for a reply.

Maybe this time we could restrict replies to a first in-box review instead of gazillions of "mine's shipped" and "mines in transit" and "mine's at my local hub" and "mine's arrived" and "my X-3 turned out to be a hair drier" replies?

It's a shame that people would see these awesome kits as just an opportunity to make a very slow buck. I'm glad to see that they are being built!

You forgot Halberd. If you stick to WW2 then you are missing real 'Tier One' kits like Silver Wings, Lukgraph, WnW (as was), JETMADS and many more. Accuracy: not sure Tamiya scores over many other manufacturers, especially since I've heard that Tamiya 'tweaks' its moulds so that a subject looks right rather than being 100% true to life. Detail: I've yet to see a styrene kit that exhibits the detail that is possible in resin. Ease of build? Possibly, but I don't buy kits because they're easy to build: often the opposite. So 'Tier One'? Not for me. But the subject of the thread isn't about whingeing that [my favourite manufacturer] hasn't been used in this conversion set. Or shouldn't be.

Another advert pretending to be a post. Amazing surface detail, spot-on accuracy etc are available on many other manufacturers' kits. And many of those are more of a pleasure to build. It's subjective. I can't stand Tamiya kits. They bore me to death. Having no resin parts doesn't help. But that's Me. My view.

Some of us can't stand their products, so I'm happy it's not.

My experience of this is that you'll see crew lists in some of the Unit records but not in others. Most often you just see the aircraft commander listed and so it can be REALLY difficult to trace individual crew members unless they received injuries. Again, from experience I'd look at any mission reports (often located elsewhere than the Group/squadron records) and these can be cited under Command or even Air Force. It's not 100% guaranteed that you'll find the information you are looking for, but it will be an interesting journey. Incidentally, you can often trace aircraft movements/losses from the Group/Squadron records and I'd start by going through the records you have and create a spreadsheet of aircraft serial numbers. That will at least allow you to pin down what you ARE looking for from the stuff you AREN'T. You may well have done this already. Beware of secondary-source internet information: at best it can be a good indication of where to look for primary-source information; at worst it can be plagiarised information containing errors and assumptions. The data you get from Maxwell is primary-source so I'd believe what you get from there (though unfortunately a/c serial numbers are a common source of mis-transcription!).

What should be a joyous event, turned into an abysmal dirge of whining. It must be difficult to get out of bed each day.

Given a blank chequebook, what would you go for though? I'd love a Vickers Bullet or a Bucker Jungmeister!

I held an eagle owl once: it was extremely handsome and nowhere near as heavy as I thought it would be.

Says the man who suggested a BAe Hawk...

This is my recollection: from what you've explained, it would appear to be a modern phenomenon. Wiki (never reliable) gives a 2016 reference; I think it goes back further than that but I'd love to see period references to show any names (if there ever were name/s).

Back in my youth (1970s), the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was only ever referred to as “Fw 190” (or so it seemed). Later, (1980s?) I noticed people using the term ‘butcher bird’, though I’m not sure when or where that came from. The term ‘butcher bird’ is English for the German “metzgervogel”, a common nickname for birds in the shrike family. However, for maybe the last ten years I’ve seen people refer to the Fw 190 as “wurger” (correctly, it should be “würger” or “wuerger”), which is a literal translation of the word "shrike". So it would appear that “würger” might be a recent mis-translation, or even a recent mis-translated translation. Is there any evidence that any of these terms were used in period and if not, why the modern manipulations? Trivial yes, but these things keep me awake at night!

F-16. Because why not? Loads of options, and something that's not dubya dubya too.

The Schiffer "Ultimate Look" book is a mixed bag if you're looking to buy: it has a lot of text taken from Tech Orders and left me wanting more. It also seems lacking in good-quality detail images or drawings. During my recent efforts to down-size collections, it went in the trash. So hopefully it's more a "Penultimate Look" and someone will do a better job.

A bit late but did make me laugh: Provence Moulage included Cartograf decals in their kits back in the 1980s!

For me the biggest problem is that it doesn't look like an Li-2.

That flight deck area is a bit off (windows too big?); not sure the engine nacelles look right for an Li-2. I'm not sure what to think of this one but it's an interesting area which I hope develops further. I recently bought a 1/24 3D-printed race car kit and my impression was that it had been based on minimal photos rather than accurate measurements or detailed interpretations. Key areas had been incorrectly represented and the manufacturer now lists these kits as "inspired by" or similar caveat. I think the 3D-printed scene shows great promise, but it feels like we're at an early stage where some offerings will not be what we're looking for.

Looks like good weather is a bit more likely than a day at the Mach Loop!

Pfft. You could have mine for £600 and I'll pay postage!

Lovely too that the museum avoided the 'obvious' route of going for its bomber configuration and will restore her in the form that gained her fame and ultimately meant that she survived. The USAF - USAAF - USAAS has a rich history and it's not all about dropping bombs and firing guns.

Another nominee for Kit of the Year!

All kits are inaccurate to some extent, whether it's massive shape issues, decal colours or the thickness of the plastic/resin not being a scale representation of the original. We all buy "inaccurate" kits, it's the extent which matters, and even enthusiasts are OK with "inaccuracy" if it looks OK. Then they do some daft "weathering" effect and turn their "accurate" kit into a caricature model. I'm not sure I've ever seen a finished model which I'd call 'accurate', though some come closer than others. I think we just need to know when enjoyment turns into pointless obsession.

eBay is a marketplace: if you think it's an online jumble sale then you're missing some great deals.

Lipstick...on a nose?