Elger

Are we sure the HK canopy is undersized? I've been playing with the idea of combining Revell and HK Mosquito parts as well and the HK canopy fits the Revell fuselage pretty perfectly, and it's also virtually the same size as the Tasman canopy I have. That is, if I recall correctly, it's been a while since I was comparing these parts.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that compared to the H-6 the H-16 (and up) had a different main canopy window. FWIW this summer I built ICM's H-20 kit as a V-1 carrier, and mostly based my choices on descriptions in the book Air-launched doodlebugs @thierry laurent mentioned. Still lots of 'unknowns' - especially the launch control box in the cockpit. The Profimodeller set doesn't give you anything for this. I looked at the Profimodeller conversion sets external parts for the V-1 suspension system for reference in my 1/48 scale build and also concluded it's incomplete / inaccurate but better than nothing. The Profimodeller conversion set comes with a ton of PE but even in 1/32 very little of the fuselage interior of a 111 can be seen. Obviously this is LSP, but the 1/48 ICM kit was very nice, although I did find that if you wanted to build an H-16 out of the box you're better off buying the H-20 kit, which I think has all the parts for an H-16. The ICM's H-16 only comes with the older main canopy with the heavier frames (like the 1/32 Revell kits). Somebody in my build thread commented that the fuselage side windows of the H-20 had square, rather than rounded corners (as the preserved 111 in the RAF museum), but I couldn't find any conclusive evidence that this was true for all H-20s. I did find that the H-20 had an updated oxygen system compared to the H-16. Here's my 1/48 build on Britmodeller: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235141798-icm-148-heinkel-111-h-20-as-5ker-of-7kg-3-lost-october-9th-1944-exhibition-build/

Resurrecting this thread with a request: there's been discussion here about the spinner's dimensions, but could anyone who has either kit measure the outer diameter of the cowl rings for me? Especially the outer diameter of part 36 of the Revell kit. I'm curious if the equivalent part from Hasegawa has a different size.

Well I had some trouble with the mounting pegs, in hindsight I should perhaps have used some epoxy glue when attaching the legs into their sockets; that may have avoided some trouble, but the whole leg unit feels flimsy, it feels that that the legs will bend eventually under the weight of the model with the angle of the gear. The doors provide some additional support but not much.

I'm more of a lurker on this forum but I just wanted to give you a little heads up: I finished this kit about a month or two ago and the gear legs are just barely strong enough to support the finished model - they're flimsy at best. I really recommend reinforcing the legs somehow or maybe getting metal replacements because the finished model is quite heavy. And attaching the gear legs into their sockets was the only real problem I encountered when building the kit. (Here's my build thread over on Britmodeller: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235111572-132-trumpeter-p-47d-as-p-47d-1-42-7924-flown-by-frank-d-gallion-lost-november-3rd-1943-decals-on/)

@Pastor John how do you attach those solder balls?

This flow chart is reproduced in Donald Nijboer's Graphic War and shows how the different Merlin variants are related: Unfortunately, the image is just too small to read the print that explains the differences between the sub-series (21, 23, 25, etc). It seems to indicate that the main difference between these sub types is at the bottom of the compressor - but other differences are also indicated. I wonder if anyone has a copy of the original?

If you're a purist there are reasons to not go for the Hobbyboss 1/32 Spitfire Vb. The front windscreen is wrong for the type - this is the most obvious issue. Of note is also the spine cross section behind the cockpit, which is very round while it should be somewhat flat on the top. The fuselage also looks a little bit fat. But in terms of engineering and detail it's a great kit.

Oh that sounds interesting! Are the Mosquito engine bearers accurate for an early Spitfire too?

Not a bad idea but it will need a little more work than that. First of all, a Tamiya IX would make more sense because it comes with the fixed tail wheel - the VIII kit only comes with the retractable tail wheel which wasn't fitted to the V. The IX kit is also cheaper. The Hobbyboss wings fit the Tamiya Spitfire fuselage really quite well, which would be necessary for making a Vb (since the Tamiya IX comes with a C wing). If you wanted to make a Vc, you could use the Tamiya wings but would need to fill the area of the Tamiya oil cooler replace it with the small oil cooler type. Alternatively, for a Vc, you could cross kit a Revell mk I and mk IX and source the Vokes filter and prop and spinner from somewhere else, maybe Hasegawa - but that would be a cheaper and simpler solution for a Vc. But you asked about a Vb - in that case the easiest way (if you insist on using a Tamiya fuselage - rather than building a Hasegawa or Hobbyboss kit out of the box) is by using a Tamiya main fuselage, Hobbyboss nose panels and wings. If you don't like the Hobbyboss wings, Hasegawa's Vb wings also fit the Tamiya fuselage quite well, but it has (fine) raised panel lines. The Hobbyboss nose panels are cut off at the same point at the Tamiya nose panels. The side panels fit quite well, but the top panel of Hobbyboss is a bit wider than the Tamiya nose. I don't know how the Hobbyboss Vokes filter would fit, but if you use the Hobbyboss wing I don't imagine the fit would be terrible.

On the other hand, at a fraction of the cost, Revell offers a lot of bang for your buck. Revell has fewer options than Tamiya though - no engine, and in the current edition, only the early tail. Tamiya comes with an engine and early and late tail.

Regarding the Revell kit, if you're not concerned with the kit's inaccuracies, the only thing other than following the instructions that can be mentioned are parts 84A (on sprue b ) and A26. These are marked "not for use" in the instructions but in fact they can/should be fitted to the radiators - they fit sort of diagonally as sloping roofs in front of the actual radiators. Fit them left and right to the lower wing section. When I built mine I found this thread useful. Pictures are gone (photobucket) but the text is still there: https://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/1313-group-buildreview-revell-132-bf-109g-6-stage-3-complete/

looking good! what's going on with the oil tank section just in front of the windscreen? Looks like a darker plastic.

I've always wondered about the radar set up on Helmut Lent's aircraft (<<G9+AF). This is how it's presented in all the profiles I've seen but I've seen a photo of this aircraft and it's captioned as having been taken in the summer of 1943. But SN2 didn't become available until the spring of 1944. The photo I know does not show the radar but if it was indeed taken in the summer of 1943 then it should have FuG202. Unless the photo was captioned incorrectly of course. Or is there another photo of this aircraft (that I don't know of) that does show this layout?

thanks! in theory you should be able to fit the front end of a Revell kit to the Tamiya airframe to convert it to a bomber. It would have been considerably cheaper, but I didn't want to bother with a vac canopy mainly. Besides, I honestly think that the HK models kit isn't that bad. I think that the main canopy looks great, even compared to most other kit options in any scale, and I'm very curious how my front side "window fix" will turn out. As I mention in the thread, if it wasn't for my intention of adding a Brassin engine, I probably wouldn't have bothered with adding the Tamiya wings and fuselage. I just got the new IX kit with the intention of one day building it as a USAAF PR.XVI, pretty much OOB.