Dave Williams

AFAIK, RLM 66 was only used for cockpits.

If you put 50gm in the nose of a tail heavy plane, that doesn't mean that the nose gear is supporting 50gm. All you are doing is counterbalancing the weight in the tail. If you put the amount of weight in the nose needed to exactly balance the tail (so that just a light touch will cause the plane to tilt back), then the nose gear will have almost no weight on it. In this case, the entire weight of the kit, including ballast, is on the mains. If you add more weight in the nose, the nose gear supports only the amount over what is needed to balance the tail. The mains still support most of the weight (unless you really go overboard on loading the nose).

Generally, the Volks kit come with plastic gear, with metal gear being a separate buy. The HK kit didn't come with metal gear either, but G Factor made a set for that kit.

One of their books recommends using the Vallejo airbrush cleaner to strip the paint off. The stuff is water based, so it won't harm plastic.

The missles themselves aren't an issue since CMK makes some. All we really need is the pylons. Countermeasures dispensers for the rear fuselage would be nice too.

The cowling was not the same as for the A6M5. The A6M5b changed the starboard nose gun to a 13mm weapon, which visibly changed the gun port opening on that side, as well as changed some things on the front fuselage associated with the new gun. The A6M5c retained the same cowl as the b. Although the port 7.7mm gun was dropped, the port remained.

I guess I'm in the lower IQ percentile since I use a poor old Iwata and the Spanish acrylics work fine for me.

The new Hasegawa kit would be much better, but you would still need to deal with the larger cowl needed for the larger engine. I'd just wait for Hasegawa to release it in the future since the kit lower wing has flashed over holes, plus the centerline mount is an insert.

I swapped the acrylics about 2 years ago and haven't had many problems with the Spanish acrylics. What pressure are you spraying them at? I use 15-20 psi max, except for the thicker primers. Also, I usually only use their thinners, or water, or UMP thinner. Finally, you can try adding a drop of flow improver to the color cup to prevent it from drying up in the nozzle. I'm using an Iwata HP-CS with the standard 0.35 nozzle and once past a small learning curve getting the pressure and thinning ratio correct, they've worked fine.

What exactly do you want to see?

I usually use the Iwata Media Airbrush Cleaner or the new UMP airbrush cleaner after painting with the Spanish acrylics. Also sometimes the AK perfect cleaner or the Ammo Mig equivalent. Never really had a problem getting all of the dried paint out of the cup. Sometimes have to drop some cleaner in the cup and swirl with a brush or wipe with a damp rag to get the last bit off the sides, but it works. Also after spaying the cleaner, I remove the nozzle and use a cleaner soaked brush to get everything off the needle as well as clean out the inside of the nozzle tip.

Hasegawa did the instrument panel detail a little different than in their previous kits like the 109s. In the 109s, the bezels and dial face detail stood relatively proud of the panel, which while a bit unnatural, made painting a bit easier. On the new Zero, the bezels are a more realistic height, and the dial face details are barely raised, which may make painting more difficult. I assume they expect most people will use the IP decals, or just replace the panel.

The sad thing is that when the kit first out, it was probably the most accurate MiG-29 on the market, which is a statement on how bad the other Fulcrum kits were back in the day (see the 1/48 Monogram kit). This was way before there were tons of high def photos easily accessible to anyone with internet access. Although the kit has a ton of issues, the number one failing of the Revell Fulcrum is the grossly undersized exhausts, which feeds back into the engine tunnels on the fuselage bottom. The AA-11 missiles are also a disaster, looking nothing like the real thing. Surprisingly, the AA-10s and AA-8s aren't too bad. At least they look generally like the real things. The cockpit is fairly poor, with no sidewall detail at all, which is where the throttles would be. Also, for some reason Revell molded the IP and console detail with recessed detail, which makes painting a bit more difficult.

Not so much box art as pictures of the real thing to act as placeholders in the catalog. Other that indicating the versions they intend to kit, I'm not sure I'd bet on those exact schemes being the ones in the box.

Not all acrylics are the same. Tamiya acrylics are alcohol based, Vallejo (and most of the other Spanish paints like Ammo of MiG and AK Interactive) are water based. Don't use Tamiya thinner or anything like lacquer thinner with the Spanish acrylics. Use water, their thinner, or try universal thinners like UMP. They have a FAQ online. http://www.acrylicosvallejo.com/m/en_US/model-paints/faqs/3

To make it clear, the only MiG-29s that Trumpeter currently kit are the K and M models, which were basically prototypes and quite different from the early MiG-29 9-12 and UB that were only kitted by Revell. The Zactoman sets were to correct and upgrade the Revell kits. Trumpeter has since announced the future release of the earlier MiG-29 versions.

I'd just get the Eduard masks, Quickboost exhausts, and the Aires gun set for the He111.

You can see the shipping rates on HLJ after you add the kit to your cart. It's 2510 yen for FedEx, 2020 yen for EMS, and 1280 yen for SAL.

Me too. Just sent my payment in.

I'm sure like most Hasegawa kits, there is raised dial detail on the plastic IP and using the decals on top are just an option.

Since the sprues have unused 7.7mm nose guns, I'm sure they will release other versions too like the earlier Model 52s. Glad I preordered months ago. HLJ is now showing back ordered.

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10343429

It appears to be a Mirage cockpit, but no way of telling whether it's an Israeli bird. Unless someone can 100% positively identify it as a cockpit from an Israeli IIIC, and identify the era, I wouldn't use it as a basis for my build. For myself, I plan to use the standard IIIC cockpit with the round radar scope as shown in the Osprey book, and as shown in walkarounds of standard French Mirage IIIC.

This was discussed earlier. Take a look at this thread. http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=59092&hl=mirage Also, look here for the photo in question. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=150268&view=findpost&p=1791077 The top photo is a real IAF Mirage IIIC IP from the Osprey book. The bottom photo is actually a Vatour IP, mislabeled as a Mirage IIICJ. I believe the incorrect bottom photo is the one in the Dor book.