nmayhew

Aah that cockpit! I can imagine how it would look like in 1/35. 

Great stuff here.  I will be anxiously following along!
If I may— A couple of comments on your posted photos—
First, Concerning the photo of S-13 preparing to land on the carrier in the background. The S-13 is likely a USS Saratoga SBD, rather than a USS Enterprise SBD. I say that from the unmistakable silhouette of the carrier— clearly a Lexington class carrier of which there were only two— Lexington and Saratoga. Since Lexington was sunk at Coral Sea in early May 1942, this has to be Saratoga. Saratoga was not at Midway, arriving at Pearl Harbor from repairs on the west coast, just after the battle of Midway. 
Secondly, there has been some research done and posted that indicated that the Enterprise SBD’s had their landing gear struts painted in various colors so that the carrier could distinguish which plane was approaching to land. Of course  I don’t have this research at hand, but I seem to remember that Dick Best’s B-1 reportedly had both struts painted red. Other planes reportedly had one or both struts painted in various colors. Looking at the second photo of “Dusty” Kleiss’ S-7, it would appear that the struts may be a darker color than the expected light gray. It would also appear that the SBD behind S-7 might also have painted struts.
When you study the photo of B-15 before takeoff (Still has its bomb which was dropped on Kaga, and does not have the battle damage which it had on its return) it would appear that it’s left strut is not painted. But as I understand the practice, not all struts were painted but were sometimes alternating painted struts. I’ll have to look for that information and research…
 
 

Hello all,
 
my new project - title says it all:

 
=> Yes, Midway, morning of June 4
=> No, not Yorktown, Ludlum is out, because the Yorktown dive bombers sunk the Hiryu.
=> Yes, Enterprise; surely not Best's plane, his B-1 is simply too often modelled, but maybe Kleiss' S-7? Not sure yet, but it will definitely be from VB-6 or VS-6, as Akagi is going to play her role in my project as well.
=> Yes, it will be an in-flight model, I am going to use the Legend Production Figure set.
 

I needed to have it since I saw it for the first time. But it wasn't available in Europe. It was pure coincidence that my daughter spend her holidays in South Korea, so I contacted Legend Productions and they sent me the figures to her Seoul address just in time and for a very good price. 
 
Next to the printed books on my first photograph I have acquired several ebooks:
 
·       Craig L. Symonds, The Battle of Midway. Oxford 2011
·       Rob Stern, SBD Dauntless in Action  (= Aircraft in Action 64) Carrollton, TX 1984 („The old Squadron book“)
·       Richard S. Dann, SBD Dauntless Walk Around (= Squadron/Signal Walk Around 33) Carrollton, TX, 2004
·       Barrett Tillman, SBD Dauntless Units of World War 2 (Osprey Combat Aircraft 10)
·       Mark Stille, Midway 1942. Turning Point in the Pacific (=  Campaign 226) Oxford 2010
 
Some internet sources also came in very handy, especially:
 
Trumpeter 1/32 SBD-3 Dauntless, by Tom Cleaver (modelingmadness.com)
Midway Group Build – VMSB-241 SBD-2 - 1/32 Battle of Midway Group Build Dauntless - iModeler  (Yes, I know, this is a SBD-2!)
 
and of course Scouting Squadron 6 Action report:

http://cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420604-vs6.htm

and Bombing Squadron 6 Action report:

http://cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420604-vb6.htm
 
I haven’t read them all systematically one after another, but during the last about ten years since I’ve build a model that fit the Midway 1942 theme. I’ve read, re-read, taken down notes, focussed on one or another question, forgotten where I found this or that, put stuff aside, and frequently lost and found my mojo to work on it. It won’t surprise that I also bought several kits over the years that fit subject and timeframe.
 
 
 
My first question was: How exactly did the Dautlesses look like when they assaulted Akagi, Kaga (and Hiryu)?
 
(this will be image-heavy. These pics are only taken from the mentioned publications. If I shouldn't be supposed to post them here, let me know,  I'll remove them immediatelly!)
 
I am not talking about markings -- white stars without "meatballs" -- also the position of the numbers and letters is quite well documented by photographs. I was more asking myself at first how weathered these birds could have been and secondly how their rear gunners were armed.
 
The first question will be easy to answer, the second not at all. Let's have a look into the books...
 
Bert Kinzey, SBD Dauntless in detail & scale (Detail &. Scale Series Vol. 5):

"The twin flexible gun mount and the large ammunition box was also retrofitted in the field to earlier -3s beginning in mid-1942, and these were in place in most, if not all, SBD-3s that fought in the Battle of Midway“ (p. 19).
 
So far, so good. That's what most secondary sources say. "During the course of SBD-3 poduction, a twin .30 caliber flexible machine gun replaced the single (...) gun (...)" (Stern, SBD Dauntless, p. 15) But is it really that easy? Most, if not all Midway Dauntlesses should be equipped with twin 0.30 Brownings, fed from the "large ammunition box".
 
Let's get to the sources. Jack Kleiss is way more vague in his memories:
 
"Originally, the rear machine gun had only one barrel, but over time, we gradually replaced them with double-barrelled machine guns" (p. 84, footnote)
 
To bring it back into memory: SBD-2s and early -3s were equipped with only one rearward facing machige gun, it was fed from a small ammo box attached next to the gun's breech. When not in use, it was stored in a "tunnel" at the rear of the fuselage under two doors that were opened by the rear gunner with a foot pedal (marked with a 3). More ammo boxes were stored in a rack under the gun (marked with a 1)- Let's call this Version 1:

 

 
This armament configuration is given in the overall very nice Trumpeter kit, even if the ammo rack isn't the most detailed part you've seen.
 
Later SBDs were equipped with two 0.30 Brownings mounted on a metal twin mount. These were fed from a large ammo cannister which sat deeper down in the fuselage. The tunnel was widened and additionally two sliding panels beneath the doors increased the space to take the guns up or down (I've never seen a "solid panel" like on the last drawing of the first following photo yet on any picture of a Dauntless...). Often the gunner was protected by additional armor plates and an armored windshield - Version 3:
 

 

 

 
Also this version is given in the Trumpeter box... He, it's a Midway boxing! 
 
Ok, so far. But Bert Kinzey was talking about field modifications. A Quote from a contemporary witness, Wallace Short, on board USS Yorktown gives more detail:

„After the Coral Sea battle, Lt Wallace Short’s VB-5 was retained in Yorktown while the rest of the air group rotated ashore. In describing the brief, hectic period at ‘Pearl’, Short recalled; ‚We kept the remaining planes we had after Coral Sea, about 9 or 10, and drew about 10 or 12 replacements which had to be equipped with self-sealing tanks, armour plate and twin .30-cal flexible guns. The old planes got new flexible guns, too.“ (Barrett Tillman, SBD DAUNTLESS UNITS OF WORLD WAR 2 (Osprey Combat Aircraft 10), pp. 35-41, here p. 35)
 
 
Jack Kleiss also tells from the upgrading of their - and not only "their" - Dauntlesses from one to two rear machine guns on the USS Enterprise:
 
"During the last days of April, we worked feverishly to prepare a new batch of SBD-3s. After the Marcus Island raid, only four of the original batch of SBD-2s remained operational. On April 27 we received fourteen replacement planes, and we larbored mightily to get them into battle ready condition. After tweaking these new dive bombers, the Navy reassigned them to another squadron. The next day we received another batch of eighteen SBD-3s, worked all night to prepare them, and then lost them to yet another squadron. On April 29 we received a third batch. We kept this group." (Kleiss, Hero, p. 167)
 
That fits perfectly to a quote from Lt. Best, when he talked to Tom Cleaver:
 
„Dick told me that when VB-6 gave up their old SBD-2s after returning from the Doolittle mission at the end of April, 1942, they received brand-new SBD-3s that were as close to “factory new” as could be with having been shipped from California to Hawaii.  As he described them, “they were the cleanest airplanes I ever saw in the Navy.” (Trumpeter 1/32 SBD-3 Dauntless, by Tom Cleaver (modelingmadness.com)
 
What did they actually do in that "brief, hectic period"? When some had to do the preparation work three times? Did they really bring all SBD-3s, old ones and new replacements, up to the standards shown in my last three pictures? Which would even have meant cutting the fuselage to accomodate a larger "tunnel" for the barrels and the sliding doors? 
I made some progress regarding this question when I started a little research on Midway torpedo bombers. The new book from Dana Bell on the TBD Devastator came in very handy. Almost all, if not all TBD Devastators that attacked at the Battle of Midway had twin Brownings, which were leftovers from the Dauntlesses.
The early Mark 11 twin mount did not use  the large ammunition box, both Brownings were fed from small ammo boxes directly attached next to their breeches. There's a great photo on p. 64 in Dana Bells book, I am going to show the wonderful artscale 1:32 version of this configuration - Version 2:
 

 
Like I said: Surely banal for most, but I reaized for the first time that these gun mounts were used widely on Midway Dauntlesses, too. It's so obvious, as it is all in the pictures. I don't know many Photos that show SBD-3s on the first days of June 1942, but there are at least some:

B-10 from USS Enterprise: twin guns, that don't fit into the old doors which are only tailored for a single gun, therefore they are not entirely shut - and the small ammo boxes on both sides... Version 2, obviously... or not?

No: Another photo of B-15, and aren't there ammo belts hanging down (and into a large ammo box)? These "boxes" on the first pic, were they simply armor plates?
 

Another SBD-3, Yorktown this time: Twin guns, but the small ammo boxes of the early Mark 11 twin mount: Version 2. I am quite sure here.
 

Maybe the same on Kleiss' S-7 from USS Enterprise... For me, this could be a small ammo box on that blurry pic... Version 2? Or is this just an armor plate? So version 3?
 

... but I couldn't say anything for sure on this photo of the same plane...
 

Bad quality picture of S-9 from USS Hornet. But here I can't see any ammo boxes. So it is version 3?
 

 
S-13 from USS Enterprise a short time after Midway: Here I would say there are those sliding panels visible. Is this a proof for Version 3?
 
So to draw a line under all of this, for me there are more questions than answers left, but I draw some conclusions (which are purely hypothetical!):
 
=> Yes, most, or probably all Midway Dauntlesses had twin Browning rear armament
=> Although in some squadrons there were some old planes left which could be very battle-weary and weathered aircraft (for carrier-based aircraft), most of Enterprise's Dauntlesses were new ones that came at the end of April to the squadrons - no heavy weathering (how sad!)
=> The old, upgraded machines were most probably brought to verion 2 standards. They could have kept their ammo box racks, had no sliding panels and too narrow "tunnels" for two barrels.
=> The squadrons on USS Enterprise also received new SBD-3s that initially were equipped with just one rearward machine gun. These were most probably brought to version 2 standards "in the field".
=> Did VB-6 and VS-6 also receive SBD-3s that already left the factories as version 3s? S-15 and S-13, for me, both are an evidence, these airplanes actually look like they had all the version 3 features. (Ironically, S-13, didn't take part in the attacks on June 4, neither in the morning nor in the afternoon, but took part in the attack on Friday, June 5, flown by Lt Patriarca).
=> From VB-6 B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-14, B-15, B-16 and B-18 took part in the attack on June 4 in the morning, as did S-1, S-2, S-3, S-7, S-18, S-10, S-15, S-12, S-16, S-17, S-14, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-8 and S-11 from VS-6. Which one of these SBD-3s were old? Which one was a replacement? Which one was brought to version 2 standards, which one already was a version 3? I have no idea.... 
 
Help is warmely welcome and highly appreciated. If "no idea" is common sense, artistic licence will come to rescue.

Hi Tolga
 
cool project
 
i guess you either make your peace with the ‘imperfections’ in the Trumpy kit or you wait possibly forever for someone else to make one
 
i have this kit and some aftermarket; whilst I cannot remember all the ‘easy win’ corrections out there from various aftermarket, I seem to recall Trumpy goofed the area behind the pilot’s head, and that maybe Aires / Quickboost do something for this??
 
anyway, Shangri-La is a nice colourful choice, and very well photographed; it changed its appearance I believe ie the markings evolved over time, so it depends how detail oriented you want to be?
 
many of the pics - including the ones you posted - show some super cool weathering on the fuselage and wing roots! It will be fun to try to replicate these.
 
As to the elimination of rivets, what are you using?
I remember for my Tamiya Mustang trying to cover it with gallons and gallons of rattle can Mr Surfacer (500 maybe, or might have been 1000?) and it taking forever; the MS just conformed to the surface too well. I am undecided on how to proceed when I next make one of these.
 
Anyway, best of luck with your project; will be following on.
 
Nick
 
 

Trying to remember how I built my Trumpy P-47 but it was a while ago so I’m no use I’m afraid!
 
your original 1/48 Jug looked pretty decent btw

And forgive me for writing in French.
It was an oversight on my part and I've just edited my post.
I was lucky enough to climb into the cockpit of an EADS Bf 109 G-2 that was on static display at Salon-de-Provence.
The German mechanic closed the canopy and I felt like a Luftwaffe pilot!
You're absolutely right, DugyB: the cockpit is tiny.
I had the Revi sight just a few centimetres from my eyes, and when I turned my head my nose was almost touching the right and left sides of the canopy...
What an experience, and I shed a few tears of happiness because the emotion was so strong...
 
The magic moment :
 

 
 
 

The S.O.W. website will be closing very soon. Unfortunately, our sponsorship of LSP must come to an end, as well.
 
Sales of future products will take place via the Vendors Board. Whenever there is a restock or a new product issued that is where to find them.
 
To those that have loaned original kit parts the S.O.W. replacements or original kit parts will be returned as soon as possible.
 
Best Regards,
 
Damian

Inserts, all things considered, are at least OK fits, but I'll still lose some surface detail while cleaning these areas up.
 

 

 
 

I haven't determined that yet. Assuming this version of the N was used in Africa (and I have no idea right now if that was the case), I may go that route.
 
 
The kit came from LSP_Ray, and he's quite meticulous about such things. If it were me, the kit might end up having a 1:48 F-101 in it!
 
 
See above.

Just reverse your experience with the two products, and you've pretty much nailed mine. In fact, I just threw the 3/4-full bottle of the AK stuff out yesterday, as when I went to use it for the first time in a few months, it had turned into a rubbery latex-like goop that, while still sticky, was no longer a liquid. The first sign of trouble, though, was right out of the box, when it kept stringing on me, like the polystyrene tube glue of old. I couldn't lay it down anywhere without it leaving thin black spider webs all over the job. After persevering for a while, I gave up and reverted to only using standard CA, until John Kim recommended the BSI stuff, which was a revelation.
 
Of course it's possible that I simply got a bad bottle of the AK stuff, but I won't be risking it again.
 
Kev

Hello everyone!
Here with another update on the Thunderbolt project.
In my previous post I had finished the basic painting of the airframe.
I made an effort of depicting the metal patina by spraying white aluminium over a silver base mottled with dark gull grey.
The next step was to do some panel variation by masking various areas and painting over with dark aluminium.
For the exhaust area I used steel.
I admit the masking process wasn't fun but the end result was worth it.
With the overall metal airframe done I then painted the antiglare panel with MRP olive drab using the black basing technique.
Chipping was done by previously applying masking fluid with a torn up piece of sponge over the aluminium paint before applying the black and olive drab colours.
With painting done I will soon be moving on to the application of the decals with the rather cheesy nose art!
 









 











 

Hello everyone!
I managed to make some progress with painting.
One thing I should mention is that this is my first ever attempt at a natural metal scheme.
I always shied away from doing such schemes as I was generally intimidated by the associated challenges and difficulties.
But I eventually decided it was time I bit the bullet and try my hand at an "unpainted" aircraft.
One thing I always struggled with is figuring out a way to depict the patina that forms on used metal surfaces as evident on numerous period photos of P-47s and P-51s.
I eventually came across an old video of doogsmodels that suggested a variation of the popular black basing technique.
This involved priming the plastic surface with a metal colour, then applied irregular patches of dark grey and finally unifying the whole scheme with an overcoat of a different metallic colour. I found the technique quite interesting and so decided to try it out.
After polishing and cleaning the whole model I first painted it with MRP Silver.
Then using an Uschi van der Rosten splatter stencil I covered the silver with splotches of MRP dark gull grey.
 





 
Next step was to apply several light layers of MRP white aluminium.
I made sure to cover the dark gull grey pattern enough to show through the top layer from different angles.
I have edited the pictures to make the effect look more dramatic as it was the only way it would appear clearly.
But in reality it's much more subtle. 
 













 
And a few detail shots of the effect.
 













 
Next step is to do some panel variation with dark aluminium and then apply the olive drab anti glare panel.
Thanks for checking! 

Indeed, the CA glue/talcum powder mix can be brittle and the join can come apart if you apply too much pressure during or after sanding.
That's usually more of a problem on highly curved surfaces such as the kit's engine cowling (which was a real PITA due to the four part assembly).
But I have found that by applying liquid cement first usually makes the join flexible enough to withstand moderate pressure should you apply the CA glue mixture on top. 
You could consider the sprue goo method but I've never used it so can't comment much on it.
Unfortunately, ghost seams are annoying but have seen that even top modelers have to deal with these occasionally. 
 
Ah, yes.
Forgot to mention my preferred glue is Tamiya extra thin cement.
I have also used Mr Hobby's limonene cement, too, which works just as fine.
But for reasons I'm unable to explain, I tend to prefer the Tamiya one. 
 
 

I have been using it with IPA  with no drama's just treat the same as tamiya or gunze .Works well with tamiya lacquer as well .Its way more usable than the rest of their range . Have fun Wayne

Hey Guys,
 
I compared the three AK Thinners (High Compatibility, Nitro, and Xtreme) for diluting AK Real Colors for Fine-Line airbrushing in a previous article:
https://modelpaintsol.com/guides/diluting-ak-real-colors-for-fine-line-airbrushing-the-dragon-1-72-gtk-boxer-a2
 
In addition to the AK Thinners, Real Colors dilute very nicely into Mr. Hobby Thinner as well as Gunze Leveling Thinner. I also suggest adding a little Mr. Hobby Mr. Retarder Mild to your mix, especially for shooting Gloss or for Fine-Line work.
I hope that helps.
Let me know if you have any questions.......
 
Best regards,
--John

Just wanted to pass this on. I picked up on this product on this site and tried a bottle. Best CA I have ever used. Coming from BSI and similar products. This glue works instantly which is what I want with CA. NO need for kicker. Works great on resin and plastic. Just as important is the bottle design. They have the best bottle I ever used. Lid has a metal needle in the top to allow the opening to never clog. Well thought out i.e. a better mousetrap. Only downside is having to purchase direct from VMS which is overseas and thus takes more time and cost to ship. Note they have quite a few interesting products besides glue. 
 
Paul

following with interest
 
new manufacturers who produce injection moulded 1/32 kits seem few and far between (understandably)
 
i have no idea of the financial weight behind DBMK, but just in terms of what is churned out, they should look very carefully at Kotare vs Infinity and see why one is riding the crest of a wave, whilst the other got it badly wrong and has been forced to withdraw with its tail between its legs 

following with interest
 
new manufacturers who produce injection moulded 1/32 kits seem few and far between (understandably)
 
i have no idea of the financial weight behind DBMK, but just in terms of what is churned out, they should look very carefully at Kotare vs Infinity and see why one is riding the crest of a wave, whilst the other got it badly wrong and has been forced to withdraw with its tail between its legs 

https://www.facebook.com/dorawingsofficial/posts/pfbid02nVTphb3r5nrS5zz1s6716ivuM5zAkarsdDdaXmrf8AF8CKERA4Nv5L8y7YFxa8K7l

Thanks guys!
 
The propeller needs a clear coat and then a little bit of weathering.
 

 
And the canopy pieces are masked. Spent several hours getting masks made. Of course, since it's a resin modification, the pieces aren't mirror images. 
 

 
Next is clear coat before any weathering. And paint for the canopy pieces. I'm not going to attempt to mask the inside of the canopy pieces.
 
I don't expect to get much accomplished tomorrow, the grandsons are going to be here.
 

Hmmm…that price (~£215) is more than a Tamiya Mosquito, a kit bigger, more complex and infinitely superior to anything HpH are going to put out in terms of detail, accuracy and perhaps more importantly, engineering and fit.
 
The whole Infinity thing has been a complete mess from the start, but it’s always easy to criticise a) from the outside and b) with the benefit of hindsight, so ultimately I just feel sad for them and sad for me (lol) because I won’t get to build a kit of a subject that I’ve always liked in my scale (1/35 can go do something obscene to itself).
 
I have said for years that HKM’s next big monster should be the He177. If it ever sees the light of day from HpH it will probably be as expensive as the Border Lanc, if not more so.
 
i guess I just need to focus on building whatever Kotare churn out and ignore all these pipe dreams?!

This build has special meaning to me.  A Christmas gift from my son.  Sat in my stash for 2 years.  A few reminders recently...here we are.    Finally.
 
Lots of aftermarket surprise, surprise.  EagleCal decals, Barracuda wheels, Eduard PE, Ultracast Prop, Vector "Turtleback", Vector Cowling detail and HGW belts.
 

 

Yup, gonna be a "clipped" wing bird.
 

I discovered there are about 3 different measures used on RAF FAA Corsairs of course I cannot locate the source and I did not save the link.  I went with 8" clip each wing.
 

 

A piece of sheet styrene closes the tip.
 

 

Clip job is done.
 
 

The H0 is an improvement over the H1 as several parts were modified or changed.  Namely the Engine block was change to fully cover the cam covers as on the H1 they are open on the back end.  There might be a slight better fit but I did not see much difference overall.  Issues I ran into that you would want to really dry fit first.  It's also not in the terrible multicolored plastic.  However if you want to build the H1 it's still your only option.  However I believe you could add the H1 wing to the H0 to have an overall H1.  The wing is standard plastic, not the crappy silver they use for most of the engine and wing spar. 
 
Edit: You cannot use the main wing flaps interchangeably between the H1 kit and H0 kit.  ZM inexplicably moved the main attachment point on the main flaps.  This is if you wish to leave them open. 
 
I would recommend mounting the engine to the fuselage before you add the wing.  You cannot easily get to the lower attachment points on the engine supports where they attach to the firewall.  They are basically blocked by the wing.  This attachment is critical to getting everything to line up correctly later on. 
 
The mount of the 30mm motor cannon to the engine block and frame.  I have never really gotten this to fit just right on several different builds. 
 
The mounting of the main instrument panel to the cockpit.  There is very little material to glue to here and the fit has to be just right or the side walls won't come together correctly.
 
If you use the ZM Photoetch cockpit (Eduard) instrument replacements, I found that it made fitting everything together harder as the photo etch edges can slightly stick out to far and again cause the side walls not to fit snug.  Trying to grind down the edges can lead to disaster as the parts will just pop off.  The Quinta Studios set works much much better and has a better color.  The ZM set looks purple on the kit against normal RLM66.  The Yahu instrument panel is very thick and IMO since it's in one piece has to be cut to fit.  I never got this to work and had to replace the part.  The cockpit is by far IMO one of the hardest since areas to get right at least for me.  By comparison the FW-190 A4 cockpit goes together like a dream.
 
You have to attach the exhausts to the engine before you add the engine cover panels.  Especially a problem if you are not going to have one of them open for display so the  exhausts have to be covered before you paint the kit. 
 
The attachment of the outer cowling to the cowling flaps can be tricky, I recommend attaching the separate top piece first as that sets the correct spacing.
 
The Radiator into the the outer cowling is IMO a mess and once the radiator has snapped into place you will have a hard time getting it back out i.e. if you test fit it. 
 
The separate parts of the wings can be made to fit with very small gaps, but I used a different process, adding G7 to G5 first, setting the correct gap then adding that to the  lower wing surface already attached to the spar.  
 
I found that putting all the wing components together first then attaching E19 last is easier (at least for me).  This is one of the most critical parts of the wing, and it can lead wing root misalignment if not assembled correctly.  Also again make sure there is no paint on the leading edges of the wing root and E19 when you paint the wheel wells.  I screwed up here on my first build and tried to assemble said parts with silver paint on them, never got a good solid glue bond and had to re-glue multiple times which  just made a mess.  
 
The wing spar is very critical to overall fit, I made the mistake of painting all of it the first time, and you really only need to paint the front and maybe the rear.  Paint on the part makes it hard to get a solid glue bond. 
 
Main landing gear is unique in design and I find it's still difficult to get the parts to fit, but they will eventually.  The ZM concept note has some good pictures of how to get the legs in correctly.  Note on the new FW-190 A4, landing gear has to be on during painting due to the way the wing panel that covers the legs is attached. 
 
Attachment of the main gear covers to the landing get, again I would mask the areas where the parts are joined (what I mess if you paint the entire parts and try to get glue to hold all of it together.  Also I never could figure out the brake lines that they have and IMO they are way too large and thus get the way of the gear cover I ended up not using them. 
 
If you are going to display one or both of the engine covers open, there are not any support posts in the kit to hold the part open, so that is a scratch build. 
 
ZM's decals for then H1 and H0 are IMO not that good the white crosses especially.  Consider getting one of the EagleCals sets of decals.  
 
I used the Eduard Spinner masks to get the white spirals as again the decals for this were not easy to work with.  Also you need to apply the decal or paint the spiral before you complete the Propeller assembly.  Paint the spiral or apply the decal first then put the two parts together.  If you don't the propeller blades get in the way of masking or the decals for a spiral. 
 
Overall the kit will build up to a nice looking TA-152.  The H0 doesn't have the multicolored plastic of the H1.  The H1's silver parts IMO don't take to glue well at all and also have trouble with painting.  H0 is all one color. 
 
I also wish that ZM would add rivets to their kits. I have send pictures on this site and others where the modeler has added rivets and it looks to me so much more pleasing to the eye.  However doing this is not my cup of tea,  as one mistake and there goes a part out the door. 
 
Paul C 

It wasn't an easy build for me but the kit can yield a very nice result. There is no other WW2 fighter quite like the Tank and a 1/32 representation really highlights that amazing wing span.  I've got an H-0 kit on the shelf and am planning to convert it to an H-1 since I did the opposite last time. 

Re: PART III from: Tomáš Poruba to: XXX Is it really such long time from Part I and II? Dear me.... My apologize for all our readers and funs! Thank you for kind words from XXX. I and all JaPo are glad our books satisfy you! I hope, our new study about last days of JG6 will be interesting too. We plan to issue it soon. Information about it will be on our web. And I can confirm - we are really working on Part III of Camouflage and Marking of Fw190D. New informations, new snaps, new profiles. The Part III will be the next title from WWII after JG6 study.   Best regards Tomáš Poruba JaPo