Radub

Notoriously, nothing sticks to wax. This method risks contaminating parts with wax residue in the areas where glue or paint is to be applied. In the past I used heat-shrink plastic for electrical cable insulation over the tweezers tips. Just slip it over, heat it and it will settle snugly over the tips. That usually provides a lot of "grip". Radu

Ah well... you wanna have a fight about accuracy? How about this latest trend for over-exaggerated dereliction, neglect and filth on models? Radu

For the purposes of this discussion, I am just a model-builder that would like to buy a Liberator kit. I was (and I still am) involved in the development of a variety of model-related products in a number of ways at a number of levels, but in this case I only speak as a "potential customer." I do not imagine myself as an "expert" in anything. I can only call myself a "good listener". Everything I know, I learned by listening to others smarter than me. The truth of the matter is that I do not know if there is a problem with this kit. There may be a problem, but this is not the way to assess it. And if there is indeed a problem with this kit, I will live with it. But that is just me. You can do what you want, I am not forcing my opinion on anyone, Radu

I have a couple of observations. First of all, I am waiting for the "Ploesti" boxing and I intend to hang mine from the ceiling. So, given that I will mostly see the bottom of the plane, I can ignore any (therefore unseen) potential issues with the wing profile. Second of all, let us wait for the plastic and then assess it. At this stage we are comparing photos of the plastic parts against photos of the real thing and relying on drawings found on the internet. Comparing plastic to photos is seldom a good idea. Do you remember this case of such research?: Let us take a deep breath here, count to ten. Radu

Looking good! Radu

When I designed the photo-etched "stripped wing" for the Fokker E.III, I planned to do a photo-etched "stripped Triplane" as well. Here is the Eindecker: http://www.radubstore.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3_85&products_id=634 In the end I abandoned the "stripped Triplane" project because it would have involved way too many large sheets of brass, making it really expensive. Every now and then I fantasise about going back to it, but there is no means to make it cheap. Costs and retail price are the only reasons why such projects are done mainly in smaller scales. Radu

Didn't we go over this already? Radu

For me, the P-51B Mustang that really fired my imagination is "Sweet Clara II" Some of you may be looking at it and think: "Is that a Romanian pilot?" Yes it is! This aircraft has a very interesting story. Some of you may know that Bf 109 G-6 with large US flags on the sides. (That was included on my very first decal sheet ;-) ). That Bf 109 was flown on a diplomatic mission by Romania highest-scoring ace, Constantin Cantacuzino, after Romania switched sides and joined the Allies. He flew from Romania to Foggia in Italy. The radio of the Messerschmitt was removed and the highest-ranking US POW in Romania, Col. James A. Gunn III, was placed in that space. The two of them flew to Foggia where they made the arrangements to have all US POWs flown from Romania to Italy before the Russians reached them. After the US officer was delivered to Foggia, Cantacuzino made preparations to fly back in his Bf 109, but some over-enthusiastic US "jock" asked to be allowed to fly it. Even though Cantacuzino warned him that the 109 had a nasty take-off tail-swing, the US pilot still tried to fly it and then promptly totalled the 109 during take-off. Cantacuzino had no plane to fly back home, so the Americans, (red-faced, I presume) gave him this Mustang. Cantacuzino took off without any trouble and landed back in Romania safe and sound. This Mustang was flown back to Foggia by one of the freed POWs. I would like to build both the US-flag 109 and this P-51 side by side and tell this amazing story. ;-) More here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1687

That is a whole other mine field. Many manufacturers make RLM 83 and no two RLM 83 shades are the same. :-) Radu

75/81 is a truly weird combination. Where would they get 70? Where would they get any paint? Please read the thread again. There is a major question about the nature of the "dark green" that is called 83. There is a (reasonable and reasoned) doubt that 83 was dark green. So what was the dark green seen on late-war aircraft? That dark green was supposedly "introduced" in the third quarter of 1944. Either way, whether it was a new paint or a re-purposed old paint, the manufacturer had to get it from somewhere in the third quarter of 1944. Again, it truly defies logic that all remaining stocks of 70 were completely erased without trace in 1944. Radu

That scheme is what is usually referred to as 75/83 grey/dark green. But in this case the text misidentified the dark green as 82 instead of 83. This is the confusion I mentioned above: many sources get their greens (82 and 83) mixed up. 82 is the light green, 83 (or whatever...) Is the dark green. Radu

70/71 was used on all bombers throughout the war,veven past late-1944. For some really strange reason, there is a veritable disdain for those two colours. For example, even though there is plenty of solid evidence that 70/71 was used on the Ar 234 or Do 335, most artwork depict them in 81/82. There is evidence that 70 (black green) was used on the wing of the He 162 or Me 163, yet all artwork depict them in 81/82. All "experts" simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the stocks of 71 continued to be used after the autumn of 1944. I find it very hard to believe that all stocks of 71 (such an ubiquitous paint) were dumped. Radu

That has been my suspicion all along. There is still a stubborn insistence that every single "dark green" should automatically be labelled 83. It makes a whole lot of sense to me that it may have heen 71 in some if not the majority of cases. Radu

75/82 will look quite unusual. 82 is the grass-like "light green". The "dark green" is supposed to be 83. In many books, 82 and 83 are swapped and mixed-up. The "late war" Luftwaffe colours are an almighty mess! I remember that I came across the endless discussions on rec.models.scale in the mid-nineties and we are still not anywhere near "clarity". One thing that I find very confusing is this: many "researchers" use phrases such as "they used old stocks of such-and-such colour". This "old stock" applies to pretty much any paint that (supposedly) was "discontinued" with the very notable absence of RLM 71 Dunkelgruen. Search the entire library, the entire internet, speak to any "expert' and you will not find a single reference of 75/71 for the grey+green camouflage.. Not one! In other words, the Germans found some kind of use for any remaining stocks of paint with the exception of 71. If any dark green is found on a late-war aircraft, it is automatically, without fail or exception, regarded as 83. But there must have been veritable mountains of 71. It was used so much throughout the war. And then, suddenly, BANG!!!, it was gone!. I find it hard to believe that 71 was never used after the autumn of 1944. Radu

The doubt is not about the existence of the colour, but rather the name/code for it. Radu