Radub

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 
The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 
The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 
Radu

Vinyl  gets a bad rap for quite unfounded reasons. First of all, the wrong vinyl is used by some manufacturers who use permanent sign-making vinyl that has a very strong adhesive and that causes problems when removing the masks. I have masks created in Eastern Europe that have "gorilla strength" adhesive. There is a specialised vinyl masking film, created especially for use with airbrushes. This is the semi-transparent grey masking material that many use, and it is superb. By the way, for my masks I only use vinyl over paper masks. in my opinion, vinyl has a sharper edge. 
Vinyl does not "shrink with time". In fact vinyl itself is quite stable. When you see some spaces appearing along the edges of the cuts that is not caused by the vinyl shrinking, but rather by the backing paper expanding or shrinking as it wicks or releases moisture from the atmosphere. I have seen vinyl sheets change, expand and shrink back in one day when we had demo sheets in Telford where there is a lot of moisture in the air. Paper is porous whereas vinyl is not. The yellow paper masks are made of paper and that shrinks/expands as well, but it does it in "reverse" to the vinyl. As it wicks moisture from the air, the yellow paper expands faster than the backing paper, and I am sure some of you saw this as a "slight raise" along the cut lines. That is why you do not see as many "shrinked edges" on the paper masks. :-) 
HTH 
Radu 

That is a G-10. Not all fairings were made of wood. 
Radu

That is a G-10. Not all fairings were made of wood. 
Radu

That is a G-10. Not all fairings were made of wood. 
Radu

That is a G-10. Not all fairings were made of wood. 
Radu

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

The only thing that makes it "American" are the stars and bars that were painted over the German crosses. The German crosses are on the sheet. Some sources claim that this aicraft wore "yellow 5" when it was in German marlkings. "Yellow 5" is included on the sheet. Do not use stars. Use crosses. Add "yellow 5" from the sheet. Voila! German "original scheme". 
Radu 

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

I was just pretending to be an "eternally dissatisfied" punter. I was going to disagree with anything you said and see how far we could go, but to be honest this takes a skill set that I just do not possess.  
People demand "never kitted before" stuff". Here are "never kitted before" decals. The reaction is "No, not this, I meant the other stuff that was never kitted before". 
I am sure that aftermarket people are already working on alternatives. 
Radu 
 

The only thing that makes it "American" are the stars and bars that were painted over the German crosses. The German crosses are on the sheet. Some sources claim that this aicraft wore "yellow 5" when it was in German marlkings. "Yellow 5" is included on the sheet. Do not use stars. Use crosses. Add "yellow 5" from the sheet. Voila! German "original scheme". 
Radu 

The only thing that makes it "American" are the stars and bars that were painted over the German crosses. The German crosses are on the sheet. Some sources claim that this aicraft wore "yellow 5" when it was in German marlkings. "Yellow 5" is included on the sheet. Do not use stars. Use crosses. Add "yellow 5" from the sheet. Voila! German "original scheme". 
Radu 

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu

The only thing that makes it "American" are the stars and bars that were painted over the German crosses. The German crosses are on the sheet. Some sources claim that this aicraft wore "yellow 5" when it was in German marlkings. "Yellow 5" is included on the sheet. Do not use stars. Use crosses. Add "yellow 5" from the sheet. Voila! German "original scheme". 
Radu 

The tail wheel doors were spring-loaded in the open position. Between the doors was a sprung “scissor” mechanism, hinged to each door. When the tail wheel strut retracted it struck the scissor mechanism, pulled it, and that also pulled the doors closed. So, when on the ground, the doors were open. However, on some aircraft the undercarriage leg was locked in the open position (I.e. not retractable anymore) and the doors were wired in the closed position. There were a number of 109 K that had the “standard” short tail undercarriage as used on the Bf 109 G. These aircraft had no tail wheel doors, as this undercarriage was not retractable. Check photos for each subject.
Hth
Radu