Jump to content

Bill M.

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bill M.

  1. Thanks for that— good news indeed! I didn’t want to miss out on any Gladiator, while waiting and hoping for the Sea Gladiator! Bill M.
  2. Do we know for sure that ICM is planning to release a Sea Gladiator? That is my preferred version. Bill M.
  3. Still wish some aftermarket company would do the asymmetrical F-8 Crusader dual missile racks that mount these Zuni’s and Sidewinders too. The ones in the Trumpeter kit are simply wrong. A lot of Crusader modelers would welcome these, in spite of the load out they are planning! Bill M.
  4. Received the F-8 seamless intake a couple of days ago—- very nice! Definitely an improvement over what is in the kit. I’m very pleased. Bill M.
  5. In answer to your original question, I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that they dropped their tanks as they went in to engage the Japanese aircraft. Remember there were a few Zeroes escorting the two Betty bombers. I would guess that there was no desire to engage a gaggle of Zeroes with external tanks hanging off your P-38. Just my view... Bill M.
  6. Gary, thanks for that. I was particularly pleased to see the 1/32 F-8 Crusader intakes and already placed an order taking advantage of Sprue Brothers CyberMonday sale. Any chance of some more 1/32 F-8 Crusader parts? A set of the asymmetrical “Y” missile rails would be particularly welcome. Thanks again! Bill M.
  7. I’m interested in a set too, if they come on market. I hadn’t heard that Fencer (Alex) was doing one. If he does do one, I’ll get that one too. Bill M.
  8. I always thought that the chin bulges were what distinguished a G-14/AS from a G-6/AS. But I am no expert on this. Maybe Fencer-1 or Pastor John can clarify the difference. Bill M.
  9. I know that the AIMS late-war Bf-109 decal sheet has markings for a couple of G-6/AS. Also one set of markings for a G-14/AS. Bill M.
  10. I am very interested in the G-14/AS conversion. Since it is close as well, can we order and pay for it now? Thanks! Bill M.
  11. Will the G-14/AS conversion be available soon? Bill M.
  12. Yes they do. Link— https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?sid=rustusmanov&isRefine=true&_pgn=1
  13. I’ve ordered three of these sets in the past—two variants of the G-5/6 and the G-10 “Erla”. They were each exceptional. You will not be disappointed. I ordered off eBay and it was no problem at all. Really good stuff! Bill M.
  14. This looks great! I’ll get a set for sure. Will it also work for a G-14/AS? Bill M.
  15. Well, that’s a bit disappointing that it is 1/48. Sure hope they also do it in 1/32. Any idea which model of P-38 they are doing? Bill M.
  16. True that— I don’t recall that you specifically said that a Kittyhawk TBD Devastator was coming. But there were a couple of dropped hints that there might be a TBD coming— then nothing. As for “Trump-y-boss”, I think most of us have long given up on them doing a TBD. And to tell the truth, I would rather see it come from Kitty Hawk. Bill M.
  17. Good to hear from Kittyhawk! The F-84’s will be great, but I would still love to see that TBD Devastator that was hinted at years ago. Kittyhawk may be our only hope! Bill M.
  18. Congrats! That is a beautiful area. I’ve done a lot of hiking and climbing there in my earlier days. You picked a great area to tie the knot! Bill M.
  19. Where were you at 11,000 feet?
  20. I think there is merit in what you are saying. First, I don’t think it is 1/72. More likely 1/48 or 1/32. As to the measurements of the sprue and part number, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn those were added to throw us off. Remember, having this screen shot on open display was deliberate— this could not have been an accident. Kind of Tamiya’s way of announcing a new kit for the Shizuoka show where they had no formal LSP announcement. And as has been stated, I am sure the Tamiya folks are finding amusement in our reactions to their planted hint. So does this indicate something is coming? My guess is yes, a P-38 is coming from Tamiya. Will it be 1/72, 1/48 or 1/32 scale? I don’t think it’s 1/72 because of its level of detail. The sprue information means nothing. That is likely an bogus add-on to throw us off. Is it 1/48 or 1/32? Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I would go with 1/32 scale. I’m just thinking that there have been good 1/48 P-38’s, but a good P-38 in 1/32 scale is sorely needed. Those are my thoughts on this... Bill M.
  21. I see reports on someone’s Facebook page that a computer screen with a cad drawing, clearly showing a P-38 nose along with the accompanying sprue was seen and photographed on a Tamiya factory tour. The photograph was part of the post. If true, was it 1/48 or 1/32 scale. Of course, now I can’t find it. Will keep looking. Is anyone else aware of this? Bill M. EDIT: I see this is already being discussed! Don’t know how I could have missed this! Sorry about the duplicitous post!
  22. Zotz did a sheet with Decals for a P-40L of the 325th FG, the so-called “Checkertail Clan”. I think you can still find it, like on eBay. As far as I know all of the 325th FG P-40’s were long-tail warhawks and may have been all P-40L’s. Bill M.
  23. Too bad about an Eduard P-40K. I agree with your points about the Eduard P-47 and P-40N kits, especially about the need for the poster and metal sign. But were the kits really a flop? They were a one-time limited run. Aren’t they sold out? Maybe not as fast as they might have liked, but I was under the impression they are pretty much gone from the market. Bill M.
  24. Sorry “1to1scale”, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of the GM F/L conversion. Right now, it’s the most accurate 1/32 P-40F/L available. I was in communication with Derek Bradshaw when he designed the kit and provided much of the research material. As to the rear supercharger duct being so out of shape, I know Derek had several photos and plans of an original P-40F when he designed this area. I don’t feel it is wrong at all. I agree with you that we should see what actually turns up in the Trumpeter box before passing judgment, but photos of the sprues give us reason to be initially skeptical. My greatest concern comes from the fuselage side view, particularly in front of the cockpit. While the F’s and L’s seem similar to the Allison-powered P-40’s at first glance, they are in fact very different in almost every dimension. For instance, if you look at the contour of the top of the nose on theTrumpeter kit, it would seem that they just removed the carburetor intake and left the curve in place— when in fact it is very different. Compare this to photos of a real P-40F and then look at Tom Cleavers review of the GM conversion set in a 325th FG P-40L. Link here— https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/cleaver/us/tmc40l.htm Look at the side view compared to a real P-40F/L and you will see that Derek Bradshaw got it right for the most part. You can also see why many of us are concerned about the Trumpeter kit. I don’t know about the flaws and build issues you had with the GM conversion. Of course some filling and fitting is necessary with such a conversion. I didn’t notice the other flaws you mentioned on my two sets, but mine were from the first ones cast. So in the end, I’ll reserve final judgment on the Trumpeter kit until it actually comes onto the market. I hope they get it right in the end. But I am not optimistic having seen the pre-production photos. Bill M.
×
×
  • Create New...