Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hooter

  1. Hi guys,

    Hoping someone can help me here. I'm looking for a replacement part ( E 21 ) which is part of the retraction mechanism of the left main landing gear. Unfortunately this part is missing from my kit, which I bought second hand some time ago, and I've only just discovered this¬†ūüôĀ.

    I know the kit originally came with metal parts as well, but they too are missing. If anyone can help me out I'd be eternally grateful, and would of course be willing to pay any costs ( ie : postage to the UK, etc. )

    I could try and make the part, but I don't think my scratch building skills would be up to it, so could anyone help me please ?

  2. 5 minutes ago, Curt B said:

    Steve, you're right, and I know that many other model makers do far worse in their molding qualify.  It's just that I was surprised to see this in a new mold Eduard kit.


    Hooter, I hope you don't have any further problems.  Just to be clear, though, it wasn't the clear windscreen part that had the problem.  It was the fuselage plastic itself, the area where the fuselage meets that clear plastic windscreen part which was not molded correctly.  Without correction, if you glued the clear part in place, there would have been a very signifcant 'step down' from the edge of the windscreen part to where the fuselage plastic would start.  That is, rather than a smooth, even transition from the clear part to the gray plastic, the fuselage part wasn't molded 'high' enough for a 'step-less' transition from the clear to the gray plastic.  I wouldn't have minded, at as much, if there had been just a small gap between the 2 parts, but in this case, without fixing, the spot where those 2 parts would have come together would have been a gap and a wide difference in 'height'.  I think I've got it sorted out now, but it took some significant effort!!

    I'll let you know when I get to that stage, but it looks OK at the moment. Guess I'll find out when I get the fuselage together ! 

  3. Funny you should say that, Curt. I'm building the 1/48 Bf 109F 4 at the moment, and I too had a short shot  horizontal stabiliser . Luckily I managed to fill it with some Perfect Plastic Putty ( Wonderful stuff ! ) Haven't looked at the windscreen yet, so hopefully that will be OK.



  4. Oh well, perhaps it was just me, but I found the Hasegawa kit much easier to build, plus the surface detail was superior to the Airfix kit, especially their "Doughnuts " to represent the cowling fasteners. I guess it's all down to personal choice at the end of the day.  :cheers:

  5. I had this kit when it was first released, and I agree with goondman . . . it is an unnecessarily  over complicated kit to build, and unlrss you get everything EXACTLY lined up it won't fit.  On top of that the landing gear fixing is just ridiculous, so you can guess where mine ended up ! I've been modelling for more years than I care to remember, but I've never had the hassle I had with this kit. Give me the older Hasegawa Hurricane any time. Rant over, I'll get me coat !

  6. Hi guys,

    I have the Tamiya 1/700 Scharnhorst kit to build, and would like to build it in it's " Channel Dash " colour scheme, with the aid of cross kitting the appropriate  parts from the Gneisenau kit. My question is : What colour were the turret tops, as I've seen drawings showing a shade of blue, but also ones showing dark grey ?

    Looking at photos taken at the time they appear to be lighter than the rest of the turret, but that could just be the effect of light / shade. Any help would be gratefully received.  :cheers:

  7. The Airframe In Miniature books ( No. 5 and No. 11 ) by Valiant Wings have all the detail you could wish for on all variants of the 109, with loads of detail photos, drawings and scale plans, plus info on colour schemes and a section on scale models.

  8. 13 hours ago, john53 said:

    I just went to Pinterest and it said it's a photo. So there

    was no F-105F Alpha Strike? If you can't trust the internet

    who can you trust? When you think about it I don't think

    there was ever a wing or squadron of F-105Fs, they complimented

    the F-105D squadrons.---John


    U.K. 1966

    This photo was taken at Wethersfield's open day  on June 11th. 1966. this airplane was assigned to the 49th. TFW based at Spangdahlem in Germany.

  9. 4 hours ago, Gene K said:


    "Actually", for the USAF, the extent of the¬†camo inside the intake varied from right at the lip to ~ 36" back. Most common were: 1)¬†"several" inches in, roughly¬†lining up vertically with¬†the¬† the vari ramp¬†break; and 2)¬†around 36 in deep. Here's an¬† example of the former on¬†an F-4C back in '69 -¬† it's grainy and rough, but you can get the picture.¬†ūüėé




    The deep 36 inch spraying  was usually nicely masked, but the splitter plate demarcation featured, well  ... lots of freehand. Likely a matter of depot versus field painting.


    Gene K

    Well that's something I never knew, so thanks for that.  Just proves that you should always be wary of " Standard " practices !

  10. As an ex RAF groundcrew member on 17 Squadron I can confidently say that  F-4M's ( AKA FGR 2 ) in the early Dk. green and Dk. sea grey camo were painted back to a point in line with the wing leading edge, as were the Viet Nam camo F-4c, F-4D & F-4E. Royal Navy Phantoms had white intakes right up to the rear of the splitter plate.   :cheers:

  • Create New...