Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Snorry

  • Rank
    Glue Required

Recent Profile Visitors

1,018 profile views
  1. And this is what I have made out of this photo. Probably it is the best reconstruction of CM225's markings for now and you you have got some credit for it :)
  2. Thank you a lot, Zak! It really clears a lot - like an absence of "stencil slots" on white characters.
  3. It would be great! If possible, scan it with 600 dpi resolution, if you find it difficult or dangerous (to the book, it is glued and could be damaged when scanned), a good macro photo will do as well. Thanks!
  4. Hello! Do anybody have Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces 95 Polikarpov I-15, I-16 and I-153 Aces or 106 Spanish Republican Aces? On the page 27 in the first and on 73 in second there is a photo of I-16 CM225, attributed as Zarauza Clavaro's aircraft. Right now I'm trying to draw a decal for this aircraft and I desperately need this photo or at least part of it with side number in good resolution. Could you help me?
  5. Marcos, its great you have resumed this interesting project! Go ahead!
  6. In a search for info on this amphipian I cant find any info on cockpit interrior exсept pictures from the Pilot's notes. But in it only forward of pilot's appartments can be seen, nothing about aft and all navigator's 'cabin'. Have anybody seen photos (or at least pictures) of them? I think some info can be obtained from australian FAA museum at Nowra, where remains of the last Sea Otter stored, but I even have no their emails... May be someone had photoed inside of JN200 nose already or knows someone who had? Or who can? Or knows where I can find such person in internet? May be an australian forum with particular interest in RAN aviation?
  7. Yes, of double joy - for Bucc will come with Sea Venom!!!
  8. icey If we started to blame Azur, I also want to add their Devoitine 373/376 (and also D.371/372) - first (Sea Otter is second) their kit I bought. It is very innacurate too, but there is at least one good thing in it - decal. Its really superb! But in decals for Sea Otter also there are many mistakes - in fonts of serial numbers, in colours of 8S squadron's badge, even serial number for one british aircraft given as JN945 though it was JM945... And I say once again - it is a COMPLETE disaster. As for scrathbuilding, the most serious problem fo me are decals and clear parts, especially with a 'blown' form (like Spitfire canopy). I never had build entire model from scratch, but to make nose or tail cone, engine cover or master-model of "simple' canopy - its really not hard task for me. But, after that, for what I had to pay so much?! For indolence of manufacturer never saw actual ac or photo? And some additions to my first post. I had said that fuselage of Azur's Sea Otter is shorter, than real ac. It is not precisely that. It shorter, if we scaling photo of real ac to match Azur's canopy and wing. But in fact kit's overall dimensions are quite correct (for Sea Otters lenght of around 12 metres). But if we scaling photo to match length of Azur's fuselage, we see kit's fuselage is up to 3 mm higher than on photo! So the matter is, as I mentioned above, in totally different proportions of fuselages of real ac and Azur's kit (and all known drawings, and Aeroclub kit too). Scratchbuilding of entire fuselage seems the only way to make it accurate. Just five minutes ago, when I was writing this, I have found another flaw - flaps and ailerons on upper (at least) wing. They are too broad on view from above (about 1.5 mm or so), and the aileron /wing joint line on photos looks straight, not bent! But on view from below it really bent, but just slightly - not as it is in kit. The more photos of real aircraft I find, the less kit resembles it... COMPLETE... Azur... No more!
  9. Bought one. Been happy for two days. Today I decide to compare kit with photos of real ac and... You saw the topic title, did you? At first, fuselage. The only things that really resembles real Sea Otter are cockpit and fin. Entire fuselage deformed in shape beyond all limits! In scale, if we choose bottom step as the anchor point : Cockpit moved 1 mm backwards; Nose is 3 mm shorter and have different shape in side view (looks like on the first prototype); Fuselage aft of the wings is 6-7 mm shorter! And it have wrong cross-sections, especially near the fin. There are no means to cure it. And that is not all! Font portion of engine cover (exhaust collector ring) is considerably narrower, bulges on cover are not on proper places. And wings... Both has a great dihedral - feature not seen on any photo. On the contrary, upper wing on photos is almost plain, and lower has at least twice less dihedral. Wheel bays are in wrong position (3 mm forward) and wheels itelf have wrong (almost flat) covers instead of proper conic. Мау be there are another flaws in this kit, but for me that's enough!!! And decal sheet, where are no step markings ("boot tracks'), seen along all span on both wings on photos... The only "good" news for this kit is that in shape it almost copies earlier Aeroclub one, so it is the best Sea Otter on market. But it is not such thing I hope to recieve for my 38 bucks!!! I'm very angry with those czechs, who make such bad models for such big price!!! In Edda there is a story about "redemption of otter" - the great treasure, later becomes known as gold of Nibeungs and Rheingold; there was a curse on it: it will brings misfortune to its owner. And I also hope my money will bring misfortune to Azur for what they do with my lovely airplane!!!
  10. Snorry

    A4 E/G/F

    In fact there are almost no external differencies between A-4F and A-4G. Of course, A-4G lacks some ECM (small antennae under nose and tail) and communication (hump) capabilities of A-4F, but as of avionics hump, there was no such on early A-4F (but they all were retrofitted before delivery), and bent probes also retrofitted on many A-4E and A-4F in service. Moreover, half of all A-4G were originally A-4F (BuNos 155051, 155052, 155055, 155056, 155061, 155062, 155063 and 155069), first served with USN (even in Vietnam), refurbished and sold to Australia in 1970. So you have a right kit, take a look at photos of particular ac you want (you can find them also at : http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/ . It seems there are photos of all Aussie Skyhawks and other naval planes (and ships, of course)) and go!
  11. I hope this can help: http://depositfiles.com/files/elzjtetk9 there are 6 photos of Ju87C, including details of wing folding joints and catapult spools. Sorry, its too hard to me post all these photos separately...
  12. Can this helps? Or they are too small?
  13. So I was happy to dream about this kit...I was waiting for it... I was in hope that this wil be the best Rafale kit ever...That there will be a good amount of aftermarket for it... It all is, but not in 72 scale. I just measured Magic missile of Italeri kit - the lenght in precise 1-72. Hobbyboss's Magics are smaller... Wingspan of Italery's Rafale with tip rocket rails - 147 mm, but the rails themselves a bit thin, even compare with Hobbyboss ones. With correct launchers the Italeri's kit wingspan will be right 150 mm (or, may be little, for 1mm or so, smaller. So it is more and more evident that the scale of hobbyboss is 1-76 - all of the parts... And I'm right, though hoping to be wrong. Unfortunately, the wingspan of a/c and Magic's lenght are only dimensions of Rafale for what I'm more or less sure. Lenght and height of any a/c may vary depending of what they are - dimesions of a/c on ground or along the horisontal flight line, with or without antennae and probes, with what load onboard, etc. I'm sorry to disappoint someone, but the most dissapointed person for this founding is myself... I want 1-72 Rafale, not 1-76 one... And I really see the difference of these scales...
  14. These sad news comes to me today, when I have a chance to compare Italeri and Hobbyboss kits. On the very first glance it was clearly seen that the Hobbyboss kit, having been very close to Italeri's in overal shape, is noticeably smaller - not in one, but in all dimensions (wingspan, wing chord, fuselage lenght...). Measuring of this kit's wingspan (with rocket rails on tips) gives 142 mm. Wingspan of real Rafale, as Dassault states ( http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defens...istics.html?L=1 ) is 10.8 m, that in 1/72 gives 150 mm. Where are missing 8 mm - almost a santimetre?!!! It seems that those chinese, when rescaling electronic mockup of Rafale to 1-72, takes as 150 mm not the wingspan, but the span of the entire model - with Magics on wingtip rails! As a result, we all have pretty kit in precise 1-76 - very nice addition to old Airfix and Matchbox kits in this scale.... This, of course, the same with other Hobbyboss Rafales in 1-72 - the sprues almost all the same... I have not measured the sprues other than fuselage halves, but there is the same picture - Hobbyboss parts are smaller than Italeri ones... As for Italeri kit, it, with all this inaccuracies, is in the 1-72 - and still the only Rafale M in this scale How a bad luck... Or may be I'm wrong? May be I have make some mistake in this little research?
  15. There is a FineMolds kit, but a few photos of subject, and only one on carrier. That one as said has taken on Kaga. AC is "Houkoku-14", one of the first A2N2 built and it seems it not belongs to Kaga air group. The very interesting thing on this photo is something seen near the tail skid. What is that black thing? In Avions magazine, where this picture has been published in 1998, stated that this is the arresting hook. Its strange to see arresting hook attached to tail skid, and more strangely to see drawings in the same volume, where A2N2 shown with "normal" hook under fuselage. But there is no such on photo of "Houkoku-14"! Additional search for A2N2 and A2N1 images (that two versions hardly disthindushed one from another) shows no arresting hook arrangment under fuselage - no even traces (like attaching points) of it! Of course, japanese have a custom to detach hooks from a/c when not on carrier - but there are no other photos of A2N2 on carriers, so the question of arresting hook on that particular model stays open. A2N3 (late version clearly destingushed for V on upper wing) probably have arresting hook - there are photos where seen something like a hardpoint for it under fuselage, but how about A2N2? The answer may lie in Japanese boook Modelart 510 Camouflage and markings of IJN fighters (second edition) or in french book "Samurais and carriers" (or like that), but I never sow any...
  • Create New...