Snorry

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 :)

Thank you a lot, Zak! It really clears a lot - like an absence of "stencil slots" on white characters.

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!

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?

Marcos, its great you have resumed this interesting project! Go ahead!

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

Yes, of double joy - for Bucc will come with Sea Venom!!!

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

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.

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

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...

Can this helps? Or they are too small?

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 evid

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

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

Nevertheless, its a nice pair to Italery's MiG-37 ;)

That one is completed: F/A-18C - Shangri La Air Group Glossy Sea Blue (tentative) http://www.ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=1&...8498&page=2 But for me more interesting are Prowlers and Growler...

No way. Revell-Hobbycraft are totally different and have only slight resemblance with real a/c. And canopy of Amodel is several mm wider then of those kits. As for Amodel (and for the older short-run kit by JuMTK) the main problem, as you had stated, is canopy. It had to be done from scratch. The second problem is decal. The best Yak-38 decal was in MAVI vacu. That in Amodel or JuMTK not good in terms of quality and precision and have no technical stencelling. Other inaccuracies of kit can be corrected with file, sandpaper and knife. Or not be corrected - as YOU wish - and nevertheless it wil

Hi Kevan! Did you see this photoset: http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkar...ter_1950/Yak38/ Its a Yak-38U, but landing gear wells on it is the same as on monoplace Yak-38. And look at here: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_18496.html There are uploaded not only photos, but pics from Yak-38 technical manual. And there is some criticism of Amodel kit - for example, fuselage had to be widened to achieve proper elliptic sections. And more... And there: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_22068.html is a process (continuing) of building Amodel kit with us

Recently I sow this particular kit and found that decal sheet in it incomplete: there is no second underwing number for pre-war machine!!! The very same mistake Tamiya make in wheeled Stringbag (Mk.1), but in it there were another two variants, both real carrier warbirds. Floatplane's decal is only for two variants, and second is non-combat from second-line squadron. And there is no aftermarket alternative! I was seriously disapointed by those facts... And, secondary, Tamiya give for the floatplane the same underfuselage panel that for wheeled, with arresting hook bay and with hook itself. Bu

Marcos, I will wait for results of your experiments - and, more, for completed Fokker. And I hope it takes not a waste amount of time if you put one another method of ribbing to test :) This is hand-made tool for scribing: Made of steel, 100 mm in lenght, 7 mm wide. Blade radius on tips is different. By this tool those ribs were made: This is 1/48, but tool (may be in slightly scaled down form) should be useful in 72. I just make such tool from saw blade (5 mm wide) and test it. It really works and works quickly, but scalpel is still needed for fine tuning, removing small longitudinal s

Key word - "very carefully". Very-very, on very high rpm, but there still will be a good chance to ruin all the work by one innacurate motion. Or you should do sanding with so great care it takes very same amount of time if there was a hand work with scalpel. But there are another techniques of ribbing: scribing lines and then gluing into this lines strtched sprue. Then adding some putty around this and sanding with paper. I have try this once, but without success: the stretched sprues dont glued firmly on all their lenght, and when I start sanding, they start partially detach off the surfa

No, Its not a hard job, it just time consuming :) This work goes in two stages - firstly you had to draw the rib lines on the wing, secondary - you take scalpel with five or so new surgical blades (classic style, I cant remember the exact blade number) and carefully scribe space between ribs with blade perpendicular to surface. Blade had to move from centre to the edges. It takes hours of scribing, but result would be nearly perfect. I have tested this method on small surfaces, when I made from scrath new elevators for 1/72 A5M, and it should work on the wings too. But may be there is an easy

No, Its not a hard job, it just time consuming :) This work goes in two stages - firstly you had to draw the rib lines on the wing, secondary - you take scalpel with five or so new surgical blades (classic style, I cant remember the exact blade number) and carefully scribe space between ribs with blade perpendicular to surface. Blade had to move from centre to the edges. It takes hours of scribing, but result would be nearly perfect. I have tested this method on small surfaces, when I made from scrath new elevators for 1/72 A5M, and it should work on the wings too. But may be there is an easy

Interesting Idea and good progress in building! But... How do you create the wings? By cutting and then scribing-sanding or there was another method? And how about the symmetry of their profliles? Propeller looks like main I made for Academy's Sopwith Camel many years ago ;) Fine! May be the tips of it is a bit thick...