Jump to content

Robertson

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Robertson

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The HK rear fuselage is still grossly fat and looks wrong, and by more than a small amount according to someone who has the full set of dimensions... Wish he actually spelled those out... The outer nacelles are absurdly high and really disqualify the new kit. Never mentioned by anyone is that the HK wing profile is a (wrong) cambered shape: Flatter on the bottom and more curved on the top: Following 1930s airliner practice, the real thing had a perfectly symmetrical tear drop shape airfoil, relying on the fuselage-set camber angle instead. For years I though the M
  2. Fixing the Accurate Min. kit cowls is a tough proposition, if you are demanding on the result... Resin AM are a huge timesaver, and will usually be much better, as well as not that expensive... The compound radius needs fixing, and it must be done the exact same way all around...: That's essentially nonsense. Spare yourself and get resin cowls. R.
  3. The easiest way to a high back is to diagonally cut the rear of an Airfix PR XIX, to adapt to an Airfix Mk XIVe front fuselage. Scratchbuilding the whole spine is extreme, in my opinion, especially if you use agressive lacquer paints... The way to do this joining is to attach the tall back rear on one side, match it up to the unmodified lowback on the other side, then reverser the process. The Eduard Mk VIII wingroot fits amazingly well the Airfix Mk XIVe, but still requires a lot of carving in the wing's lower rear thickness: The Mk XIV requires the shorter span Mk
  4. The Hasegawa is crap, as are all the other current ones
  5. I went for throwing in the Airfix PR XIX fuselage into the Airfix Mk XIV wings. Adapting the Mk XIV windscreen to the PR XIX fuselage, with the characteristic crisp base to be made from putty, is a lot of work. I also used the very clear, well-shaped Eduard Mk IX sliding hood (which does eventually fit the Airfix windscreen closed), but this is just a tiny bit narrow for the correct width Airfix opening (Eduard being too narrow by 0.5 mm, or one scale inch, from real aircraft measurements). After a bit of work, the Eduard hood finally works with the Airfix Mk XIV windscreen (matchi
  6. A bit unrelated, but of interest: Ki-100 vs Ki-84 comparative test source: "Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including detailed coverage of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant) Quote : P. 76: "At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own
  7. Wingloading (Normal loaded weight per square foot) 1-Spitfire Mk V: 27 lbs 2-Spitfire Mk IX/Hurricane Mk II: 30 lbs (+11%) 3-Me-109G-6/FW-190A-4: 40 lbs (+33%) 4-P-51D: 43 lbs (+8%) 5-P-47D: 44 lbs (+2%) 6-FW-190A-8: 46 lbs (+4%) 1 to 6: (+58%) (Mk IX) to 6 (A-8): (+47%) 1-S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Spitfire Mk XIV vs FW-190A-8 ) I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at
  8. They are still unusual, and difficult to find with ready-made AM decal markings... I was looking for ready-made decals merely for a full silver unstaggered waist gun B-17G, no special turret, and even for that, I think the only one I found was for a famous one with the entire tail olive drab... Maybe I finally found a fully silver unstaggered decal option, but I am not even sure... Full silver unstaggered may have been common with paint striping, but that is of no help if the resulting markings are dull, so that no decals are made for them, which is often the case..
  9. Answer is no. Cheyenne turret usually combines poorly with non-offset waist guns anyway.... On the plus side, the crispness of the molds has not aged one minute in 44 years... Robertson
  10. The new Eduards 190s are a huge improvement, but still show a too cylindrical cowl influenced by the Fluegwerke newly built versions with Russian engines... This will likely be difficult to correct without using the excellent Hasegawa cowl, because the entire top half should taper. I still look forward to the new Eduard, because the very accurate Hasegawa has a right wingroot 1 inch thinner than the left, combining this with a one inch thicker wingtip, so that the right wing has a completely different taper to the left, making symmetry near impossible... Trimaster i
  11. The only marginally correct later variants are the AMT: They are the only ones correct in windshield proportion, rear fuselage and canopy cross section, and, most important of all, very close in undernose radiator proportions, including their profile curvature and section. Early AMT boxings have excellent fit, and are worth seeking out, as the later ones can be awful around the nose pieces... Mauve has wrong undernose rad shape/proportions, wrong rear fuselage spine/canopy section (too sharp by a huge amount) but is otherwise nice-looking, if not actually good, with wingroot fair
  12. Hasegawa's Typhoon is one of the most accurate in all of quaterscale. R.
  13. You are right about the Eduard front. Too deep below the windscreen. Hasegawa is too shallow overall, and way wide in the canopy sill G..
  14. In a word outstanding, with the very best of 1:48. I could find no major outline flaw. R.
  15. 1/48th in aircrafts/armor and 1/350 in ships. The middle range seems to be the best balanced in both cases. R.
×
×
  • Create New...