Robertson

As far as I know the Me-109K never used GM-1 (it was only proposed). The G-5 (and G-6/R2) did, and got 700 km/h at very high altitudes. GM-1 required a thermal fuel truck tank, and a thermos like reservoir tank similar in volume to MW-50, but probably heavier. It was a rare thing on 109s GM-1 was only useful for very high altitude speed, and on the 109 was mostly used for high altitude reconnaissance with camera equipped Me-109G-5s or G-6/R2s. MW-50 boosted low altitude speed up to 20-25 000 ft. and was much more common. By late 1944 specialised high altitude flight

Glad you found the photo useful. 🙂 Most people dismiss photographs because of presumed distortions or poor grain quality, but at the end of the day, what else represents what the final product looks like? Distortions can be kept in mind and can be detected, even in the proportions of rough grain, or, especially, in the angle of the picture and the proportions of smaller items, like the wheels being round or the star and bar being correctly shaped. Here at least the wings look straight and the cowl looks correctly proportioned, so it is in the ballpark... Another aspect most don't

Have you compared to frontal photographs? Mine is decaled and I do not remember a big issue when comparing to photos. It does depend on how you trim the stubs, as the wing root shape is not the simplest, and the angle is sensitive to over-trimming for a better and cleaner fit. It is something to watch out for. This below is the photo I usually use (enlarging it). I would never use drawings, even factory drawings, as only the printed numbers matter, and all drawings are not to scale. That is where all the errors come from.

The correct term is dihedral. Anhedral is more the jet age. The only thing really wrong on the Mini Art kit is the prop, 8 inches too large in diameter with a too small hub. The gear sit looks a little tall, even on the compressed option. The wheels are a tad skinny. The real Mg were not perfectly parallel to the ground, but they were closer than the kit. They missed being dead flat by about 5 inches per side, or 2.5 mm. The kit is more like 4-5 mm. Mini Art having far more accurate clear parts than the Tamiya bears repeating.

This B/C should be a wonderful kit, with a few less foibles than the D. I did not like on the D the tiny bottle nipple looking mg ports, which look nothing like the real thing. I think for that alone, and the cowl fasteners, and the sliding hood frame thickness, the Meng D will be a better companion to the Eduard B/Cs. However, all the Eduard kits are worth it for the decals alone, especially to peel them over metal finishes. Even on camo they are superb, and among the best I have ever used. The Eduard D also looked really tall and tip toe on its oleos, as if totally empty or eve

CADs were out, and it looks amazing, probably their best one yet.

Aside the missing splitter, extremely close. Maybe a minuscule amount of inner intake scraping to widen/sharpen the outer intake lips would be useful, but barely. Not what I would consider a problem, although adding the splitter will require care. I think the scraping would help, as some light cowl front colours will add thickness to the lips just to get a fully opaque coverage in that complex compound curve area, and some light colours will worsen the very slight "impression" that the intakes are small.

I also use rattle cans. Keeping the spray can coats thin is very hard on objects that have complicated, protruding, or concave shapes... You have to realise that you have to aim for a precise square angle from far away, and move sharply your entire arm, not just the can, to maintain an even coverage while spraying from very far (but not changing the angle does allow keeping panel lines dark, and other nice effects with black basing), which means a large amplitude of arm movement for the slightest angle adjustment. Spray cans also tend to be aggressive (especially if th

The Hasegawa B-24s are incredibly good. The B-24 has extremely difficult shapes to get right, particularly the canopy, and they knocked it out of the park. The only obvious flaw, apart some variant features that depend heavily on production blocks, is that there is an extra tiny window under the right tail plane that should not be there. The windows are on both sides under the tail, and there should be only one on the left side.

Confirmed: The Mini Art guns are not perfectly parallel to the ground (they miss by about 5 degrees each), and the Hamilton prop is 8 inches oversized in diameter compared to the Tamiya. (The Dora Wings Razorback is definitely better on these points.) The Mini Art multi-part cowl fits perfectly if you assemble it separately, away from the engine framing. All alignment/position tabs are likely problems, and must never be assumed to help: Once the potential problem ones are trimmed, everything fits perfectly. I will use the Tamiya Hamilton prop (the hub shortened slig

The worst part is, I know you are not joking. It must be a left brain right brain kind of thing.

I just got mine and it is brilliant, although the bubble portion has slight optical distortions near the frame, probably more visible in the closed position against a dark background. Rob Taurus makes no 1/48 canopies for this, unfortunately. A dip in Gunze clear might help. Eduard-like surface detail. It is not yet clear if the cowling tapers towards the front in overhead view like it should NOT, as it does on the Tamiya... The Dora Wings Razorback is correct in that area. The egg-plane windscreen of the Tamiya has been fixed, and FINALLY the armored windscreen slop

Me too, but I don't expect it to be cheap... It will be worth every penny regardless.

Perhaps you need to keep following the thread. I don't even know how people can blindly cling to not to scale factory drawings, and ignore the evidence of their eyes... It's not like it is even close...

I have to wonder if anyone out Enough to look like this. I have to wonder if anyone out there ever looks at what kits are doing with our efforts... The one I really hate though is the Tamiya 1/48 P-47. 20 years of hearing people rave about it, and it's no better than what you see below... Thank God because of Dora Wings and Mini Art it will soon be over.

I already know it will be much more accurate in the canopy than all versions of the Tamiya 1/48 kit, which I utterly despised. So good, after 20 years, to finally speak of the Tamiya P-47 in the past tense.

Not many, but pit a P-40N against a P-51D, and the winner would very often not be the one most think... Hit and run required an unaware target and basically firing at point-blank range. Speed was not at all the dominant factor historians have retained. But of course the range was... The Hasegawa has a much too wide windscreen center glass, and an inaccurate radiator bottom profile, a very prominent signature feature. The Eduard kit is badly needed just for a better prop on its own.

Just because of its crooked gull winged leading edges, the Monogram will instantly look bizarre: They were straight as a ruler on all Marks. I don't even know what Monogram was thinking. Interestingly, the Monogram clear parts are outstanding in shape, so if ICM fumble theirs, there will be a way out.

No accurate 1/48 Hurricane yet, as pointed out, but another reason is the thick blimp like wing tips. Arma Hobby from Poland is soon coming out with one (announced officially with some CAD work), and it should be great. Absolutely wait, as I have no doubt the others will be badly outdone.

I have almost never seen the Skyray in hobby shops in 20 years, much less a built one. No 1/48 Spitfire offer for 24 years, no P-40 ever, no 109 for 19 years, no Ki-43 ever (more famous on the Japanese market than the Zero), no Zero for 30 plus years, and no P-51 for 28 years. Plus no high back Spitfire XIV ever, which the market is still waiting for... But a J1N1 yes. An Aichi Seiran yes (another one, like the Swordfish, I haven't seen built in decades, even online). These guys are simply geniuses. Given their position as market leaders, and the fact 1/48 is still the most popular aircraft sc

Did not know it even existed. 167 built and served 1947-1950 (no Korean War action I think). Has the unofficial single piston engine record for a war load... Its hydraulics were a nightmare to maintain. It's always nice to learn about an unfamiliar type, and it is indeed impressive 🙂

Yes... The 48 year old Monogram is far more accurate. In fact the Monogram is, to this day, the only kit to get the symmetrical tear drop wing airfoil correct, which is amazing. And the mouldings are still so fresh they are indistinguishable from an early 1975 issue, except the clear parts look slightly more polished(!)...

Excellent work! It is nice to finally see a good build of the Hobby Boss kit. Especially for the TBM-3 version, it is a far more accurate kit in the cowl, canopy shape (overall width, but especially at the top frame), and even more so the propeller shape, than the Accurate Miniatures kit. I wish we would see more builds of it. I think it is still the best 1/48 WWII aircraft kit Hobby Boss has ever done.

Their 1/48 aircrafts are not flying off the shelves... Serves them right for not doing a Spitfire for 24 years and a Me-109 for 19... Or a P-40 ever. Try to find on the shelves a J1N1, Swordfish, Do-335, Fi-156 Storch, Aichi Seiran...: A decade's worth of Tamiya 1/48 output that I haven't seen on the shelves (or even built) literally in decades. Even the Heinkel He-219 is rarely seen any more. The worst problem of Tamiya (until recently) was their dumb 1/48 subject choices for 15 years. I doubt they make a fortune off the 1997-2012 part of that range.

The P-38 can get a bit "rivety" on top, despite flush rivets. Especially notable is how tight the rivet pattern is on the wing... The reason it shows less on other types is they tend to have narrower wing walk areas. The whole wing is also more steeply sloped from the tail dragging attitude on most other fighter types, which encourages people to spread their weight and limits their activity on the surface. The P-38 is more level, so the shoe wear really shows after a while. You can see the ones at the back are even more stripped than the closer one...