Robertson
-
Content Count
329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Robertson
-
-
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 the coat is wet, which is almost inevitable) to any underlying putty that was not highly polished, but I have found the Revell Acrylic spray can range has a finer mist, and its aggression of underlying surfaces is far less than the Tamiyas. That alone made the Revell cans a revolution for me. The Revell coat is also super-hard, totally impervious to subsequent Tamiya coats. Their clear matte and clear gloss are also incredibly tough, nail-proof, literally industrial-grade compared to all the other spray cans clears, but sometimes a very slight amount of clear matte frosting on dark colours will need to be killed by Tamiya's own matte, TS-80... My LHS simply cannot keep these Revell clear cans in stock. I have learned to buy the entire rack of Revell clear cans, gloss or matte, whenever there are any. Not the least of their good points is the better mist vs Tamiya's unforgiving deluge.
All the Tamiya metallics, especially their superb Alclad-like TS-83, are so hot they will inevitably crinkle bare plastic into an ugly haze, plus swell the most feathered of putty edges, and Tamiya's primer is not much help taming that compared to a coat of Revell (quite absurdly, the Tamiya spray can primer itself has a carrier that will react with, and swell, their own putty edges). Mr Hobby has a finer spray than Tamiya, but their opacity seems weaker than Revell. Keeping layers thin is always a big struggle with cans, and achieving good results is much harder than with an airbrush... I use them because they are cheap, fast, simple and reliable (no sputter unless near the end), but everything else about them is way more complicated if you want to approximate (some) airbrush results...
-
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 slightly), gear legs, and the wing gun inserts (the toughest issue).
The windscreen is confirmed as way better than the Tamiya (correct inclination), as is the framing of the hood (pointier rear tip). The cockpit is superb and everything comes together well. It is lovely but complex... I think the Dora Wings Razorback is at least as good, and probably better overall.
-
On 8/17/2023 at 3:14 AM, Buckmeister said:
I don’t understand what you’re trying to show with those photographs.
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 slopes back at something resembling the correct angle...
Not clear if the wing guns are perfectly parallel to the ground, but it is claimed that they are. The Tamiya leading edge part would fix that if they are not. The guns are more spindly than Tamiya (as they should be) and would do to be replaced with less warpable metal substitutes...
Absolutely amazing in every way.
-
Me too, but I don't expect it to be cheap...
It will be worth every penny regardless.
-
9 hours ago, Buckmeister said:
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
13 hours ago, seawinder said:I think you have a tendency to use subjective phrases like "much too wide." How wide is much too wide? How about telling us how many mm too wide?
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.
-
On 8/7/2023 at 2:31 AM, Miramar Road said:
The Hasegawa kits are still quite nice, although the inserts were really troublesome to deal with. The rear cockpit insert especially was a pain to blend into the rest of the fuselage. Eduard tackling the Warhawk and Tomahawk line would be most welcome. I hope they keep the fuselage halves as one piece.
As others have said the Merlin-powered Warhawks have been neglected, save for the old AM-Tech kit from way back and that was just an AMT kit with a resin Merlin nose added in the box. I have a soft spot for P-40s in desert schemes, especially if they have sharkmouths!
I wonder how they will tackle the oil cooler intake in the chin. That is one area tricky to get right in plastic.
Even though the P-51 stole the show from it later on in the war, lots of people still consider Curtiss's Hawks the iconic American fighter of WWII.
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.
-
On 2/23/2023 at 2:46 AM, Darren Roberts said:
In 1998 alone, they released 1/48 scale kits of the F4D Skyray, F-117 Nighthawk, and F-84G Thunderjet. I would hardly call those dumb subject choices. It all depends on what you want them to release, which is a personal opinion. Tamiya does what Tamiya does.
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 scale in most surveys, the harm they are doing to the hobby is incalculable. Thank God Eastern Europe is finally picking up the black hole they left behind.
-
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 🙂
-
On 1/19/2023 at 6:27 AM, JohnEB said:
Is it just me or do some parts of the B-17 kit seem off?
Have there been any reviews or consensus on the kit?
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...
-
67 schemes: I have their Pe-2 sheet with something like 50 plus schemes and it is absolutely amazing. I cannot recommend them enough.
-
The rivets poked through the paint near the cockpit in the hundreds, like shiny raised dots, so not that flush... The wear made them very visible, more so than most types with smaller walking surfaces or with a protective covering. This poke through effect applied mainly to Olive Drab versions.
-
In 1/48:
For Spits up to the Mk II, Tamiya.
For Spits Mark V to Mk XVI, Eduard, not even a question.
For Spits Mark XIV and up (Griffon), only Airfix post war bubbletop types are available, unfortunately. I adapt Eduard Mk XVI bubble canopies to the Mark XIV, as the Airfix Windscreen does not convince me. The Airfix panel lines also look bigger and less convincing.
Eduard Spits are a marvel, among the very best kits ever made in my opinion, but have patience for the walls of the wheel wells that are 12 flat/curved pieces... This is done for a reason, and after that the rest is not that complicated. Do not even think of ICM or other brands: Even built well, you put an Eduard next to them and they look bad...
-
22 hours ago, Joe Hegedus said:
Negative, Ghostrider. Airfix #A05138 has the filletless tail. It also has the later filleted tails.
I stand corrected! 😊
-
On 8/9/2022 at 7:38 AM, Curt B said:
Hi there...hopefully not hijacking the OP's thread, as I may get question answered that may help him in his decision on the Airfix or Meng P-51D.
I have the Meng P-51D, and a whole ton of the Eduard P-51Ds, which I know the OP does not care about. However, my Meng P-51 remains unbuilt primarily for one reason...since that kit is intended to be a primarily snap-together (e.g. no glue required) build, I've often wondered about those of us who are completely uncomfortable doing a build without dry fits. It's my understanding that once you put parts together, that's it, unless you want to take extraordinary measures to get them apart again, and then you've got the issue of whether those parts will go together well enough after separating. Can anyone discuss how you built your Meng P-51D and whether you attempted dry-fitting, to make sure the parts go together well, or if not, how did you proceed? Maybe a consideration for the OP on whether the Meng is a better choice than Airfix?
No that's not the case: You can easily pry then apart by inserting a #11 blade and twisting it, pulling them from the "inside" so to speak: This applies to all parts, including main fuselage and wings. They're just massively deep alignment pins... The ease of filling of the Meng wings is also remarkable. That being said, I still lean towards the Airfix (under camo) because of 3 things: Best machinegun leading edge openings, best gear legs, and most of all best depiction of the nose cowl fasteners, at least under camo... Meng beats Eduard for a metal finish, but if you are good with weathering, a camo Eduard with heavy weathering might look busier, and you could hide the cowl fastener debacle using dots of paint applied with the tip of a toothpick. Eduard is still your only option for the early filletless tail: A big deal... It also has by far the best decals (except maybe for Airfix) and the most scheme options per box.
ICM 48320 B-26B Marauder 1/48
in Props
Posted
CADs were out, and it looks amazing, probably their best one yet.