Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MikeC

  1. 1 hour ago, IPMSUSA2 said:

    There are times when accuracy can be taken too far, which is the reason I tell people that we build representations, not replicas.  It is impossible to build a 100% accurate replica of a 48th scale aircraft because the thickness of the skin/bulkheads/etc would be so thin that you would be able to read a magazine through them.  What we actually do is to build representations that LOOK like replicas.  To do that successfully is where the skill is.


    Very true. 

  2. On 12/22/2019 at 8:51 PM, habu2 said:

    The Eduard produced kits are Very Nice. I have their Mig-21 and P-51 kits in 48th.  Both are Very Nice. 

    The challenge is knowing which “Eduard“ kits are/aren’t reboxes of other manufacturers kits. 


    Not a challenge at all: they tell you on their website.  Check out the product page just below the panel containing the links to Description", "Galleries", etc, where it says "Plastic parts" ...





    I've always liked Eduard.  Their 1/48 P-39 series seemed to me to mark the point at which they became a mainstream kit manufacturer (facts and others' opinions may vary).  Since then they have got steadily better, but I do feel they are now tending to be somewhat over-engineered.  I built the P-51 alongside the Airfix example, and the Eduard was far more fiddly with tiny parts my aging fingers and eyesight struggled to cope with*.  There are also some strange (imo) design decisions: others have mentioned the intake and radiators assembly, and the tailwheel proved for me almost impossible to fit as per the instructions.


    *One reason I'm now more into 1/32 scale.


  3. I feel your pain. When I worked I had one assignment where I regularly had to visit a project team on RNAS Yeovilton. All that history (the FAA Museum is also here) and I was in meetings! However, one day I walked out into the car park, and there was the Historic Flight Swordfish practising its display routine over the airfield, so there were compensations.

  4. Great collection, thanks for sharing.

    A couple of small corrections for photo 5 though: it is a Mosquito PR Mk XVI as the caption wonders (not XV) and they were used mainly for target weather reconnaissance. The red tails were added around August 1944 and were, as the caption states, to prevent mis-identification as Me 410s. I know because I've just finished one. IMG_3167_zps0a05b1ab.jpg

    Airfix kit with some Eduard etch and Carpena decals.

    Apologies for the short thread hi-jack, once again thanks for posting. Link duly bookmarked.

  5. Latest finish - only the third this year, fourth if you count one I binned immediately because I wasn't happy with it. It's the Airfix PR XVI, with an Eduard Zoom set meant for a Tamiya B/PR IV, which worked fine with a little adaption here and there. I also used Eduard canopy masks, and again with a little fettling here and there they fitted reasonably.

    Decals were by Carpena, and I had some problems. The national markings disintegrated at a sniff of the decal water. Fortunately the individual markings were OK, and the stars'n'bars in the right size were easy to source from my spares, but the fuselage markings should have a PRU blue outline - I won't tell if you won't. ;)

    The 8th AF used PR XVIs from March 1944. Based at Watton, they were used principally for bomber force target weather scouting, although radar and night photography were also roles they performed. The model shows the early scheme - guess the date :D . Later the vertical tail surfaces were painted red to distinguish the Mosquitos from Me 410s, leaving the individual letter in a PRU blue circle.

    So here 'tis:




    Not my best effort - it's a bit of a dog of a kit if I'm honest and it did get a bit :bandhead2: at times, but I'm reasonably pleased with it. Thanks for looking.

  6. You came too far (and with some great detail and paintwork0 to give any of these kits up at this late stage...

    Finish them off! - They may not look perfect to you but most onlookers would be impressed with the results! (Myself included)



    What he said. That looks a whisker away from completion to me.

  7. With each release they have just got better and better. One of my favourite manufacturers now. Yes, perhaps a bit over-engineered, but the choices are great, with the variety of editions (weekend, profipack, etc) giving a wide choice of options to suit different tastes and budgets. My particular 1:48 favourites: the Avia B.534s (clearly a labour of love for them); the P-39 series (I've built 2 and have 4 more to do); the MiG-21 series; and the Spitfires. Eagerly awaiting the promised PR XI.

  8. Well, all they need now to be taken as a serious manufacturer is a 1/48 P-51D. ;-)

    And a Mustang I, P-51, A, B & C (with and w/o fin fillet) to complete the series

    As for the 109, would parts for one of the recce variants and/or one or more Slovak marking options be too much to hope for?

  9. I don't often do WIP photos, not out of principle but simply because I never think of doing it. But I have this time.

    I bought a decal sheet with "Ferocious Frankie" of the 361st FG, and then realised that she was an early D. I pondered kitbashing the Tamiya 1:48th D to produce a filletless bird, but that would involve a bit of work around the base of the fin to get the panels correct and looking reasonable. However, I was ordering a Mustang I conversion from Ultracast, so I stuck their filletless tail on to the order.

    When it arrived I was very pleased at the quality of the resin parts and the thoughtfulness of the design. The Tamiya tail is removed at the panel joint just forward of the tailwheel, and the resin tail fin and rear fuselage is a straight replacement. All you need is to thin the kit plastic a bit, and a bit of filler if, like me, you botch the cut slightly.

    There's a separate resin rudder, and the kit tailplanes are a drop-in fit. Very very pleased, can't wait to finish her.





    The parts do need a bit of clean-up like any resin bits, but I cannot recommend Ultracast highly enough.

  10. I don't know what IPMS (USA) meetings are like, but I've been a member of a number of different IPMS(UK) branches as I've moved around the country with my job. In general, those who will "flame" you for a less-than-perfect model, if there even are any in the group, are in a very small minority, and you soon learn who to avoid. In general, if people criticize it's constructive criticism. I've learnt so much over the years simply talking at meetings. But often, it's also praise. Don't forget that generally we are our own worst critics, because we've built the model so we are very familiar with it and know where the faults are.

    If anyone does "flame" you for something there are a couple of questions you can ask them: "What are your sources/where's your evidence?", and the question they often can't answer: "So which is your model then?"

    So go along, and good luck!

  • Create New...