Jump to content

jrallman

Members
  • Content Count

    4,471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jrallman

  1. The Eduard kit seems to have a love it or hate it following. I personally love them, with the caveat that they are over engineered and take some rather careful and precise planning and placement to get them to work well. They certainly aren't tamigawa because they don't fall together, and its not a matter of modeling skill because many very skilled modelers have had issues with the Eduard kits. It seems to be that there is just a very speciifc way that the Eduard kits will go together well, and if you don't hit that right on, they can be a bear. That being said, its the only real option for open gun and engine compartments OOB, plus the dual open/closed canopies are a really nice addition since the canopy actually did change shape as it opened. Plus the amount of stuff you get in the box with the Eduard kit makes it pretty cost effective compared with tamigawa. just my $.02

  2. I see NMF variations sort of like shading panel lines. If done subtly enough, it can enhance the scale realism of the model, even though it might not be technically spot on accurate as a copy of the prototype. However, just as with panel lines, overdoing the effect does not help add to the realism but in fact can detract from the look of the model and just make it obvious that you are looking at a model. If the point of model accuracy is to create a model that makes the viewer think that they are looking at a shrunken version of the real thing, then subtle and judicious application of some of these techniques, which may not be physically accurate to the prototype, are a greaet too to the modeler in obtaining scale realism.

  3. I have many in the stash that qualify, but since I have a bunch on my plate at the moment, I think something somewhat simple to start things off. First build will be:

    1/48 Pegasus Hobbies V-2 rocket. This is a snap kit but I will be removing the snap parts and doing it with adhesive like a normal model. It will be in this scheme:

    col-pic-2.jpg

    Which looks like this with color added:

    ragged_filled.jpg

  4. And so goes another great GB. We had excellent turn out and some really fantastic looking builds. There were no raffle donations for this GB, so no prize drawing to do, but that didn't stop anyone from turning out great planes. If you are almost done but a little late, thats fine since there is no prize drawing, I will still put you into the gallery once you are done. For the rest, please go check out the gallery thread to see all of the great builds in one place. Thanks again to all who participated and I hope to see you all in future GBs. For me, I am off from modding for a bit to maybe try to get a build or two done for the DOTR 2 or the MiG GBs. Hope to see you there! Thanks.

  5. I have fondled the plastic on a few of their models, and one thing to watch for is that some of the kits had the clear pieces frosted and would need vac replacements. Not all kits though, so if you get one, check yours before you get into the build and realize you need a new canopy

  6. looks like some nice progress. think you will get it done in time? not too sure about your color choice for the wheel wells but the weathering looks really nice in there.

    True for earlier planes, but by the time they went to the black/green cockpit and the GSB exterior, the wheel wells were also interior green, according to IPMS Stockholm and Dana Bell.

  7. Hello!

    Prime source for mig-3 knowledge is book written by Aleksandr Medved and Dmitriy Khazanov, they states that mig-1 planes has serial numbers ranging from 2001 to 2100, this doesn't mean 100 a/c, also they provide info that military deputy on zavod N1 counted 92 mig-1 and 19 mig-3 produced in 1940.

    Cheers

    While it may be true that 100 aircraft did not actually make it to service, the definition of serial number means that the numbers were given in order, so it is a reasonable inference to conclude that 100 airframes were produced.

  8. I am a huge fan of the MiG-3 so if I can find the time, I hope to do one of these two builds?

    1/48 ICM MiG-3(late) or 1/48 Trumpeter MiG-3 (late)

    Red 02, 12 GIAP, Vnukovo, March 1942

    Cutting Edge cockpit, Fusion prop and spinner, Moskit exhaust

    red02.jpg

    Red02n.jpg

    1/48 ICM MiG-3(late) or 1/48 Trumpeter MiG-3 (late)

    spotted MiG, 148 IAP, Kharkov 1942

    Part PE, Fusion prop and spinner, Moskit exhuast

    khar-spots.jpg

    khar-spotsf.jpg

  9. I have a few that I am contemplating for this build. Last time I got a whopping 4 builds done for DOTR, but my life is busier now so I think I will be lucky to get 2 done. Here are a few I am thinking of, all 1/48.

    V-2

    Ju 88

    Me 410

    Do 217

    Fw 190 (A or D)

    Me 262

  10. The Fujimi 190s need ALOT of help. First, they aren't really 1/48, probbaly more like 1/49 or 1/50, which isn't that big a deal unless you try to use left over detail parts from other kits (speaking from experience) and nothing fits, and your decals look oversize. One of the only good things about the Fujimi kit is that it comes with the parts to do the underwing cannons, either the 2x20 or 1x30. If you absolutely need to do a connon pod armed 190, then the Fujimi is really your only kit right now. If you can do without the cannon pods, then use another kit. Here are some shots of a Fujimi kit that I built but with alot of bits and pieces left over from Tamiya and Hasegawa kits to help it along. I built it as a 190A-5/U-12 for the first DOTR.

    portnose.jpg

    port.jpg

    bottom.jpg

    top.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...