andyf117
-
Content Count
813 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by andyf117
-
-
I was going to suggest similar, but using this method - I wrote this article nearly 30 years ago, and still cast parts the same way to this day:
-
5 hours ago, kg4kpg said:
yeah, that’s $15 bucks. Thanks for the link though. I’ll attempt to make one, if that fails, guess I’ll just bust it up into spare parts. BummerYou previously mentioned the front one's already fitted - with or without the blades attached?
-
16 hours ago, Nightfighter said:
Cheers Andy and great photo's. It looks like as I thought the MPM lettering is a bit large but it makes you wonder why they painted over the windows like that. I mean why not make the lettering smaller? There again there's not a great deal of room at the rear of the fuselage I suppose.
The simple answer is that markings sizes and styles were stipulated in official Air Ministry documents and diagrams, and some commands adhered to the policies specified for their aircraft more rigidly than others. In the case of Coastal Command, when it came to squadron codes and individual aircraft letters, it was initially 'one size fits all' - 48" high characters with 6" stroke widths, regardless of whether applied to a twin-engined patrol aircraft or long-range fighter, or a twin or four-engined flying boat.
-
2 hours ago, Hajo L. said:
I don't have that part, but I'd try to contact the Revell "lost part"-customer service. Their older Chinooks or MH-47s have the same part in their boxes.
The "older" Revell Chinooks were re-issues of the Matchbox kit - the MH-47E was a re-box of the Italeri plastic, which is what the Airfix kits were also...
-
On 3/13/2024 at 1:27 AM, Nightfighter said:
Can someone post those pictures so they appear on this page if possible? My computer loads some pages ok but others just won't appear for some reason.
Direct uploads here...
-
On 3/1/2024 at 6:58 PM, Ranger_Chris61 said:
Its possible they are good, but what is not really properly conveyed in the photo is the paper is sticking to the decals, so am not really hopeful that they are still good. Will try with the aircraft numbering, but not going to hold my breath.
All is still not yet completely lost - I've experienced similar with protective sheets, but after careful peeling and gentle cleaning have successfully salvaged and used some. It is possible to remove residue that's become attached to the design using a damp (not wet) cotton bud...
-
You could scale this side-on image of a sister aircraft to measure the markings for comparison with the kit sheet - but they do go over windows:
This shot's one of the other decal sheet options:
As is this one:
(Images removed as since reposted direct, below)
-
On 2/27/2024 at 6:19 AM, Ranger_Chris61 said:
One area that will be a problem is the decals. To say they are toast would be an understatement. So what I will do is try my hand at painting the most of the markings and remake the aircraft number as a new decal. This will be a bit of a challenge but one that I think will prove worth it in the end for the learning experience.
Airfix decal sheets often stand the test of time quite well - and that one doesn't appear 'toasted' to my eye...
....an advantage of it having two markings options is that you can try using a couple of the decals from the scheme you're not going to finish the model in...
....or even just the 'nameplate' - which also always had carrier film, for use on the stands that used to be provided...
-
Currently, one account has filled 13 pages and counting in 'Test Post' - at least these Korean 'attacks' have been confined to that sub-forum...
....I did volunteer to assist as a mod during a similar run of spamming some time ago, but seems no-one has to authority to issue such powers...
....has anyone tried contacting Steve via the 'other' site? Might have more luck attracting his attention there, as that's where money's generated...
-
2 hours ago, phantom said:
Over 1400 spams last night.
That would be about right for what I saw when I popped in earlier - 35 pages worth in the 'Test Post' section, seemingly from just three or four accounts...
.... DLTBGYD
-
And the Koeans are back, in the 'Test Post' sub-forum, at least - active as I'm typing this (09.00 GMT)...
-
Your efforts are much appreciated, gents, as always...
....Korean, eh? Makes a change from Bloody Vikings...
-
Two photos here of 42-100646 at a later date, before being sold for civilian use: https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/aircraft/42-100646 - a shame that the accompanying details about its previous unit assignment are incorrect!
-
Yes, note the 'adapter' between pylon and rail - they've carried them for a number of years; this one dates from 2015:
-
Roger Freeman's book 'The Ninth Air Force in Colour' has just one photo of 439th TCG aircraft - it's poor quality, but does confirm light grey codes and yellow serial. Available to view here: https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/media/media-395789jpg
Photos showing other 91st TCS aircraft in Kenn Rust's '9th Air Force in World War II' and John Hamlin's 'Support and Strike', along with those below from Young's 439th TCG history "Into the Valley" all indicate that the L4 forward fuselage code was the 'standard' 48" size ('standard' as in specified, though variations were common), whilst measuring the individual aircraft tail letter 'E' in the above newspaper photo against the known 9" serial number, it appears to be 32" high.
.thumb.png.18c89636d4cc4bdb5fc4df59aec31535.png)
.thumb.png.abad8c53833c160a2655de328d479b5f.png)
.thumb.png.8f234927aab9a603310761d63083e2d3.png)
-
Worth bearing in mind if offering models for display somewhere such as the suggested locations - or others, like a library or local museum - is that there are basically two avenues to go down:
One is to outright donate them, in which case you have no control over their eventual fate, as and when the location decides it no longer wants or is unable to keep the display.
The alternative is to loan, in which case you retain ownership, so when they are no longer wanted or able to be kept, you would (or at least should) be asked to take them away.
Either way, I can say that in the instances when I've provided models for display in a few settings, including a library and a museum (hence their mention above), and later the USAF O'Club where I worked, it was a most satisfying change to see other people viewing them, rather than fellow modellers casting critical eyes at shows!
-
I think I may have figured it out - until now, whenever I viewed a thread where@JakubJakepilot had posted, the link in his signature to his 'Desert Storm' site would trigger a 'Malware blocked' pop-up warning at top right, recreated here in a Google search:
.thumb.png.39bd13eb8cce9133e32cb4d999973878.png)
That's no longer happening, and it looks like I'm getting the one above instead, before I even reach the site - though no idea why it's saying 'Insecure login', rather than 'Malware blocked'...
-
For the last couple of days I've been getting this from my Firefox extension each time I visit the site - anyone else?
.thumb.png.c805da8c7a94ef1866417bc465af6033.png)
-
15 hours ago, Robert Garelli said:
The other option to storing them is selling some on eBay, heck, you might make some money for more kits. 🙂
Exactly what I've done in the past, and have recently been doing again - and yes, it can make the hobby virtually self-funding!
I had hundreds - and likely still have - stored in boxes, which I'm gradually whittling down, as I'm never, ever, going to complete the restorations and projects that I had planned for the vast majority them...
....intact, reasonably well-built ones I sell individually, or in small themed lots, whilst those in less good condition either go into "Builder's Bundles" or "Spares or Repairs" batches - everything gets listed 'priced to sell'; sometimes it's disappointing when there's only one bid, but on other occasions it's pleasantly surprising how much some go for...
....regardless, at the end of the day, I've cleared a little more space, and put a few quid back into the bank account in the process!
An example: 1/72 Built & Painted Airfix Consolidated PBY-5A Catalina
-
Pretty much, yes - same applies to the USAF E-3 AWACS, which still retain high-visibility schemes with full-colour markings, as does the EC/RC-135 fleet...
....generally 'stand-off' assets which won't (hopefully) be operating in hostile airspace, and/or are used in roles where camouflage isn't a requirement.
Similar principle applied to the RAF Nimrods and Victor tankers that were finished in Hemp, which had nothing to do with their airborne roles - that was mainly for concealment against concrete aprons when parked.
-
On 2/5/2024 at 9:12 PM, kg4kpg said:
Howdy. I’m going to build this Merlin as shown in this photo I took in Iraq in 2005. The instructions call for Dark Green FS 35079. I have dark green in enamel and acrylic. The bottle and paint spot on the left is the acrylic. Probably not enough enamel to complete the job. Why are the shades so different? Should I add any other color to the acrylic to get it right? Plus the fact that there’s some fade from the sun. Thanks
Though FS34079 is generally regarded as a good equivalent/close match for BS381C 241, as for which one of those two samples matches it better - given that they purport to be the same colour - is hard to tell here, but what I'd suggest is to directly compare them to printed versions of your photos if you can, and decide from there, as on-screen images are invariably much brighter and lighter...
....meanwhile, a couple of gratuitous shots of the aircraft in your photos - ZJ118/B, No.1419 (Tactical Support) Flight/No.28 Squadron:
-
3 hours ago, barkin mad said:
Oops, my apologies. Clearly I must update my refs. Thanks.
It's not an uncommon misconception regarding the Merlin, and isn't helped when a well-known current aftermarket decal manufacturer quotes different colours by name only for the main airframe and the rotor blades - 'Olive Drab' and 'Dark Green' respectively - whilst a previous one had stated on one of their sheets that the main overall colour was BS381C 285 NATO Green with BS381C 241 Dark Green blades...
....at least they got that bit right, as the blades - both main and tail - were (and still are) 241 Dark Green.
....meanwhile, my sweeping statement that "only" RN Wessex and Sea King were finished in BS381C 298 isn't strictly accurate - whilst correct in terms of use as a single overall colour, it was, of course, also the 'Olive Drab' in the black and green schemes applied to AAC and RM Gazelle and Lynx (and Scout?) helicopters, and the Army's DHC.2 Beaver...
-
13 hours ago, Mustang381 said:
Yes, it is my fault that Mr.Owner didn't even put automatic reply email, when he is out of the office,or there is no one to send item, or even to tell to customer what is going on? Or, maybe we just need to buy something and see what will be with it? Or maybe that we need in all corner of the world to know where is every man and what is he doing??? Hmmm, interesting point of view. So, if someone knows someone and his troubles then it is ok, but what about rest of the world who don't know what is happening with that specific person? Well, I guess that we will never know 🙂
3 hours ago, Mustang381 said:I would show mercy and patience, if seller,had shown his minimun level of expertise in social treating of customer, in civilised world of 21st century. 🙂
I have payed, no answer.
I wrote, no answer.
I have wrote more, and more, no answer.
I have planned my vacation, to finish this kit, while it last, etc....etc.I have been in hospital last week, yeah private stuff.
So yes we all have our "situations", and while I was in a bad recovering, I managed to pay him and to organize all for vacation after I get back to home. But I am uncivilised now because I demand item that I have payed for??? They want to get money Instant, and refuse to show tо customer what is going on with his payed item... and now I am slammer??? Hmm... every day new surprise from a people.
Maybe if you had asked if anyone here had any experience of dealing with "Mr Owner", then people like Niels and myself could have let you know about his circumstances, and you might have exercised a little patience - instead, you launched straight into a tirade, and have subsequently made sarcastic remarks in response to other people's explanations and reactions...
....a classic example of how not to win friends and influence people.
-
7 minutes ago, barkin mad said:
This is correct. Official shade is BS 298 Olive Drab. Puma, Chinook, Merlin, Sea King HC4, Wessex HU5, were all painted the same colour. It can look different due to lighting conditions at the time & also the colour of the undercoat affects the look of the final colour. I think the Merlin undercoat is a zinc chromate yellow type colour, Chinook is black.
Actually, that's incorrect.
RAF Chinooks, Pumas, and Merlins were finished in BS381C 241 Dark Green - which was, as you say, applied over Black on the two former, and Zinc Chromate Yellow on the latter.
Only the RN 'Junglie' Wessex and Sea King were finished in BS381C 298 Olive Drab.
.png.d995e2d28e6c46b2ee1822e783777aa7.png)
.png.e8ea895e039d1fe86281a48130baaeb1.png)
.png.f2406dbd8c69d19a4f3120a93d3c2043.png)
.png.34b0725055d8f6c48d2a0297dc85ad12.png)
.png.a3f43bc30ae4526f193805073249fd0d.png)
Any Mr. Color paint equivalents for BS381C: Cherry/Postal Red for Westland Sea King HU.5
in Helicopter Modeling
Posted
Can't help with the equivalent paint, but that colour is actually BS381C 537 Signal Red, not 538 Post Office/Cherry Red...
....and though the "main body structure" is often stated as being overall BS381C 637 Medium Sea Grey, in actual fact the underside was BS381C 626 Camouflage Grey, as correctly depicted by Airfix in their painting and decal application guides (1/72 kit version shown):