Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Snowbird3a

  1. Snowbird3a

    CP-107 Argus

    my post was from 2010, and I think even then it was history for a while. Cheers
  2. A lot of folks use ‘deck tan’ cheers, Tony
  3. Snowbird3a

    CP-107 Argus

    You can omit the ‘FS’, just 501-109, a very elusive colour but described well in the previous comments. cheers, Tony
  4. Be aware that this is a Downsview aircraft and may not have the same colours as a machine from Pat Bay, Wasn't Shearwater colours different, too. I'm scouring my references to see if anything pops up. does one of the Pat Martin books cover this question ?? Cheers, Tony
  5. having built a few Eduard kits and have a couple of WNWs in the stash; no comparison. WNW all the way for fit detail and engineering. The size is only detriment that I can surmise. You may get more opinions if this thread was moved to the 'Classic" pre '39 Forum where it truly belongs Tony
  6. I highly recommend the Belcher Bits Tutor if you can lay your hands on one. The two areas that bug me are the intakes are too large, hence the intake covers that I fashioned; and the nose is a bit too curved on the top(not a deal breaker). The kit includes Snowbird tanks (correct shape, not like the HobbyCraft useless tanks), and the long external fuel tanks that adorn some Big2 aircraft. cheers, Tony
  7. Nice clean work. Between yours and my Tutor post, it is interesting to see the relative strengths and weaknesses of both the HobbyCraft and Belcher Bits kits. I have yet to build a HC version, having built two Belcher examples. Cheers, Tony
  8. used the J-Bot decals for the 'Big 2' 50 Years NATO scheme 1995. I bought this kit, started, from EBay many years ago. the canopy was glued closed so I didn't bother opening and fixing anything in the cockpit.
  9. got my recent order from Above&Below graphics yesterday. Great , fast service. Tony
  10. yes, the P-51 kit or the F-6A kit involves less converting. Depends on what the OP has on hand or availability of other kits. Tony
  11. the P-51A has a wide 'bulged' carb air scoop while the Mustang Mk1 has the narrow straight sided carb air scoop. Other differences include; P-51A has port wing landing light only the Mk1 had a landing light in each wing; the Mk1 had a gun camera opening outer leading edge of port wing; ; different openings in the wings for the different armament; the Mk1 did not have the three ID lights under the stbd wing; the ventral air scoop was fixed on the P51A and the Mk1 had hinged doors front and back . not usually modelled, but the Mk1 had little backward facing scoops just behind and abo
  12. I tried using Microscale Liquid Decal Film on old Leading Edge decals. Tried two coats. No such success so the decals went into the bin. YMMV Tony
  13. check your FB messages 🙂 Tony
  14. Disclaimer; not a SeaKing expert here; But'........... well, accurate here is a relative term. Yes, you can build a SH-3D from the old Airfix kit but be prepared for some horrible fit issues with the cockpit glass. Any other SeaKing kit (except the Lindberg) is way better in all respects to the ancient Airfix offering. The best researched decals I have seen for 'Old 66' is the 2010 release by Apollo Decals; it covers the choppers gradual livery changes from Apollo 8,10,11 & 12. But if your concerned with accuracy, you won't be using the old Airfix kit, right. 🙂 🙂
  15. the canopy frame is out-to-lunch horrible, landing gear is way too thin, gun bay is ill fitting, horizontal stabilizer shape is off; to add to previous comments but nobody will mistake it for a Sopwith Camel Tony
  16. Well, I wouldn’t go that far, the Airfix kit’s shape is waaaaaaay more accurate than the Monogram’s Tony
  17. What makes the situation more frustrating is that Airfix enlisted the help of a Sabre Mk4 expert, then ultimately ignored him, his work, and advice. They did do a 3D scan of a Sabre but of a Norwegian F-86F machine, similar in many respects but enough differences to be noticed.
  18. https://uk.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/workbench/raf-sabre-a-stopgap-stunner Call me underwhelmed, even disappointed; from what I can see from the build photos, this is NOT better than the HasAcademy Sabres. Yes, the nose landing gear has a proper curved shape instead of the angled mess of the Hasegawa or Academy versions, but, there are several disappointing features glaringly obvious. The wing pylons are too far outboard for this version of Sabre, the speedbrake arms looking thin just as the 1/72 versions are, the wing fences appear to be massive 2x12 pieces of
  19. .......and I was about to give you the link.......just got home and was away from the computer for a day 🙂
  20. From Flightline Engineering; a detail set for the Cf-100 Mk5D with cockpit, landing gear and assorted ECM antenna; major happiness here. Cheers, Tony
  21. yes, even early F-86F-1s received the 6-3 wing. Check your pics carefully and go with photo confirmation which wing it had. (or ask here)
  22. The Hasegawa and the Academy kits are equal in buildability for a Korean Sabre, keeping in mind that they only depict a F-86F that has the 6-3 wing installed. The Hasegawa kit also comes in a F-86F-40 box that does not represent a Korean era Sabre. Tony
  23. I guess it's too late to move your tank pylon mountings a bit more inboard to the proper Sta 99.5 or 79mm in 1/32 Tony
  • Create New...