My very own spitfires :D

[Mictheslik]

Continued from the other thread....a couple of models...

the 1/72 PRXIX was finished a few weeks ago, the 1/48 Vc was finished last night













.mic

[Hagar]

Being ultra-critical the cannon on the Vc don't look too accurate. I think they rather spoil it. One looks like it has brewer's droop.  This is what they look like for real. http://briansspitfiregallery.fotopic.net/p34614879.html

Hope you don't mind my comments. I'm not saying I could do any better.

[EJW]

Whoa! It took me ages (about 30 planes) to get good at painting aircraft. I've nearly finished building an Airfix B-17G which has been my little project for the past three days. I'm still not sure if I should make it USAAF, RAF or Danish.

[Hagar]

I've nearly finished building an Airfix B-17G which has been my little project for the past three days. I'm still not sure if I should make it USAAF, RAF or Danish.

I didn't know there were any Danish B-17Gs. Are you thinking of this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_17

[Mictheslik]

I've nearly finished building an Airfix B-17G which has been my little project for the past three days. I'm still not sure if I should make it USAAF, RAF or Danish.

I didn't know there were any Danish B-17Gs. Are you thinking of this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_17

From this page on wikipedia...

Danish airline DDL bought two B-17s from Sweden in 1945.[3] One of these planes was transferred to the Danish Army Air Corps in 1948. In 1949, it was transferred to the Royal Danish Navy and in 1952 to the Royal Danish Air Force.

SE-BAP   B-17G-35-BO   42-32076
SE-BAR   B-17G-35-DL   42-107067

SE-BAR and SE-BAP were sold to the Danish air line DDL in late 1945 as OY-DFE and OY-DFA respectively. In 1948, OY-DFA was sold to the Danish Army Air Corps under the serial number 67-672. In 1949, it was transferred to the Royal Danish Navy, and in 1952 it was transferred to the Royal Danish Air Force. It opperated with the RDAF under the serial number ESK-721 and was used for transport, mapping, and communication.

Can't say I've heard of Denmark having any though....

I agree on the cannon issue....it's probably because I had to give a couple quite a strong push to get them into the holes, bending them in the process....

.mic

[Hagar]

I've nearly finished building an Airfix B-17G which has been my little project for the past three days. I'm still not sure if I should make it USAAF, RAF or Danish.

I didn't know there were any Danish B-17Gs. Are you thinking of this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_17

From this page on wikipedia...

Danish airline DDL bought two B-17s from Sweden in 1945.[3] One of these planes was transferred to the Danish Army Air Corps in 1948. In 1949, it was transferred to the Royal Danish Navy and in 1952 to the Royal Danish Air Force.

Can't say I've heard of Denmark having any though....

Thanks Mic. I just found that myself. Interesting story. It's now back in the US as Shoo Shoo Baby. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoo_Shoo_Baby_%28aircraft%29

I agree on the cannon issue....it's probably because I had to give a couple quite a strong push to get them into the holes, bending them in the process....

.mic

It's not just the bent one. They look more like flagpoles than cannon with those darned great lumps on the ends. If this is the quality of Airfix kits nowadays I'm not impressed.

PS. I assume the Mk Vc is the Airfix kit.

[EJW]

I've nearly finished building an Airfix B-17G which has been my little project for the past three days. I'm still not sure if I should make it USAAF, RAF or Danish.

I didn't know there were any Danish B-17Gs. Are you thinking of this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_17

From this page on wikipedia...

Danish airline DDL bought two B-17s from Sweden in 1945.[3] One of these planes was transferred to the Danish Army Air Corps in 1948. In 1949, it was transferred to the Royal Danish Navy and in 1952 to the Royal Danish Air Force.

[quote]
SE-BAP

[Mictheslik]

I agree on the cannon issue....it's probably because I had to give a couple quite a strong push to get them into the holes, bending them in the process....

.mic

It's not just the bent one. They look more like flagpoles than cannon with those darned great lumps on the ends. If this is the quality of Airfix kits nowadays I'm not impressed.

PS. I assume the Mk Vc is the Airfix kit.

To be fair to Airfix, the main base of the kit was first produced in 1979...with a few updates....this boxing was released in 2002...

The kit was awful...hardly anything fitted properly and half a tube of filler has gone into it

The PRXIX is much better...and it's a new kit manufactured this year

.mic

[ShaneG_old]

Stellar job on the paint on these. The gloss on the second is perfect. 8-)

I just found that myself. Interesting story. It's now back in the US as Shoo Shoo Baby. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoo_Shoo_ ... ircraft%29

I've seen and touched this plane many times. 8-)

[Hagar]

Stellar job on the paint on these. The gloss on the second is perfect. 8-)

Far too glossy IMHO but I'm being hypercritical. Sorry Mic.

To be fair to Airfix, the main base of the kit was first produced in 1979...with a few updates....this boxing was released in 2002...

The kit was awful...hardly anything fitted properly and half a tube of filler has gone into it

The PRXIX is much better...and it's a new kit manufactured this year

.mic

Perhaps it's my rose-tinted specs but the quality of the

[EJW]

While in Danish service it remained in its default USAAF Olive drab, but a 12 ft long red lightning bolt was added to the sides of the aircraft. That's gonna make it that little bit harder, eh?

[HawkerTempest5]

Stellar job on the paint on these. The gloss on the second is perfect. 8-)

Far too glossy IMHO but I'm being hypercritical. Sorry Mic.

To be fair to Airfix, the main base of the kit was first produced in 1979...with a few updates....this boxing was released in 2002...

The kit was awful...hardly anything fitted properly and half a tube of filler has gone into it

The PRXIX is much better...and it's a new kit manufactured this year

.mic

You need to gloss your kits to get the decals to stick on Hagar old pal. I find a satin varnish gives the best finishing coat when the decals are set.
These look very good Mic, well done. I really like the XIX. This is a brand new kit and I had high hopes that Airfix would get it right after b**lsing up the new diecast XIV!
The Vc kit is a rehash of a very old Vb kit that was not even new when Airfix got the rights to it back in the 1970's! It actually works quite well if you stick to the old parts but becomes a pain when you try to add in the newer bits Airfix included to make it into a Vc/Seafire III kit. One point worth mentioning is that other than the prop and windscreen you can actually build any cannon armed MkV or Merlin powered Seafire from the box without any extra bits! Apart from windscreen and prop that is.

[Hagar]

You need to gloss your kits to get the decals to stick on Hagar old pal. I find a satin varnish gives the best finishing coat when the decals are set.

Thanks Roger. I don't want anyone to think I was having a go at Mic. It's something like 50 years since I built my last plastic kit so I have no right to criticise. Just giving my honest opinion. If you want it to look really authentic it should have a matt finish. A lot of restored warbirds are far too glossy as they're painted for display work & not for the original purpose.

The same goes for the rigging on the Tiger Moth. Not many people get it right either in the plastic or virtual model world. It's these little details that give an aircraft its unique character.

[HawkerTempest5]

Thanks Roger. I don't want anyone to think I was having a go at Mic. It's something like 50 years since I built my last plastic kit so I have no right to criticise. Just giving my honest opinion. If you want it to look really authentic it should have a matt finish. A lot of restored warbirds are far too glossy as they're painted for display work & not for the original purpose.

The same goes for the rigging on the Tiger Moth. Not many people get it right either in the plastic or virtual model world. It's these little details that give an aircraft its unique character.

I do know what you mean Doug, I used to get (and still do if I

[Mictheslik]

You need to gloss your kits to get the decals to stick on Hagar old pal. I find a satin varnish gives the best finishing coat when the decals are set. :)

Thanks Roger. I don't want anyone to think I was having a go at Mic. It's something like 50 years since I built my last plastic kit so I have no right to criticise. Just giving my honest opinion. If you want it to look really authentic it should have a matt finish. A lot of restored warbirds are far too glossy as they're painted for display work & not for the original purpose.

The same goes for the rigging on the Tiger Moth. Not many people get it right either in the plastic or virtual model world. It's these little details that give an aircraft its unique character.

I am actually planning to put a matt finish on the spit....but currently only have a tin of humbrol matt enamel which I've tested on another model and has dried gloss  :P ...will pick up a rattle can of matt varnish next time I'm at the shop....

My usual flow is paint > Coat of Klear floor polish > Decal > More Klear > Weather > More Klear > Varnish (or leave if gloss)

.mic