HubertB

Well, methink you guys should spend more time procrastinating in front the computer, rather than waste it at your bench, modelling … 😂😂😂 Hubert, the expert in one of the two activities above … guess which 😁

Me 2 ! Hubert

Both are top notch 👍 , but the combination on the display base looks really crammed IMHO. Still, I wish I could do as good a job with my 108 (in civilian guise of course). Hubert

Italeri did a 1/72 one … Hubert

Let’s hope they will not show the same aversion to French subjects than WnW (but then they have demonstrated this already with the G-III and the Nieuports … 🤗) Hubert

😭 Hubert

Whilst I appreciate the creativity, technicity and skills that went into this one - all waaaaay above my paygrade -, I just cannot help but to criticise the choice of a Flying Tigers’ P-40 (which never saw the sea from that close, as pointed out), when a Wildcat or Zero would have been far more justified, and the size of the shark, which seems to come out of a cheap me-too of Spielberg’s « Jaws », like « Sharknado» or « Megalodon ». Just my , of course … Hubert

What’s this strange recess between the windscreen and the radome ? Hubert

Totally agree, as usual witn Mike’s work . Hubert

And your toaster as well, which sounds logical 😂, if it contains any electronic board … Hubert

An EMP device will basically fry any electronic device within its range. The only devices likely to survive are those « hardened » (don’t ask me how its done - I have no idea) against an EMP, and are the military-grade ones … Hubert PS Edit : had an internet search. It seems the best way to shield a device against an EMP is to build a Faraday cage around it … Now, I’ll go to bed less stupid tonight.

Great result, Tim ! Worth the time spent building it 👍 ! Hubert

Well, atmospheric currents still hold a lot of unsolved mysteries. I remember well when the French government explained that the Tchernobyl radioactive cloud had not overflown the French territory. Somehow it stopped dead at the French-German border 🤣😂🤣 … Hubert

Frankly, that everything lines up is nothing short of a miracle, or a testimony of your building skills (I choose this latter explanation, personally). I could almost think could do it myself: what a delusional fool I am 😏. Hubert

It’s official. With age, my brain has slowed down, and I find myself unable to follow John’s rhythm of production without my head spinning wildly … Still, great job on the Spit, John 👍! Hubert

Sorry for yoir loss, Ernie. And blue skies to Flash. Hubert

Yes. You need to stop the crack spreading further, especially after repairs. I’d drill a hole big enough at its end, plug it with a piece of rod, soak the whole with extra thin. If the sides of the crack are in contact, re-welding with extra thin will work. If they are disjointed, then it’s better to plug the crack with CA gel. CA is good for any assembly exerting tensile forces, and bad for anyone where you have shearing forces. Hubert PS edit: sorry to contradict John, who replied while I was typing mine. I still think that, if the crack started at the wing root, you need to make sure it will not spread further by drilling a stress-relieving hole at its other end.

I don’t think you have any reason to regret the PE fret, Oliver Hubert

It’s looking as good as I expected 👍 ! Well done, Peter ! Hubert

Well, the lines make structural sense on the « flat » shape of the 1/72 kit. But, even if it corrects the wrong shape of the Monogram kit, the Belcher correction looks fatter, with the lines then seeming « off ». If the 1/72 kit is any accurate reference, you have a lot of matter to reshape, but the issue is the thickness of the plastic parts, knowing you already have a big step to smooth on the bottom 🙁 Hubert

I’m in awe of Ernie’s prescience. Here is a man that has the foresight to take a kit, tools, glue, paint, an airbrush and even a compressor in his car, just in case he is stuck in a motel for a few days, because of an ice-storm, and in …. Texas, to boot ! C’mon Ernie, can you PM me the winning numbers of the next Loto draft 🙏 ? Hubert, a admirer in need 😏

Still … Hubert

Thanks for the compliment, but it’s pretty basic arithmetics, once you grasp the concepts of volume relationship between the original and the kit, and of volumetric density. Hubert PS: to explain these concepts, let’s take a cube of 1x1x1 meter. Its volume is 1 cubic meter. If you fill it with water, you’ll get 1 cubic meter of water, or 1000 liters, and the water weight will be 1 metric tonne, or 1000 kilograms, as one liter of water weighs 1 kilogram. Water has a volumetric density of one, table oil of about 0.9, concrete of about 2.4, iron of 7.85. Now, let’s design a 1/10 scale model of the said cube. It will be 10cmx10cmx10cm. its volume will thus be 10^3 (or 10x10x10) cubic centimeters. As water has a volumetric density of 1, 1 cubic centimeter of water weighs 1 gram, and our model filled with water will weigh 1000 grams, or 1 kilogram. The 1/10 scale cube of water weighs 1000 times less (or 1/10^3) than the original cube of 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter. QED (and end of thread drift)

One of my pet obsessions is to give models a proper weight sensation, that reflects the bulk of the original. I try, as much as I can, to have the model weight scale-proportional to the original. For instance, a 1/200 Titanic model should weigh 52 300 x 10^3 kgs / 200^3 = 6.5 kgs. (That’s 52 300 tonnes x 1000 - to get the weight in kgs- divided by 200 to the cube, as the density - weight/volume - is constant, whichever the size of the object). In you case, the Yak should weigh between 60 (empty) and 103 grs (full load). And yet another variable introduced in modelling 😂 ! Hubert

Nice result on the rudder, Bill. I am not totally convinced about the « pipe-cleaner technique », which looks to regularly irregular in my eyes, especially on the rear fuselage. As Scott mentioned, the Silly Putty technique, or lifted paper mask, could produce a more convincing faded effect, IMHO. Hubert