HubertB

That Norton is just amazing … What is your printer ? Hubert

It’s amazing that this flies at all, without wings and engine 😲 ! As you say, technological progress is beyond the understanding of us, old men …😉 Hubert Hubert

Too bad about the bonnet fit when hinged … But she is still a spectacular beauty, and your workmanship shows throughout … You should really be proud about it, Rob, despite this last fight she put up for you 👍 Hubert

The answer to that is definitely "yes". I read ZM are working on a "true" -B version, based on period drawings, and designed by Radu Brinzan, which in itself is a sign of great accuracy - in as far as being acuurate is a relevant term for a paper aircraft -. The -B version will have a totally different "nose", with revised intakes, etc. Hubert.

The forthcoming ZM « B », designed by Radu Brinzan … Hubert

Great save, John ! Hubert

Happy for you guys. As far as I am concerned, Lukgraph and the pending releaase of the Draken by Jetmads have made my year ... Hubert

Looking fantastic ! Nothing like a plate of spaghettis after a hard day’s work 😋 ! Hubert

You have a lot of different resins used for 3D-printing. Some are said to be « ABS-like », although they are most likely not ABS. CERTAINLY NOT polystyrene anyway. You must use CA or epoxy to assemble them. Hubert

Now that is THE great news of the decade, as far as I am concerned ! Hubert

Chris, The ones I mentioned yo can buy with some confidence (the assembly of the engine / cowling area of the Kingfisher is still better suited for an octopus though) As for the F-86 D or K; as Scott mentionned, it's the only game in town, so if you want it badly ... but brace yourself for some annoying issues. Hubert

Very sad news. RIP old friend. Hubert

Zimi just bought the molds off, and are progressively releasing the line … Although not released the first, the P-39 was KH’s first kit design and it shows, in many areas … The first released, the T-6, had a few issues of its own as well, although not all of them as visible as the P-39. Things got better as they expanded the range. Although not outstanding, many later releases were good, like the T-28, the Kingfisher, the F5-E, the OV-10 or the Mirage 2000 … Hubert

To be fair, even though GBs are labelled as « LSM competitions », I never took them as anything more than an opportunity to model with my buddies along a theme, a bit like an extended club meeting … And there was no promise of any gain in the last two GBs, but the finalisation of the previous two ones never took place either … From hearsay (because I am not - and will never be - on FB), it seems our friend Ernie is very busy on FB, but not for modelling issues … So be it … Everyone is entitled his « days off » from LSM, and there is no reason why we should expect anything else from our moderators … Hubert

Hubert

I love your progress, Rob, even with the hiccups, which I’m sure you’ll overcome. The kit is challenging, but most likely, given MFH’s reputation, it has been designed to be doable … After my own hiccup with my compressor blowing a connecting hose, I have resumed the painting of my Cutlass. I have chosen a NMF finish of VA-83, with a blue and white chevron on the fuselage, and blue wing tips and fins’ leading edges. It is a lot of masking, and re-masking, so nothing secret, but nothing spectacular to show, yet … Soon, though … Hubert

🌭 Hubert

Yes. The famous parallax has hit again … 😂 Hubert

Are you sure about the angle of the landing gear, Carl ? I thought it was more slanted forward … Hubert

Yep, looks like it 👍 Hubert

Ok. I did some fact-checking followed by some forensic introspection. To summarize : regarding what seems like a fabric cover of the removed perspex panes of the canopy, I WAS WRONG, and what I stated pure BS. This is an interesting illustration of the frailty of human testimonies. When skimming though the pages of the Naval Fighters book I saw two pages headlined « Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk prototype ». Then, the next page, pics of a Seahawk with the cover on the canopy. I just needed a brain fart to connect the two in my memory and assume it was also pics of the prototype, not repeated elsewhere. When in fact they were headlined as pics of the landplane version (of a production aircraft). Sorry for the wrong statement I proferred. Then I managed to find a pic of a postwar lineup of Seahawks, some with the said « cover ». Which proves it was not unique. As for what this cover was, I could not find specific comments, but I would tend to line up with the hypothesis of Martin and Carl, that it was a protective cover, probably only when the aircraft as on the ground. As for your pics, Martin, sorry, I am probably dumb - this has just been proven 😂 - but I cannot see the canvas you are referring to, at least in so far I am expecting a dark-colored one. Can you enlighten me more ? Hubert

You may be right, Martin, and me wrong. I have not reread the book in full, just skimmed through it yesterday looking for the references on the canopy, and stumbled on the pics you had posted. I may have misinterpreted the caption. Lemme check again, just for the sake of accuracy. Hubert

According to photos on the Naval Fighters book, this seems like a one-off trial on a pre-series aircraft, Carl. Hubert

Granted I should have done that earlier. Sorry. But then, it would have been like a tennis match with just aces. So much more boooooooooring 🥱 than a lively exchange 😉 Hubert

And also repeated in the text left of the captioned picture … Call me Dr Watson, Rob 😂 Hubert