Jump to content

Welcome to Large Scale Modeller: The home of the large scale military model builder. 


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About ChaoticMike

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've taken a look, and I'm no wiser. They *look* wrong, like the aerofoil section for the blade is back to front. If I adopted the proposed 'fix' (and I'm by no means sure it is necessary) then the perceived angle of attack and twist to the propellor looks better to my eye but then the shank difference noted by Bill_S would be reversed. I wish I hadn't read the initial post expressing doubt over the blades' orientation.. . It's going to nag, now!
  2. Over on Britmodeller, an observation has been made that the paddle-blade propellor blades are keyed back to front. Does anyone else agree? I have no opinion, because I have yet to approach that part of the build and the instructions are for needle props (that I'm not planning on using for my build).. Mike
  3. The Eduard does have the advantage over the Airscale in that I suspect it will be an easier upgrade. The Airscale is excellent, but fiddly, and the Engineers panel is tricky to paint (well, it was for me!). Horses for courses, really - the Eduard will likely get you a better pit than OOB more quickly /less effort than Airscale, but the 3D of the Airscale looks better to these eyes. Also easier to distress and blend in with the rest of the environment. Well, that's my £0.02...
  4. Hello all. I'm sort of building PO-S as she is in the RAF Museum, and it's hard to miss the Rebecca aerials up front. Which the HKM Lanc doesn't supply, presumably modelling an earlier iteration. Does anyone know the dimensions? They don't look like a tough scratch build, or alternatively does anyone know a supplier? I've asked Master Models of Poland if they're interested! Mike PS Stellar riveting and describe, Nigel. Have you masked the transparencies yet? 4 hours I won't see again!
  5. If, like me, you put a lens barrel onto the camera in the front compartment, you'll need to either be careful how long a barrel you make, or be prepared to move the camera upwards. Otherwise, it fouls the transparency through which it is supposed to point. I chose to move the camera up a little, so that there was a semi=realistic length to the barrel. Mike
  6. Cool... I love an oversized penetrating weapon, me! (oo-er missus, etc). But having that single huge bomb would probably mean a need to spiff up the bomb bay further, whereas the current (slightly inaccurate) load covers a multitude of sins. Decisions, decisions...
  7. You're quite right, they are molded wrong. I took a couple of millimetres off the longer one.
  8. Thanks. I got the idea only because somebody, somewhere, had pointed out it's missing and I know what the camera looks like from too many museum trips! As far as repurposing part of a bomb, that would doubtless be a much easier solution than mine. However, I don't run a spares pool and I don't have a stash (gasp!) so I am invariably forced to remake/remodel. I made a couple of handles for the engineer's fuel cocks out of 40 thou plasticard too.. that was an episode in lateral thinking involving scribing a tiny circle, then drilling out 6 holes around the circumference. More details on Britmodeller…! Mike
  9. I tweaked the camera by lathing a shallow cone of sprue, attaching it to the camera body then drilling out a hole for the lens...
  10. Hello all. I have a build log over at Britmodeller towers, as well as following this. My first mod was to shorten the pilot's seat pan (easy) and also its suspension frame (harder!) Finally I removed the leather base from the seat back as apparently the real thing is just a bucket: the pilot sat on his parachute.
  • Create New...