Matt_

I think some paints don't like to go below freezing point... it messes up their structure (not sure which ones mind you) a lot of house decorating paints do say keep from freezing temps... I can't see our paints being too much different. Heat on the other hand I suspect is more likely to cause problems from exploding paint and glue tins, jars, tubes etc.. I would try to keep them indoors. Matt

Yes.. I'd go for Erla too, the image in Broken Eagles is quite a lot clearer and the open lower cowl seems to have the wider squarer look of the Erla product... Matt

Can't believe I forgot the PCM kit... Accuracy wise it's good and can be picked up for a reasonable price second hand. It can be somewhat more challenging than Hasegawa's kit but it is a short run product... just need a little more care and more prep work to ensure good fit. Matt

The Hasegawa FW 190As that are new tool are very good, and for the moment your only option anyway. They are typical of modern Hasegawa, good shapes, middling detail but solid enough OOB... Here's a link to LSPs Hasegawa FW 190 listing (new tool). http://www.largescaleplanes.com/Marketplace/lsp_kitlist/kit_details.php?kit=383 Matt

Happy birthday Mike Got your G-10 yet...? Matt

Nick If you're talking about 'Yellow 11', then the Revell kit is perfect... Has all the correct ports in the right places. Just need to fill a couple and move the port cockpit air vent. A2Zee set has everything that you'll need to do it up... Here she is: Matt

Great stuff James I still haven't bought one of these... it does look good and as you say, the bomb racks are excellent for injection moulded items. I wonder why the big gaps on the bomb rack sprue...? Matt

Worth checking out... though the tube walls look a little on the thick side... Matt

I agree, seen many images with chaps handing guns up/down. Though, if they had been used this may have been standard to maintain them..? Matt

Steve I just took delivery of mine and as you say I cannot understand what Revell were thinking with the seams around the nose! As you've pointed out, the parts are separated very close to the panel line (why not do it actually ON the panel line?). In addition the seam goes right through the correctly higher CWSD opening and then to the rear of the part you showed there are small parts of the panel below again. The whole upper part could have been created to run along panels and need no/very little work. As it is, they've almost chosen the worst possible path for the seam... madness! Can't give too much away (got a review to do) but there are some nice touches again, including the way they've treated the internal view of the large wheel fairings. As we feared, no smaller kidney shaped wing parts included... Matt

Hi Erik These any good...? From the weapons manual... Matt

Driver's cpt... Well here's the best image (a detail of something larger) I could find. Looks dark grey to me.... does illustrate how dusty the outside surfaces of the vehicle are though... Matt

Excellent drawing... just what you needed..! The bracket seems to have a handle..? I wonder if it swung out and then locked to hold the track up? Matt

Yes, sorry. The radio access is what my question relates to. I've seen that the K-4 appears to have a different shaped luggage hatch as well.. squarer, isn't it? Matt

I'll have a look this eve.. I do wonder if the projecting structures that you can see between the return rollers are designed as part of the track suspending mechanism? Can't see what they'd be there fore otherwise and, if you project the line of that turnbuckle it joins up with the projection in question....? Matt

Steve Well, a hearty thank you for pointing that out - and an important lesson in looking and actually seeing .. . In that vein, despite being told that the repositioned access hatch on the K-4 is square (after being depicted otherwise in earlier drawings), I still think it looks like it reduces in height front to rear, not by a lot but by some. I wondered why this would be and came up with the thought that the stringers aren't parallel, so to fit a new hatch without re-engineering the stringers, it'd have to narrow slightly. Any thoughts on that...? Matt

Well, I've found two great shots that show the turnbuckles clearly enough. May raise some further questions? Lower image, second wheel from left.. to its right there's a rod of some sort looped into the hole in the track tooth... What's that all about? This particular Morser has been hit by a shell, hence the out of place wheel... Something else I noticed doing the rounds.... some parts of the gun are of an extremely rough finish... more like a rough concrete texture... presumably from them being cast in sand(?). So some of the cradle is then machined, but other parts left very rough... it'd be very interesting to replicate... Matt

Good point. Looking at the image, isn't it the case that the slack/droop is missing from between the return rollers. The turnbuckles appear, for the most part, to be placed halfway between the return rollers. Sooo.... maybe they not only hold the lower half of the track up, away from the rails, but also hold the upper part of the track rigid somehow - thus preventing the sag...? Matt

Steve You say: "Also regarding the this tank, Erla G-10's feature the standard fuselage shape at the top rear of the canopy as seen on the G-6 variant, and not the wider and more square shape of the K-4 and the other manufacturer's G-10 versions that were based on this wider pattern." Are you saying that the fuselage spine changed shape behind the canopy on the K-4 and 'non-Erla' G-10 aircraft? I'm not saying I don't believe this, but I've never heard anyone else say so... in fact this is surely the 'error' that is cited on the Hasegawa K-4 and G-10. What do you base this notional 'wider pattern' spine on? It'd be great if this is the case, as it'd mean no correcting all those Hasegawa G-10 and K-4 kits I have... . I've just looked at some photos of G-10 and K-4 forward spines and they do look wider and the fill points look to be on a closer to horizontal surface than with the G-6 which is closer to vertical. I'm amazed I've been so blind and casually accepted people saying the Hasegawa depiction is wrong, because it looks like it's correct. Why did the spine shape change..? Seems like a strange decision to make that late in the day? Bigger MW50 tank... same tank mounted higher in fuselage...? I'm intrigued.... Back to the wing bumps, I also suspect that the way Revell will have done them will look wrong - i.e. theye will show through the wheel bay as the large elongated inner surface of the bump. One the actual aircraft, the bump was only a fairing and cover a hole in the original wing's upper skin to allow the wheel to project through it. Here's a photo of a G-10 wheel bay to illustrate: So what you are seeing is the 'kidney' shaped cut out in the wing's upper skin, and through the resulting hole you can see the inside of the large wing bulge. With Hasegawa's depiction (ie add on bulge) you can replicate this nicely.... I'm concerned that Revell will have a view straight up into the fairing's full extent. So we'd have to put a sheet of plastic in, with the cutout, to replicate the missing wing skin - hope that makes sense. Matt

Hi Steve I wouldn't have thought a straight 225% enlargement would have worked. There'd be too much 'fuzz' around the edges and the quality of some markings at 1/72 wouldn't be good enough to stand enlargement and they'd look a bit rough. That is only an opinion I may be wrong. You'd be better off getting someone like Mal of Miracle Masks to do you a set of masks from the original decals... Matt

Andreas on LSP says the new fuselage is 'solid' moulding - i.e. not with the side panels that caused some hassle..... That does mean the cowl should be more accurate than if it just had new side panels and gun deck.... let's see... It's a bit of a disappointment that the large wing bulges are wrong shape at rear.... they apparently terminate in a full semi circular shape when it should in fact be more 'blunt' - if that makes sense... Matt

Nice work Andy. Captures the look well. Matt

As they say, a picture says a thousand words... so here's a picture of the Karl on its rail transport trucks with raised suspension and clearly discernible turn-buckles in place... Matt

Here are mixes for Tamiya... Dull Roundel Red : 75% Flat Red (XF-7), 25% Red Brown (XF-64) Roundel Blue : 75% Flat Blue (XF-8), 25% Flat Black (XF-1) Roundel Yellow : 95% Flat Yellow (XF-3), 5% Flat Red (XF-7) and a variation: Dull Roundel Red - Mix of 75% flat Red (XF-7 ), 25% NATO Brown (XF-68) Blue - Mix of 95% flat Blue (XF-8), 5% flat Black (XF-1) Yellow - Flat Yellow (XF-3) with a tiny amount of flat Red (XF-7) Matt

Whenever I have a similar query I try Google (no, I'm not going to lecture you on using Google ) The thing is every question like this appears to get answers from yes, no problem to no it'll destroy your model and everything between. I think the safest answer is to test what you are planning to do on scrap plastic or an old model. My cautious answer would be that if the acrylic is fully cured (that may take days) and the enamel is applied in light coats, it should be fine. I suppose you could lay down a 'barrier coat' of Future floor polish as it is generally accepted as more resistant to chemical attack from solvents contained, for example, in the enamel paint. It may be easier (in the long term) and safer to start experimenting with mixing the colours you need from acrylics - just a thought... Matt