It was a slog, but I’m happy with the final result of my stab at Airfix’s huge 1/24th Mosquito. The size of the kit enables the modeler to “see” a lot more than one would see at smaller scales, in the cockpit, gunbay, and bomb bay. There are also several choices in terms of variants–I chose the lead plane from the RAF’s No. 487 squadron, which participated on the raid on Amiens in February 1944; ironically, this plane was shot down (with both crew members killed) at the end of the raid.
The pilot/navigator figures were somewhat crude (they certainly aren’t state of the art), but were OK.
Enjoy! --Terry
[View:/themes/fsm/utility/
:550:0]
Very good looking model!
How was the build? Is the fit good?
Thanks. The build went fairly well. When I saw that the kit had come out a year ago, I was a bit wary because of Airfix’s reputation (clearly undeserved, I now realize), but the on-line reviews were so positive, that I decided to take the plunge. The fit overall is pretty good, stuff came together pretty well, although the fuselage-wing assembly is a bit tricky. The cockpit and bomb bay look great and come together really well. The main challenge was the gun bay in the nose–I had quite a few fit problems there, which I think are fairly typical with plane models when the designer tries to get everything into the kit. The hatch over the guns in the nose still doesn’t fit all that much. The fit for the beautiful engines was perfect.
I think the main difference between my kit and the one that was reviewed by FSM is that I really crudded up mine; my research showed that most of these planes looked really bad–the result of the northern European climate and the heavy war tempo. I used the traditional gunk wash of water/acrylic black and brown pain/liquid soap detergent.
What a beauty, very nice job.[Y]
I was sold on this kit when it first came out, all ready have the RCAF decal set and am waiting for my chance to acquire one. Squadron had it low as 161$ (25% off) yet after shipping, duty taxes ect. I may as well get my LHS to order it in a buy local in that regard.
Nice build and looks remarkably similar (identicle) to the one in the banner at the top of this page? Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
Pat.
Shoot&Scoot, the two kits are the same in the sense that they both represent the same plane with the same markings, although like most new kits reviewed in FSM magazine, the FSM one isn’t weathered, or if it is, it’s very lightly weathered. I’ve noticed that most reviewed new kits in FSM magazine are lightly weathered–I don’t know whether that’s FSM policy (a), or the artistic preference of the people who do the new kit reviews (b), or if a and b are the same thing.
Since I came back to the hobby a decade ago, I’ve noticed that there’s a spectrum among model makers in terms of weathering. At one end is what I call the “gritty realists” (I’m near that end of the spectrum), who in their quest to make their kits appear as “realistic” as possible, use liberal quantities of washes and other means to “age” and “fade” their kits. At the other end of the spectrum are what I think of as the “artistic idealists”, who prefer a cleaner look.
The reviews are on a short time line hence the non-weathered look of most. I imagine after the material is submitted more custom weathering happens to their models.
Artistic merit is a different opinion for every modeler. Some over do the effect as most military machines had short service lives. The later version of the Fw-190 was based on a engine that only had a 24 hour life. Reasoning that it would not survive much longer if at all after 24 hours flying.
On the other end is extreme war time stories and photographs that show unbelievable wear to equipment. One example is a Mosquito that was to close to a VI when it exploded and when landed all the paint was burned off or blackened. If on a contest table the viewers would not buy such a drastic appearance unless supported with photographs, even then it would be a tough sell.
Thanks for your note. That’s why I characterized it as an artistic spectrum, as opposed to a “right” or “wrong” way to make models. At the end of the day I (like I assume everyone else) make a model that is an attempt to meet some image in my mind of what it’s supposed to look like. Photographs help, but it’s still a subjective decision on each modeler’s part.