Parts D6 and A2 are upside down at the beginning of this video. The round feature on A2 should be concentric with the scalop in D6. Here's deal, the images in the "2" & "3" (if not all) area are "mirrored". I took two photo's and mirrored them vertically and then you will see everything fits together properly and the scalop in D6 shows in the front of view "2" instead of the back. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-erNVrWigbYg.html
The wood area had a rubber coating "painted" on it to smooth it out due to the wood being old and rotten. Actually, the entire aft section of the deck that is painted that color is wood deck that's had the rubber coating painted on it. This was also to simulate a flight deck and make it easier to roll helos and boats across the deck. This was less time consuming and much cheaper than replacing the rotting teak deck. Camouflage was pointless in the 80's due to radar.
Can we get a follow-up/update?? I’m going to be building one of these as well (the “Always” edition) and would love to see/know more about the modifications and improvements you made and how you did it.
Just an idea, but how about putting some of those fish into the wooden barrel? I have the same model, but as I am an unemployed nursing student I can’t afford to buy any aftermarket right now. I really do want to get some of those food items. I hope to find U96 decals. I know, it’s probably been done to death but I love the movie and its characters. I would like to do a dark side diorama loading torpedoes and food stuffs.
David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Friday, 26 July, 2024) This actually has great promise! I have thought of much as I suggest below: You could make it a Douglas A-24 Banshee U.S. Army (USAAF? Please clarify) dive bomber. Add a few dozen more, with them all queuing up at dawn along a 20-foot long stretch (if my maths are correct, a square 26.4 feet on a side in 1:200th-scale would be a square mile) of Marston mat PSP for a strike upon an enemy airfield round 400 nmi to the northwest, palm trees, sand for hundreds of yards, a dozen Quonset Huts (living quarters) all in a row, scores of tiny figures bustling about their errands and duties (life in a war zone tends to focus the mind upon the task at hand), a handful of battle-damaged buildings, a few A-24s being serviced, a crashed North American B-25B Mitchell USAAF medium bomber off to one side . . . . For your next project, essentially the same, except a hundred or so B-25B Mitchell bombers making an elephant walk to a 25-foot long stretch of Marston mat PSP to intercept a transport convoy approaching from the south, this setting half again larger . . . . And for your third project, a hundred or so B-25B Mitchell bombers have just sighted that transport convoy on the horizon, the morning sun behind them: round a dozen steam ships and a trio of aging destroyers, all in 1:200th-scale, arriving from the south. They drop down to fifty feet as they quickly sweep round to the east to put the sun at their backs . . . .
2 (Continued) An even more exciting turn for me is that a number of 1:24th-scale aircraft kits of at least reasonable quality (well, as far as I can evaluate on RU-vid) have forth. All so far come from Airfix, which is both a true delight and quite a surprise. The best of what I have been able to infer as good or better are 1) the de Havilland DH-98 Mosquito RAF Fighter-Bomber kit. I must note that I have an especially keen personal interest in the RAF Light Bomber replica; as a boy, I had built a much smaller Airfix model of it, which for the swift grace of the actual aeroplane for all these decades had remained with me! 2) Of course, of all the British combat aircraft of World War Two, Airfix’s new Supermarine Spitfire RAF Mark IX Fighter kit in this astounding scale essentially ties with its bigger younger brother. Next is 3) the Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat U.S. Navy Carrier-Based Fighter. This one for all its interior detailing looks immensely appealing to me. I would like to find a number of aircraft-civilian and commercial, as well as military-to juxtapose alongside private sedans, municipal vehicles, workplace trucks, etc. I wish we model builders could find kits of a Cessna 172 private airplane, a Bell JetRanger helicopter, a Lear private passenger jet, and similar. (Incidentally, a Boeing 747-8 commercial freight airliner’s wingspan is 68.45 metres [224 ft 7 in], its length is 76.25 metres [250 ft 2 in]; in the scale under discussion, the model’s wingspan would be 9 ft 4.29 inches, its length 10 ft 5 inches-though I lack the room for one.) I have a diorama idea wherein a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver floatplane (the only kit in this scale of a private airplane I have been able to find online) crashes into one wing of a large, six-storey, red-brick apartment building (circa the mid- to late 1970s), the residual fuel igniting a serious fire. An airborne Bell UH-1 Utility Helicopter, painted white with a wide, red band and markings reading “FIRE RESCUE” (modifying a Revell Bell UH-1 Iroquois U.S. Army Utility Helicopter kit to civilian service) converted to a rescue vehicle, assists the fire department, which comprises AMT’s three large fire trucks: the Pumper; the AeroChief (this with a large, manned water cannon atop a long boom), and the Ladder Truck; AMT’s 1970 Chevrolet Impala Fire Chief car (hpiguys Workshop channel: RU-vid “1970 Chevy Impala 454 Fire Chief 1/25 Scale Model Kit AMT 1162 Build Review and Tutorial”, Wednesday, 12 February, 2020); a 1973 Ford Fire Rescue Pick-Up Truck (either a 1977 Ford Ranger F-350 Pickup AMT/Matchbox kit, PK-4611, or a Ford F-350 “Dualie” Pickup Truck kit, Monogram; this vehicle uses the labels in a 1973 Dodge Pick-Up Truck MPC Kit [red body, Fire Rescue label]); a police patrol car built of the 1970 Chevrolet Impala Fire Chief kit (Seeds 4 Hobbies channel: RU-vid “Building the 1970 Chevrolet Impala Police Car: 1/25 Scale Model Kit from AMT”, Saturday, 16 September, 2023); a Chevy Police Van (hpiguys Workshop channel: RU-vid, “AMT Chevy Police Van NYPD 1/25 Scale Model Kit Build Review AMT 1123” (Saturday, 16 February, 2019); sheriff’s cruiser, adapted from the 1970 Ford Galaxie model kit (hpiguys Workshop channel: RU-vid “1970 Ford Galaxie 429 Police Car 2n1 1/25 Scale Model Kit Build Review James Bond 007 AMT 1172”, Wednesday, 15 July, 2020; two ambulances: Ford Econoline Van kit and Ford F-350 4x4 kit, both converted to EMS transports, the van incorporating the cabin interior of the MPC 1978 Dodge B Tradesman Van Ambulance, Cannonball Run), or Dodge Ambulance RESCUE 911 AMT/ERTL 6416; and possibly a third: the 1959 Cadillac Ambulance with gurney, AMT 1395. I wish that Airfix (or any kit-maker) actually would make a well-detailed, highly accurate Chance Vought F4U early series Corsair USN/USMC/FAA Fighter kit, with alternate parts to make all the early variants: 1) the F4U-1 and the -2, with the so-called “Birdcage” cockpit canopy; 2) the F4U-2, the early radar-guided night fighter; 3) the F4U-1A, with an improved cockpit and canopy to enhance the aviator’s view in all directions; 4) the F4U-1D, with various modifications to improve carrier deck landings; 5) the F4U-1C, an adaptation of the F4U-1D, with four M3 Browning 20mm cannons in lieu of the six M2 Browning .50-calibre machine guns. Several versions of these formidable, new warplanes, totalling over 2,000, had served in the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm (FAA) aboard two RN aircraft carriers. Close to 100 of them for a time flew in Europe’s skies, the only Corsairs to have done so. The next variant of significance during the Second World War came in the form of the F4U-4, that significant improvements in the power plant, the turbo-supercharger, the cowl, etc., gave the bent-wing bird even greater velocity, climb rate, altitude, range, manœuvrability, making this already top-flight fighter bomber even more forbidding than its predecessor. Then, for Airfix to produce a second Corsair kit, this one of the F4U-4. As for the remaining Mosquito reproductions in plastic, I next certainly would like to see an RAF Night Fighter model, pitting it against the Luftwaffe’s best, e.g.. the Heinkel He-219 Uhu Night Fighter; I would pose both kits airborne, the silent, black-garbed assassin slipping up to its prey . . . . (I genuinely wish that I could have been at ringside for that one! And that the Germans would have been obliging enough to have allowed me a fortnight or so to sell tickets! I then would like the Photo-Reconnaissance aircraft (which I would finish in USAAF markings). Speaking of twin-engine fighters, I wonder how the Lockheed P-38L Lightning USAAF Fighter might have fared in a test of speed, time to climb, manœuvrability, range, etc., against the Mosquito fighter. A similar enquiry would ask how the Lightning would have performed if Rolls Royce (or Packard in their stead) had reconfigured-re-engineered? re-machined?-some of their renowned engines the company had built for the Wooden Wonder so that the crankshaft turned in the opposite direction (even as Allison made some of its V-1710 power plants). Alternately, if Packard had modified some of their license-built Merlin V-12 engines? I have a hunch that this might have meant a significant increase in performance on all the above metrics. A similar enquiry would seek to determine how the Mosquito would have performed had Rolls Royce reconfigured, re-engineered, re-machined (or whatever term more aptly would have described the effort) some of their renowned Merlin engines the company had built for the swift, silent angel of death so that its crankshaft turned in the opposite direction (as Allison had made some of its V-1710 power plants for Lockheed’s counterpart). For that matter, of the following propeller-powered fighters, which performed the best under optimal conditions? Specifically, how each might have fared against one another in tests of speed, time to climb, manœuvrability, range, etc. Chance Vought F4U-4 Corsair USN Carrier-Based Fighter De Havilland DH-98 Mosquito RAF Twin-Engine Fighter, latest version Lockheed P-38L Lightning USAAF Twin-Engine Fighter North American Aviation P-51D/K Mustang USAAF Fighter Republic P-47M Thunderbolt USAAF Fighter Northrop P-61A Black Widow USAAF Twin-Engine Fighter Grumman F7F-4N Tigercat USN/USMC Twin-Engine Carrier-Based Fighter (the U.S. Navy certified for carrier service only a late variant, F7F-4N, building only twelve; source: Wikipedia Grumman F7F-4N Tigercat).
David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Saturday, 29 June, 2024). I respond essentially simultaneously to two of your RU-vid video series together for their closely overlapping topics: “1/32 HK B-17 B-17E B-17F B-17G AFTERMARKET KITS REVIEW & PRE-BUILD PART 1” (Sunday, 6 January, 2017) and “1/32 HK B-17 B-17E B-17F B-17G KIT REVIEW & PRE-BUILD PART 1” (Sunday, 15 January, 2017). I must note as an avid model builder my enjoyment in watching presentations such as yours, especially comprehensive build videos of complex subject matter. I am a fair modeller, though for my lack of resources, I cannot go to see the actual aircraft to see the myriad details of the actual conveyance (aircraft, automobile, ship, etc.) that I can learn, say, exactly what is that colour or that device; how a Norden bombsight looks, and so on, for innumerable points toward better authenticity. Also, since I cannot afford these larger models-extraordinary kits in bigger scales-of late, I take from your projects a measure of satisfaction. Had I the resources, I would buy several of these kits, to build each in a different way; one (at least) of Hong Kong Models’s B-17E/F as 1) a B-17E, probably early in the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO); 2) another as a B-17F early in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), as the “Memphis Belle” shortly following its introduction into combat, 3) a third as an early B-17G kit, the fuselage painted as in natural metal, the wings’ dorsal surfaces still in olive drab over neutral grey; 4) a fourth kit as a late-war B-17G with the Cheyenne tail, painted entirely in natural metal. I might even present this one as a pristine warbird even as it rolls out of a Boeing manufacturing plant, a short distance behind it a 1:48th-scale kit of a late-war B-17G also with the Cheyenne tail. in natural metal; joining the queue would be a 1:64th-scale kit built as a late-war B-17G much as its predecessors here (this is an older model, though at some distance, one would not recognise any lack of details); a 1:72nd-scale late-war B-17G closely resembling the others would follow next; I think I recently saw a 1:100th-scale B-17G kit, too; Minicraft offers a 1:144th-scale B-17G kit, as well. Or they possibly are lining up on an airfield runway, bound for the east coast, and across the ocean . . . . Were I genuinely wealthy, I would hire several model-building professionals to 1) build to my specifications a number of these advanced model kits, especially (though not exclusively) those of combat aircraft, which work they each digitally record for my learning how better to assemble, detail, paint, etc., such kits. I generally prefer them posed airborne (albeit without the undignified intrusion of the world’s tallest telegraph pole thrust up into its navel!), the landing gear retracted, the cowl flaps closed, aftermarket resin or 3D figurines manning all stations, the crew engaged in aerial combat high over Nazi Germany’s industrial base and the commercial trade in the major seaports along the North Sea coastline. In lieu of the stand, to provide a necessary support mechanism, I would design and pattern (I am no engineer by any stretch of the imagination! I speak here expressly in terms of theory and concept!) a device after what motion picture production calls the Chapman Crane, a highly robust, amply counterbalanced gimbals apparatus to support a modern, high-resolution digital video or film camera, the camera operator, the director, etc., well above the ground, in a manner that enables them from an elevated vantage to approach the subject of the shot in progress through graceful turns through the air, or in dramatic soaring and swooping, and similar dynamic action to achieve the action of the scene. One also can use it to suspend a performer in the air in an arrangement that the viewer cannot see the it. An excellent example of this is the crane-cradle mechanism that the special effects crew of Superman: The Movie (1978) used to simulate the title character (Christopher Reeve) in flight, where 1) the actor lay upon a sort of “cradle” formed to fit closely his physical form, this combination then covered in the costume; 2) the technicians attached this padded rack to an adaptation of the Chapman crane, 3) and they positioned the mechanical components behind the performer and anything else that belongs in the shot, thus out of view of the camera. For my adaptation under discussion here (I call it the “Chapman cradle”), the supporting apparatus would be much smaller, needing only 1) to hold forth a mass of at most a half-dozen kilogrammes (though to allow for any possible kinetic force during movement from any cause, one out of safety would exceed that by double or greater), 2) whilst remaining completely out of sight of the viewer. To simplify the display’s function and operation, the mechanism also serves as an insulated physical conduit for electrical wiring providing current to the motor(s), lighting (instrument panels, exterior lights, duty stations, the control surfaces, and other purposes. For the necessity to keep to a reasonable size the opening at the pass-through point, I recommend a solitary line of ample amperage to meet the overall requirements that leads from a junction box or control board, the conduit passing along the support arm to a location inside the model, where an electrical fixture would distribute the current along finer wiring throughout the model. The next essential element of this entire arrangement is 3) the background: this must represent in simulation a sky at some reasonable altitude. I propose in this the simplicity of a clear azure vista; shifting clouds, ground features, etc., all receding to the right both would add complexity that might spoil the effect, or at the least might distract the viewer. One carefully must plan and co-ordinate the backdrop, synchronising any movement therein with what the aeroplane(s) at that moment would be doing. All these together would present to the viewer a remarkably innovative “ærial diorama”, though it cleverly simulates a rather conventional imagery: aircraft in flight. Perhaps the centrepiece in my whole approach is what I call a “forced perspective ærial diorama”, which starts with a basic display of the aircraft model. I would incorporate reproductions of-well, for example, to use as something extant in my own planning-F4U-1D Corsairs engaged in a steep, swift climb. The first one would be that of Tamiya’s 1:32nd-scale kit. Round 33 cm behind and slightly to the fore would be Tamiya’s 1:48th-scale Corsair replica; however, I understand that a new kit maker (well, new to me, at least), Magic Factory, offers a new tool 1:48th-scale kit of a pair of Corsair F4U-1A/2 USMC Fighters; two models in a “Dual Combo Limited Edition” (MF 5001), that I understand to exceed in fidelity the revered Japanese firm’s twenty-five-year-old assembly kit. Their pricing may prove prohibitive, though: at best, more than twice that of the Tamiya kits. Next would be Tamiya’s 1:72nd-scale Corsair kit (the best in that scale); with proper placement at readily visible different angles, one ought to be able to include two, possibly three. Similarly, perhaps three or four kits of AFV Club’s 1:144th-scale Chance Vought F4U-1/-1A/-1C/-1D Corsair Fighter would populate the background. I especially would enjoy adapting all this forced perspective ærial diorama to Boeing B-17E Flying Fortress USAAF Heavy Bomber models in different scales; as I noted earlier, these might be in the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO), early in the campaign. Additionally would be similar displays of B-17Fs, the largest as a replica of the “Memphis Belle” (which I would build as it actually was round 1943), the others holding close formation with the doughty bomber as members in the same squadron (that will require in-depth research to sort all these details, thus to assign specific markings to individual models); the early B-17Gs, showing some noticeable battle-damage and war-weariness; and the late-war B-17Gs. Then, of course, would be Consolidated B-24 Liberator USAAF Heavy Bomber kits in various scales. The B-24D replicas I would present in desert camouflage of the Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO), at just 250 feet above the deck as they storm over the refineries and oilfields of Ploiești (Romanian orthography, formerly spelt Ploești), Romania. Would anything along these lines serve to facilitate your aspirations for a better way to display your plane models in-flight, landing gear up, propeller(s) spinning, posts filled? (Continued) 1
Been working on that big ass boat for a few yrs now. I have all you've shown and more. Basically the way to look at that build is it is 6 little dioramas in 1. Each module needs to tell a story. I highly recommend the Pontos upgrade kit
Very well presentation.A very nice kit.For a Greek modeler the problem is that our air force has both engines.Can we make from that kit the block -52+?
Yooooo. This is making me semi nervous. Hahaha. I signed up for a group build and have from August 1st to December 1 to get it finished. Haha. I have plans to run motors and lights too. Haha. I may have bitten off more than I can chew. Well. It’s also a passion project for myself so if it goes a bit long, not the end of the world. This has been fantastic watching these last 3 videos for the build and excited to see the fuselage come together. Hoping you don’t have a lot of filling and or sanding to do🎉🎉😂😂❤❤😅
David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Saturday, 22 June, 2024). Ohhhhhh, and I was so hoping that Hong Kong Models had backdated their North American Aviation B-25J Mitchell USAAF Medium Bomber 1:32nd-scale kit to a B-25B for us. We need one, as well as kits of a B-25C/D and a B-25G, to complete the sequence. I have wanted to commemorate “Doolittle Tokyo Raider” (years past had I tried), Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle’s launch of sixteen of these Army Bombers off the flight deck of the USS Hornet (CV-8) U.S. Navy Yorktown-class aircraft carrier-you and your staff would have to scratch-build for me a detailed reproduction of the young flattop to the same proportion (I know my limits, both in technical skills and physical capacity!)-so how much room in your garage have you to spare? Round nine metres should be enough. I rather doubt my technical acumen accurately, thoroughly to distinguish between a B-25B and a B-25J, as well as my modelling skills to produce a model with creditable fidelity. I hardly could afford hiring someone build one for me. (Frankly, if I had that kind of munny, I right now would go out to buy groceries!) I several years past had begun Accurate Miniatures’s 1:48th-scale kit of the B-25B Bomber, then to commemorate Lt. Col. Doolittle’s daring dawn air-raid over Tokyo and surrounding locations. I also had two of the kit maker’s B-25C/D kits and a B-25G kit, as well as Revell-Monogram’s B-25J kit; I had found so terribly disappointing the last model’s raised panel lines, the lack of accurate “riveting”-I am deeply suspicious of that word in its imprecision; I have seen up close (round 10 cm [4”]) such fasteners, as well as what are supposed to be “panel lines”, albeit on a pristine natural metal Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress USAAF Heavy Bomber, at the USAF Aircraft Museum in Vandalia, Ohio-softer details, and myriad other shortcomings that I seriously had contemplated converting another Accurate Miniatures B-25G kit to a B-25J. For that matter, we need a Martin B-26 Marauder USAAF Medium Bomber kit, in this scale, as well.
Thanks for making this, I usually do not watch box reviews just builds, but this is an exception. I've recently gotten back into modelling, and since I am wrapping up my 1/32 Tamiya Corsair I am looking towards the next kit. The only 4 models I've done since the 1990s were all WWII birds, but I've always loved the Falcon and am thinking I should try building a plane made in the last 80 years 🙂 Are all three of these 1/48 scale Tamiya kits from the same tooling? Is there any significant difference in the quality or engineering as it regards fit and finish? If they are all the same I'm leaning towards that aggressor due to the cool paint job. Then again, I just did mottled Luftwaffe camo on 2 of my last 4 kits, so doing a more traditional gray-on-gray does make sense.
8:26 ish, the early B24s had 4 throttle levers, 4 mixture levers, and 4 turbocharger waste gate levers, Later B24s H-M had electronic dialed turbocharger controls (the box on the pedestal nearest the pilot's yoke)
You better check your references to see which 88 was used on the U-Boats. The tiger ammo was designed for higher velocity. A much longer case. I believe late war was 71 calibers that is a barrel over 16 feet.
I understand. However we have to keep in mind that this being a 1/48 model options are limited. At the end of the day it will look like a shell and part of the detail without compromising to much?
Well, this over twenty segments is as bold and ambitious a model project as I could imagine! Not only are you brave even to attempt such a feat, you are astoundingly wondrous in the execution! I would like to see the completed effort. I am experiencing some inexplicable uncertainty as to the length of the B-25B and the B-25J (the latter with glazing forward of the cockpit being longer than the gunship variants). Wikipedia reports 52 ft 11”. The kit scales up to 57 ft 6.015996”.
I am "binge watching" the entire sequence. When you mentioned your evacuation, I had to express my wishes for the safety and wellbeing of you, your family, and your neighbours.
Oh, I had this kit, as well as Accurate Miniatures’ 1:48th-scale models of the B-25C/D, and G (that is a long, sombre story!). I had wanted to do much as I understand you have: a flight deck diorama of the Mitchell just starting his take-off roll, bound for Tokyo in April 1942. I hope it was Col. Doolittle’s. My small, bony hands and fingers simply are not strong enough to manage all that scribing, toward repositioning all the flight control surfaces, though. As for the Legend B-17 Pilots set, if you put them into a B-24 model, you will have to add a fair portion of putty to the pilot’s left arm.
I saw something that might fit your interests (if this item is what I think): Border BS-001 1/35 DKM Type VII-C U-Boat (Plastic model). Have you heard of this kit? If so, what can you tell us about it, please? Would it be serviceable for a diorama with Hobby Boss's 1:32-scale kit of the Consolidated B-24D Liberator USAAF Heavy Bomber? One in all likelihood would remake it to a Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberator U.S. Navy Patrol Bomber, complete with the tri-colour camouflage scheme appropriate for mid-1943. I love learning about details sets, especially those suitable generally. On a lighter note, food in any scale is useful! :) I know this firsthand: my weight is down to 56 kg at 181 cm. :) LOL You were dubious about the interior detailing of Hobby Boss's 1:32-scale kits of the Consolidated B-24 Liberator USAAF Heavy Bomber. I saw something so extraordinary that I literally paused to watch the video several times to stare at the unprecedented detailing! We may have some difficulty finding the actual aircraft to peruse at length; or faithfully exact books of such examples. It is: “Videos of 1:20 Scale Scratch Built Model of The Consolidated B-24[H Liberator USAAF Heavy Bomber]. Guillermo Rojas Bazán Model Maker: 1:20 scale Consolidated B-24 H Witchcraft- Metal Construction- Museum model commissioned by the 467th Bombardment Group (H) Association. 467th BG Main Site: www.467bg.com / 467th BG Research Site: www.467bg-research.com / Facebook: 467th Bomb Group (H). The Rackheath Aggies / Guillermo Rojas Bazán: www.grojasbazan.com , Saturday, 2 March, 2023.” Given that you have a far better idea than I as to your requirements in your upcoming effort, I shall leave it to you to sort through all that. Perhaps you might make a video applying these people’s lessons of the actual aircraft, and his incorporating into a huge model what you learn. Continuing to search, I since found this:" Boeing B-17 G. Truly Scratch-Built. One-Off Metal Model. Model Engineering." This one is in 1:15-scale!
It is a real treat to watch this come together. I wish I could tell you how genuinely enjoyable this is for me. (I lack the means to do so myself.) I cannot hear your name well enough that I could spell it. RU-vid's closed captioning does not help, naming you "christmas" (no capitalisation). Even sillier, at 5:02 in your video, you refer to the "B-24J", which on-screen reads "v-24 jade". I therefore need your help in this.
Thank you for this candid assessment of the vagaries of building a model kit, especially a recent molding that ought to have better subassembly details. That one would need to cannibalise for parts another kit is unacceptable, yet a reluctant necessity. I had prepared for much as that with Revell Monogram's Boeing B-17F Flying Fortress USAAF Heavy Bomber kit in 1:48 scale, pirating their Boeing B-17G kit for much of the interior details.
Is there any of these diesel engine in 1/35 scale? I am building an U-Boat 1/35 middle section, and I though would be nice to have an engine been inserted into the hull by a crane !!! thanks
