[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Taking 'nit-picking' aka 'rivet-counting' to new and uninspiring heights ...

Just pointing out some of my observations and did not mean to offend. I was under the impression that part of this forum was to discuss diecast and in some aspects dealing with how well some of these aircraft measure up as far as accuracy goes. Must have been mistaken on that point though. It's just that quite awhile back I remember someone got all jumped on because they referred to these models as toys. The argument being that these are supposed to be accurate display models and not toys. Yes I do enjoy rivet counting so to speak and measuring the model dimensions out to see just how well the companies did in representing these aircraft. I have little interested in how collectable a model is, but have tons of fun in researching how well these are made and digging up some of their background history while I am at it.

[smartd]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Just pointing out some of my observations and did not mean to offend. I was under the impression that part of this forum was to discuss diecast and in some aspects dealing with how well some of these aircraft measure up as far as accuracy goes. Must have been mistaken on that point though. Its just that quite awhile back I remember someone got all jumped on because they referred to these models as toys. The argument being that these are supposed to be accurate display models and not toys. Yes I do enjoy rivet counting so to speak and measuring the model dimensions out to see just how well the companies did in representing these aircraft. I have little interested in the collectability of a model, but have tons of fun in researching how well these are made and digging up some of their background history while I am at it.

We have always appreciated your efforts in doing just that CC.

[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Just pointing out some of my observations and did not mean to offend. I was under the impression that part of this forum was to discuss diecast and in some aspects dealing with how well some of these aircraft measure up as far as accuracy goes. Must have been mistaken on that point though. Its just that quite awhile back I remember someone got all jumped on because they referred to these models as toys. The argument being that these are supposed to be accurate display models and not toys. Yes I do enjoy rivet counting so to speak and measuring the model dimensions out to see just how well the companies did in representing these aircraft. I have little interested in the collectability of a model, but have tons of fun in researching how well these are made and digging up some of their background history while I am at it.

CC, I'm not at all offended. I have the very same Spitfire, and was interested in seeing how it's a little off. It won't take away any of my enjoyment of this fine model, however.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Just pointing out some of my observations and did not mean to offend. I was under the impression that part of this forum was to discuss diecast and in some aspects dealing with how well some of these aircraft measure up as far as accuracy goes. Must have been mistaken on that point though. It's just that quite awhile back I remember someone got all jumped on because they referred to these models as toys. The argument being that these are supposed to be accurate display models and not toys. Yes I do enjoy rivet counting so to speak and measuring the model dimensions out to see just how well the companies did in representing these aircraft. I have little interested in how collectable a model is, but have tons of fun in researching how well these are made and digging up some of their background history while I am at it.

Cruver Collector, your comments were in no way offensive and I hope that my views were also not perceived as being overly harsh . I also enjoy researching models/aircraft but sometimes just feel there's a 'malaise' on the forum where we (I include myself in this) sometimes are excessive in our 'taking a model apart' comments and that this may reduce the enjoyment that some collectors get from a particular model that they may own or wish to purchase - sometimes 'ignorance is bliss' ...

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

CC, I'm not at all offended. I have the very same Spitfire, and was interested in seeing how it's a little off. It won't take away any of my enjoyment of this fine model, however.

It does have some fine detail. Take for example the wing tip navigation lights, which I do believe are only properly represented on this model (On the Gemini Aces Spitfire models). One other feature, though to some may seem minor, is how well they molded the tail wheel assembly. My personal favorite would be in regards to the informational stencils found on the model, these small details add to the realism of a model.

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Cruver Collector, your comments were in no way offensive and I hope that my views were also not perceived as being overly harsh . I also enjoy researching models/aircraft but sometimes just feel there's a 'malaise' on the forum where we (I include myself in this) sometimes are excessive in our 'taking a model apart' comments and that this may reduce the enjoyment that some collectors get from a particular model that they may own or wish to purchase - sometimes 'ignorance is bliss' ...

I kind of look at it from the flip side. No such thing as a perfect model, but it is fun to see just how close do some of these companies get. The Gemini Ace Bf 109F was another one that was much fun giving it the once over. Another nice feature of these models is that they are fairly reasonably priced, and are nicely unsightly seam free. There are some pricier models out there that cannot make that claim. I have to admit it is fun to hunt some of these down, but for me the real enjoyment starts when the box opens and I can take a good long hard look at how accurate it was made.

[SkyBuffalo]

Does anyone out there have this GA Spitfire? :

GeminiAces GARAF1005
Spitfire MkIX Diecast Model
RAF No.126 Sqn, John Plagis, RAF Culmhead, England, January 1943

The info. and picture of this plane on the FlyingMule website has me confused! The pictures have the plane covered in D-Day invasion stripes, yet the text states that its supposed to be from January 1943 (ahhh ... year and a half before D-Day).

So are the pictures wrong or is the text wrong or am I missing something?

[leeG]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

Does anyone out there have this GA Spitfire? :

GeminiAces GARAF1005
Spitfire MkIX Diecast Model
RAF No.126 Sqn, John Plagis, RAF Culmhead, England, January 1943

The info. and picture of this plane on the FlyingMule website has me confused! The pictures have the plane covered in D-Day invasion stripes, yet the text states that its supposed to be from January 1943 (ahhh ... year and a half before D-Day).

So are the pictures wrong or is the text wrong or am I missing something?

GARAF1005 has full invasion stripes.
From the box:

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. LF IX
(ML214) 5J - K
Sqn. Ldr. John Plagis
RAF No. 126 Sqn.
Culmhead,1944
(15 aerial victories)

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

Does anyone out there have this GA Spitfire? :

GeminiAces GARAF1005
Spitfire MkIX Diecast Model
RAF No.126 Sqn, John Plagis, RAF Culmhead, England, January 1943

The info. and picture of this plane on the FlyingMule website has me confused! The pictures have the plane covered in D-Day invasion stripes, yet the text states that its supposed to be from January 1943 (ahhh ... year and a half before D-Day).

So are the pictures wrong or is the text wrong or am I missing something?

The site I have listed below had this statement which seems to answer the question you asked. In July 1944 he commanded No 126 Squadron in his Spitfire IX “5J-K” ML214, with which he scored four more victories during July and August. There is some more information on this site that provides a bit more information..

John Plagis

[rdenham]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Yep, correct description would be that the vertical stabilizer fillet is out of position and to far back.

The rear of the rudder should not be so rounded, especially the area were the trim tab is.