Profile Photo
Felix
22 articles

Airfix Hawker Tempest Mk. V Post War

May 28, 2024 · in Aviation · · 35 · 383

Just completed this post-war Mk. V in 72nd scale. The scheme shows a plane from No. 80 squadron in Germany in 1946.

Painted with Ammo Mig and AK Interactive acrylics, an Ammo Mig light grey acrylic filter, Vallejo matte varnish and some sky grey panel line wash by Ammo Mig. Oh, and some chipping fluid for the weathering around the black areas.

Stunning kit except for the overly thick trailing edges and the super fidly antenna, which of course broke of. And of course i made a major mistake with decals, let's see if you can find it. I decided to not change it in order to fight my compulsive perfectionism ๐Ÿ™‚

And Airfix, how about that Hunter in 72nd scale now..

Reader reactions:
10  Awesome 1 

9 additional images. Click to enlarge.


35 responses

  1. Tempests always look cool, Felix (@fxrob). Well done. I don't know why the decals are wrong without doing some research. Just guessing, maybe the code letters are in the wrong order on one of the sides.

    • Ha, close but wrong, George @blair! ๐Ÿ™‚ The Tempest is a very elegant plane, isn't it. It's big but very sleek at the same time. Apparently they are trying to bring a Mk. V back to life, it would be very cool to see that one fly.

  2. Very nice Felix@fxrob!
    Tempests did have some non standard applications of code letters ( 486 Sqn ) so that this may just be another example!

  3. Definitely a wonderful Tempest, Felix @fxrob
    The blue nose is a nice accent to this elegant aircraft.
    At first I had the impression that it was 1/48

  4. Great result, Felix.

  5. Nice work on this Tempest, it turned out well.

  6. Fantastic job, Felix! Cannot find the glitch๐Ÿ˜Š

  7. I love the Tempest and you did a great job with this one. My entry into the erroneous marking placement sweepstakes is the orientation of the buzz codes on one of the wings. Then again, they might be correct as it would have been a good idea to be able to read them approaching and after the aircraft had passed. In that case I am going to go with the wing top roundels being smaller than the under wing roundels, though that size marking is borne out for โ€œsome aircraftโ€ in the 2nd Tactical Air Force, Volume 4, p. 639.

    • Dear Russell @russjurco
      Thanks a lot for your compliments. It's a big yet an elegant bird, isn't it! It's not the buzz codes but the blue logo on the left tail wing, as seen in the last picture.

  8. A fine looking Tempest!

  9. Good looking Tempest, despite any "erroneous" decal placement! Perfectionism - what's that?!

  10. Absolutely stunning Felix. I'm not savvy enough to see where the problem lies. So just a wonderful Tempest Felix. D

    • Thank you so much, Guy @thom! It's really just a rather small detail, but you know how us scale modellers are, we're somewhat perfectionists!

  11. Awesome build Felix. Not knowing to much about British markings I couldn't even guess what the error would be.

  12. Awesome Tempest, Felix (@fxrob). Amazing work.
    I'm 'tempted' to suggest that the insignia on the bottom of the wings should not be outlined in yellow. - they should just be Blue-White-Red, no yellow.

  13. That's a very nice Tempest Felix. Great work. I love the paint work and panel lining.

    That roundel on the starboard wing is upside down mate ๐Ÿ˜€

  14. Fantastic Tempest you have there, Felix!
    Love the paint job and subtle weathering, which makes the model look bigger and more realistic than an 1/72.
    Top notch ๐Ÿ‘

    • Dear Alfred @alfred, thanks a lot for your nice comments! It's a great kit with really no flaws, so that helps a lot. Besides, the Tempest really IS a big bird!

  15. Excellent finish Felix.

  16. Very nice job!

  17. Very nice indeed Sir.
    I have both the initial release (D-Day striped Srs.1 a/c)and the post war boxing,with an idea to use both
    the cammo and the silver a/c decals from the post war boxing.
    The plastic is the same in both boxings,just the instructions and decals differ.

Leave a Reply