As I said before, as it's 1/35th scale I think it has a relevance to those who model in that scale. I don't however agree with another thread that has been posted by "Dennis the Menace" on aircraft in the Armorama section. If you wanted to adhere to Gino's strict rulings then what do you do about these items. I can see these of interest to armorama modellers because of their subject matter and scale. Whilst they may be of interest to Aero modellers due to them "having wings" the scale would probably put them off not being one that goes with their other aircraft subjests. Then we have a whole load of railway subjects modelled in 1/35, why do you think the reason for that is? Not because it's a scale associated with model railways, but because of the association with armour, military, dioramas. Should these to, under your rules, not be shown in the armorama forums? I think if there is an obvious correlation between the subject, and that it's in the scale of 1/35th, it's potential use, then I see no issue in it appearing here.

Well by that should all 1/48 armour and soft skins be in Aeroscale as 1/48 is mainly an aircraft scale and what about 1/72? What of the Miniart Focke Wulf Triebflügel that's clearly an aircraft but is 1/35 so by your reasoning it's armour.[/quote] Focke Wulf Triebflügel is clearly not an aircraft. Actually, it never existed. And I don't understand how did you come to conclusion that "by my reasoning" it is an armour when we are talking about dioramas? I am just saying that somebody who is making 1/35 vehicles does not have to be an "only armour" fan and that such a person might be interested in this kind of announcement, especially in "Dioramas" part of this site. I mean, if somebody make diorama with 1/35 Fieseler Storch, Pz.Kpfw.III and some figures where is more logical place to post it? Aeroscale or Armorama? And, if Managing Editor have posted this announcement here, I think that he probably know what he is doing. [/quote] Because the Dioramas section is in Armorama hence armour. The Focke Wulf Triebflügel is Luft'46 so an aircraft whether it existed or not just like you have paper panzers. The point is it's in 1/35 so from what you said earlier it should be included in Armorama. Sorry in this case I think the Managing editor is wrong, that's what the latest posts button is for so you can see what's happening across the whole network from just one page.[/quote] ...depending on setup one make on view filter. My friend, you are taking things literally here and you are not respecting that. If flying things should strictly be announced on Aeroscale, then trucks and stuff cars should be on Automodeler forum and trains and railroad wagons should be on Railroadmodeling forum. Not to mention figures... But I don't see anybody complaining about trucks, figures or railroad cars being posted on Armorama. By Tamiyas design 1/35 became commonly excepted as "Armoured" scale. By that philosophy, atleast for me, anything in that scale is belonging here, on Armorama. I have right to that opinion as much as you have right to think that Triebflügel is an aircraft. So, to answer your question, considering scale Triebflügel should be on Armorama but, as it never existed, it shouldn't be anywhere. Greetings, Bogi

The variety of military subjects, tanks, trucks, trains, figures and every now andthan an aircraft is, tmho, what makes this site fun to follow. What you don‘t like just don‘t open.... Enjoy the weekend

Back to the kit ..... Miniarts site says it has 4 marking options. The box art is a 529 Sqn bird ... radar calibration unit. Any clues on the other markings?

Well by that should all 1/48 armour and soft skins be in Aeroscale as 1/48 is mainly an aircraft scale and what about 1/72? What of the Miniart Focke Wulf Triebflügel that's clearly an aircraft but is 1/35 so by your reasoning it's armour.[/quote] Focke Wulf Triebflügel is clearly not an aircraft. Actually, it never existed. And I don't understand how did you come to conclusion that "by my reasoning" it is an armour when we are talking about dioramas? I am just saying that somebody who is making 1/35 vehicles does not have to be an "only armour" fan and that such a person might be interested in this kind of announcement, especially in "Dioramas" part of this site. I mean, if somebody make diorama with 1/35 Fieseler Storch, Pz.Kpfw.III and some figures where is more logical place to post it? Aeroscale or Armorama? And, if Managing Editor have posted this announcement here, I think that he probably know what he is doing. [/quote] Because the Dioramas section is in Armorama hence armour. The Focke Wulf Triebflügel is Luft'46 so an aircraft whether it existed or not just like you have paper panzers. The point is it's in 1/35 so from what you said earlier it should be included in Armorama. Sorry in this case I think the Managing editor is wrong, that's what the latest posts button is for so you can see what's happening across the whole network from just one page.[/quote] ...depending on setup one make on view filter. My friend, you are taking things literally here and you are not respecting that. If flying things should strictly be announced on Aeroscale, then trucks and stuff cars should be on Automodeler forum and trains and railroad wagons should be on Railroadmodeling forum. Not to mention figures... But I don't see anybody complaining about trucks, figures or railroad cars being posted on Armorama. By Tamiyas design 1/35 became commonly excepted as "Armoured" scale. By that philosophy, atleast for me, anything in that scale is belonging here, on Armorama. I have right to that opinion as much as you have right to think that Triebflügel is an aircraft. So, to answer your question, considering scale Triebflügel should be on Armorama but, as it never existed, it shouldn't be anywhere. Greetings, Bogi[/quote] So by your last sentence as paper paneers didn’t exist they also don’t belong anywhere either. But you didn’t answer the question about the other scales which have a very large crossover between subjects. You don’t see loads of 1/72 or 1/48 aircraft in the news section of Armorama they by your thinking have the same right to be in the news as lots of people model armour in those scales so why no “here’s a new 1/72 xyz helicopter/ship”? If it’s ok for one scale why not the others.

Because, as I tried to explain, 1/35 is an armoured scale while 1/72 and 1/48 are aircraft default scales. Now you answer my question - why are aircrafts treated differently than trucks, cars or railroad items? All of them have dedicated parts of Kitmaker network.

It's not about just scale, it's about relevance. Why would manufacturers such as Miniart, Bronco and others manufacturer these items in 1/35 scale, a very well known scale for virtually containing only armour and it related subjects if that wasn't their potential market area? Pretty easy to understand I would have thought.

Ok so why then are 1/72 and 1/48 vehicles not in Aeroscale by your logic if they are aircraft scales? They are clearly tanks or military soft skin so belong in Armorama. This subject is an aircraft so belongs in Aeroscale. Answer to your question, because they have always been seen as add ons to ground based military subjects and in most cases are models of equipment operated by military ground units. The military does use soft skin you know, it’s not all about armour. While this subject is clearly an aircraft operated by an airforce not the army.

Because they have always been seen as add ons?! By who? You are putting somebody's opinion as a proof while not allowing me to have mine by constantly putting words in to my mouth. Triebflügel, paper panzers, 1/72, 1/48 - those are all words brought by you into this conversation, not me. All I am trying to say here is that I don't see a reason why 1/35 aircraft shouldn't be announced on place where all other 1/35 items do. If I am collecting 1/32 airplanes like I used to, I wouldn't see this Avro 671 interesting at all because it is not in scale I am collecting. How hard is this to understand? This is my personal opinion and I don't see why are you trying to prove me wrong here when it's much easier to discard it? Greetings, Bogi