DONE @p.2 +++ 1:72 Brewster ‘Buffalo’ Mk. II; Royal Navy FAA 804 Sq.; Skaebrae, 1941

[PR19_Kit]

110% plausible Thomas. And the Buffalo looks REALLY good in the FAA paint scheme, almost as if it was designed for it. 

Ah, yes, of course it WAS designed for it, silly me., 

[sandiego89]

That turned out great, really like the scheme! 

Is it me, or does our stubby fighter look under-propelled?  The prop looks too small in diameter and chord (no criticism of the build).  perhaps a bit like the similar Wildcat. 

Great work!     

[Weaver]

Great build, and like Kit said, very credible indeed.

It sure does look beat up, doesn't it?

[Old Wombat]

She looks great, Dizzy! 

[Dizzyfugu]

110% plausible Thomas. And the Buffalo looks REALLY good in the FAA paint scheme, almost as if it was designed for it. 

Ah, yes, of course it WAS designed for it, silly me., 

  Thank you, Kit.

[Dizzyfugu]

That turned out great, really like the scheme! 

Is it me, or does our stubby fighter look under-propelled?  The prop looks too small in diameter and chord (no criticism of the build).  perhaps a bit like the similar Wildcat. 

Great work!     

That prop was really that small. But the blunt nose of the F2A and its tubby shape make everything look a bit out of proprotions - the aircraft is actually bigger than it seems!

[Dizzyfugu]

She looks great, Dizzy! 

Thank you, too, glad you like it!