This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here:

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


Gold Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

612 Excellent

About JasonC

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bath, UK
  • Interests
    1/48 props, WW2 & onwards.
    Occasionally armour.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,680 profile views
  1. Propeller Starting, for lack of a better idea, at the front of the aircraft, the propeller blades were the first parts that I modelled. There is a ‘loft’ function in the software that will create a solid shape from a series of cross sections, much in the same way that lofts are used in traditional shipbuilding. Lacking better information I assumed the propeller cross section to be a Clark Y aerofoil, which was not uncommon for period propellers. Of course, the cross section won’t be terribly obvious in the final article, but it should at least give a convincing look to the prop. Having drawn out the aerofoil in 2D within the software, it was then duplicated and scaled to give the tapering sectional shapes as one progresses along the blade. The root sections were thickened up in order to accommodate the shaft leading into the spinner and hub. The sections were then rotated to give the twist down the length of the blade. The final arrangement of sections is shown below. One then presses the ‘loft’ button and presto, a solid propeller blade appears. I’m aware that the tip shape is not right; due to vagaries of the loft feature I think it’ll be easier to manually trim the tip into the correct ‘steak knife’ profile. Mildly interesting is the fact that the LE and TE of the blades are more or less parallel from root to about two-thirds length. In some photos this is obvious, in others the twist obfuscates matters slightly. [After doing the prop I mostly transitioned to Fusion 360 for modelling. This offers much more functionality than 123D, at the cost of greater complexity and a longer learning curve. In the end I didn’t think I could do some of the more complex shapes in 123D.]
  2. It is easy to be wise after the event, and it is in some such light that one cannot help viewing the probable work of the Firebrand in the Pacific had not Japan surrendered. As it is, this aircraft has not had a chance to prove its formidable capabilities against our erstwhile active enemies. That the aircraft is formidable there can be no doubt and the writer cannot help but feel a twinge of regret that circumstances, past and recent, prevented it from demonstrating the quality of its powers. - Flight, September 27th 1945 It was never my favourite aeroplane, and we would have been very poorly placed if it had been necessary to go to war strapped to such a lumbering giant. - Cdr Maurice Tibby I like Firebrands. To me it’s one of those rare aircraft that unfortunately did not benefit from the ‘if it looks right…’ rule of thumb. Despite looking very much the part of the capable carrier strike aircraft, it was rather lacking in too many respects. As far as appearances go though, in my opinion it’s a winner. The front half resembles a leaner Sea Fury, without the camel hump rather detracts from the latter’s lines. Even that barn door of a fin doesn’t entirely diminish the overall impression of ruggedness. The choice in 1/48 is limited to Magna’s resin offering, and the various online reviews of said kit don’t inspire a massive desire to search out an example. I seem to remember, at a SMW long ago, that Dynavector showed a prototype master for the Firebrand for their next vac release. Sadly they exited the kit business not long afterwards. For a while I’ve idly entertained the possibility of scratchbuilding a Firebrand, and recently I’ve made some small movements in actually doing something about it. Time will tell whether it gets very far. I don’t expect this to progress rapidly, so if you’re tempted to use the ‘popcorn’ emoji then be sure to stock up. If in the meantime someone goes ahead and releases a decent kit, then no one will be happier than I. Anyway, the current intention is to 3D print some of the more complex parts (propeller blades, cowling perhaps) and use ‘traditional’ scratchbuilding techniques for other parts of the airframe. That notwithstanding, I think it’s likely that I shall end up drafting most of the airframe in 3D, since I think this might be useful for scratchbuilding purposes (e.g. for creating bulkheads, ribs, and other cross sections). To do this I’m getting to grips with a couple of free 3D packages, namely Autodesk’s 123D and Fusion 360. Of which more later. Expect this thread to be a series of semi-random posts as I flit back and forth between research, 3D modelling and, eventually, perhaps even some proper plastic bashing. By no means do I consider myself a Firebrand expert (plus I’m learning the software as I go along), so if anyone has any hints or advice in either area they would be most welcome. cheers, Jason
  3. Top of my head, just the more common types and manufacturers: French Dewoitine 520 - Tamiya Italian Macchi MC202/205 - Hasegawa (or Eduard rebox) Fiat CR.42 - Italeri Polish PZL.11 - Mirage Hobby Soviet I-16 - Eduard (ICM upcoming) I-153 - ICM Yak-3 - Zvezda La-5FN - Zvezda
  4. Very interesting, thanks. The eBay item is indeed very keenly priced for a 3D printed model. After a bit of searching, the same item is listed on Shapeways (it shows the same renders at least) at significantly greater cost ($100), even for the 1/87 version. It would be great to see some photos of the kit when you get it. Always had a thing for the Bloodhound. regards, Jason
  5. If they're in-house I would, at this stage, go to their desk, smile, and offer to sit beside them as they lay out your card. You would thus, in the nicest possible way, demonstrate that you wouldn't trust them to make a cup of tea, while at the same time hopefully getting the card you want. J.
  6. Here's another view of DZ367 (in the background): Personally I would go with Ocean Grey for the spinners. It would be unusual to see them painted dark green. cheers, Jason
  7. Having played with it for a couple of days, this does indeed seem to be the issue. Still a little annoying, but at least it's a known annoyance! Thanks for looking into this Mike. cheers, Jason
  8. In the Spitfire at least, the pilot sat on it. J.
  9. Still the same issue on Android. J.
  10. Same issue here. It happens on my phone (Android Dolphin), home PC (MS Edge) and work PC (IE11), all starting in the last few days. That suggests to me that it is indeed a site issue. regards, Jason
  11. Not to my knowledge. In both 1/72 and 1/48, your best bet may be to buy two sets of the Quickboost 5-stack exhausts, and cut up the second set for the extra stacks. cheers, Jason
  12. I find the IPMS Stockholm 190 guide very useful as well. It may just be my simple mind, but I like the fact that it has pictures.
  13. Indeed, though Lennie's is sadly no longer an option! Not doing too badly here, but struggling to find time to work on my Mossie. My paint stinks the place out, so I need to wait until other half and mini-me are safely away... Hornet is looking smart under the primer; look forward to the paint scheme going on. J.
  14. The apparent framing (note the different colour) around the front panes of the windscreen are the result of the sealing compound at the edges of the glass. A very thin, dark line might be appropriate I suppose. cheers, Jason