Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

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

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      Switched Identities   18/06/17

      If you are still having problems logging in and remaining under your own username following the DDoS attack last week, you need to log off, clear your browser's cache, and restart your browser to ensure you clear all the old files from your temporary area.  Then you should be sorted.

JasonC

Gold Member
  • Content count

    874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

642 Excellent

About JasonC

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,769 profile views
  1. To address your questions in turn - Yes, and Just about. From London you're looking at about 2.5 hours by train and then a 15minute walk at the other end. It means a long day if you want a decent amount of time at the museum. Driving is about the same amount of time. cheers, Jason
  2. And without said surfaces: TRAINING FLEET AIR ARM PILOTS IN TORPEDO DROPPING. ROYAL NAVAL AIR STATION, CRAIL.. © IWM (A 3535)IWM Non Commercial Licence Note that the above photo is captioned as being from a training station.
  3. I don't think the MAT is what the OP was referring to. As Jure indicates, it's rather the rudders that sit aft of the cruciform fins at the rear of the torpedo. For example: ROYAL AIR FORCE: 1939-1945: COASTAL COMMAND. © IWM (CH 1854)IWM Non Commercial Licence J.
  4. Type 69 I believe, which in turn is very similar to the 59 but has a different headlight arrangement amongst other things. J.
  5. Going by the roadwheel spacing and headlight position, the latter looks like a Type 69: Chinese T-54/55 variant. J.
  6. Hi Guy, Thanks for your post. I've sent you a PM. regards, Jason
  7. Creating fuselage stations. Some were based on the available sections from plans, and I've had to eyeball some intermediate ones. And the result after lofting through the stations. Obviously a lot left to do, but it's feeling like progress! You can see in the above pic the makings of the prominent slot at the rear of the Centaurus cowl - a feature of both the Sea Fury and Firebrand installations of the engine. cheers, J.
  8. You just need to take the link itself, in this case http://s17.....etc and put {img} before it, and {/img} at the end. Note that the brackets should be square brackets (i.e. [ & ]), but I can't use them otherwise the software tries to parse it. cheers, Jason
  9. Played around a bit with the 'chin'. J.
  10. As you say, primer. Preferably something solvent based, like a spray primer (Halfords, Tamiya, Gunze, etc). Water based acrylics don't have the best adhesion to bare plastic. regards, Jason
  11. Hi Christer, There is a small cross section (at the correct fuselage station) in one set of plans, but how good is anyone's guess. FWIW, I've been looking at the 'keel' as well and wondering about the width of it. To a large extent its size would depend on its function, but sadly the cutaways I've seen are at the wrong angle to show this area. I think I'll have a bit of a play and see how it looks with this area made a little broader. cheers, Jason
  12. Thanks Clive. If you see any major howlers feel free to shout; I'd welcome any thoughts.
  13. Cheer for the pointers. In the end, I found a way to create a full 360-degree sweep, while maintaining a port/starboard mirrored relationship between the two sides. So that should hopefully avoid the issue you've described. Anyway, I've created the deeper cowl by tweaking the edges and vertices. Going from this: To this: and from the front: J.
  14. That's a great model in its own right, and the effort you've made to re-create your WoT ride add something extra on top. Love it! J.
  15. Cowling Sat within the cowling is Bristol’s doughty Centaurus. On first inspection the aspiring scratchbuilder (i.e. muggins) might entertain notions of using the cowling from, say, a Sea Fury kit for this project. Sadly there are some differences vis a vis the Firebrand that make this problematic. Firstly, the Sea Fury cowl is cylindrical and axi-symmetric; i.e. as near as dammit parallel top and bottom (obligatory red lines for emphasis): The Firebrand cowl is not: As far as I can tell the difference is principally around the lower section, which features a deeper ‘chin’, thereby throwing the cross section out of round. What this extra depth accommodates I’m not sure, but I suspect it has something to do with the inlet scoop visible in the photo above. It’s as well to note at this point that I don’t fully trust any of the commonly available Firebrand plans. One area that urges caution is the profile of the cowl. Some drawings show a very pronounced and deep chin, which I don’t believe is borne out by photographs. Since this area is rather important to the overall look of the Firebrand, I’m keen to make a good a job of it as possible. In no particular order: Of these, I’m more inclined to trust the last* (hereafter AoFP), although I have reservations in other areas. [*And no, not just because it has more lines] It’s always tricky comparing against photographs, but the fact that said plans don’t even agree with each other suggests that something is amiss somewhere. Given evidence like the photographs below, I think the Firebrand cowl is somewhat leaner than the first two drawings suggest. Other differences (to the Sea Fury) include the shape of the area behind the exhaust stubs*, and the point at which the nose profile begins to incline towards the windscreen. [*Also note that the Sea Fury features nine stubs per bank in this area, versus the Firebrand’s eight. The two remaining stubs on the Firebrand exhaust on the underside] So how to model it in 3D? Another nifty feature of 123D and Fusion 360 is the ability to ‘sweep’ a cross section around a central axis to generate a solid. A process demonstrated here. The astute amongst you will have already noted that this method will give an axi-symmetric cowl around the central axis; correct for the Sea Fury style, but not the Firebrand. All is not lost however; Fusion 360 allows basic shapes to be tweaked after creation– hopefully into something resembling a Firebrand. The cross section has been created based on a Bristol Centaurus installation drawing (below). This is a generic installation drawing from Bristol and not (I believe) specifically for the Firebrand. However the principle is fairly standard between installations, and the unit is so closely cowled that it should be representative enough. Another detail that gives some confidence is the presence of the cooling fan (Item 1, green), which is a feature of the Firebrand Centaurus installation. The relevant cross section is shown in red (for a change). I’ve thickened the rear section in order to give enough thickness for 3D printing when reduced to scale size. I’ve done a 180 degree section rather than the full 360. I think it might be easier to work on a half section and mirror it, rather than try and keep everything symmetrical as I tinker with the shape. J.