Jump to content
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. :)

gingerbob

Members
  • Content count

    4,810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,558 Excellent

About gingerbob

  • Rank
    I always wanted to be a boffin when I grew up
  • Birthday 20/03/65

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bucksport Maine USA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,133 profile views
  1. Cheshire Mosquito

    Of course, it also has the flat-front "fighter" canopy, so...
  2. Avro Lancaster Question

    A more professional answer will come along, I'm sure, but early production had clear windows. Later they were painted over and/or replaced by sheet metal/deleted altogether. bob
  3. Bearcat Controls

    Per Flight and E&M Manuals, both ailerons have a spring tab, the left (port) one also serving as an adjustable trim tab. Elevators and rudder have adjustable trim tabs. A spring tab serves to reduce the air load on a deflected control surface, by moving opposite the basic surface's deflection. It is quite likely that someone misunderstood the "spring" term. The flight manual said nothing special about the stick, which I would think it would if it were "spring loaded". bob
  4. Revell 1/32 Mk 22/24 Spitfire

    As long as you're using the internal-glass (flat-front and sides) style, they're theoretically the same. How different kits render them on the other hand...
  5. 1/48 Tamiya F4F-4

    I hate seeing lovely builds like this where the person says, "Oh, first model in decades, just threw it together on a whim..."! One comment in the spirit of constructive criticism: I like the touch of dropping the elevators, but they strike me as too extreme an angle?
  6. Spitfire 22 1/32 Revell

    The kit IS as bad as you think, but the build does a superb job of hiding that fact!
  7. hawker tornado prototype build/conversion suggestion

    You can find the occasional blueprint, but most of the files I looked at were primarily memos, etc. Not very sexy if you're only thinking of what your model looks like, but dangerously fascinating if you are willing to put in some time and attention. I recommend doing a fair amount of study first, so that you have a better idea of what questions you really want to find answers to, and so that you can better appreciate the random gems that you will stumble upon along the way. For the Air Classics article, did you contact the gent who mentioned it? bob
  8. hawker tornado prototype build/conversion suggestion

    Sorry, forgot about this question- yes, I have seen AVIA 46/120, but alas I did not take more than a very few initial notes. I did take notes on several other files that pertain to the Tornado, but it would take some time to refresh my "knowledge". bob
  9. tamiya 1/32 supermarine mk 1xc-a

    Here's the thread you mention, not the other one you've been searching for (click on this). You can send him a private message if you hover over his avatar, in one of his posts (something should pop up with the option "Message" at lower left). Hope this helps, and I'm going to see if I can find that other thread/forum you mention... Nope, I didn't see him actually offer a link to the other place, and the photos seem to have fallen victim to Photobucket's Phiasco. But at least you can try to contact him now. (I note that he hasn't been on since late August, but he should get an e-mail (I think) alerting him that you've sent him a message.) bob
  10. A nice box was at the post office today- thanks Danny! I also received decals for the F-104S the other day- thanks Larry (@ReccePhreak)! Here's a nice page about my (second) choice, mainly so that I can find it again, but also for viewer enjoyment. That's me leaning casually on the pitot in one shot (not). I confess I haven't done anything useful on the actual models lately- still in a funk/panic about employment, or rather money. (If I had the latter, I wouldn't care about the former...) I have to say, though, that you chaps make it look very easy to get to the "gee whiz, look at that pointy fuselage!" stage, and now I don't have the excuse of waiting for possible alternate parts.
  11. Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

    I thought he simply meant that the specific configuration of this aircraft changed over time? In terms of retro, I think you would have to "file off" the existing stub, then patch the hole. I think it is very unlikely that erks would disassemble the leading-edge structure enough to change out the cannon-port part. I think that the Seafire III, on the other hand, introduced a single-port part, but I don't know that for a fact.
  12. Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

    Yes, the Merlin 66 is what made it an LF IX- lower gear-change altitude compared to the Merlin 61/63.
  13. Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

    I think that EP813 may not be correct. The aircraft in the photo is a 'c' (note longish cylindrical portion of cannon, and position of blister on the wing), not a 'b', and EP813 does appear to have been a 'b' by production date. I suppose it is possible that the wing was changed at some point, but more likely, perhaps, that someone made an error of identification. I'm familiar with the photo, but don't recall seeing a serial associated with it before (not that that means anything!) bob
  14. Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

    Peter, the explanation given to you by the pilots sounds like the sort of story one comes up with using deductive reasoning. If 'B' meant boost, in contrast to the Mk.V, why would it not have appeared until the LF, nearly a year after introduction of the (F) Mk.IX? Most likely to me (using deductive reasoning!) is that the LF was the second variation of the Mk.IX, thus 'B', second letter of the alphabet. What is most curious to me is how persistent "IXB" was, well after the official designation 'LF IX' was promulgated. I'm afraid that I haven't found a definitive explanation for the retention of the stub either, but anticipation of the 'e' armament change (on IX and XIV) probably had something to do with it. The logical thing would have been to incorporate a single-port part during production, as was done on Seafires. It is possible that this WAS done for a time, because the aircraft that I've identified without the stub mostly come from a pretty tight MA and MH serial range (going on memory). As for retro, I think you're right that it was more work than many people would care to undertake for the very small gain. [Hmm, the Seafire case gives me an idea- if we can find the part number callout (or drawing for the single-port part), that might give us some information.] EDIT: Your RAAF info was new to me, and interesting- thanks! I've got the idea that there's a photo of MH434 in wartime service sans second port, but I may be mixing that up- a very quick google didn't show me the image I expected to see, and that's as far as I've gone so far- I'll have to fire up the other computer to check my records!
  15. hawker tornado prototype build/conversion suggestion

    Perhaps the gearing was different, but it would be more likely, perhaps, that Mr. Camm would say, "This is how big the prop can be," and the engine manufacturer would tailor the gear ratio accordingly. So, right idea, wrong sequence?
×