Martian Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Alclad say not to use decal so;vents with their products, so I would be inclined to mask off the nose ring and spray a barrier coat of varnish over the model. I don't know about other makes of varnish but I found Tamiya gloss worked fine for me. Great work. Martin Edited January 30, 2012 by martin hale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Wow, she's looking great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 martin hale said: Alclad say not to use decal so;vents with their products, so I would be inclined to mask off the nose ring and spray a barrier coat of varnish over the model. I don't know about other makes of varnish but I found Tamiya gloss worked fine for me. Great work. Martin  Thanks, Martin! I wonder if anyone has tried the Aqua Clear product from Alclad? I have a bottle for some reason or another, but I've not used it. I will head over to their website and see what they say about it. I can always send an e-mail to Tony, he is very responsive. My main concern is that varnish over the Alclad might remove some of its metallic sheen. That certainly happens with Testor's Metallizer and Gunze's Mr. Metal Color when you overcoat with sealer.  Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrvr6 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Alclad say not to use decal so;vents with their products, so I would be inclined to mask off the nose ring and spray a barrier coat of varnish over the model. I don't know about other makes of varnish but I found Tamiya gloss worked fine for me.Great work. Martin iv tried to spray tamiya gloss coat before but failed miserably neat = blocked brush thinned = poor/dull finish how do you do it? ps lightniing looks AWESOME!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 That's looking really sweet - soooo much better than the original kit! Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Looks great, top job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Iain (32SIG) said: That's looking really sweet - soooo much better than the original kit! Iain  Thanks Iain! I take that as a great compliment coming from a Lightning expert such as yourself! I'm really looking forward to your completion of the 1:32 scale corrections that you're working on. If those become available in resin, etc. it may convince me to step up from Braille Scale and tackle another big one! I used to make 1:32 kits all the time but ran out of room for display!  Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbuna Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Looking great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 iv tried to spray tamiya gloss coat before but failed miserablyneat = blocked brush thinned = poor/dull finish how do you do it? ps lightniing looks AWESOME!! I just thinned it 50/50 with Tamiya thinners and blasted away. I did this on my TSR2 and it came out fine. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennygman Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 What a stunning finish, that looks brilliant! Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thats a gorgeous paint job there - love the 92 Sqn colours!! The only negative comment I would have is the nose ring - I'd have lost a mm or two from the front to reduce its depth. But glad to see it getting there!! Notes made for my stalled F1a! Well done Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Don't you dare open those airbrakes ?? Great work so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Gary West said: Don't you dare open those airbrakes ?? Great work so far  LOL - my pilot is in a lot of trouble as I've mentioned before. Not only has he left the nose wheel turned, but he's also left the flaps down and the air brakes open! He has to belly up to the bar in the officer's club and pay for these transgressions!  (I'm leaving the airbrakes open because Eduard provides such a nice PE placard to place inside...)  Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Bill Clark said: Thats a gorgeous paint job there - love the 92 Sqn colours!! The only negative comment I would have is the nose ring - I'd have lost a mm or two from the front to reduce its depth. But glad to see it getting there!! Notes made for my stalled F1a! Well done Bill! Â Thanks, Bill! I did not modify the Quickboost nose ring, as I remember it is 4mm in depth, as was the Matchbox part. The Trumpeter nose ring was 5mm. You wouldn't happen to have the dimension for the depth of the actual nose ring would you? I did compare the Quickboost part to my drawings and it looked pretty good, but as we've seen drawings can be wrong. I'm not sure that I could modify the nose ring now, as it is pretty firmly attached to the fuselage. Besides, I'm getting anxious to start putting all the transfers on!! Â Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I measured the depth of the nose ring on the F6 at Coventry last year - I have the dimensions in a notebook somewhere but bu**ered if I can find them right now. Will have a hunt and (hopefully) report back. Does look a little on the deep side... Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skii Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Thanks, Bill! I did not modify the Quickboost nose ring, as I remember it is 4mm in depth, as was the Matchbox part. The Trumpeter nose ring was 5mm. You wouldn't happen to have the dimension for the depth of the actual nose ring would you? I did compare the Quickboost part to my drawings and it looked pretty good, but as we've seen drawings can be wrong. I'm not sure that I could modify the nose ring now, as it is pretty firmly attached to the fuselage. Besides, I'm getting anxious to start putting all the transfers on!!Cheers, Bill Hi Bill Can you not just mask the ring to the right depth and spray the fuselage aluminium to hide the last mm ? Beautiful job btw - and yes I'd wash it John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Skii said: Hi Bill Can you not just mask the ring to the right depth and spray the fuselage aluminium to hide the last mm ? Beautiful job btw - and yes I'd wash it John  That would be the easiest way to do it. And since the overall length of the model appears to be very close to what it should be, based on comparison to my drawings, it would probably be the right way to do it. However, a concern that I have is that the diameter of the front opening of the intake ring appears too small (I need to study this more) - if I were to sand this back it would take care of that concern and the overall length issue. I agree with everyone that it looks a bit deep compared to photos. I measured the length of the ring on my 1:72 drawings and they're both spot on at 4mm...so I'm really interested in learning of what it is on an actual bird.  Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Getting caught up with your progress over the last couple of months Bill. Great job capturing the stance of a Lightning regardless of Trumpeter's attempts. Take it the airbrakes open/flaps down/nosewheel deflected means we will see a pilot in the 'pit? Never enough crew in modern kits these days for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Navy Bird said: That would be the easiest way to do it. And since the overall length of the model appears to be very close to what it should be, based on comparison to my drawings, it would probably be the right way to do it. However, a concern that I have is that the diameter of the front opening of the intake ring appears too small (I need to study this more) - if I were to sand this back it would take care of that concern and the overall length issue. I agree with everyone that it looks a bit deep compared to photos. I measured the length of the ring on my 1:72 drawings and they're both spot on at 4mm...so I'm really interested in learning of what it is on an actual bird. Cheers, Bill  Or maybe someone can measure the depth of the intake ring on the 1:48 scale Airfix kit?  Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Aha - found it!!! Ring depth at mid point on side 265mm Ring depth at bottom 258mmm So, extrapolating - ring depth @ top 272mm All measurements along surface - from leading edge to panel joint - rather than perpendicular to the vertical. In 1:72 that would be 3.77mm top and 3.58mm bottom. And some kit dimensions (Mk 1 eyeball and rule - not a micrometer): Echelon 1:32 - dia 33mm - depth @ top 8, bottom 7.5 Airfix 1:48 - dia 22.7mm - depth @ top 5.5mm, bottom 5mm Hope that helps... Iain EDIT - there was also some discussion on the position of the nose gear bay on the 1:32 kit. I've got noted down on my pad a distance of 600mm from nose ring bottom leading edge to the front edge of the nosewheel bay. Less the 258mm ring thickness at the bottom this gives 342mm from panel line to the front edge of gear bay - 10.68 in 1:32 - kit is out by less than 1mm at the front edge! Crikey... Edited February 1, 2012 by Iain (32SIG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-32 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Lovely, very nice indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Iain (32SIG) said: Aha - found it!!! Ring depth at mid point on side 265mm Ring depth at bottom 258mmm So, extrapolating - ring depth @ top 272mm All measurements along surface - from leading edge to panel joint - rather than perpendicular to the vertical. In 1:72 that would be 3.77mm top and 3.58mm bottom. And some kit dimensions (Mk 1 eyeball and rule - not a micrometer): Echelon 1:32 - dia 33mm - depth @ top 8, bottom 7.5 Airfix 1:48 - dia 22.7mm - depth @ top 5.5mm, bottom 5mm Hope that helps... Iain EDIT - there was also some discussion on the position of the nose gear bay on the 1:32 kit. I've got noted down on my pad a distance of 600mm from nose ring bottom leading edge to the front edge of the nosewheel bay. Less the 258mm ring thickness at the bottom this gives 342mm from panel line to the front edge of gear bay - 10.68 in 1:32 - kit is out by less than 1mm at the front edge! Crikey...  Thanks, Iain! This is very interesting and fun at the same time.  OK, your measurements were taken along the surface, so an adjustment needs to be made in order to bring them into orthographic view like you see on scale drawings. The adjustment is small, the projected dimension is the measurement along the surface multiplied by the cosine of the angle that the surface departs from the centerline of the aircraft. The angle, in other words, that the nose ring tapers. Which doesn't look like much in my drawings, maybe a few degrees? Let's look at a few factors - if the angle were 1 degree, the adjustment is 0.9998, 2 degrees is 0.9993, 3 degrees is 0.9986, 4 degrees is 0.9975, and 5 degrees is 0.9962. If we used the worst case here, 5 degrees (and to my eyes that seems a bit too much), your measurements for the depth of the ring (top, middle, bottom) become 271mm, 264mm, and 257mm. So approximately 1mm difference at 1:1 scale. This yields an adjustment (subtraction from the measurements) of 0.031mm at 1:32, 0.021mm at 1:48, and 0.014mm at 1:72.  Taking your measurements and applying the scale effect gives us the following, again in the order of top, middle, bottom:  1:32 scale - 8.50, 8.28, 8.06 1:48 scale - 5.67, 5.52, 5.38 1:72 scale - 3.78, 3.68, 3.58  Adjusted values (rounded to 2 decimal points):  1:32 scale - 8.47, 8.25, 8.03 1:48 scale - 5.65, 5.50, 5.36 1:72 scale - 3.77, 3.67, 3.57  Not much difference, and something that would require Mk. III Eyeball, I suspect! We're talking microns here, folks.  To complete this totally non-scientific analysis, we'll look at the measurements of the three kits (let's just use the dimension for the top, I'm getting tired of typing) and see how they stack up:  1:32 Echelon: 8mm, or 6% too small 1:48 Airfix: 5.5mm, or 3% too small 1:72 Trumpeter: 5mm, or 33% too large 1:72 Quickboost resin replacement: 4mm, or 6% too large  Once again, TrumpyBoss comes up short! Or large, actually, by a whole heck of a lot. Does this surprise anyone?  Now, back to my model. It would seem that I need to shave about 0.25mm off of the depth of the Quickboost nose ring. I'm debating whether that is worth it or not. Thoughts?  I also asked about the diameter of the front of the nose ring. Since Airfix was the closest in contest number 1, let's use their diameter (22.7mm at 1:48 scale) as our standard. This equates to 1089.6mm in real life. For 1:32 scale, the measurement should be 34.05mm, so Echelon could be just a wee bit small. For my 1:72 model, the measurement should be 15.1mm. The Quickboost resin nose ring measures 14.5mm. My guess, and it's really just a guess (well, trigonometry actually), is that if I shave off 0.25mm of the depth, the diameter will only open up 0.002mm per side, or 0.004mm overall. Now I'm really debating whether this is worth it.  Having a look at the Quickboost nose ring, the inside surfaces are at an opposite angle to those on the outside, so that they can meet the intake trunking. Shaving 0.25" off the front of the nose ring won't really open up the diameter at all. In all actuality, it would make things worse from an appearance standpoint.  So John's idea becomes the best way to make the nose ring look like it has less depth. This will mean filling the current gap between the ring and the fuselage (it looks like a panel line right now), extending the aluminum and white aluminum surfaces forward, extending the steel surfaces (cannon ports) forward, masking off a new line for the back of the nose ring, and spraying it chrome. That seems like a lot of work for a change of only 0.25mm on the model! (Which equates to 18mm in real life, less than 3/4 of an inch!)  I'm available for arguments either way, but my preference is to leave it as it is!  Cheers, Bill  PS. With respect to the distance from the rear of the nose ring to the front of the front wheel bay, I measure it as 5mm, where it should be 4.75mm based on Iain's calculation. Another error of 0.25mm - I am suspecting some kind of Da Vinci Code conspiracy here, based on the mystical properties of 1/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Fun this modelling lark, isn't it! Just for benefit of anyone with the Echelon kit - I measured from the moulded 'sand to' line - the ring as moulded is a few mm deeper - so can be sanded to be spot on! Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcanicity Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Superb stuff! If you go for a wash, I'd keep it light except around the exhaust areas, Lightnings in the metal finish always seem to have looked pretty clean except at the back end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Out of interest I've just dug out the master I've been working on as a replacement for the one on the 1:32 kit (and to fix the trunking issue...) And - drum roll please - 8.5mm top, 8 (and a tiny bit) bottom - done by eye/approximation - hadn't checked against the real dimensions before as I hadn't been able to find notes. Oh - and a front diameter of 34 (and a wee bit)mm. Close enough for government work methinks!! Iain Edited February 2, 2012 by Iain (32SIG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now