Sunderland Mk lll plans/scale drawings

[iang]

Could anyone tell me where I might find these please?

I have the Miller plans (Warpaint book), which provide Mk II wing plan and side views, along with Mk l and Mk V side views. The Mk III is absent from this set of plans, other than a starboard side view (which is, in any case, incorrect in terms of the number of portholes depicted both forward and aft of the bomb bay)

Thanks

IG

[Edgar]

SAMS Models www.samsmodels.com/acatalogue/John_Sizer_Drawings.html., under reference K1875, has a set, in 1/48, for £9.95.

[iang]

Thanks for the link.

Do you know whether they are well regarded?

[thomastmcc]

Thanks for the link.

Do you know whether they are well regarded?

heard they are good mate..

thomas

[Troy Smith]

Thanks for the link.

Do you know whether they are well regarded?

Hi Ian

The 'man' for Sunderlands round here seems to be 'LDSModeller' or Alan.

Hopefully he'll pitch in, but if not maybe worth a PM for info.

HTH

T

[LDSModeller]

Hi Ian

The 'man' for Sunderlands round here seems to be 'LDSModeller' or Alan.

Hopefully he'll pitch in, but if not maybe worth a PM for info.

HTH

T

I blame it all on my Dad twas he who introduced me to these enchanting ladies when but a lad (in Service and on the water too) and I have been hooked ever since

Ian

I too have the warpaint plans, and yes they are not correct as you pointed out (and in other ways). The only thing I found them useful for was to have something to plan out my Sunderland build.

From what I understand the original blue prints were stored in a shed, which caught fire in the 50's or 60's and all that information lost.

Being frank and honest I have not used the John Sizer Drawings so cannot comment on them.

I have copies of the manuals for Mk I/III/V the latter two have drawings of the specific areas and meaurements of hatches, bomb bay doors etc, so never had to rely on any plans. Plus technical information I learnt from my Dad.

If I need measurements I have the real Macoy just down the road.

If you have any queries, I am more than happy to answer them for you, where I can.

Regards

Alan

PS Ed & Neil, Sorry your popcorn probably is now mouldy I had to move house after our last comments so now to find everything. Please watch this space for normal resumption of news

Edited April 2, 2015 by LDSModeller

[Iain Wyllie]

The Aviation News drawings were produced by a late friend of mine, Roy Miller, who worked in Shorts and he told me that he had used the only information available from that source, which was precious little. I am sure that there is probably more available in the hands of ex Shorts employees which will never surface, though.

[iang]

Thanks for your replies gentlemen.

I've been tinkering with Sunderland kits. I've started the Sanger 1/48th Mk III vacform and 1/72 Italeri kit. There is an obvious error with the shape of the bow/front turret in the Sanger kit, compared with photographs and both the 1/48th Alpha Flight and 1/72 Italeri kit. The Italeri kit has had all of the trench like panel lines filled (with CA glue) and rubbed down and sprayed with grey primer.

These are, from left to right: Sanger, Alpha Flight, Airfix, Italeri

In profile view the Sanger kit doesn't look too bad, compared with the Alpha Flight kit. I've drilled the port holes, but need cross-section drawings for the next job:

In plan view, the turret opening is clearly the wrong shape and the bow is not pinched in sufficiently:

The opening also needs to be lowered a tad. To pinch in the bow I was proposing to cut the fuselage roughly at the level of the cockpit floor. A set of cross-section drawings would enable me to do this more accurately that doing it by eye alone.

I'd also like a set of plans of the Mk lll wing for the Italeri kit. Having filled in the trenches on the wings, I know I need to eliminate the cross-bracing on the fuel tanks, but in other posts Alan has indicated that other changes are needed. As a side note, the Airfix kit seems to suffer from a similar, though less severe problem with the bow turret opening. As the plastic is very thick it is probably possible to improve the shape by sanding alone. However, having filled the trenches on the Italeri kit, I cannot see why it would be worth bothering with the Airfix kit. In every respect, the Italeri kit looks to be better basis for an accurate replica.

I shall invest in a set of John Sizer drawings and report back, However, I'd be grateful for advice If anyone has any better suggestions for improving the shape of the Sanger bow, or for a clear photo of the wing plan showing the fuel tanks of a Mk III.

[rbeach84]

Subscribing to this, IanG. Have been wondering if the Sanger kit is worth the expense of getting it here from there... Your comparisons are most helpful! Although the bow problems are technically no worse than the P4M Mercator kit from Combat I have on the workbench - well, much less actually - I'm still wondering about the wings, nacelles and such. Having major parts requiring 'deep muscle massage' to get right can be tiring after a while, sapping one's enthusiasm for a project. Just one question: did all the Marks have the same bow shape or did it change over time?

Regards & good luck!

Robert

[LDSModeller]

(1)Subscribing to this, IanG. Have been wondering if the Sanger kit is worth the expense of getting it here from there... Your comparisons are most helpful! Although the bow problems are technically no worse than the P4M Mercator kit from Combat I have on the workbench - well, much less actually - I'm still wondering about the wings, nacelles and such. Having major parts requiring 'deep muscle massage' to get right can be tiring after a while, sapping one's enthusiasm for a project.

(2)Just one question: did all the Marks have the same bow shape or did it change over time?

Regards & good luck!

Robert

(1)

Depends on how much work you want to get it right?

The photo posted by Ian showing all four Sunderland fuselages together, I note Italeri have made an error in the area around the forward part of cockpit/canopy area which makes the whole bow/tunnel section too narrow (at least by 3mm 1/72) where as the Airfix kit tunnel is about 1mm too wide.

The Airfix fuselage has the forward cockpit/canopy area right, but the forward edge of bomb bays doors are 5-6mm too far back, Italeri has it spot on........ you get the picture

2) The bow/ turret housing tunnel areas for all marks pretty much remains the same (exception being the Bomb aimers windows), however the area for the forward canopy edge is different for a Mk I as in this photo note the "Crease" marked by arrows I think Italeri tried to get this (jury is still out on that)

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Mk%20I%20At%20Mooring%20copy_zps5ua6kesz.jpg

The Mk III/V do not have this, which makes the Italeri MK III inaccurate in that area. See this Mk V photo

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Seawings%20Sundy1%20copy_zpsztzvnypa.jpg

Note the arrows to the turret housing, it has a slight kinked area? The Mk I-III do not have this at all, you can see it more pronounced in this photo. The Mk I-III is straight all the way through

There are slight subtlies that can trip up a modeller in each of the marks interior and exterior.

Hope that helps?

Regards

Alan

Italeri do have the right measurement widthwise across the step is 10' 2.3" in 1 : 1 scale

[LDSModeller]

However, I'd be grateful for advice If anyone has any better suggestions for improving the shape of the Sanger bow, or for a clear photo of the wing plan showing the fuel tanks of a Mk III.

Hi Ian,

I measured the width of the turret housing tunnel (at base of the upside down "U"), but all my books with such things are packed still but from memory it was around 1 metre - I'll get back to you on this shortly.

Hopefully to assit you in gaining some visual perspective from inside the Sunderland, I have some photos of the "Flight Engineers Station" and where the Main fuel tank sits in relation. These photo though of a Mk V/MR5 would be exactly the same for Mk III.

Taken from navigators station just in front of Flight Engineers station - note this is how the "Nav's" station would look on a late production Mk III.

Flight Engineers Consol looking from main spar.

Consol and fuselage side/Wing join - you can see the bottom of main tank through crawl way tanks sit on a wooden lattace -normally these "Cut Outs" are covered in canvas attached via snap on buttons, so you wouldn't necessarily see the tanks.

Main tank

Insde wing and some of internal structure

Hope that helps you?

Regards

Alan

Edited April 4, 2015 by LDSModeller

[iang]

Alan,

Thanks for the measurement of the Sunderland tunnel and the interior photos (they will be very helpful).

If the real tunnel is 1 m, in 1/72 it should be about 13.9 mm and 20.8 mm in 1/48.

At the base of the tunnel, measuring to the outside edge of the fuselage, they are as follows (internal measurements at the same point in parenthesis):

Italeri - 14.5 mm (13 mm).

Airfix - 20 mm (17 mm)

Sanger - 32 mm (30 mm)

Alpha Flight - 26 mm (24 mm)

So the Italeri kit looks to be near spot on and the best of the four kits, with the AF kit about 3-5 mm too wide, Airfix 3-6 mm too wide and Sanger 11-12 mm too wide. In percentage terms, Sanger is about 35% too wide, Airfix 21% (internal measurement) and AF 14%

IG

Edited April 4, 2015 by iang

[LDSModeller]

Alan,

Thanks for the measurement of the Sunderland tunnel and the interior photos (they will be very helpful).

If the real tunnel is 1 m, in 1/72 it should be about 13.9 mm and 20.8 mm in 1/48.

At the base of the tunnel, measuring to the outside edge of the fuselage, they are as follows (internal measurements at the same point in parenthesis):

Italeri - 14.5 mm (13 mm).

Airfix - 20 mm (17 mm)

Sanger - 32 mm (30 mm)

Alpha Flight - 26 mm (24 mm)

So the Italeri kit looks to be near spot on and the best of the four kits, with the AF kit about 3-5 mm too wide, Airfix 3-6 mm too wide and Sanger 11-12 mm too wide. In percentage terms, Sanger is about 35% too wide, Airfix 21% (internal measurement) and AF 14%

IG

Hi Ian,

The actual measurement is more like 1.4 m (1.46m to be more exact) taken at the inside of the "U" which places the Airfix kit closer to being correct than the Italeri which definately needs to be widened.

If you look at this photo of the bow section, you can see that there is quite a bit of room there, sufficient for two men to stand shoulder to shoulder (or at least stand shoulder to shoulder stooped )

Looking up into the tunnel behind the turret - Note Italeri actually got the two rear ports in their bow turret right.

Regards

Alan

[iang]

Thanks for the update and very useful photos. So that makes it about 20 mm in 1/72 and 30 mm in 1/48.The Miller plans show it as about 17 mm in 1/72 scale.

[rbeach84]

(1)

Depends on how much work you want to get it right?

The photo posted by Ian showing all four Sunderland fuselages together, I note Italeri have made an error in the area around the forward part of cockpit/canopy area which makes the whole bow/tunnel section too narrow (at least by 3mm 1/72) where as the Airfix kit tunnel is about 1mm too wide.

The Airfix fuselage has the forward cockpit/canopy area right, but the forward edge of bomb bays doors are 5-6mm too far back, Italeri has it spot on........ you get the picture

2) The bow/ turret housing tunnel areas for all marks pretty much remains the same (exception being the Bomb aimers windows), however the area for the forward canopy edge is different for a Mk I as in this photo note the "Crease" marked by arrows I think Italeri tried to get this (jury is still out on that)

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Mk%20I%20At%20Mooring%20copy_zps5ua6kesz.jpg

The Mk III/V do not have this, which makes the Italeri MK III inaccurate in that area. See this Mk V photo

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Seawings%20Sundy1%20copy_zpsztzvnypa.jpg

Note the arrows to the turret housing, it has a slight kinked area? The Mk I-III do not have this at all, you can see it more pronounced in this photo. The Mk I-III is straight all the way through

There are slight subtlies that can trip up a modeller in each of the marks interior and exterior.

Hope that helps?

Regards

Alan

Italeri do have the right measurement widthwise across the step is 10' 2.3" in 1 : 1 scale

Alan, your comments got me thinking so I looked for further examples showing that 'crease' in front of the windscreen on Mk.I's, or the presence on any others. Yet, best as I can determine, this is an 'optical illusion' of sorts due to the shape present at that point. I based this on seeing no change in the shape of the windscreen across the various marks and hence the resulting necessary contour. Initially I thought it might be due to a constructional change to 'simplify' the shape in that area. However, it appears that there is a rather abrupt change in contour to meet up with the straight bottom edge of the windscreen in that area. It is this change in a small area that creates the illusion of a 'crease' depending on viewing angle and 'no crease' from others.

Take a look at this image of the upper nose of NZ4112, a Mk.V airframe - it appears to show a 'crease':

http://www.ferrymeadaero.org.nz/_/rsrc/1363681867674/about-us/short-sunderland-nz4112/NZ4112oa.jpg

The panel in this area appears to have a shape similar to a sheet of paper that has the corners at one end brought closer together and one opposite corner 'pushed' downwards, creating a modified 'scoop' shape. Very subtle, indeed!

Here is another image, ID'ed by IWM as a MkI, that shows a similar flat contour to the upper nose area:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/39411748@N06/6524701841/

Plus this one (the Mark of which is not ID'ed... but 1940 is the date?):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/39411748@N06/6524681347/in/photostream/

Of course, I could be missing the mark on this; check out this image:

http://www.modelersalliance.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10065/SunderlandNoseLeft.jpg

RE: the 'kink', this is apparently due to the 'cut back' of the turret turtle back to allow for greater swing of the guns (or for some other reason; result is the same.) So, the turtle back is the same for all until the point it was altered to a greater taper into the turret. To maintain the same 'track' width, there is a small bend at the forward edge of the base, also visible in that image of the scrapped NZ4112.

Regards, Robert

Edited May 13, 2015 by rbeach84

[sniperUK]

The blue prints for the Sunderland, Stirling and others were in a store in the Maghaberry site, when the prison was being built it was demolished with everything inside it. The only thing Bombardier have left for the Stirling are copies of the Aeroplane and another magazine article from the 40s.

[LDSModeller]

Hi Robert,

I have posted the Mk I photo with out the "Red| arrows, and you can see the area much better. I'm reasonably sure this one is an early Mk I possibly with the early canopy

(Used for illustration purposes only)

Note: even the Mk I went through some minor changes in one way or another on the production line, for example the early Mk i's had floats where both sat in the water, as opposed to later ones where only one float sat there, depending on wind etc. First Mk I's had a different canopy

From photos I have seen of later Mk I's and later MK's of Sunderland that area at base of canopy had disappeared.

RE the Kink: The turret was a totally different design (FN 5B MkII) first found on Mk IIIa Sunderland so required a redesign.

Regards

Alan

[rbeach84]

Aye, I viewed the 'arrow-less' version too on your Bucket page but then found other images of Mk.I's that had a 'patch' of some light color on the port side just in the same location as the light area in the image above (my third image link shows it -purpose unknown...) so I'm thinking there is a trick of the light here & a concidental color change. Getting a better feel for that upper nose area, I'd describe it as being more flattened and square-cornered at the aft end, curving into the more rounded cross section required to match up with the turret. To tie in with the windscreen, the aft edge has to rise up on the outer portions to blend the dropping corner to the horizontal bottom of the windscreen panel (which is straight, not curved.) This rise is apparent in the last image I linked in my earlier post. In essence, a direct head on view with low contrast such as above does not clearly show the change in contour (from flat to rounded), and the highlight that is visible on the starboard side is just a reflection of the rising 'flare' in the panel, not evidence of a near vertical plane.

Also, I would disagree with a change from one Mk to another, at least in this area, since there is quite a lot of monocoque structure under that skin, so there would have to a substantial reason for a design change. I'm assuming (uh-oh!) the image above is not a protoype but represents an early production airframe. So the question becomes one of why would it change? The turret turtle back was altered to accommodate the new turret of course, but what might be a reason to alter the contour around the windscreen? I didn't see any change to the canopy configuration in the images I accessed (at least compared to the above); this begs what was the change & any idea when it happened?

Of course we are slicing 'frog's hair' to some degree but it just goes to show that we need better images of the various Mk's noses to really determine what exactly was going on there.

Regards, Robert

[LDSModeller]

Hi Robert,

If you have access to the Air Britain "Ocean Sentenial" The Short Sunderland, there is an aerial photo of Sunderland Mk I L5806 which is showing at a slightly oblique angle, the same area as in the photo above (Ch 2 page 23), so its definately there on some Mk I's (and I'm sure there are additional photos either on the net or in books)

As to changes in the Sunderland during production, there are changes between marks. For example the base width of the Mk I/II is 10' 2.3" (310.6cm) while the Mk III is 10' 2 1/4" (310.515cm) length differed also, while these measurments may be incrementally tiny. they were changes to the structure.

Change is structires also occured during a production run, the Mk II is certainly worthy of a look here.

Part way through production the upper turret was added to the Mk II (along with newer FN tail turret).

The major structural change internally was deletion walkway/crew gun station we know so well

(Photo use for illustration only)

The addition of a strength frame immediately aft of the crew ward room with the addition of upper fuselage strengthening, along with a new floor (became roof over crew ward room) as in these photos.

These areas went on into Mk III & V production

Externally, resulted in deletion of the upper fueslage gun positions and addition of a "hump" to add to the fuselage strength where the upper turret sat (again went onto Mk III & Mk V)

Other Sunderland marks that had changes during production, were the Mk III & Mk V.

Late production, some Mk III's & V's had the upper turret deleted leaving just the dorsal hump as in above photo,and as in this link

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii221/lisset158/Save0003-80.jpg

A new hatch was added as in this photo

Squadrons that flew especially the Mk III sans upper turret at least were 95, 270 and 490, which you can find photos of either online or in books to verify such things.

Addition/deletion of equipment/structural changes continued certainly in the Mk III, notably are the deletion of "Engineers ladder" which had been the way crew accessed the upper hatch from Mk I to early production Mk III

The Bomb bay door rails (which the doors slid down/up in/on) changed from a "Flange" type system to the "magnetic rail system" as this photo

Don't forget the Mk IIIa with the addition of the newer FN 5B Mk II turret, also found on the Mk V

The Short Sunderland Mk III manual I have, has a whole range of deletions and addition listed during production

Later the Mk V had the addition of "Beam Guns" which required a change in the rear fuslage flooring from looking like this

http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sunderland-rear-gunner-595x438.jpg

To look like this

This is not exhaustive, but there were changes during all marks of the Sunderland especially during production, you even had times where Mk III & V's were on the same production line. which gives to sequential serials being divided between Mk III'& V's

Regards

Alan

Edits for stupid spelling mistakes!!!

Edited May 15, 2015 by LDSModeller

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Today I thought I'd break out a challenging model from the stash - either the Fonderie Miniatures HP Hampden or the Sanger Short Sunderland. I've cut out all the bit parts now, and think the Sunderland kit is pretty much fit for the bin. I'm not afraid of a challenge, but there appears to be more work than just scratch building it.

 

The fuselage, as well as having the wrong shape of nose also has the wrong shape of spine. I'm thinking the top needs cut away and a new lid made from 1/4" soft balsa skinned with plasticard.

 

The halves are slightly different lengths which is not insurmountable in itself:

 

The wing halves are roughly the same size but the panel lines are in different places (which doesn't matter because of what's coming next)

 

The aerofoil sections are completely different and way beyond the realms of nobody noticing. I'm not sure whether it would be easier to fill these with automotive body filler and power sand them to something remotely acceptable or just start over with plasticard skinned balsa. Starting again is probably quicker and easier. Perhaps keep the nacelle fairings. The cowlings probably need to be scratchbuilt anyway as a horizontal join just isn't going to work.

 

Also the two halves of the fin and rudder are different sections too.

 

It's very rare I'd say this of a limited run type kit, but many of the major parts require extensive remedial work over and above the work normally expected of vacuum formed kits.

[Lawzer]

3 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Today I thought I'd break out a challenging model from the stash - either the Fonderie Miniatures HP Hampden or the Sanger Short Sunderland. I've cut out all the bit parts now, and think the Sunderland kit is pretty much fit for the bin. I'm not afraid of a challenge, but there appears to be more work than just scratch building it.

 

The fuselage, as well as having the wrong shape of nose also has the wrong shape of spine. I'm thinking the top needs cut away and a new lid made from 1/4" soft balsa skinned with plasticard.

 

The halves are slightly different lengths which is not insurmountable in itself:

 

The wing halves are roughly the same size but the panel lines are in different places (which doesn't matter because of what's coming next)

 

The aerofoil sections are completely different and way beyond the realms of nobody noticing. I'm not sure whether it would be easier to fill these with automotive body filler and power sand them to something remotely acceptable or just start over with plasticard skinned balsa. Starting again is probably quicker and easier. Perhaps keep the nacelle fairings. The cowlings probably need to be scratchbuilt anyway as a horizontal join just isn't going to work.

 

Also the two halves of the fin and rudder are different sections too.

 

It's very rare I'd say this of a limited run type kit, but many of the major parts require extensive remedial work over and above the work normally expected of vacuum formed kits.

 

Glutton for punishment?

[tempestfan]

Is the port upper wing half of uniform cross section ? The pic *** suggests *** there may a "slimming" down somewhere inboard of the tip, as there ***appears *** to be a chordwise "dark line" on the Forward half of the Profile. --- Having the cowlings on the wings doesn't seem particularly user-friendly. Is this one of the kits Gordon Sutcliffe still whittled out of some Palette Wood ?

[gluedobber]

Are these drawings available anywhere? I cannot seem to locate them for sale anywhere.

SAMS Models www.samsmodels.com/acatalogue/John_Sizer_Drawings.html

Thank you.
 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

7 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Is the port upper wing half of uniform cross section ? The pic *** suggests *** there may a "slimming" down somewhere inboard of the tip, as there ***appears *** to be a chordwise "dark line" on the Forward half of the Profile. --- Having the cowlings on the wings doesn't seem particularly user-friendly. Is this one of the kits Gordon Sutcliffe still whittled out of some Palette Wood ?

 

In short the port wing is a mess. The root section seems ok but it's an oval section rather than an aerofoil between No.1 engine and the tip.

 

It does look a lot like someone started with a 3 view and just hacked something out of wood. It would suggest that noone ever tried to build it before release eithet because this is the sort of thing that should be immediately obvious. Not to blow my own trumpet but I have scratchbuilt r/c aircraft from my owb drawings and the port wing is the sort of thing you'd see holding a wooden male plug if you even bothered to view it from different angles.

 

I don't see much point in trying to build this. Vacuum formed kits are a little more work to cut out, sand and assemble but they're not inherently rubbish - or rather the parts WILL assemble in to a model the right shape if the masters were reasonable.

 

This kit however wouldn't be even vaguely the right shape if it had all the effort to assemble.

[iang]

Jamie,

 

I came to the same conclusion with regard to the Sanger kit.   I have done more clean-up on the Alpha Flight kit, but no actual assembly.  It seems to match the John Sizer drawings pretty well and think it will build into a pretty good, if very expensive, replica. 

 

IG