Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Roy , regarding photo 8 : It was posted by Sam from one of his books on page 30 of the gangshow thread . On page 40 you also made a magnification . It also would be very nice if you could add photos of the master model to the opening post ( pages 36 and 37 of the gangshow thread ). Many thanks and many greetings ! Hannes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Sam , as I said to Roy , photo 8 could be much more important for our research as seen at the first view . My question is : Is there any improvement possible regarding the quality of the photo ? It´s a collage made out of two photos and with wrong retouches . But it´s also a unique view to the left side of our car and therefore very precious . Liebe Grüsse ! Hannes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy vd M. Posted February 6, 2017 Author Share Posted February 6, 2017 Ok I found the other version of Photo 8 and added it to the opening post, renaming the first to '8A': Photo 8A Photo 8B And, reluctantly ( ) I added the photo of the large scale model at Centro Storico. Model 1: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Roy , thanks a lot ! On photo 8 b we can see the burned 5 of the 15-number as we can see on photo 4 ! I know , I´´m stressing ,but the photo of the master model on page 36 of the gangshow would also be an good example for a bad interpretation.( and done with a lot of effort ! ) I think , noone in this thread will be seduced anymore to take this version for real .But it might be helpful regarding the construction of the crossed struts under the engine. Many greetings ! Hannes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy vd M. Posted February 6, 2017 Author Share Posted February 6, 2017 Hannes do you mean this: If so I never realized that was the 'master model'. Please confirm and I'll add it to the opening post. Re. Photo 8B: yes you can see the stains, plus the louvres are of more realistic proportions. But I still think it's not the original Photo (circular exhaust tips..). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Roy , yes that´s the master model . The photo was part of an advertising literature which was included the protar kit I bought about 30 years ago ! Many greetings ! Hannes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Roy , regarding photo 8 b : It is one of the original photos of the left side.,but it´s already cut . The other photo on the same picture shows the frontal part of the car and the left rear wheel . These two photos were united first and heavily retouched afterwards by some kind of Raffael or Leonardo If we had both photos it could be still more informative , but I guess , they are lost and this piece of art was done before WW 2 . Many greetings ! Hannes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Roy vd M. said: Photo 8B: yes you can see the stains, plus the louvres are of more realistic proportions. But I still think it's not the original Photo (circular exhaust tips..). Contrarly to photo 8A, IMHO, the exhausts tips are not round but more squarre on photo 8B. It is indeed a much better version, bravo Hannes for that finding and thank you to both of you! P.S: as Roy, I knew that photo but ignored it was the model exposed at Centro Storico... Edited February 6, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph add 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Olivier you´re welcome ! I´ll post a scetch soon , so we all can see the construction of that photo ! Hannes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) Roy, I wanted to thank you for this very interesting video superposing photo 4 and mine. Seeing it, I go on thinking the cockpit should be decreaed in lenght to the benefit of the tail portion, of about 2,5 to 3 mm. And I will make the correction, because the study of photo 1 confirms this perception. Of course, I would like Nick or you to confirm with Drawing 2, but are we 100% sure of the cockpit shape on that amended drawing, knowing it was totally missing on the original drawing 2? Edited February 6, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Sorry , can´t post my scetch photobucket´s gone " tits up " again Hannes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickD Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Olivier, The side view for my recent post is probably quite close. The plan view I am undecided on body width. There is generally a small gap between the body and the edge of the frame. I will go back and have another look but there are no really good pictures. Nick 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Dear Nick this ledge cant´be seen on drawing 2 ,but it exists on our car .The ledge gets wider at the end of the frame and a little bit at the beginning of the bodywork after the bonnets imho .. On drawing 2 and 3 we can see a wire that leads to the handbrake or the lever behind .It´s situated on that ledge . Many greetings ! Hannes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Sorry , photo 2 and 3 , not drawing ! Hannes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Dear Hannes, just a little hint: when you see an error in your text, you can clic on Edit and make the correction. I use it very frequently. You could so correct directly "photo" instead of "drawing" on your post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) On 05/02/2017 at 5:02 PM, Olivier de St Raph said: Dear Nick, before taking such a decision, I tried (unsuccessfully) to get the good shape (with the good distance between the fairing and the body. Indeed, the necessary decrease of the fairing in height (see above) had made indispensable this modif (red arrows). Be sure I would have avoided that new "surgery" with new time lost if I had the choice. Notice that on the photo 3, we can't see the jonction left side. But the logic is that the fairing was set on the body (with rivets) as Hannes suggested with right above in the thread, and the best way to reproduce that area was to make a continuous body and set the fairing on it, as it was on the real car. There was another decisive advantage for me to cut my fairing, that I forgot to mention: once removed, I could much easier decrease its thickness. Indeed, if you remember, I had added a lot of resin to get the good shape. But doing so, the resin was very thick inside and difficult to grind. Now removed, it becomes much easier and my fairing will have the good thickness. Edited February 7, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph add 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Dear Olivier , thank you for your hint ! I´m still in the stone-age regarding computers . Many greetings ! Hannes Edited February 7, 2017 by Hannes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 You're welcome Hannes. Bravo for your topic about photo 8. I am not at home now, when I will be, I will increase the size of 8B which is much more useful than 8A (IMHO, we could remove 8A from the opening post) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) As I said above, I did not regret to have cut and removed my fairing. So, I could decrease its thickness (photo 1), improve its shape more easily (photo 2) and check finally its thickness (photo 3). Now, I'm gonna cement it on the body... Edited February 7, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph add 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 The photo 8B full page. Roy, maybe could you put this one on first page instead of the small one that does not show the same details. That said, if this doc is nevertheless interesting, pity, its quality is low... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickD Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Hannes, Love the analysis - not sure I would ever have spotted that. You have a great eye sir (but then we knew that). I had noticed that something filled the corner between the body and the frame but had not spotted that it was to do with the brakes. Looking but not seeing again I'm afraid. Olivier Every clound has a silver lining - that's starting to look a lot like progress Nick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) I have checked on Nick's Drawing 2 with the cockpit, and it confirms what I saw on photos 4 and 1: my cockpit is a bit too long and my tail a bit too short: my cockpit is 62 mm (instead of 59,5 mm). So, I decide, after re cementing my fairing, to remove the seat fairing, whose I was not very satisfied, and to extend a little my tail portion at the expense of the cockpit one. The correction should be around 2,5 mm. The technique is always the same: cementing a plastic card foil (here, 0,25 mm) on the lower surface of the body, that will support the other one: One more time, I preferred alu (0,5 mm) instead of plastic card because the body is rounded at this level: Edited February 7, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph add 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCrank Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Olivier de St Raph said: I have checked on Nick's Drawing 2 with the cockpit, and it confirms what I saw on photos 4 and 1: my cockpit is a bit too long and my tail a bit too short: my cockpit is 62 mm (instead of 59,5 mm). That i what I told you page 73, after my transformation of your pictures under Photoshop Nick and I came to the same conclusion , following different ways You are going to make an excellent work.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totally Mad Olivier Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) Yes Thierry but notice it is exactly the conclusion I draw with photo 1 and 4. It shows IMHO that these pictures are not so distorted - except for photo 1 at the tail part- and may be used, as our Drawing 2 amended. Thanks for your encouragements Edited February 8, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph 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