Wessex HC2 Crab Cabs Pt II (Fly Wessex - why on earth did I?)

[keefr22]

I'll apologise in advance too hendie, and will make this my last reply on the subject, and will happily remove my posts if you wish.

 

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

I'm not saying the kit wasn't finished on a par with its fellow competition entries,

 

That's the first important point - it's competing with lots of differing helicopter subjects - I can tell you have intimate knowledge of the Wessex. Do you have the same level of knowledge of a Mi-8 or Mi-24, a Piasecki PV-2, Kaman K-22, Westland Scout or the myriad of other helicopter types that might have been entered in the class? How on earth could any judges have the sort of in depth knowledge of all those subjects to judge their accuracy to an equal degree? That's specifically why 'accuracy' and, by implication, knowledge of the real subject isn't judged. Models have to be judged in competition with their fellow entries only, in terms of how well built and finished they are as models. 

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

although I did feel it lacked a suitable panel shading etc akin to the real Wessex in either service or as a museum exhibit, so I guess I am. 

And that shows just how much personal modelling preferences can affect a judges perception of a model and just how subjective the whole process is. And why every year there are so many dissenting comments about judges decisions!

 

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

With regards to the judging, the model you judged and awarded, was in my mind ahead of the Wessex V I'm talking about, the blade fold saddles were in the correct place, unlike the Wessex V, the overall build and finish was in my opinion on par if not slightly ahead of the Wessex V

I (& I assume my fellow judge) had no idea where the blade fold saddles should be placed on a Wessex. We would both know where the control surfaces gust lock would be inserted into a Scottish Aviation Bulldog's control column during post flight shutdown though, but if we happen to ever judge a 1/24 scale model of one I doubt we'd mark the builder down if he hadn't depicted it correctly....! 

 

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

it also demonstrated a further skill in weathering to depict a scene.

However, the final judging category is 'overall realism'. Personally that's where my subjective preferences show. 'Our' winner was marked down here as it was displayed on a plain black slab of a base. The 'green' one was on a much more realistic depiction of a bit of hardstanding and thus gained a point or two in that category.

 

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

As I understand it you were part of the judging team on the day? If so I can't get my head around your statement saying "My fellow judge & I are certainly in no way helicopter, and definitely not Wessex 'experts" if this is true then why are you judging this class?

 

No, we aren't and we weren't. As I stated in my original post the model was entered for our club's memorial trophy for a late member who's passion in modelling was the Royal Navy - thus our trophy is open to entries of models from all genres and we had nearly 40 entries comprising ships, fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, landing craft , a NAAFI van etc.. There was even a figure entered but unfortunately it didn't turn up on the table.

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

Putting my money where my mouth is:- I will approach Tony Horton and volenteer myself to be a judge of the helicopter classes next year, if as you say there are no helicopter enthusiasts on the judging panel then maybe Tony would consider adding one? I

 

No, I didn't say there were no helicopter enthusiasts amongst the judges. I said "judges are not expected to know the subject to any extent,"- which is why the 5 judging categories we award models marks out of 10 for do not include points for accuracy of the subject. In the judges briefing this year Tony stated he was shorter of judges than he usually is, so some people that traditionally judge the same class every year, would in addition be asked to judge other classes as well - how could they possibly have intimate detailed knowledge of all the different subjects that might be entered in those classes? And please do volunteer to help Tony out next year, I'm sure he'll welcome you with open arms!!

 

2 hours ago, Wafu said:

I was fortunate to have won a gold medal at this years comp, I'd like to think the person/s who judged the class I entered had a modelling knowledge of the subject I and my fellow entries submitted our work to?

 

Congratulations! The judges may well have 'modelling' knowledge of your subject, but that doesn't correlate with having working knowledge of the real thing that you modelled - they just decided you had built your model better than the fellow modellers in your class, using well established IPMS judging criteria - & possibly a tad of subjectively liking it more than the other entries!

 

2 hours ago, Wafu said:

even if it was just one judge in the panel of judges

 

Finally, there is no panel of judges, there are teams of two or three judging various classes. 

 

Again, thanks & apologies for taking your thread OT hendie.

 

Keith

[Wafu]

Thanks for the reply Keith. I think you'll agree that we'll agree to disagree?

 

You and I don't want to detract from Hendie's great build so this will be the last from me on this subject.

 

Regards the Woo.

[Martian]

20 hours ago, massimo said:

The seats' frame...I could sit on that without breaking it!!!.

I couldn't!

 

Martian

[hendie]

3 hours ago, Wafu said:

Hendie, I hope you don't mind if I reply to Keith via your build thread, apologies if you do.

1 hour ago, keefr22 said:

I'll apologise in advance too hendie, and will make this my last reply on the subject, and will happily remove my posts if you wish.

 

No problem guys.  There's some interesting perspectives there and no-one got banned so I'd call that a win! 

 

 

1 hour ago, Wafu said:

Thanks for the reply Keith. I think you'll agree that we'll agree to disagree?

 

Booger. There we go with the respectful, well mannered, and courteous posts again.  Sheesh.. now I have to put the pistols away again.     

 

 

Having never entered a competition and probably unlikely to ever enter one, I'm not really sure where I stand.   If I'm being honest with myself I think I can agree with some of the points made on all sides.

In my usual disregard for personal safety I'm going to throw a couple of comments out there -  not intending to start any kind of debate but just to provide another perspective.  

 

As a model maker I (we ?) strive to make the best model we can.  For me and I believe many others, that includes accuracy of detail. 

Unfortunately it's a scale model, so due to scale effect and a number of other limiting factors, that accuracy has to take a back seat at some point.  There is also something else I will term a general impression of accuracy.  The two are not the same thing.

Do I care if someone has used too large a diameter wire to represent wiring/hydraulics etc ? Probably not (as I do it all the time). Do I care if it's not positioned exactly in the right place?  Again, probably not (within limits) as to me this falls under the general impression of accuracy rule.

But I probably do care a little more if some major feature is incorrect.

 

Take for example, Italeri's reversed rotation tail rotor in 1/72, or their pipe work preventing the trans deck door opening in 1/48.  (I'm not picking on Italeri for personal reasons... I just don't like 'em  )

 

I wouldn't expect someone casually building these kits to know about, or attempt to rectify these faults. On the other hand, I would probably expect someone entering a model at a competition level to have done a bit of research and attempted to correct at minimum, any major issues found. 

But on the Other, other hand, not everyone is an expert in everything and judges are for the most part human and limited by experience.  The sheer variety of themes and volumes of kits out there means that it is highly unlikely that any judge at any competition will be intimate (not in the biblical sense) with more than perhaps 5% to 10% of what they are judging at best.  Which begs the question - how could a judge be expected to know that the Westworld Whirlflumper HS2 had the Phnergle Breep Bifurbicator fitted just to the right of the a/c center-line?  Unless they had actual worked on Whirlflumpers, it's extremely unlikely they would ever know (or care). I know there's a bunch of stuff I missed on my first Wessex, and a whole load of other stuff I wouldn't have caught had not the BM illuminati not commented on or provided me with information.

Now you could argue that is not fair or just... and it may be a good argument. However, real life is real life and sometimes, that's just the way it is.

 

Jumping back over the fence.. Had I got my Phnergle Breep Bifurbicator in the right place and lost out in a competition to someone who had it fitted back to front, then I'd probably be a bit and I would consider it rightly so.  And I'd probably be a little miffed at the judges too - even although they really can't be held responsible for not having that knowledge.    I'd still be though!

 

I feel a bit stronger about weathering though.  As many BM folks have stated there is certainly a trend for what can only be called over weathering though I'm not sure that is really the right term.  I'm talking about the heavily pre shaded models which have almost extremes of shades all over the kit. I've never seen aircraft like that in my life. Never.

The Wessex for some reason seems to be particularity prone to this form of abuse, and I have seen some alarming examples out there.  Sadly, they seem to garner lots of praise. 

To me, that is like comparing a Constable to a Dali or an Ernst  (maybe not quite, but you get my point)

What I see being called weathering is not yer akchul weathering - to me it is  technique, or maybe stylized is a better term.  It's certainly not realistic.

Now to me, any judge worth their salt should be able to tell the difference between realistic and stylized. Personally I'd mark down the stylized versions... they may be visually impressive or appealing, but in no way are they realistic. Again, if I lost out to one of those, I'd be miffed.

Maybe it's a good thing I am not a judge.

 

Now these are just my opinions and nothing more. The whole judging topic is a bit of a minefield and I certainly don't envy those who partake of such activity.

It's easy for me to sit back here and criticize as I don't have to take the flak.

I'd suggest that there should be separate categories for realistic finishes and stylized - but that would no doubt start a debate around where to draw the line.

Maybe the entrants should be able to rate the other competitors in their chosen categories - and the judges could take that into consideration? 

 

All I know for certain is that I like building models and getting involved in the details.  Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don't.

 

right then.. I need some coffee. It's too early in the morning for this

 

 

 

[keefr22]

1 hour ago, hendie said:

I wouldn't expect someone casually building these kits to know about, or attempt to rectify these faults. On the other hand, I would probably expect someone entering a model at a competition level to have done a bit of research and attempted to correct at minimum, any major issues found. But on the Other, other hand, not everyone is an expert in everything and judges are for the most part human and limited by experience.  The sheer variety of themes and volumes of kits out there means that it is highly unlikely that any judge at any competition will be intimate (not in the biblical sense) with more than perhaps 5% to 10% of what they are judging at best.  Which begs the question - how could a judge be expected to know that the Westworld Whirlflumper HS2 had the Phnergle Breep Bifurbicator fitted just to the right of the a/c center-line?  Unless they had actual worked on Whirlflumpers, it's extremely unlikely they would ever know (or care). 

 

The problem of judging 'accuracy'. In a nutshell!  And it's not just kits, there's scratchbuilt exotica entered too...!

 

1 hour ago, hendie said:

Now to me, any judge worth their salt should be able to tell the difference between realistic and stylized. Personally I'd mark down the stylized versions... they may be visually impressive or appealing, but in no way are they realisti

 

That is exactly my perspective too - and I admit to having marked down stylised models, especially when awarding points in the 'overall realism' category.

 

1 hour ago, hendie said:

To me, that is like comparing a Constable to a Dali

 

Excellent comparison - isn't it the 'Spanish School' of modellers that actually popularised the stylised modelling artform....?!

 

ATB

 

Keith

 

Edit - apols again, I did say my last post would be my final word on the subject - so I'll shut up now...!!

[hendie]

honestly guys - it's not a problem.  A lively debate with a sprinkling of controversy here and there is healthy and makes for an interesting read. 

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

All in all, a perfect illustration of why I have never entered a model in a competition, and almost certainly never will.  I love the process of building them just as much as - possibly more than - the final output.  For me the research is an integral part of that process, but that's just my preference; I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else that there's only one way of doing things, and I very much doubt anyone on here would disagree.

 

I flew the Sea King, which is why my 820 NAS HAS 5 model has taken so long; I didn't spend weeks adding several thousand rivets to it for the fun of it, but because IN MY OPINION Sea Kings in my preferred scale simply look wrong if they are too smooth.  I have seen plenty of Sea King models that are excellent in their own way, but they just don't look lumpy enough to be realistic in my eyes (and that's before you even start on the snakes' wedding of a rotor head / blade fold!).  But all that tells me is that I wouldn't be satisfied by building a smooth-skinned Sea King model; plainly plenty of others are happy, and good luck to them.  No doubt I will face similar issues when I get round to building a Lynx (though to be fair, there are mainstream Lynx kits - notably the Airfix 1/48 and Revell 1/32 kits - that can be made to look very realistic; Sea King modellers don't have that luxury).

 

I never flew the Wessie, though I saw them airborne literally thousands of times, waved my arms at plenty of them in my FDO, pre-flying days in the Falklands, and was wet winched by several of them.  But my level of Wessex knowledge is nowhere near as detailed as that of the Sea King or Lynx - so when I get round to building a Wessex I suspect it won't be in the Hendie or Woo class - because I don't know any better.  Given my temperament, I will do plenty of research, but as we all know even supposedly authoritative references sometimes contain mistakes or are misleading - so any future Crispo-Wessex (and I have a Mk 3 and a Mk 5 in my stash) will be accurate enough to satisfy me, but probably not someone who flew them or worked on them, so knows the aircraft inside out. 

 

I have a mate who is very much into the Spanish school of modelling - he is an AFV geek.  He knows perfectly well that no tank ever really looked like his modulated, pre-shaded, zenith-lit things, but that's not the point; he enjoys producing his models as an art form (though he'd no doubt scoff that using the A-word makes it sound pretentious).  I try to make my models look accurate - or at least plausible; he enjoys applying clever artistic effects, and if the strict accuracy suffers, that doesn't bother him.  Who is to say that he's wrong?

 

Happily, there is plenty of room for all styles.  Amen to that.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[TheBaron]

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

using the A-word makes it sound pretentious

Only if wearing a lime-green cravat and drinking advocaat with your little finger raised whilst saying it. Barking it gutturally whilst running your hand over your stubble and exhaling a Gauloise is perfectly OK.

[hendie]

2 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

I love the process of building them just as much as - possibly more than - the final output.

 

I echo that sentiment entirely Crisp, and today's little episode probably reinforces that very statement, for reasons which shall become obvious.

 

With the bulkheads now fixed in place, I could get a reasonably accurate center line, and started opening out the holes for the transmission shaft.

 

 

Again, as Crisp mentioned.. research is key... and I came across another photo which showed that I needed to add another bulkhead in the tail section.  I spent ages getting the contours right before I realized that the bulkhead doesn't go all the way across the tail.  oh yes... research is key !

 

 

That bulkhead was fixed in place after a lightening hole was added along with a couple of braces made from brass rod.  I have a sneaking suspicion that there's not going to be a great deal visible when this is all put together.

 

 

Probably about this much....

 

 

With that in mind, the remainder of this thread is completely unnecessary and a bit pointless really - but it's fun and I like it.  Thanks to the kind souls of this forum I now have the information I need on the tail mechanical gubbinses.  

I'll apologize in advance 'cos I got so carried away I forgot to take photo's during the build.

The intermediate gearbox - a piece of kit that will be so buried inside the plastic that you would never know it's not there - so I thought I'd make one anyway.  Starting with two pieces of brass tube soldered together in vaguely the approximate angle...

 

 

The adding a third - for those interested, the soldering set up can be as simple as this... I threw some flux on, fired up the propane flamethrower, and

 

 

a few minutes later we had one of these. - After some clean up obviously.  I should have taken a photo - it looked a real mess with solder everywhere, but clean up still took less than a minute.

 

 

Then, forgetting to take photo's but essentially, just cutting off and adding bits of tube, I ended up with this approximation of the gearbox.

 

 

Which will sit in here where no-one can see it

 

 

Obviously, there's still a bit to do to the gearbox before it's finished, but I'm quite pleased with the way it turned out, and how trouble free it was to make it.

 

and now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

 

 

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Hendie, that IRGB is a work of genius!  I hang my head in shame at the crude hand-carved equivalent fitted to my Sea King - but luckily you can’t see any of that from outside either!

Edited November 23, 2017 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Sublime,just sublime!

[perdu]

Just wow

 

damned b*oody wonderful

 

Hendie's around here, we can just tell, can't we...

[TheBaron]

25 minutes ago, hendie said:

I ended up with this approximation of the gearbox.

You spelt: 'Casually put together something that those watching would struggle to attain over several attempts.' wrong there hendie. Uncharacteristically careless of you....

[CedB]

1 hour ago, hendie said:

...but it's fun and I like it

That's it Hendie, that's it.

Amazing stuff going on here, great micro-engineering. Mini gearboxes, amazing.

[Martian]

Beautiful work with the brass Hendie.

 

Martian

[coneheadff]

Unbelievable Hendie...this is pure fun to watch!!!
 

Thanks for sharing!

[Pete in Lincs]

Splendid cogbox old chap.

[hendie]

Gearbox  Overhauls Part Deux

 

Carrying on with yesterdays fun and exciting adventure, though destined to be hidden forever inside the closed up tail, I thought I may as well add some greeblies to the intermediate gearbox to make it look a tad more realistic.  I wasn't going to chance my luck with any more soldering as we were now getting into nano-scale as far as I was concerned.  Various scrap bits of styrene were cut and CA's into place.  We have strengthening webs on the input and output shafts, a pseudo oil fill sight gauge on the front, and just visible on top is a filler plug, and a filler plug on the bottom as well, cos the oils got to drain somewhere... right?

I also added a small disc to masquerade as the shaft mounting flange and there's still another one to be added.  Overall, pleased I am. 

 

 

Now, whether the sight gauge on the gearbox lines up with where Fly have located the window on the fuselage skin... who knows.  I'm not changing it now!

 

However, it was now time to move on to the tail gearbox.  EEeeewwww - look what Fly give us... some kind of tail-less flat fish and a vaguely round tubey sort of thing. 

Sorry, just not going to do is it?   The flat fish doesn't actually fit inside the tail, at least, not in any way that I could phennargle it.  I guess I'll be making some mounting panels some time later then.  Oh well, at least I had a starting point, or sorts...

 

 

Out with the brass tubing again I'm afraid.  The long spindly bit at the right was chucked up in my bench drill and given a slight taper. That was then stuck inside another brass tube, which was in turn, stuck inside yet another brass tube.

Now all I had to do was solder that lot together.  Remember what I mentioned about soldering ?  Give it a try folks - it's not as hard as it looks, I promise.  Most of the work was already done here just by cutting the various pieces of tubing to the appropriate length.

 

 

Careful application of the propane torch of destruction gave me this a few minutes later. Not very pleasant looking is it?  Well, the great thing is that the solder is a lot softer then the brass so it is actually very easy to clean up afterwards and get a presentable looking part. - Files, sandpaper, wire wool, blades... they all work.

 

 

So here we have the beginnings of a tail rotor gearbox. The 1:1 has a number of strengthening webs on the casing which are missing on the kit part.  I attempted to replicate them using standard bits of scrap.  My first attempt was cutting them to final shape but they were so small that I couldn't handle them - I couldn't even pick them up with tweezers.  In the end I resorted to using small rectangles with one corner rounded so I could get a close fit to the root in the gearbox.

 

 

Once I had all eight of the rectangles glued in place, I very carefully shaved each one down with a brand new blade - taking just a sliver at a time and ended up with reasonable success. After that, they were very lightly touched over with the file - nothing more than a tickle really.

 

 

This is about as much as will be seen when it eventually gets fitted.  I'll need to go and check my resources. Fly has a sort of square hole through the tail for the gearbox but I think it may be round, not square.  [edit.... square at bottom end and round at top!]

Anyways...

 

 

Here we have the almost finished part in comparison to the original kit part.  I know which version I'll be going with!

The shaft through the gearbox is not fixed and is still free to rotate - I can glue a small piece if tube on the back end later to prevent it pulling through yet it will still be free to rotate.

Now the really nice thing about this is that we now have a substantially stronger mounting for the tail rotor.  As well as being a little bit more realistic, the new gearbox will be able to withstand a lot more abuse (if that ever happens).  The whole thing from start to finish took me about two hours and the longest part of that was cutting and gluing the web sections on the gearbox.

 

 

A quick squirt of etch primer later and we're almost there.

 

 

I wasn't sure what the proper color should be but ended up deciding to go with a dark green.  I used Testors US Marine Corp green with a touch of white added. (Paint is still a little wet at the time of the photo)

There's still a few things to add to the tail rotor gearbox, but I want to get it in position before adding the other parts, such as the filler cap on top. I can't really add that until I know exactly where the gearbox is going to lie inside the tail.

 

 

Lastly, another shot of the intermediate gearbox, all painted up.  I also took the opportunity to throw some primer on the inside of the tail sections while the airbrush was out.

 

 

Now, a question for all you Wessi lovers out there.... does anyone know what color the inside of the tail should be painted ?

It's very difficult to tell from the photo's I have available. It could be the usual interior type green, or it could be some shade of silver - I'm really not sure though I think that since the interior can be seen through the intermediate gearbox area mesh, that it would be green. 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by hendie

[longshanks]

Just love what you can do with a bit of brass, solder , torch and imagination ....

 

Kev

[Hamden]

 

Stunning micro engineering on that tail unit!

 

   Roger

[Martian]

Superb workmanship Hendie.

 

Martian

[TheBaron]

Oh my goodness yes!

Hyper-metal-fettling no less.

 

A great example of creative problem solving.

 

[Harley John]

WOW! That is all.

[perdu]

You see the road ahead?

 

Just there where it vanishes from view?

 

 

 

 

 

That, dear friend is the beginning of the slippery slope

 

 

The point from which all later ones will be considered to have started

 

Every modeller of the Fly Wessex will be clamouring for you to start production of that gearbox in resin

 

Then the Itarellellions will begin pestering for it in 1/48

 

 

Then I might start wittering about you doing them in the Gentleman's Scale

 

 

And we can all point back to this stupendous moment in history

 

That gearbox is amazing

 

Even has a sight glass

 

Oh my...

[hendie]

Thanks for all the comments folks - really appreciated.

 

 

On 11/23/2017 at 4:26 PM, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

I hang my head in shame at the crude hand-carved equivalent fitted to my Sea King - but luckily you can’t see any of that from outside either!

 

Remember Crisp that this is 1/32 so it's a whole 16 scale bits bigger than your Sea King.  Those extra bits make all the difference when it comes to being able to add detail.   I don't think I'd have got anything anywhere near as good looking in 1/48

I'm still not even going to consider rivets though.

 

 

5 hours ago, TheBaron said:

A great example of creative problem solving.

 

I consider it more sort of 'fools rush in without proper planning ahead'  (may have to revisit the tail rotor gearbox today).  I now consider that within the norm as part of the perils and pitfalls of plastic prodding

 

 

4 hours ago, perdu said:

Every modeller of the Fly Wessex will be clamouring for you to start production of that gearbox in resin

 

Bill - you really think that there's more folks out there as daft as me ?   I find that hard to believe.