Work In Progress Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 08/02/2018 at 4:49 PM, galgos said: Huntley was obviously prepared to put his name to a book containing plans by Caruana so one presumes he didn't have too many issues with them. You would be forgiven for thinking that but it is not a safe assumption. It's possible he wasn't consulted about them at all. Where authors provide their own photographs or illustrations then they have rights over them. But publishers quite often do things that authors don't like, often without prior knowledge of those same authors. The selection, inclusion or exclusion of illustrations commissioned from other sources, including covers, is quite common territory for publishers to go their own way unless the author has sought and been granted specific contractual rights in that regard, and such rights are not very common. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 About correctng Airfix. Some 20 years ago I did a deep reshaping (wings, fuselage, tail) of Airfix Battle following some English book or booklet which was in Krakow Museum of Polish Aviation. Those drawing are in background - maybe somone recognize what book it came from? Those drawing I think are very good. Regards J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pameinos Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Plans are not enough for accuracy unless they are accompanied by numbers: Dimensions of lg struts, wing chord, fuselage stations, control surfaces, airfoil type etc, like in Paul Matts drawings. Are this data available somewhere? Maybe in the maintenance or repair manuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thompson Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 To quote Chrissie Hynde, "Don't get me wrong", but considering how desperate the Airfix Battle seems to be, I'd think almost any well-intended set of drawings would be enough to allow a major improvement in accuracy. If it was me, I'd be partial to the ones by Alf Granger, posted earlier by dogsbody, but the likelihood I'll ever tackle this kit again is pretty slim. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Those are Ken Merrick's plans, but laid out in a sightly different way than when published in Scale Models International March 1984. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 I also have those Merrick drawings in a booklet by Argus Books: AIRCRAFT ARCHIVE - Bombers of World War Two. There are four booklets in the series. Chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) "Aircraft Archive"! Yes Chris, this is the name of book I used also in my conversion... J-W Edited February 10, 2018 by JWM 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) I looked into my Battle references, if this can help. 48th scale plans by Ian Huntley were published in Scale Aircraft Modelling vol. 22, issue 2 (April 2000). This may possibly be a reprint of plans in Aviation News vol. 7, no. 6 (that I do not have). 72nd scale plans in SAM Publications Aviation Guide on the Fairey Battle appear to be scaled from the Ian Huntley plans, as far as I can tell. in October 2000, Scale Aircraft Modelling vol. 22, issue 8 included a feature by Paul Lloyd on correcting the Classic Airframes Battle. A partial plan and sketches are included, supposedly in 48th scale. Unfortunately, the plan appears to have been reduced to fit the page: the author gives the correct length of the Battle, 267.6 mm, but the plan length is just 248 mm. Half-span (what is shown in the drawings) is 162 mm instead of 171.45 mm. I do not know which kind of distortion this means. Correct distances (for 48th scale) are quoted in millimetres on the drawing, so this may still be useful regardless. Information are also given in the article about some airframe details. Claudio Edited February 11, 2018 by ClaudioN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 9 hours ago, Pameinos said: Plans are not enough for accuracy unless they are accompanied by numbers: Dimensions of lg struts, wing chord, fuselage stations, control surfaces, airfoil type etc, like in Paul Matt's drawings. Are this data available somewhere? Maybe in the maintenance or repair manuals? You forgot to preface it........... "In the perfect world, plans are not enough.............." Unless a maintenance or repair manual has a section on erecting the aircraft, it's not likely to have these dimensions. Some of the drawings and diagrams in manuals are quite approximate dimensionally. In the perfect world, plans are drawn from a real, unrestored, unmodified aircraft in perfect condition. When someone puts up the thread Airfix 2021 I will add the Battle to it 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Ed Russell said: When someone puts up the thread Airfix 2021 I will add the Battle to it Join the queue, Ed. I've had the Battle on my Airfix wishlist for at least 3 years now! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 3 hours ago, mhaselden said: Join the queue, Ed. I've had the Battle on my Airfix wishlist for at least 3 years now! 2018 plus 3 more years = 2021............ looks right! Has internal consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 7 hours ago, ClaudioN said: in October 2000, Scale Aircraft Modelling vol. 22, issue 8 included a feature by Paul Lloyd on correcting the Classic Airframes Battle. A partial plan and sketches are included, supposedly in 48th scale. Unfortunately, the plan appears to have been reduced to fit the page: the author gives the correct length of the Battle, 267.6 mm, but the plan length is just 248 mm. Half-span (what is shown in the drawings) is 162 mm instead of 171.45 mm. I do not know which kind of distortion this means. Correct distances (for 72nd scale) are quoted in millimetres on the drawing, so this may still be useful regardless. Information are also given in the article about some airframe details. Does it means that while printing someone shrank plans for some 10%? Than one can back expand them using Xerox machine... Cheers J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 2 hours ago, JWM said: Does it means that while printing someone shrank plans for some 10%? Than one can back expand them using Xerox machine... Cheers J-W Not exactly: the ratio is 0.927 for length and 0.945 for span. Claudio 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 hour ago, ClaudioN said: Not exactly: the ratio is 0.927 for length and 0.945 for span. Claudio So one need computer not xerox machine to strech differently in X and Y Perhaps work like that was done by publisher just to fit better in margins or similar practical reason If it is so something which should be a circle is not a perfect circle - you may check this hypothesis measuring wheels - are they a bit oval perhaps? Regards J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 For only 2% difference, you'd find it difficult to notice non-circularity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 41 minutes ago, Graham Boak said: For only 2% difference, you'd find it difficult to notice non-circularity. 2% means for 1 cm 0.2 mm - a lot for each of us, modellers J-W 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 2% is generally an undesirable error in overall dimensions on a 1/72nd kit, as the kit designers are perfectly capable of doing better. But given that no-one is ever perfect I admit to considering 2% as something of an upper limit of the acceptable. Given that it generally cannot be seen, or is very close to the margin that can't be seen, without a direct comparison of parts side by side. In this case you are looking at a small circle and deciding by eye that it isn't quite round? I doubt it. When considering a whole kit 2% on all three dimensions will give a difference in bulk of 6%, which is noticeable if you put (say) two tank kits side by side but less so if judged independently. However, dimensional errors are usually only in either span or length or height, rather than all three. When discussing scale differences, which do apply to all three dimensions, then the usual one considered is the difference between the long-established 1/76 and the nowadays more current 1/72 - this is almost 5% linearly and almost 18% in bulk, a very obvious difference! Anyone who has had (for example) the LS Judy at 1/75 and the Fujimi one at 1/72 will have noticed the difference without needing further comment from me. But I suppose that 1/75 kits are fairly rare nowadays, and few modellers will have been exposed to this.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Hmm, my gut feeling is that we humans are a lot better at "seeing" a linear or planar difference (or proportion) than a volumetric one. It would be interesting to experiment with distortion of circles. No doubt it has been done already. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 2 hours ago, Graham Boak said: For only 2% difference, you'd find it difficult to notice non-circularity. Indeed. There are circles on the drawing to mark positions of roundels (much larger than wheels), but eccentricity is perhaps 0.5 mm on a 27mm (scale) roundel. Anyway, since main scale distances in millimetres are quoted on the drawing, proportions can be worked out proportions, which may be safer, if a bit more tedious. Claudio 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 3 hours ago, ClaudioN said: Indeed. There are circles on the drawing to mark positions of roundels (much larger than wheels), but eccentricity is perhaps 0.5 mm on a 27mm (scale) roundel. OK, so this exactly what was expected (I thought about 0.2 mm at 10 mm - what i s the same). So I am now almost sure, that original drawing were pefect but then were shrank in one dimention by publisher (intetionally or not) while preparing book for printing... Regards J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 hour ago, JWM said: So I am now almost sure, that original drawing were pefect but then were shrank in one dimention by publisher (intetionally or not) while preparing book for printing... Allowing for the uncertainty of my measuring equipment (ruler plus Mk.I eyeball), the span and length ratios I mentioned before are perhaps more conclusive. Assuming an average reduction ratio of 0.94 on the two axes, I'd think a copier with 106% enlargement may already return a satisfactory plan. If you have already done this, you know the copier stated ratio cannot be trusted and you need to double-check that. Cheers Claudio 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 It is not news to learn that copiers/printers stretch the copies. One way around this when changing scales is to do the enlargement in two stages, rotating the drawing through 90 degrees between each stage. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOCKNEY Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 I think we are forgetting the real issue here, did limeypilot win the blooming airfix one he was going after ! Oh and I think the Bilek is the Airfix one, sorry I know couldnt resist it ! If I recall correctly I have a strange looking version in the stash I think by MPM with 2 individual cockpits and covers rather than one long one, is this some sort of trainer ? cheers Pat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudioN Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) Yes, it' s a trainer AIRCRAFT OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE 1939-1945: FAIREY BATTLE. © IWM (CH 2141) IWM Non Commercial License Edited February 18, 2018 by ClaudioN 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 On 11/02/2018 at 12:06 AM, Ed Russell said: Unless a maintenance or repair manual has a section on erecting the aircraft, it's not likely to have these dimensions. I prefer to work from these as a primary reference nowadays but short of travelling to the UK to consult a museum copy (which sadly isn't an option), can't find a Battle one available to purchase anywhere. 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