Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pappy last won the day on October 1 2015

Pappy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,187 Excellent


About Pappy

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Brisneyland, Oz
  • Interests
    Pina Colada's and long walks in the rain

Recent Profile Visitors

4,045 profile views
  1. G'day Sleeper and AD210 Once I found a pic of the turret in its traversed position I knew I just had to depict that feature. I didn,t know anything about either sub before buying the kits as I mainly build modern jets, thanks for the comments G'day Mike, Thanks very much for the kind words. The Tamiya kit is a great build, everything you would expect of the big T. The HB surcouf was also a vice free build, but my 'modifications' did add some extra complexity! Thanks again fellas. To be completely honest, I was not relly aware of the existence of these two leviathans until I saw the kits in the LHS/online. Once I had bought each kit and started doing the research, I was amazed that they were built and that they were not widely known about. The more I read about them, the more interesting they became, cheers Pappy
  2. G'day Martin, Great progress so far. I had not heard of this net curtain material method for replicating raw fibreglass before, could you please explain furthe about the source material please? cheers, Pappy
  3. G'day Unc, Deano, I hope you don't mind me interrupting your thread, Yup, another area that HB completely stuffed up. Left unmodified, the resultant flap assembly will be angled away from the wing trailing edge instead of parallel to it as Unc has correctly pointed out which just looks ridiculous. The culprits are the flap vane parts {the bit in red between the flaps and wing in Ron' pic} that have their vanes wider in chord as they approach the wing tips instead of narrowing. Also, note that the narrowing is in the form of a span wise taper rather than a constant chord. You cannot simply install these opposite because the flap vanes themselves are different lengths and the flap guides (the bits running (fore/aft) are handed. To use Ron's pic above as an example, the section currently near the right wing root should be at the left wing tip. Unc, could you not just use a razor saw to separate the flap vanes and then re-attach them in the opposite order and on the opposite wing side (the way they should be} i.e. with flap vane chord narrowing towards the wing tips? You may still need to add a small section of plastic card to each section {to accommodate for lost material during their removal} and sand to shape but at least you will still have uniform aerofoil shaped parts. As to the length of the flap guide tracks, just test fit and adjust their lengths as required.. The leading edge of the flap assembly should remain parallel with the trailing edge of the wing core, I would just fix the flap vane chord issue first then eyeball the flap vane length by test fitting. There is also (yet) another stuff HB stuff up withe the extended flaps option, which is that the panels underneath the wing are flush. With the wing in a clean state, these panels (four for the short wing versions and five for the FB/C/G) remain flush. When the flaps and slats deploy however, these forward hinged panels angle upwards to form a convergent duct, energising the boundary layer to delay boundary layer separation. In English, for the modeller, this means these panels located along the trailing edge of the wing core should be cut away and re-attached angled upwards. Matters are further complicated due to the piano hinge style of attachment and the irregular shape of the panels, which once again are handed, To be fair, no kit manufacturer has gotten this detail correct, including Hasegawa who still have the most accurate F-111 kits and this is a feature that many people will not posses the skills to correct, but would be noticeable in 1/48 scale over to you blue leader Pappy
  4. I must admit I also have a soft spot for the liffy water!
  5. No worries, you are doing great and I am looking forward to seeing your pig completed, cheers, Pappy
  6. G'day Deano, Ray is correct vis the P/T pod colours. When the fleet went grey, the pods did as well. Initially they were painted olive drab, but then about 2000 they started to paint these black. from about 2002 they were mostly grey {FS36118} but it was not uncommon to see the odd black pod on a grey jet. What a lot of people don,t know is that all the pods had a nickname stencilled on them. The names were not visible when installed as it was deliberatley placed in the area that was hidden due to the somewhat ribald nature of some of the nicknames, usually selected as a form of in joke by the P/T workshop crews. Also, dunno if it has already been mentioned but the F/RF-111Cs did not have the low-viz formation lights. Apart from being horribly over scale, it is incorrect for Cs, one of the litany of errors with the HB kit. The lights on the tail {and the rest of the airframe for that matter} should be removed if you are concerned about accuracy, but build it how you want, I raise the point in case anyone else decides to reference this build for their own build. Sometime after the ex-USAF F-111Gs {which were fitted with low-viz lights} were aquired, a project was undertaken to have a common engine in service throughout the fleet. By now, the F-111C AUP fleet was all grey and it was not uncommon to see an odd F-111C with an engine acces door cannibalised from an F-111G. There are two engine access doors per engine and one of these doors was the location for the fuselage side low-viz formation lights. So, with a cannibalised engine door, it was possible to have one panel with low-viz lights, however none of the other low-viz lights would be present, but for a pig in SEA paint, no low-viz lights. cheers Pappy
  7. G'day Cooper, Thanks very much. I did not think to look there! cheers, Pappy
  8. G'day Ron, I don,t know for certain what pics you are looking at {but I have a good idea} when you mention photos from the Richmond airshow but I suspect that the datalink pod in your picture is actually the one used in conjunction with the AGM-142 «Popeye». Up to two 142s could be carried, however if an asymetric 142 load was carried, an inert Mk.82 was also loaded on the opposite side {typically STA 5} withe the D/L pod on STA 6 to off set the weight. which would explain the pod on STA 6. cheers Pappy
  9. G'day Deano, It is 100% not rust. The reddish brown is the colour of the material at the endge of the transparency, a fibreglass like material. This would be unpainted when new then painted to match the airfrrame as required {as mentioned Ray in a post above} however the paint frequently wore away to reveal the underlying colour, especially after supersonic flight. The grey colour is the actual sealant/ caulking compound which was usually grey but other colours were possible. There is thin panel that runs down the centre of the windscreen between the two clear portions that is metal. This panel coversthe re-positioning cable. Following a high altitude ejection, the crew capsule would pitch nose down and only the drogue chute would deploy to stabilise the capsule whilst it decended to a breathable altitude. Once this altitude was sensed via a barostatic device, the firing train would re-commence and a cartridge would fire to withraw a pin that retained the forward attachment point for the main parachute, allowing to capsule to regain a normal attitude as it decended under the parachute. Deano, you are doing a fantastic job with {IMHO} a rubbish kit. Looking forward to seeing the finished product, cheers, Pappy
  10. Pappy

    Type 45 Colours

    G'day Midland, that is a useful collage and thanks for the answer regarding the real colour (BS381C - 676), that is a most useful piece of info G'day Jamie, As I said, although I do not doubt the accuracy of the WEM Colour coats, supply in Oz is problematic and again, great to brush with but not user friendly reference spraying due to the tinlet packaging. I think I wil start with FS36375 and experiment from there, thank you both for your input, cheers, Pappy
  11. G'day people, Thank all very much for the confirmation, cheers, Pappy
  12. Pappy

    Type 45 Colours

    G'day people, pologies if this has already been asked, I am doing some research for a fututre build. Iam looking at the Airfix Type 45 {Daring Class} destroyer instructions which suggest Humbrol 127 {light ghost grey} for the hull sides/superstructure and Humbrol 27 {sea grey}for the deck and horizontal surfaces. Hu 27 seems like a good approximation but i am not convinced about Hu127. I don't want to use Humbrol paints because although they are available and great to brush paint with, I have moved away from spraying enamels. I also hate messing about with the ti lets, they are just not user friendly. I also had a bad experience spraying Humbrol acrylics. Hu 127 would be equivalent to FS 36375 {Light Ghost Grey} but this seems a little too light to me. I imagine the real paint would also be a BSC colour and some form of «admiralty grey» What would people suggest as an alternate to Humbrol paints ? I know WEM used to make matched paints but I don't think these are still available and again, they are in the same tinlet form as Humbrol and also enamel, cheers, Pappy
  13. Thanks you so much for all the great gouge, really helpful and interesting as well. G'day people, I decided to sand off the raised details from the sail and add my own I have also made a start on the anchor well. The hatch area has been milled out with a motor tool I will scratch up the cover plate/door but first I will have to find something suitable to use as an anchor, cheers, Pappy
  14. G'day Jeff, All of that is very helpful, thanks. I have some pics that show two steps below the access door at the front of the sail, one immediately below and t'other offset to the portside and lower. There are also what looks like thin sections of waveguide in front leading from the upper deck/casing. Good info ref the achor cover plate hinge, you can also see it in the pic supplied by Ken in his post. It appears that Ovens is missing hers in the ref pic I have, cheers, Pappy
  15. G'day Ken, that makes sense, I guess the door /plate could be installed when romping around the 'oggin' and removed when the boat returns to dock, hence keeping an acoustically 'clean' profile for patrol purposes? G'day Stuart, I was hoping someone would seta porr jet guy styraight, draught marks it is, cheers Exactly! Now I have noticed that the sail/conning tower has a raised vertical line running down the right side only in addition to one running horizontally around the base on both sides. I don't have a pic handy but I am sure that the horizontal line is the grab rail but unsure about the vertical line. Is this perhaps some sort of waveguide for the radar? In any case, it is not present on my references for HMAS Ovens so I have sanded both lines off, and will replace the handrail later. I also note that there is a small raised sqare in the middle of each side of the sail which I think is supposed to be the location of the left/right surface running lights. My references appaear to show these as being recessed. Is this correct and like the anchor, would there have been plates that were installed over their locations as well? cheers, Pappy
  • Create New...