Jump to content

Pappy

Members
  • Posts

    2,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Pappy

  1. Immensely, however, if I am looking at the pictures correctly, the screw rotates CW, contrary to that suggested by Stu? In the pics included in the above link, the screws as viewed from above are looking from the rear forward? confused Pappy
  2. G'day Stu, I undertand what you mean, that was my interperetation as well, just not sure whuch way around the prop spins.I would be very surprised if MM (or any manufacturer) got the prop shape 100% correct, apart from being a complex shape they are sensitive assets as you say. Most kit makers seem to screw up the noses on jets and they are in plain sight! You say CCW is correct, story checks out.... chweers, Pappy
  3. Great pic Stuart, thanks very much. I posted a question regarding the screw/prop in the Maritime Cold war section but would also like to post it here: HMS Conqueror information required - Maritime Cold War to 1990 - Britmodeller.com Which way 'round does the prop face and which way should the blades be bent? The destructions are not very explicit in this area cheers, Pappy
  4. I think that when it comes to a requirement to solve a very specific engineering problem, form follows function to a large degree and hence the same solutions tend to look the same, in this case the ejection seat. Ejection seats may look different to the untgrfained eye but most work in a similar fashion ands have common features. In this case. although the head box looks very different to a K-36, but the seat seems to be using the same Russian design philosophy regarding the drogue chute system and appears to have adopted the twin telescopic drogue chute canisters, one of which is visible over the pilot's leftshoulder which is very reminiscent of the K-36.. As for the spying allegation, I gueass we all have our own opinion although it is much easier to vercome an engineering problem if you see how someone else solved it first. I think it was Mikoyan who once stated that 'Where would Russian aircraft design be without American aircraft design!' Pappy
  5. Could you please expand on the missing outlets near the fin? Are you referring to the square cut-outs that appear on the box lid but are missing on the kit? cheers, Pappy
  6. G'day people, I am looking at starting my Mikro Mir 1/350 USS Conqueror. The instructions are a little vague about how to fold the supplied PE screw. I have made an attempt which I think may be correct, As pictured the forward direction is facing upwards but I am not sure if the blades are turning in the correct direction? I always seems to get this bit wrong so I decided to ask the experten this time before committing to glue. Also, supplementary question, what colour should the screw and hub be? cheers, Pappy (clueless jet guy)
  7. I am very happy to hear that. A pintle is a type of pivot bolt connecting two parts that allows them to turn. the towing design consists of an 'eye' that fits inside a tow point secured by a bolt dropped in vertically, in other words the bit where the red painted ring fits into the red towing point on the tow motor, cheers, Pappy
  8. Very lovely work going on in here. My one minor nitpick is that the towing pintle. eye and levers are pristine. These would typically be heavily worn due to the constant metal to metal contact, otherwise the patina looks just about perfect, cheers, Papppy
  9. G'day CT, I understood you and I had a look at my 1/72 GBU-10s and the max diameter is about right but the side profile a little too elliptical as the UK pattern bomb is stumpier, the end have less taper. You could potentially shorten one end but it still won't look right, but I take your point that shapewise it is the closest. The Eduard is the closest, but for Falklands era you need to shave/sand off the conduit and any vertical 'bands' as this is a feature of the later variant. I have not seen the Eduard item personally but this is based upon what Selwyn has said (and he ought to know) in prior post on the subject cheers, Pappy
  10. GBU-10 uses the MK.84 bomb which is a 2000lb store not 1000lb Pappy
  11. G'day CAC, You are so close! Your SHAR is looking the business As for your hectic holiday. it seems you may need to go back to work for a rest, I want to feel sorry for you but I can't cheers, Pappy
  12. G'day people, I actually added my jet nozzles after painting as well, BUT, I omitted the linkage system as I was not going to play with the nozzles once they were installed. I found the fit little tight but it was not too hard to install, so unless you want to play with the nozzles (a very good way to break off other parts of your kit).I would suggest leaving out the linkage system. When dry fitting the nozzles to their inner swivelmech connectors they were already a very tight fit. I alsoI tried usiing the swivel mech without the nozzles installed before I started painting and it worked okay, sometimes one of the nozzles would drag a little and need a some re-adjustment to match, so I comncluded that installing the swivel mech was not worth the effort IMHO cheers, Pappy
  13. I told you someone smart would come along! cheers, Pappy
  14. Good luck Howard, There are plenty of people with access to aircraft museums, I am sure that someone will oblige with the relevant information. As you say, widening the canopy is the tricky part. I hear what you are saying viz Italeri's accuracy. Several of the helicopter kits have managed to get the tail rotor direction wrong, e.g Wessex so you may just luck out. I built this kit some time ago, albeit with some additions: It was a nice kit, cheers, Pappy
  15. G'day Howard, I can't help with the dimensions but I did the math and your 8" equates to just over 4.24 mm or 11/64" in 1/48. While that may be noticeable in 1/48, it would only be obvious when a modified OH-13 is placed next to a TH-13, but good luck with pursuing accuracy if that is what you want. Extending the cabin width should be easy enough but how are you going to address the requirement for a wider canopy 'bubble', a vacform replacement? Looking forward to seeing the finished article cheers, Pappy
  16. G'day DA, I don't mind the rubber tyres if done crisply, although I still have memories of the 'realistic' rubber tyres included in some older Hasegawa aircraft kits that ended up crumbling or breaking down with age. I have seen that realistic 'sagged' resin replacement tyres are available which I will likely buy with the money saved on purchase price. I am leaning towards the Trumpy kit mainly for the operators cabin, cheers, Pappy
  17. G'day people, help for a jet builder please from the BM massif. I am an experienced builder and have built some armor before but I mainly do jets. I have been offered the choice of either the Trumpeter or Zvezda 1/35 Pantsir kits for a very reasonable price. I only want to build one and would like to know which one is the 'better' kit - I know Meng also make a kit and that they have a reputation for being very good but that is not under consideration. I actually hate the "Which is the best kit?" question as the term best will be different for each person. In my case price and availability are the same so that is not a factor so my criteria are: Which is the most accurate out of the box, e.g. shape, included details etc Which builds the most easily? Do either (or both) have any known flaws? I have had a poke around on Scalemates and looked at the kit instructions, both kits follow a similar assembly sequence starting with a detailed engine and chassis, suspension etc. The only real difference I can see is that the Trumpy kit offers an interior to the control cabin and Zvezda does not? Thanks in advance cheers, Pappy
  18. Please tell me that the daggers were gripped firmly between your teeth in best Commando comics style Pappy
  19. Too bad, but nobody else noticed it either. I think you are right, your dad won't notice it unless you tell him. You could cut out the notch and file back to shape but you would also be missing an additional vortex generator per wing and the wing fences but at this sage being so close to the end I would advise against it as the difference will likely go unnoticed as you say. It is funny, both yourself and DaveJL made the same error, same kit, same Group Build. I was following along with Dave's build so was able to alert him before he attached his wing assembly to the fuselage but sadly I was too late for your build. I don't think the instructions are to blame as they clearly identify the correct part both of you seemed to have adequate reference material on hand. I think the issue is that upper wing parts for both variants (FRS.1 and FA.2) are included in the box which a first glace appear to be the same. It would be easy to select the wrong part if you did not look at the sprue number. I typically go through the box when multiple options are offered, or if there are parts 'Not for use" and I will remove these parts and set them aside. I try and keep them on their sprue if possible and place then in a separate bag (or re-use the resealable bags from the kit) and keep this bag within the kit box just in case I need something that I overleooked but otherwise, these are separate form the other sprues to prevent the chance of using the wrong part. It also cuts down the part count and makes me think I have made greater progress than I actually have! cheers, Pappy
  20. G'day Icarus, I hope that I am wrong but it looks like you have used the wrong wing. From the pics it seems you have used the (later) FA.2 main wing found on the "B" sprue instead of the earlier wing (Part I2). The FRS.1 wing has two dog-tooth notches in the leading edge as well as two corresponding wing fences which are absent on the latter FA.2 wing? cheers, Pappy
  21. Have you used PE and other multimedia accessories before? If not, my advice would be to build a few cheaper, smaller kits and practice using PE, rigging and wooden decks on these before making the Titanic your first attempt, unless you intend this to be warm up kit for something bigger cheers, Pappy
  22. BZ Stuart, a fine effort! cheers, Pappy
  23. I just realised that SS also has a WIP for the same kit. It seems that he has accidentally posted into Steve's WIP, hence the double take, Pappy
  24. Maybe it is old age catching up with me but I am confused, whose build is this? I thought that Stevej60 was the author but it seems that SoftScience is also contributing to the WIP? Pappy
×
×
  • Create New...