John B (Sc)
-
Posts
1,070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by John B (Sc)
-
-
whereas the 3mm error in Ligtning length, assuming accurate measurement, equates to 3 3/4 " on the real thing. More that would be seen due to aircraft temperature change, and more than I 'd expect as variation in length between builds, but not a show stopper.
THis will be an interesting build - I need something to get me started again on my 1/48th Airfix and the oft postponed Echelon machines. (What a shame Frandk Brown stopped. Superb kits, nice chap)
Have fun !
John B
-
Well as I know the Tucanos in RAF service vary in length by up to 8 inches I think I will let Trumpeter away with this one .Still going to wait for the F.6 though.
Eight inches ! Strewth - How, why? That'a heck of a variation in what I thought was a standard production aircraft.
John B (Puzzled)
-
You are correct, the earlier cockpits were indeed black. I was refering to a Mk.3 tub as seen on Thunder and Lightnings web site.
Cheers
smeds
Ah super - thanks.
John B
-
Spingo - oh god no!!!!
Hic. oops.
-
According to Thunder and Lightnings web site, it appears to be medium sea gray.
HTH
smeds
I thought the early marks - Mk1 and Mk 1a aircraft cockpits were largely black, then they went to gray by the time the Mk3 came along? The cockpits I remember looking into in the early Sixties seemed fairly dark places ! Hard to see much of the walls around that big black ejection seat anyway.
-
There is a lot of green in the Lebanon
Yep, hence the cedar tree in the Air Force emblem. Lovely place.
How nice to see Hunters back, even briefly.
John B
-
Good luck with this. I will be very interested to hear what you and others think of the canopy arrangement. My recollection from years ago is that this was one of the few early Matchbox kits I found disappointing because of the low cockpit profile and what seemed to me to be a slightly short nose.
Other than that it seemed better detailed than the older Airfix F4B offering.
But that's memory from what? - twenty years ago plus - so maybe I'm remembering the wrong kit.
I think you are right about stores loadings. Mostly the F4Ks launched fairly light inthe picturesand videos I've seen, perhaps because Ark was a challenge to operate the Phantom from anyway.
Cheers,
John B
-
I know that we need to treat the colours used with caution but even so, varnsihed wood is pretty muich varnished wood! There are some good examples, in the DVII section, showing the interior of the 5-colour lozenge fabric as seen inside the cockpit.
I hope this is of use.
Graeme
A super find Graeme. Given the weight challenges most early aeroplanes had, the minimum covering is not surprising I suppose. Also varnished wood probably makes it easier to spot any failures and splits occurring? Looks lovely like that.
John B
-
Why'dya think I did mine with the wings up & flaps open?
Not very realistic to have the both like that (I think) AND loaded for bear, but hey... I was after an easy life!
According to folk I spoke to when I did mine, the FAA did occasionally load their Seahawks then fold the wings Mike, so maybe not so odd. I don't think the airbrakes could deploy when the wings were folded though !
(I saw your note about Aeroclub's JP. Sadly I only bought one. Like you I'd happily buy another- several. Maybe we need to persuade John to refurbish the moulds - I think that was why he withdrew the kit.)
John B
-
Well, everything in the RAF was used during the Falklands, doesn't make them part of the conflict, sorry...
Sea Eagle did not enter service until 1985, though test firings were carried out before then (one of the shot-down SHARs in the Falklands had a Sea Eagle control panel in the cockpit, which put the wind up the Argies nicely).
Aye, The RAF did their level best to ensure our idiotic press believed that they won the war. The Fleet Air Arm ? oh , minor contributors doncha' know !
Give the light blue their due, they know how to win the PR battles, if nothing else.
-
- steady on mate , leave summat fer the rest of us - here's something to distract you ;- http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj5SGfdWn44 Q. what is the deliberate mistake ? . . . .
Hey, I need to get my stash levels down too !
I agree with Joseph. He111H instead of He111B ? Nice video.
John B
-
me too , which version have you got ? - i have the 111b - the codes are printed in white !!!!!!!!! - i must get a printer . . .
I just checked, since it's been 'stashed away' for a few years. Unfortunately its an HE111A, so either I do an engine change - very prototypical - or another wiffery job
Now don't start me on 109s blimp ! Those 109Bs with the Zylinder Hat emblems are amongst the bonniest of 109s in my opinion. The chin radiator makes it look pugnacious. Though the 109Es also looked good.......
John B
-
Blimp, can I add my thanks to you as well.
Like Deon I received a parcel just now from blimp, with these fine chaps -
I-16 type 5/6,
Koolhaven FK-51 ; a two seater variant,
Henschel HS126,
Gloster Gamecock.
Superb. Having just built the single seat FK-51, the two seater will be a fine contrast. And I didn't even know there were any Gamecocks used in Spain, so like Deon, some research required.
Hmmm , will there be time to do the He111 as well. Aargh - my stash may not get reduced by this!
Blimp, thanks again.
John B
-
. . . I might be tempted into getting a Roden Heinkel .
tired of living eh ?
it is buildable , just , certainly not a weekend job . pity , it's one of my favorite scw aircraft . i would love to see more . go for it ! you know you want to ! Yes.... I've been putting off building my own Roden Heinkel for some time. Erm, well several years now. Maybe this is the opportunity - the drive I neeed !
Could need support on this one.
-
OK, I'm in for a Spanish Civil War GB. Not sure of the rules. (Haven't done this before) Are we limited to a particular scale? Is it one person per type?
If so, has anyone bagged the I-16 as a machine to build ? I wasn't sure reading quickly through.
John B
-
Not a bad point there - but Echelon lightnings are changing hands for anything up to £200+. But I think it's safe to say it will still be a more accurate Lightning, cos you are right - frank did an amazing job with it.
What? £200. Surely not ! I assumed that with the Trumpter kit coming along, the superheated Echelon market would subside.
Maybe I won't convert the second one.
-
A fine model of a lovely aeroplane. I enjoyed my 707 flights in the late Sixties, early Seventies. What a change from pistons.
There was lot of learning going on then. Things happened much faster with the new jets and somethings had to relearned or unlearned.
Often the dreadfully hard way, like this. The human interpretation problem of approaches to well lighted areas from an unlit sea were not understood. Even if that is what happened it's not human error. Its a perception problem, not then identified properly. Oftne more of a challenge for experienced crews, who were faster at forming a' picture' during the approach. It still needs great care today, with much better instrumentation and aids.
A lovely tribute to your Dad. Super.
-
1
-
-
Oh Well. I'll just continue with my Echelon Lightning. Glad I didn't sell it now. Frank B did a superb job - one of the best vacforms I've worked on, so far.
I had been tempted to have both a Trumpeter and an Echelon machine.
Could be a dilemma later. Do I convert the secvond one to an early mark, or sell it to part fund a Trumpeter Mk1a. Ummm. Can't justify that sort of cost otherwise. Silly money.
-
Can't believe it!
D'you know the 2000 is a produce of Frogland?
Very, very well done anyway.
Possible to get some close-up pics?
Oui, naturellement mon brave.
C'est superbe, non?
Posting close ups would just be boasting, surely. Terrific work !
-
Wow !
I think I agree with Graham. There is almost certainly a flat plexiglass panel fitted on the underside. (So the internal structure of longerons etc will show.) Apart from the drag and risk of ballooning fabric off, the dirt and mud splash in would be unwanted.
I don't think the removal of main hood makes that much difference. A bit of extra drag but not necessarily huge. A lot of pilots of that era flew with canopies open regularly. The airflow over the cockpits would be fairly good, although I expect there was some buffety turbulence inthe rear. Ok so long as hunched down doing art obs., not great if manning gun.
What a terrific find. Definitely have to model this.
Thanks folks.
-
Nice pics nsmekanik.
Thye show that dihedral angle really well. And the flap area internal detail.
Having had a chance now to look at a Revell wing, I see what you guys mean.
Does look a tad light on angle !
A cut and shim job needed in the build.
-
tut... all these negative vibes about the kit. At £5.24 a pop, i couldn't give a woof woof about the bow wow.
From what i understand, just like a B-52, the dihedral alters depending on bomb & wing loading. So much so that a Grand Slammer has a quite alarming curve upwards, possibly even over the magic & oft quoted 7 degrees ?
.
Wow, that's a good price. Where did you get that?
Oh yes, pictures of Grand Slam loaded machines in flight show significantly more tip dihedral - they must do, since otherwise there will be a loud bang. Aircraft wings are always designed to flex. The seven degrees is a rigging figure, as you know.
Some very curious & quite subtle effects occur. In one aircraft I flew regularly it was possible to approximately judge speed by looking out along the wing. As speed rose, first the wing curved up more with increased loading. Then as the tip washout reduced loadings outboard the wing would appear to straighten out. As you approached Vne the wing developed a very slight hunching. The inner wing flexed up under load while the tips, now at negative angle of attack, were bending down. Only possible to see clearly because the line of sight was almost along the wing LE, but once you knew of it, you could tell the speed of anyone else's high speed pass. Very menacing, quite raptor like !
-
Thanks John.
After much studying of the Lancaster at War series and many other Lanc publications I have,I soon came to the conclusion that they gained their exhaust stains very very quickly.
A combination of 150 octane,high altitude and F/E's not wanting to run out of petrol so running 'em as lean as they dared soon saw to that.
Derek,I certainly,certainly do not think the Revell kit a bow-wow.It is the best at the moment that's available and certainly looks like a Lanc when built.
Yes the wheels are naff,the guns awful and the m/u turret sits a bit too high,but for the main two options in it,paddle or narrow prop blades,shrouded or unshrouded exhausts,for the price it's unbeatable at the moment..
The Airfix offering is,for general outline,still regarded to be the best,but needs far more work to bring it upto scratch.
The Hasegawa is very good but needs a lot of work/and or money(pe and resin) to get it there.
Mark
Intriguing, thanks. I must haul out my Lanc at War books and have a look. Certainly good and lean, but then engine life wasn't much of an issue in that role. Least of their worries. I like a medium grey in my exhaust, but only lightly ! The mixes used in wartime to get these very high Octane values were quite variable. I read a book on wartime petroleum production a while back. Fascinating variation in chemical mixes depending on what crude source was available. Innocently, I had thought petrol of a given octane value was all chemically ~identical. Nope, not at all !
I want to build an RCAF post war Rescue Lanc, so I think a Revell beast it will be.
Damien - I hope Derek's comments have clarified things. If we want to criticise the accuracy of the kit we have to trying to compare like with like, apples with apples. (or chocolate teapots from the same aspect? ) Using photos from undefined angles doesn't help, though they are fun to look at. Trying to view your model from the same aspect is effectively impossible to the sort of accuracy being discussed.
Incidentally an aircraft at the point of alighting often has higher than normal dihedral because of the change in loading distribution caused by flap deflection and because there is energy being used in reducing descent rate - called the flare. That energy is being produced by the wing, hence more loading.
Derek - I agree, I don't expect that on-ground dihedral would be reduced that much in an unloaded aircraft.
Only possibilities - if the Hendon machine has been re-rigged after move, was it properly trestled and trammelled afterwards? Hmm - How much room for adjustment is there at the joints? Normally any adjustment requires shimming in my (limited) experience. If play has developed, reaming out and fitting oversize pins is sometimes done to take up slack. I don't know if that was standard practice on the Lanc.
Of course fuelling up will cause some reduction in dihedral at rest. No idea how much in Lancasters, probably not great. In some aircraft it is very obvious.
Cheers.
John
(Late edit - have just seen AV8fans post. Excellent. Any shimming would be on those blocks. That looks like the only possible adjustment, though it looks designed to be a driving fit. Any comment from ex-riggers?)
-
It seems fairly clear. The main and outer wing sections were both set at 7 degrees wrt datum. I'd accept Francis Mason's reading of the specs rather than any number of pictures. Mr Mason was a senior designer for Hawker, so I reckon his figures can be taken as likely to be accurate! Yes, taken from one book, the aircraft rigging manual. As an engineer that is the only final authority I'd accept. The Lincoln is quoted as having the same settings.
Regardless of loadings, overloadings, ageing etc., any aircraft which when dimensionally checked was out of true tolerances would have been withdrawn for check, overhaul and repair as appropriate before flying again. I expect if we were to ask the BBMF ground crew, they will know in which attitude and configuration the dihedral requires checking. Generally this will require the unloaded aircraft to be trestled to a level fuselage datum position. The wings would also be trestled - stencils were applied for this purpose. As peebeep says, the dihedral measurement could tahen be assessed, while trestled.. And it is wrt datum, which will be shown on the aircraft rigging drawings, or defined precisely in the rigging manuals. So checking the apparent dihedral from photos of the BBMF machine on the ground, while fun, won't help at all. Angular assessment (from what reference?) is not possible at all and loading state etc. is not known.
Note that it would also have been necessary to specify where on the wing that value was taken – the wing tapers in frontal view and in plan. It also has washout built in. Aaargh - a complex 3D shape. A value may have been taken using the mainspar line along the undersurface of the eing, or a value taken to a specified point on a particular rib. It's not an easy exercise, requires some rigour and precision - which is why aircraft riggers & maintainers sometimes get tetchy.
I expect dihedral settings will be one of the items checked typically at each Cof A - every three years? Alternately it may only be a check done if there are any reported oddities in the handling. Also any significant change should be visible to the crew on general inspection.
That said, what miggers (Mark) says is entirely fair - the aircraft now at Hendon has been out of service for a long time. It will have been left loaded, and overloaded frequently, it presumably has also been dismantled and reassembled a number of times since it was last checked and approved for flight - I presume the outer panels can be removed ~readily? How much allowance for rigging adjustment is there? Its long ground period may well have resulted in further sagging of an aged and probably somewhat corroded structure.
In flight I'd expect the flexing to be several degrees normally and a darn sight more at max overload. Aircraft wings flex much more than people think - I recall watching a Boeing 707 as we went through a thunderstorm. Very impressive. A glance at any photos of max load tests will show astonishing flex before break. I believe the Boeing manual quoted a max tip upwards deflection of around ten feet from the unloaded ground 'datum' before failure. That was a long time ago and I don't have the manual to check. (As someone else said they had better flex. Rigid is not good.)
Of course if you want to see serious wing flexing in flight have a look at modern glassfibre or carbonfibre sparred sailplanes. Wow.
Mark - nice work on your Revell Lancaster. My word, that's some exhaust staining you have there. Looks like she's been running a bit lean on all four !
Cheers,
John
- here's something to distract you ;- 
it is buildable , just , certainly not a weekend job . pity , it's one of my favorite scw aircraft . i would love to see more . go for it ! you know you want to ! 
Trumpeter 1/32nd Lightning
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
Thanks sniper. Astonishing. That's not just sloppy, it's appalling. I'm used to old aeroplanes varying a bit in dimensions, always necessary to field fit items, especially with old wooden airframes, but never eight inches in that size machine. Ye gods. What did they use, shipyard technology ?
That would have to affect handling, trim and CG considerations for each airframe. Difficult to believe any engineer would acept that level of variation. (I wouldn't!)
Nimrod I thought was more to do with the variation on fuselage wing pick-up points, due as you say to effectively handbuilding them - the curse of the UK aviationbusienss, plus years of airframe stressing, just enough to make life difficult. Only needs a few thou. Of course deciding to keep the cheap bit, the fuselage tube, showed someone's brain wasn't engaged !