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. :)

What are cookies?
Okay, got it.

Nachtwulf

Gold Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    437

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nachtwulf

  3. Posted

    7 minutes ago, tomprobert said:

    Half term is upon us so a bit of bench-time this afternoon.

     

    I've begun making the basic cockpit structure - the rear bulkhead was made from plastic card along with the bases for the side consoles:

     

    49535022927_791b8397c0_z.jpgIMG_E1803 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr

     

    The other smaller structural parts were made using Evergreen strip of various thicknesses:

     

    49535022652_e9feffac80_z.jpgIMG_E1804 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr

     

    Obviously there's lots more to add, and as I hate making and painting cockpits this will be a case of picking it up and putting it down as and when the mood takes.

     

    Until next time,

    Tom

    simply inspiring.:worthy:

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  4. Posted

    5 hours ago, dogsbody said:

    I have to disagree with the Cornell idea. The rudder line at the top of the fin doesn't quite match a Cornell's.

     

    49507242513_0b89127b8b_c.jpg

     

    If only we could see the serial number!

     

    Oh, I also did a quick search of plane crashes in the Jasper area, but so far, all I found is one from 1973.

     

     

     

    Chris

    I believe it looks odd because the rudder is deflected. Here is my vote,   PT-26A

    spacer.png

    Rear fuselage shape matches

    Fabric covered fuselage

    Protuberance on top of rudder matches. Probably a light.

    Fuselage code in right place

    Main gear strut seems to match

    fixed landing gear

    Rear canopy bulkhead is the right place and shape

    tail wheel strut in same location

    fabric covered wing

     

     

    • Like 5

  8. Posted

    I had one way back when. The Mrs. got it for me for my birthday. I remember it being quite rough and certainly beyond my abilities back in the 1990's. I was delighted when the Alpha Flight kit was released. It far more build-able and much better detailed. Sorry I can't offer any build advice on your kit apart from gazing at it and passing it on.

    Forgot to mention that the Alpha Flight kit is a Mk. III.

  14. Posted

    45 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

    BTW mind that - contrary to popular belief and various "serious sources" - these 25 aircraft (alhough all pictured here belong to USAAF 41-14000...14599 serial batch) are both long- (e.g. #2, 3, 7) and short-fuselage (e.g. #6, 9) P-40Fs. The mystery of two "#2"s is very simple - the one on b/w photo sports some two-digit tactical number here and "2" we do see is only the forward half of this marking. The plane next to her also features 2-digit number, in this case it's 11. Remember that there were 25 aircraft in this unit that day, so 2-digit numbers couldn't be uncommon.

    Years ago I started writing a book on the P-40, but then my editors changed their mind and all documents I had landed somewhere deep in one of my drawers. I remember I had received (from the fellow French historian) the (perhaps) complete list of 100+ Merlin-engined Kittyhawks received by FAFL from RAF stocks. I hope I'll manage to find it in few hours.

    Anyway IMHO the first photo looks crudely colourised. These aircraft sported RAF camouflage - perhaps in the US "equivalent" colours version.

    Cheers

    Michael 

    After looking at the photo from a fresh perspective it appears that the "2"s in the background are actually a different number with the white part of the roundel from the next aircraft forming the top part of the 2. :banghead:

  15. Posted

    19 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

    Is is proven that these are original colour shots? They look colourised to me.

    Looks like the same shoot and event as this mono shot on Wikipedia, which claims it's Casablanca in Jan 1943 

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P-40F_GCII-5_Casablanca_9Jan43.jpg

     

    P-40F_GCII-5_Casablanca_9Jan43.jpg

    The fourth aircraft in, "2", is not the same aircraft as the colorized photo. The over spray pattern is different. That would be the 8th aircraft from the foreground. Which begs the question, Why are there three "2"s?

  16. Posted

    Great picture! thanks for sharing it with us. Is that a three tone upper camouflage? I know that is unlikely but it does kinda look like it.:daydream:

     

  17. Posted

    If you haven't started sanding yet, might I suggest using Mr. Color thinner instead. It will easily cut through the paint and it will not mar the fiberglass. I use  anytime i need to clean up a paint issue. It doesn't attack plastic clear parts even. I would test it before using it on clear resin though just in case. Now I'm off to fondle my new HPH B-52........

     

     

  25. Posted · Edited by Nachtwulf
    I'm an idiot

    Disclaimer: the following is what I believe to be true, that does not make it true. so, correct me if i am mistaken.

     

     The center section of the Tempest is perpendicular to the fuselage when referenced from the leading edge. However, the wing is slightly thicker at the root than where the outer wing panels meet the center section. The reason for this is the airfoil thickness as it relates to the chord length. If I am not mistaken this is the wing aspect thickness to chord ratio. So while it is true that there is no anhedral or dihedral to the center section it can appear that there is because the wing root is thicker.  If you look at the Tempest wing from head on it can be misleading as the open wheel bay will make it look like the bottom of the wing is parallel to the top. I do not have the Special Hobby kit but I have built the Eduard kit.  ok.. you can blast me now if I have messed this up.:door:

×
×
  • Create New...