Jump to content

ho590hm

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Farnborough

Recent Profile Visitors

473 profile views

ho590hm's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)

92

Reputation

  1. Just been looking at the drawings from Space Ranger, which give all the information needed for checking the depth of the nose - and the quality of plans The basic cross section of the fuselage is circular with a diameter of 90 inches for the centre section, with the cabin decking on top and tweaks for the bomb bay. The side view shows that the decking extends 58 inches above the horizontal centre line of the fuselage at the centre of the upper turret, giving a depth of 103 inches at that point. For the nose profile the table in the fourth drawing defines exactly the nose cross sections of the basic (almost circular) fuselage back to the 90 inch section. The two relevant columns are the R value and the r/90 degrees value. Add these together to get the depth of the fuselage - the R value defines the depth below the horizontal centreline, and the r/90 gives the height above, so you can check the profile as far aft as the start of the cokpit. Then its back to the side view for the upper line. That's just a quick look - probably need to do the same for the rear fuselage given the discrepancies shown above. Howard
  2. I am glad JWM agrees. But it does lead off-topic to the concept of a contra-rotating Triebflugel......to maintain aerodynamic symmetry with those twisted wings in level flight as well as balance the torque in rotating mode?
  3. Wrong. The distinctive curved blades curve the wrong way when viewed from the front, so you would get all sorts of aerodynamic turbulence from swept forward blades.
  4. Love the subject. I presume this is resin, so that as soon as I buy one an injection moulded kit will appear. Concur with alt-92 on the rotors - the napkin seems to show contra-rotating blades (which fits the laws of physics) but the CAD shows both going the same way. Better than the Italeri C-27J, where both propellers rotate the wrong way. Apologies for OT gripe. H
  5. Looks like the MkII may be covered by the KP kit.
  6. Still showing as in stock at Airfix website this morning - ordered mine last night. Shame that the free postage limit is £20 - need to buy an extra one to clock up the extra penny! Are we seeing a trend here - Big H got their Spitfire stocks a couple of weeks after release, AFAIR Get your Vulcans on preorder now?
  7. I have just been looking at the kit with a view to building it shortly. Am I missing something or are there only ten pairs of combustion chamber halves on the sprues, rather than the 18 required? Also the floor assembly in front of the front bulkhead seems to be missing from the sprues. You do however get two control wheels - part 9. Any other views on this? Howard
  8. HLJ have the F-4E on order stop already as available pre-order slots filled. Release quoted as March 2021.
  9. Just working on a kit sourced through eBay. The model includes two smaller copies, quoted as 1/144 scale, which fit into a structure which matches onto a 1/144 S-IVB stage. The Ranger itself is three times the size of these copies, which implies that the larger model is actually 1/48? The only image I have with people to provide scale indicates a length of about 60 feet, which would be 1/72. Film licence? Howard
  10. Just working on a kit sourced through eBay. The model includes two smaller copies, quoted as 1/144 scale, which fit into a structure which matches onto a 1/144 S-IVB stage. The Ranger itself is three times the size of these copies, which implies that the larger model is actually 1/48? Howard
  11. Very good build thread over on airlinercafe.com. Key issues seem to be the different heights of the tailplane slots on either side of the tail and the fit of the engines. There is also a great link to some scans of the mechanics manual from the aircraft, which gives station diagrams. See airlinercafe posts On a dry run the side profile of the engines is close, and the pylons are the right length, and the trailing edge at the right angle. The problem is the slope of the leading edge which is too steep - the top of the LE is about 5mm too high. If you combine that with the moulded locations on the lower wing, the engines get far too low. I think it will be a case of flattening the bulge in the lower wings to match the pylon drawings and taking a wedge out of the leading edge of the pylon to get the right angle. That matches the earlier observation that the lower wing is too curved. I note that the wing appears to be generated by a straight line from root to tip (like the Revell 1/144), whereas the real aircraft appears straight generated from root to outer engine, then the depth reduces more slowly out to the tip (which minicraft seem to have got better). Howard
  12. The EC-24A sprues are the same as those shown further up the thread, apart from lack of the alternate engines, plus a small extra sprue with the various extra fairings.
  13. From the plan view, it looks like the fillet may be moulded as part of the one piece tailplane - there seems to be one with and one without. Howard
  14. Just received EC-24A from Hannants. Although I have not yet sawn the major parts off the sprue, first impressions are relatively positive on shape, with some misgivings about the wing cross section which appears to retain the curved underside all the way to the tip, whereas the outer pylon has a much flatter intersection with the wing. Also looks a bit blunt on the leading edge - need to check whether the kit includes the 4% chord extension. Apart from that, standard Mach 2 product which responds to attention to thinning trailing edges, etc. Couple of cases of short shots on the extra sprue - just the wing probes which I would have replaced anyway. Canopy may be usable...... Windows more in line than VC10, Britannia and Comet - OK for the row of 6 on the EC-24A I have not yet done a comparison with the Minicraft 1/144. Thanks to janneman36 for the comparison image for the grey. The EC-24A looks slightly lighter than the C-135, which is pretty certainly FS 16473. I have done a bit more research, discovering that FEWSG also operated two NKC-135A on loan from the USAF modified for air warfare. See image at https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/Boeing-EC-135Y-717-100A/1826849. This one looks a similar colour to the EC-24A but is darker than the C-135 in front of it. This may just be due to fading in the desert sun round Tucson. I also referred to the trusty MIL-STD-2161, which gives the rules for painting US Navy aircraft. The earliest I can find is revA which dates from 1993 and was therefore current at the time these aircraft were operated. Although it gives specific details for many US Navy types, as well as all the standard stencils, neither EC-24A nor NKC-135A get a mention. I thought the C-9B might help, but the standard scheme calls out FS 16440 which looks wrong on the EC-24A. What it does include is all the US Navy standard colours that are permitted for general use. The only lighter grey that is mentioned is FS 36495, which could be a possibility as a permitted tactical colour. FS36375 is permitted, but darker than 36473 according to my FS595 fandeck. Then I looked at the later revB, where an exception seems to be the use of Boeing BAC707 as the standard grey on the Navy C-40. Any other thoughts welcomed.
  15. Thinking positively while awaiting delivery from Hannants, based on the sprue images that are available, does anyone have an indication of whether the underside grey is FS36440 or something else? Thanks. Howard PS - Anyone want a Mach 2 Atlantic, superseded by the Revell one?
×
×
  • Create New...