Jump to content

Antti_K

Members
  • Posts

    1,390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Antti_K

  1. What a beautiful "Karamelli" Einar! This is the best example I've ever seen. Very well done. Do you know who was the captain on that Helsinki - Madrid flight? Cheers, Antti
  2. On the head of the nail! Our students seem to have a competition, who "survives" the longest time without washing their flying suits. A couple of times one of us instructors has aborted the mission before engine start up because of the smell... Cheers, Antti
  3. Very nice work Harry! This really comes to life with some paint on. Cheers, Antti
  4. Excellent photo, thank you for sharing it Mike! I think that the guy on the left is wearing overalls that has been exposed to the Sun's UV rays. Flying suits are (and were) made out of NOMEX, which is a cotton fabric treated with fire retardant chemicals (causing the colour turning into mustard brown). Then the fabric is dyed with "olive green". The chemicals used are very sensitive to UV -light and certain parts of washing powder. When your green flying suit is turning into "drab" or "brownish" in colour, it is time to replace them. The fire protection isn't working properly any longer. Be careful with that, if you wish to purchase surplus flying suits to be used in real aviation. Cheers, Antti
  5. This is brilliant! Very nice work with the conversion. I'm looking forward to see more. "Turbo Commander" was my first HPA (High Performance Aircraft) type back in the 90s. She was fast (cruising some 320 kt.) and could fly well above Flight Level 300. The fuel system was a nightmare as was the crew oxygen system. Also the engines required extra care from the air crew as they had to be manually cooled after shut down (Garret turbo-prop differs from Pratt&Whitney engines by having a long engine shaft running all the way from propeller to the turbine). Disregard the cooling by turning the engine by hand and you'll ruin the engine. Cheers, Antti
  6. Hello Raphael, the plane in the photo is based on the bomber version, so it is not an Il-28R. The main landing gear bay doors are too short for the "recce" version. Also the engine gondola in front of MLG bay is too rounded. Il-28R has roughly equal length of wing tip tank visible in front of the wing leading edge and behind the trailing edge. I would build the kit without other modifications but those needed for the tip tanks. You can find more detailed information about the modifications required for Il-28R in my (still to be completed) WIP in here: Cheers, Antti
  7. Hello guys, I studied an Airacobra in its original paint here in Finland. The observed grey paint is actually blue-grey. I can't tell whether it is Neutral Grey or Sea Grey. A mix of Humbrol 27 and 34 gave an exact match for the Observed Colour. And it is quite dark. Cheers, Antti
  8. Hello CJP, what a lovely "Victor" Nice work with all the small details and paintwork. Those little extras (battery cart and wheel chocks) make it look special. I'm glad you decided to leave out that horrible re-fueling probe. This is a true "Borneo Escort", as 64 Squadron FAW.9Rs were normally based at Kuching or Labuan because of their greater range. Well done! Cheers, Antti
  9. Hello Michael, Airfix kit gives you the best Javelin. If you can find an old Heller T.3 that would be probably the most accurate Javelin in this scale. There is one big flaw with the Airfix FAW.9; the rear fuselage. It is far too narrow in plan view and therefore also the re-heaters are too small in diameter. Joining the the tail of the old Frog Javelin into the rest of the Airfix kit gives you the best FAW.9 (or some other version if you so choose). Cheers, Antti
  10. Hello Dean700, I built one and finally it ended in the bin. Here are my findings (those I can still remember): - the front fuselage is out of shape; it should curve smoothly all the way from the visor to a point above the front door. If you sand it down, you will go through plastic. I attached pieces of Plasticard some Milliput and started again - the nose is poor and requires a lot of work to look good - cockpit windows aren't very accurate in shape - cabin windows are bad. I filled them and then painted the windows (huge job) - engine gondolas are too small (you will notice it at once) - fin is out of shape (this is the easiest fix) - landing gear is for the prototype (sits nose high) And there might have been other issues as well. If you want a nice model of Concorde, then go for the Heller 1/125 scale kit. It is still probably the best one. Cheers, Antti
  11. Hello Massimo, I have the original Russian drawing from the weapons manual already scaled down. Next I need to scale up my shelf... The Trumpeter kit is the bomber version (released also by Italeri with Finnish decals). To my eye it looks like the parts are the same. The major problem is the wing; it is twice as thick as it should be and it also shows an inverted gull-wing effect. The wing should be straight with zero dihedral. Also the landing gear is too tall. Cheers, Antti
  12. You are welcome Massimo, funny isn't it? this airplane (registration NH-4) is a reconnaissance version having also an extra camera bay built in the rear fuselage. There are doors in that compartment for one vertical and one oblique camera pointing out to Port side. Note that both yellow and orange paint again are visible. Larger "AFA" -cameras could be carried in the bomb bay for survey work (Il-28Rs weren't originally equipped for carrying bombs). There were large plates that were to be installed below and around the camera thus reducing drag when the bomb bay doors were opened. Rather cumbersome I would say. Another example, NH-1, was a bomber version and it was used exclusively for aerial survey work and it had modified bomb bay doors. An opening was cut in the middle of the doors and rails attached on both sides of the opening for a sliding door. A flat window was installed and that was protected by the sliding door which was opened just before a photo run. Much more simpler and less drag. This was a conversion designed and constructed here in Finland. The original Russian way was to fly with the bomb bay doors opened. The winch is for target towing. NH-4 carried a newer and better winch, as it was more powerful and you could reel the wire back in after the shooting. NH-1 was the only example equipped with the original winch that was pretty bad. And you couldn't reel the wire back in; it had to be jettisoned with the target still attached. A soft target wouldn't have been a problem but those hard "kite" targets must have been interesting to work with. The Russians provided us even with the huge (roughly the size of a Mirage III) wooden "darts". Here is another Il-28R (NH-3) taking off with the "dart". The wire run from the winch along a guide tube and into a special "tow tail". Here's a scratch built example in my 1/48 scale Il-28R. Cheers, Antti
  13. Hello Massimo & Co., here is a photo of the Il-28R's bomb bay. Airplane nose points to the left. Note the following details: - "dirty" or "brownish" orange colour - original golden yellow visible on undersides of the equipment shelves and on door operating mechanism - dark olive green brackets for the cameras and the winch (only a camera or winch was carried at any one time) - the area behind the rear camera where orange paint has chipped away Cheers, Antti
  14. Hello Daniele & Co., you are absolutely right; This Airacobra was put together using fuselage and wings of two different airplanes that landed on the Finnish side on 17.6.1944. Fin and rudder were purchased from Norway in the 80s, as Air Force Depot had put aside a fin and a rudder of a Yak-7! Original Airacobra tail section parts were scrapped. The Airacobra is still in its original paint (90+ % of the airplane). The inner leading edge of the Starboard wing, fin and rudder and fuselage underside below the cockpit were built out of scratch and were painted with modern aircraft paints. Some parts of the internal structure (inspection hatches inside the engine bay) were also replaced with new parts. The instrument panel is a replica as the original was used during the war. As I explained in my earlier post, the national insignia received some touch up during the restoration. All the surfaces were vacuumed, washed with water and cleaned during the restoration. The idea was to "freeze" the airplane's ageing; not to create a modern interpretation of an old Airacobra. Cheers, Antti
  15. Hello Massimo, originally the bomb bay was painted with yellow (still visible on the walls and the roof). Orange colour was applied during the last factory overhaul at USSR. It seems like they wanted to mark all those parts and components with orange, they had re-placed or overhauled. Cheers, Antti
  16. Thank you Massimo and Jason, Is Soviet Green something like Humbrol sells with the name Russian Green (number 114 IIRC)? I have a NCS colour value for the bright olive green used on MiG-3s. I think we were discussing about it earlier and it was probably Massimo who "labelled" my sample as AMT-4. Does A-24m look similar? I'm still wondering, why this rather large area was painted over. Originally there was a standard blue-white "Stars and Bars". It was then neatly masked with tape and the "Bars" were over sprayed with Olive Drab. The circle was painted with white and the original US star was re-painted with red using a plywood mask(?). At some point the Soviets added the white frame around the star and a thin red line surrounding it. Then they clearly painted the remainder of the white circle with green colour. War time photos show a very neat and tidy paint job. Judging from photos, that green colour chipped away and in the 60s the white circle was very much visible. The Russian white paint stands out as it was (and is) more like cream or light tan coloured. Same goes for the Russian red. Both Russian paints are porous and they look thick but translucent. During the restoration museum staff applied olive green artist's oil paint by brush to hide the white circle. Probably they were mimicking the harsh paint work found on wing under surfaces which are in original condition showing an olive green paint to hide those white circles. About the Il-28: Different components are completely painted with different yellows. For example in the cockpits a "golden yellow" has been used but inside engine gondolas a duller shade (different paint?) is used. There are no visible re-touches made with a different shade of yellow. The bomb bay doors are neatly painted with slightly brownish orange. No masking has been used as there are orange spray marks elsewhere in the bomb bay. Cheers, Antti
  17. Hello Jason, here are some photos: Note the "grey-green" paint on both fuselages. On the right the Airacobra has been towed to the shore. As you possibly know, the remains of the pilot were still in the cockpit... In this photo the "grey-green" looks different. Look especially the lower part of the reinforcement plate; it looks like "black-green". There is also a clear demarcation line running along the fuselage. The darker areas were buried in the silt. And finally the "Finnish" example. It looks like the "grey-green" paint has been applied by brush. The paint layer is thin and yet it completely covers the original Olive Drab. The paint has also chipped away. Along the hatch edges the colour looks like "olive-green"; like AMT-4. This colour doesn't show at all in B&W wartime photos of "26". I think that despite two very different colours were used, they have a close reflectivity value. What do you think? Cheers, Antti
  18. Hello Anthony, by heart I would say that you are correct about the serials: both FG.1s and FGR.2s were equipped with flight controls in the front office only (XV...) and with dual controls (XT...). There were some exceptions to this rule, but I can't remember the details. I think that there is a listing in FG.1 Pilot's Notes about the control arrangements. I just need to find the manual... Poor Navs who had to operate the radar in its stowed position... Tamiya clearly meant the canopies to be in the open position and it takes some work to make them look good if closed. There is also an error in the clear parts. The aluminium coloured strip with screws on it and the camouflaged strip had swapped places (fill the holes and drill new ones). Lovely work with the rear fuselage! Cheers, Antti
  19. Hello Jason, that's the interesting thing; the Airacobra on display here in Finland doesn't have the reinforce plates neither on fuselage sides nor on the fin leading edge. The one salvaged from a lake in Russia has them both. It is also interesting that the "Russian" example has been lying under water since the war whereas the "Finnish" example has been kept indoors since the war. And yet this grey-green area is visible on both fuselages. Cheers, Antti
  20. Hello Massimo, somehow Il-28R popped to my mind at first. It has all interior surfaces painted with various shades of yellow. For example in pilot's and navigator's cockpits the colour is a very bright yellow (like A-6 in table II). Only those surfaces not covered with the green insulator blanket are painted with olive green. Rear fuselage camera bay and engine gondola interiors are painted with dull yellow (like chamoise). In our museum example (that was transferred to the museum shortly after it arrived from a major overhaul in the USSR) the bomb bay doors and main landing gear bays were painted with orange that might be close to MV-4 in table XX. About WWII paint colours then: I'm wondering about the paints used in the Airacobra now on display at Hyrylä. - there are rectangular areas on both sides of the nose painted with black. Actually the paint looks like "black olive" and it is crudely applied with a paint brush (the brush strokes are clearly visible). Close inspection shows that either a yellow number 7 or a letter Z has been painted over. - the sides of the rear fuselage has been painted with a green colour. Today it looks like grey-green and the same painting is clearly visible on the Airacobra that was salvaged from Lake Martjaur. Closer inspection shows olive green paint residue in the panel seams. - the white circles on wing undersides are crudely painted over with a paint brush using a dull green or blue-green paint Do you have more information about the paints used? And why the rear fuselage was painted hastily with green paint on both examples, as the US "Stars and Bars" was neatly covered (you can see the "edges" caused by the masking tape) in the USA with Olive Drab? Cheers, Antti
  21. Hello Massimo, those scans are excellent. Thank you for the trouble and for sharing them at your site. There are interesting paint chips visible, as "same" colours were also used on later Soviet aircraft; like in IL-28s. I wonder, whether they were using the same paints... Cheers, Antti
  22. Antti_K

    Eduard 190 Problems

    Hello guys, I have no experience of the Eduard Focke-Wulffs, but I'm currently building their 1/48 scale P-39Q Airacobra (kit #8470). The fit is OK, no big nasty surprises there. The kit is rather inaccurate when compared against the real thing and some factory drawings. Here are my findings: - the nose is pretty accurate. There are some hatches that shouldn't be there and some missing - the fuselage overall shape is good - the number of screws is wrong on many panels (usually one missing) - replace the air outlets on the nose with scratch built items as the kit parts are out of shape and too small - the wing leading edge is located at the right position - the wing chord is some 3 millimeters too short! - the wing cross section is completely wrong and especially the trailing edge is far too thick - the wing panel lines are completely wrong for a P-39Q; especially on the under sides - some bulges are missing from the fuselage bottom - main gear bays are over simplified - painting instructions for interiors and details are inaccurate Then comes the really nasty part: - the clear parts are 1,3 millimeters too tall (look at the door window shape. It is a demanding and frustrating correction to do) - thanks to the "narrow" wing, all rear fuselage panels are of wrong size and at wrong locations. Eduard has done a great job masking this problem out of sight - aileron, rudder and elevator hinge lines are far too shallow - at least half of the stencils are missing from the decal sheet (Foxbot offers a very good looking set for P-39Q) I'm not impressed by this kit. I was expecting a lot better mainly because Eduard kits are so popular. It seems I have to try my hands on a couple of more Eduard kits to see if they are better. Cheers, Antti
  23. Hello Dave, and thank you for all the information. We were flying Aerogeophysical survey missions mainly on areas where there was no snow. On the other hand, some missions in Africa were flown over desert. A couple of months ago I got home from the local hobby shop carrying the Italeri 1/48 scale TR-1 kit. I will build it as an U-2R. I'm still looking for information about the camera bay and camera equipment. Can you help me with that? Cheers, Antti
  24. Dave, Thank you for your post. More interesting stuff there. Actually we were having problems with the Doppler over ground (hills, meadows, forest,...). I most used to a British Mk.IX bubble sextant. It was easily obtainable, easy to overhaul and calibrate and so on. I've also "shot" celestial observations using a periscope sextant but I prefer the British hand-held model. On a periscope sextant the field of view is upside down thus complicating things further. I've been wondering why the S-4 magnitude values (for the ANS) are still published in the Air Almanac. Is the system still used in ER-1s? Cheers, Antti
  25. Hello Dave, and thank you for an interesting and informative post. we indeed had problems with the Doppler unit as it momentarily "lost its bearings" only too often. As we were in a hurry with the project, we simply reasoned that it wasn't suitable for such a low altitude and skipped the system. An old school INS was also problematic on survey missions (where long parallel lines are flown) but that was before my time. Do you have an explanation for this as it had caused me some head scratching over the years? We had a procedure for updating the INS using Astro Fixing but it was rather complicated. I never had the guts to try it myself. In Africa we were flying survey lines 200 NM in length and the best "aid" was oil burned in a drum placed at the end point of a flight line. A pillar of black smoke rose up thus creating a "Fix"... Nowadays a flight crew performing such an operation would end up in prison. We still do instruct our pilots at Finnair for Polar operations and explain them the Tonta Grid -system and its use in detail. Cheers, Antti
×
×
  • Create New...