Jump to content

Antti_K

Members
  • Posts

    1,536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Antti_K

  1. Thanks for the "Heads Up" guys. It seems there is something wrong with my Villagephotos account as some people can see the pictures and some don't. Do I need to start all over again with a new service provider? Cheers, Antti
  2. Excellent photo Dennis! Thanks for sharing it. Again we can see a couple of stencils that are missing from the Airfix 1/48 scale kit. It looks like the stencil placement guide for the real thing was written over a couple of times. Guys: note also, that the ailerons pointed up when control lock was applied. The tip of the aileron is "faceted". A feature that is missing from the Airfix kit and not that easy to create by sanding. Cheers, Antti
  3. Hello Ben, The nose and front fuselage are accurate (one can even say, it's very accurate) up to FS 249,65. I compared the kit against the data given in F-4K Crew Chief Manual some AP drawings. The problem lies in the center fuselage. Here's my approach: Airfix did a LIDAR scan for their recent 1:72 scale kit. That of course created a great amount of 3D data that was then used for engineering the kit. Then they had to produce some drawings like decals placement guide. Most likely the same data was used. There is no sense in drawing a complete set of three views starting from scratch, if one already posses all that 3D data running in a suitable designing program. So I scaled the drawing up to 1:48 scale with my photocopier. Then I downloaded F-4K Cross Section drawing (copy of the original factory drawing) from Tommy Thomasson's web site (Tailhook Topics) and scaled it also up to 1/48 scale. The cross sections were perfect matches with Airfix stencil placement drawing. Finally I started to check the measurements from my new FG.1 drawing against those taken from a real aircraft. And again, a perfect match. At last it was time to start to check the model. Be careful with the Plane Captain's Manual though; not all given measurements are for the British Phantom but for an F-4B or -J! In plan view the Hasegawa FG.1 center fuselage is some 4 millimeters too narrow (I don't have my drawings and notes at hand). Another problem are the air intakes. There is a couple of millimeters missing from the intake mouth (the funnel is too short). I believe this is due worn moulds and/or low pressure during manufacture. When you look at the model from the side (look at my model) the curvature of the air intake funnels is wrong; it's very good for an F-4B or F-4J but not for British Phantoms. The highest point should be behind the cockpit. Look at the photos below. Another problem are the intake "mouths". Here are the correct measurements taken from the real thing: The intakes are slightly wider than those of F-4Bs and Js, and not just that tall. Quite many modellers say that British Phantoms had "some 20 %" wider engine intakes. They are both right and wrong at the same time. The intake funnel (inside the plane) is wider to handle a greater amount of supersonic air, but the intake mouth is roughly the same size as in US versions. Some further measurements from the real thing: And the "Splitter Plates". They are slightly different in size and shape than those used in F-4Bs and Js. Things get better towards to rear fuselage. I haven't checked these measurements against the kit yet. I did a stupid mistake with my FG.1 by replacing the kit's re-heaters with resin items. Their shape isn't good and they are too wide. So use the kit parts. I didn't go all the way as I didn't feel like building the whole center fuselage from scratch. At least at that point. Hopefully someone will produce an accurate British Phantom in 1/48 scale in the near future. I guess it would sell well... Hope this helps. Cheers, Antti
  4. Hello Giampiero, just as others have already said: look for the Hasegawa FG.1 kit or the Revell re-boxing which might be labeled as FGR.2 as well. The plastic is for the RN FG.1 with additional stabilizers, blanking plates for the bridle hook recesses and and another nose landing gear for the FGR.2. The kit isn't very accurate but it is the only one on the market. It builds into a nice model even if you decide not to fix the inaccuracies. Here's my Hasegawa FG.1(one of those with dual flight controls; included in the kit as well): Cheers, Antti
  5. Hello guys, the green used for the cockpit looks the same in the photos as that paint used in the Airacobra I was referring to. Possibly the same NCS S7020-G70Y. The Airacobra here in Finland has ZCY landing gear bays. The colour is dull and looks rather "brownish" than "greenish". Landing gear legs and wheel well covers are green. Hopefully the restoration team of this Kingcobra made some colour comparisons before the parts were repainted. Thanks Troy for the interesting photos! Cheers, Antti
  6. Hello CheapTricked, here is a colour sample from an P-39Q Airacobra showing one observed "Bell Green". I can't tell, whether this same green was used for landing gear legs in Kingcobras but it was used in Airacobras. The airplane is still in its original paint. There are at least few Internet sites where you can convert NCS values to other standards. I use Humbrol enamels for my models and I had to mix paints to get a match for this "Bell Green". My starting point was Hu 150 which is too light and too "drab". Hope this helps. Cheers, Antti
  7. Beautiful work Neil! You created a very good looking Mk.XIV. Cheers, Antti
  8. Thanks Alain. I just might do that (and hope to see the long faces). Cheers, Antti
  9. A most impressive collection Alain! Lovely work. I especially like the MS406s, Hurricanes (my grandfather used to fly them during the Winter War) and DC-2s. You have created a collection many modellers here in Finland say is impossible to do. Is there any types still missing from your "Finnish Air Force"? Cheers, Antti
  10. Hello Milos, here is a couple of photos showing you the original wartime paints. Maybe these photos help you. The old Humbrol Authentic colour range give a very good match for the brown and Humbrol 86 for the green. Cheers, Antti
  11. Terve Troy, and thank you for the information. As you said, I was talking about Peter Cooke's drawings published in Scale Models magazine in September/October 1979. Just couldn't remember his name and correct date. I compared the Eduard fuselage with the scaled up drawing and it became clear that the rear fuselage was too short in the drawing between locations E and F, just as you remembered. The measurement Edgar gives (69'') matches exactly with the Eduard kit. The nose ring was only 0,6 mm too small in my PR.XIX kit, so I didn't bother fixing it. More problems would have been created than solved. Here is a photo showing the rocker covers of both types. The rocker cover shapes are slightly different: the rear end in Mk.XII is more rounded. And they were too long as well when I attached the Airfix nose (maybe the problem lies with the kit). Correct shape was easily created with some filler and sanding. Cheers, Antti
  12. Hello guys, I scaled up an old set of drawings published in Scale Modeller in 1979. And I also collected data about Spitfire XIIs from various discussions here on BM. Fellow modellers Edgar and Johnaero provided measurements taken from a Seafire XVII(?) at Yeovilton as it had similar engine. As you can see the drawing gives 39,42 mm for the upper cowling and Edgar's measurement gives 39,82 mm along the lower edge of the upper cowling. His statement about the similarity of the cowlings of Spitfire XII and Seafire XVII sounds good. According to Edgar the fuel tank cover panel should measure 17,99 mm. The Eduard Mk.VIII had plenty of room for conversion as it measures 19,18 mm. As I said earlier the fit between Airfix PR.XIX nose and Eduard Mk.VIII fuselage was excellent. There wasn't no step at all between the parts! Note also what Troy said about the exhaust pipes and their correct location. If you use the nose of a PR.XIX make sure to reshape the rocker covers as they are too long and too pointed at the rear for Mk.XII. Cheers, Antti
  13. Terve Troy, yes, you are right. I was of course talking only about Spitfire XII. Looking at the sprues I would use the Airfix Spitfire XII propeller as a starting point for my next Mk.XII project. It would probably mean far less work than reshaping Airfix PR.XIX blades. And I would still do some work with the propeller blades for a Seafire as well. The shape looks pretty good but to my eye they still are too broad. Cheers, Antti
  14. I would reshape those propeller blades (see the photo in Troy's post). The blades are far too broad, the general shape is wrong and they should be rounded at the base. Cheers, Antti
  15. Thank you John_W I messed with risers and cords in my reply. Although trying to explain the same thing. Cheers, Antti
  16. Hello Adrian, we were taught to dive head first when leaving the airplane (Fouga CM.170 Magister). Then spread one's legs and pull the rip chord spreading both arms simultaneously. All this was done to prevent any tendency to spin as this could be very dangerous while the chute is exiting the bag. The risers are attached to two "straps" that in turn are attached to the shoulders of the harness. The parachute turns you automatically in correct position once the main chute is fully deployed. Cheers, Antti
  17. Thank you Troy This certainly gives a more detailed view on Mark12's project. I was simply looking at a photograph (originally posted by you?) of his "Spitfire Factory" with a four blade propeller visible at the front. The blades carried "pink" discs with yellow drawing number. And of course I assumed that propeller actually came from Mk.XII. It seems that the propeller markings in my model may be wrong. What you said in your earlier post about the shape of the Airfix propeller blade shape sounds good. The blade roots weren't as broad as in some Seafire marks. And certainly they were very different to those used on PR.XIXs. Morgan & Shacklady give two different propeller types for Spitfire Mk.XII. Does this mean that the propeller hubs were of different type but same type of blades? Books and magazines give three different propeller diameters. I wonder whether there should be only one correct value or are they all correct? Cheers, Antti
  18. Terve Troy, and thank you for your detailed response. I found that document about propeller blades and their markings "a couple" of years ago when I did some research for my PR.XIX projects. I based my assumption of pink discs and yellow blade drawing number on a photograph of the remains of the last surviving Mk.XII published here on BM. IIRC the BBMF ground crew member who shared the document on Key forum also explained, that the pink discs were the most common. Can you give any further information about decals 21-24 and 31-32? Do they give the technical specifications about the paints used for camouflage? The Wired Through (WT) marking is clear as is the small DTD517 marking. That "SAL/65/R1272" for example is confusing me. What does it mean? On the rudder of MB853 there is "PA/BK/307344/DSL" (which is also a mystery to me). Toy, your translator is working perfectly Cheers, Antti
  19. Hello Justin, I found the information about differential oleo pressures in "Spitfire - The History" (by Morgan & Shacklady). There is a page giving all the technical specifications for Mk.XII including oleo pressures. I would say that the pressures were set at the factory. The photos from IWM collection give the modeller an idea what to do. I used the photos to calculate how much to remove from the oleo. As I used Eduard Mk.VIII as a base for my Mk.XII conversion, I had to cut the landing gear leg, shorten the oleo and re-attach the lower part again. I used my modelling knife (Tamiya) to cut the gear leg. Cheers, Antti
  20. Hello Troy, and thank you for the post. I'm finishing my Mk.XII in 1/48 scale and got more interested in the subject when I saw your post. The Airfix decal sheet reveals interesting details: decals 11 - 14; are these for the propeller blades? I would say that the "discs" should be "pink" (or rather dull red) in colour and there should be only one line of text in yellow giving the drawing number decal 15; at least MB882 didn't have these on the spinner, but an oval hatch with a key hole (like in Mk.IX) decals 18; the letter M is located inside a square on MB853 decal 19; where should this go? decals 21 - 24; the lettering doesn't match at all with that seen on MB853 decal 29; fuel capacity 90 galls? according to Morgan & Shacklady and A.P. 1565K-P.N. it should be 85 galls decals 44 and 45 (and 52, 53) show that there is a triangular "cut" in the front of main landing gear bay (again MB882 didn't have this feature) no decals for Coffman starter, oil filler or gun camera? Should we call these "inaccuracies" or did Spitfire Mk.XIIs really differ that much between individual planes? Cheers, Antti
  21. Hello guys, I bought the Eduard 1/48 scale Mk.VIII to get a proper "blown" canopy for my Airfix PR.XIX. I was delighted to realize that there were two canopies in the box as it meant that I can build "something else" of the Eduard parts as well. It became clear that the Eduard kit is excellent; possibly the best one in the market. It is overly engineered at places but this guarantees the large selection of parts for different models. As I had one "crash landed" Airfix PR.XIX, I decided to have a go for a Mk.XII conversion using the Griffon nose for the project. I was astonished to see the excellent fit between Airfix nose and Eduard fuselage. Only a minimum of sanding was required. The most demanding part was the four bladed propeller. Using high resolution photos of the real thing, it was easy to note all the necessary details that needed to be dealt with: fill some inspection hatches and create some new ones, move the identification lamp and so on. Eduard kit provides all the necessary parts for a late Mk.XII interiors (cockpit, landing gear bays); you just need to locate them on the part trees. One can also find excellent info about Mk.XIIs on various treads here on BM. Some pictures of my project so far: At current my Mk.XII looks like this. I mixed Humbrol Enamels to match Dark Green, Ocean Grey and Medium Sea Grey with the colour chart in the "RAF Museum's book". Humbrol 23 is an excellent match for Sky. The squadron codes are painted using masks cut out of Tamiya tape with small scissors. A lower pressure was used on Port main gear oleo causing the plane sit Port wing down (this was done to compensate the propeller torque on take-off). Note also that the propeller blades of the Airfix PR.XIX had to be reshaped as the chord was too broad all the way to the tip. Cheers, Antti
  22. Hello guys, are you familiar with the book written by USN lieutenant Robert A. Winston? Here is a short version about the test and delivery flights of Finnish Buffaloes. https://www.warbirdforum.com/winston.htm Winston got to know several Finnish pilots and was both terrified and impressed at the same time. If you are interested in the subject and can find the book, I can recommend it. I think that the most important thing behind the Finnish air force's success was the way the pilots were trained. Soviet Polikarpov fighters weren't up to the standards with Buffalo, but they also weren't something to fool with. Those Soviet flight commanders that had gained combat experience in Spanish Civil War were dangerous and very capable adversaries. Most Soviet pilots on the other hand had poor training and they weren't capable of taking the initiative in combat. During Continuation War Finnish Buffalo pilots shot down newer and better planes; even some Spitfire Mk.IXs and P-51Bs operated by the VVS. Cheers, Antti
  23. Hello Alain, this is a most impressive collection! You might have more I-153s than our air force ever had. I like the way how you have studied the various paint schemes. Already waiting for part 2 Cheers, Antti
  24. It looks very nice Rob. If you are able to flatten the top, it will be perfect. Your plan of re-shaping the area sounds good. I've been using plastic strips and Milliput, but a thin wire may work just as well. Cheers, Antti
  25. Hello Rob, yes the word "kink" is better. It is more visible in plan view than in profile. This photo gives you pretty good idea how pronounced the kink is: Note also the curvature of the rear fuselage just above the air brake. This photo shows that top side of the rear end isn't inline with the center fuselage (look just aft of the white registration marking): The rear fuselage opening is nearly round but there is a narrow flat section on top of it; see this photo: Cheers, Antti
×
×
  • Create New...