Jump to content

ajmm

Members
  • Posts

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ajmm

  1. Brilliant job. Dead impressive conversion. My father in law remembers seeing this one flying in and out of RAE Thurleigh / Bedford. You’ve done a very nice job on the engine too.
  2. This looks interesting. I’ve often wondered about this kit. Will be following your progress.
  3. Hello I wonder if anyone can point me in the direction of any plans for either of Higgins’ air-dropped A1 lifeboats? There was a 27ft version and an 18ft version. I want primarily to scratchbuild the latter to go under a PBY wing but also interested in any info on the 27 footer if anyone has it. Thanks very much.
  4. I’ve seen one of these in real life and they are tiny enough at 1:1. Superb work with this. Truly impressive!
  5. Very cool. Lovely scheme and beautiful finish. I should get some of those decals.
  6. Very nice. I got about halfway through mine and then moved house. I really should pick it up again - I’d finally finished all the bubble filling etc you mentioned. I hope it turns out as well as yours - very inspiring, thank you.
  7. Thanks so much for the kind comments guys - they are greatly appreciated.
  8. Thanks so much guys. I agree - from some angles it’s almost normal. But then you rotate it a bit and whoa! Thanks for the kind comments. @malpaso yes Great Lakes was resurrected in the 1960s wasn’t it? And I believe it still builds aircraft to the original 1930s design - but modernised. Firmly in the dream hangar!
  9. The Great Lakes XSG-1 needs no introduction is about as obscure as you can get and exactly the sort of thing that fascinates me. A single prototype scout seaplane from the early-1930s (designed to spot the fall of shot for the big battleships and cruisers), it is surely one of the ugliest flying machines ever designed - and a total, dismal failure. Its history actually reads like an elaborate practical joke - or the long-lost plot to a Laurel and Hardy film. It is partly its looks - as if the designers tried really, really very hard indeed to think of all the possible ways to introduce drag on an airframe. To me it looks One measure Grumman Duck, One measure Republic Seabee, both shaken and stirred, then mangled a tad - and finally served tepid, with a fresh slice of Heath Robinson. But it's definitely one of those instances where you actually can judge a book by its cover - performance was feeble: it was underpowered, heavy on the controls, aerodynamically unstable and, to cap it all, slower than its contractual guaranteed speed. But spare a thought for the gunner too - if this had ever been attacked by an enemy fighter he would have had to reach outside the aircraft to lift the machine gun from its stowage point in order to fit it to the cumbersome rack mounting in his compartment. IF he managed all this without dropping the gun into the slipstream or being whipped overboard himself, he had virtually no field of fire so could do precious little to actually defend against the enemy! At least his bailout (by the looks of things he'd just have to let go and gravity would do the rest) was easier than the pilot, who would have had to negotiate a thicket of cabane struts before leaping into the slipstream while attempting to clear the colossal tailplane mitt bracing wires. Then there's its first water handling tests where, among other things, the spray was so appalling that it nearly blinded the pilot, the observer/gunner compartment started filling up with water and nearly drowned him (but with no intercom or link to the upper cockpit, the poor man couldn't alert the pilot to his plight - though I imagine he banged wanly on the cabin walls - he did survive) and finally the engine drowned. All in all, the whole testing experience seems to have been about as relaxing as trying to give a Bengal tiger a vasectomy with a pair of nail clippers. And all this from the company that produced just the year prior one of the prettiest and sweet-handling US biplanes ever designed (in my meagre opinion)... If the XSG-1 was a prank, it was a ruddy marvellous one if you ask me. Sadly, I can find no evidence that it was. The kit comes with the Anigrand Sikorsky XPBS-1 (which I finished last year). It's fantastic to have a kit of something as bizarre and unusual, especially in 1:144 - one of the many reasons I love this scale. The build itself provided no major challenges - there's a build thread here if you're interested. I replaced most of the kit struts with plasticard which had a better scale fitness (I also removed one of the inner struts which should not have been there and added a handful more that Anigrand omitted). I added some other bits like the .30 cal gun and thinned down a few other bits to give them a better scale look. Paints were Hataka. I replaced the insignia with some thinner ones from the spares box (the Anigrand ones are very thick). Rigging was with Uschi VanderRosten thread. There are definitely compromises in here in the name of structural integrity. Given infinite time and patience I would have replaced the W strut on the forward fuselage with something daintier - I feared doing so would jeopardise whatever it was that was holding the upper wing on. Same deal with the floats - the rear struts I left alone as they provided the strength, the forward struts are prettier stretched sprue but merely decorative. I would also have filled the exaggerated rib lines scored into the wings. Inevitably all these things are much more evident in photos than in the flesh. But anyway. I am basically really happy with this. Anigrand also do a 1:72 kit of this aircraft if you find yourself with a sudden passion to build one yourself. Not a great deal more to say. A fun build and a good challenge. And with a somewhat more successful water bird that first flew just a couple of years after this - incidentally the same year that Great Lakes Aircraft Company went bust. Thanks very much for looking. Angus
  10. Very nice. Following with interest!
  11. Very nice! I’ve built a couple of Nieuports (which have much easier strut arrangements) so understand how much work went into these and it shows. Congratulations- I hope you’re pleased with them.
  12. Wow - looks a monster. I’m looking forward to starting mine once the builders have cleared out and I have somewhere other than the kitchen table to do so - as you say, it’s not petite!
  13. Looks lovely despite your trials. I’ve never had that problem with cling film - I’ll beware.
  14. Mike are these still available? Was the French set ever released?
  15. Thank you very much for the kind comments! They are greatly appreciated.
  16. Just stumbled across this. What a fantastic build! If this languishes it languishes in style. I hope you get to pick it up again soon.
  17. Thanks so much for the kind comments guys. @PattheCat Yes I agree - it’s hard to make the Connie look drab. Even in SEA Camo it’s pretty special!
  18. Of course - I only have pictures of one that I converted to an airborne early warning Connie - but it's essentially out of the box with the windows faired over and a few small bumps here and there... The other I built in a MATS Air Force scheme. I didn't take any build photos of either I'm afraid.
  19. Very nice progress! I've just finished this kit and I can feel some of your pain. You did well to block those hubs from slipping back inside the engine nacelles - yup, guess how I know...! I've built two of these but not yet had a go at a civil one. This is very inspiring.
  20. Beautifully finished - congratulations, you must be very proud of that.
×
×
  • Create New...