Jump to content

PeterB

Members
  • Posts

    4,829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by PeterB

  1. Hi Tony, I have an Macchi 205 I may be able to build - I used the prop/spinner on another kit but could probably sort something out. If all else fails I have some Italeri Italian tanks so count me in. Cheers Pete
  2. Well, that did not take long. The fit is pretty good though the lower wing to fuselage joint will need a little smear of filler. I have removed the mounting for the drop tank/bomb from the underside and re-shaped the bulges over the MG 131 breeches which were wrong though they need a bit more work. Although shown in the painting/decal instructions Airfix have provided neither the pitot tube or the D/F loop so I will have to supply them and the aerial (?) under the fuselage near the wing root and also the armoured glass behind the pilot. This really is a bit of a half-hearted update by Airfix for some reason! Time for paint I guess. Cheers Pete
  3. Hi Stu, I have built 2 of these and AFAIK it builds up well. You had me a bit puzzled with the title but I guess it is a typo - I do as lot of them myself these days though I blame a sticking keyboard for at least some of them! Pete
  4. As I mentioned earlier there is no cockpit other than a seat so I have tarted it up a bit. Basic, but better than nothing and not going to be visible anyway. Pete
  5. Looking good Charlie, but I think you are right about a thin dark wash on the panels. Pete
  6. Thanks guys. As it is supposedly in 1948 colours I guess the grey is right for the night fighter version, but I have done a bit more digging and found this. Apparently in 1947 it was still carrying the shark mouth as a day fighter and the spinner was green and white rather than the black and white shown by Airfix. Other profiles suggest that the night fighters were perhaps repainted in a grey camo scheme more like wartime Luftwaffe planes. Pete
  7. Ok, this is the scheme Airfix suggest for the Finnish version. Hu 116 "US Dark Green" and Hu 33 Black uppers sounds about right though I might use a slightly more "olive" green and perhaps NATO Black. The underside looks blue as I expected but they suggest Hu 145 "Medium Grey" which does not sound quite right to me - anybody got any thoughts on the correct colours, including the cockpit interior? Cheers Pete
  8. This GB seems to have caught a lot of people out, including me! I probably could have finished my Beaufort but for the last couple of weeks I have been unwell and have no energy. Still waiting for the test results to find out what it is - I know there is a flu/covid like bug doing the rounds but it could be something a bit more serious - time will tell. Anyway I have still enjoyed the GB so thanks to the organisers, and see you in the KUTA I guess. Cheers Pete
  9. Some of you may have seen this on the BBC News website today. A plaque has been unveiled in memory of an RAF pilot who is said to have have steered his crashing plane away from a school in Gloucestershire - sadly he died but his two crew survived. The article says he was flying a Blenheim - if so I fear somebody did not do their research very well, which is a pity, but then it is still a nice memorial to a brave man! I suppose in some respects it sums up the Blenheim and its crews - they seldom really get the credit they should for all those almost suicidal missions they carried out long after the plane was obsolete. RIP Pete
  10. I have re-instated most of the pics at the request of Jeroen - hope they may be of use but there are several better builds out there in this GB, though mostly other makes of kit or other scales. I added the extra actuators under the wing and modified the fins on the belly tank - I should probably also have modified the intakes where they mount onto the fuselage as there is a strut on the real thing. I added a little weight though it may not have been needed, and as my fuselage was a bit "wobbly" I added locating tabs at the bottom which seem to be a good idea. Otherwise pretty much OOB. the tail pipe/thrust reverser petals would benefit from some work or maybe AM. There was quite a lot of resin addons available at the time, but like the decs from Moose Republic the Maestro parts were rather expensive. Pete
  11. That reminds me - 40 years ago I was buying a lot of kits from H.J Walker (Hackney) Ltd and got quite friendly with Tony Walker. He was finding it both difficult and expensive to get Japanese kits and I provided him with some info that perhaps helped him make a large order (200 kits or maybe more) and import them direct in a container - both planes and 1/700 ships. Not the fastest way of getting them but as you say - the savings more than compensated for the shipping costs and I managed to get some kits from him that were not normally available at a decent price as a result! Pete
  12. Unfortunately, unless we happen to get an extension, I rather think I will not manage to complete this one before the deadline. For the last week I have been unwell and although the Covid 19 test has come back negative. it will be at least another week before I have had all other the tests the doctor has got lined up for me In the meantime I am rather like a zombie - totally knackered and prone to just switching off for quite long periods. I may improve in a few days and start working on the kit again, but I do not intend to rush it - I have been waiting a good few years for this to finally arrive and I don't want to make a mess of it! Pete
  13. Hi Ash, Yes, I eventually found several explanations for the gold film including the one you mention. Another was to reduce the glare from a nuclear explosion. It seems that the "stealth" part was more of a side effect! Cheers Pete
  14. No problem Rob - just glad I am not building it as I don't have as much patience as when I was younger - it would probably end up in the bin. Pete
  15. The Mallard seems to have been a post war sort of "half way" development between the Goose and the much larger Albatross. It was a turbo conversion of a Mallard belonging to Chalks Ocean Airways that crashed in 2005 taking off from Miami to Bimini in the Bahamas when the wing came off due to fatigue. As I have a bit of a thing about flying boats I have almost bought this kit several times with a view to building it as a FAA Gosling aka Widgeon, but decided that it was not likely to be worth the trouble - but good luck to you anyway. Pete
  16. Not much to look at but I have sorted the cockpits of the Crusader and Tiger. I have added a rear bulkhead and blanked off the rear of the intake, and this time I remembered to drill out the locating holes for the Sidewinder rails - I forgot on my first one. Hasegawa do not mention anything about nose weight and if the old one is anything to go by it probably does not need any but I stuck in a little under the cockpit to be on the safe side.I have already mentioned the review in D&S but in the Naval Fighters series Tommy reviewed the kit and said it was not bad, but he thought the cockpit was a bit wide and he did not like the Sidewinders for some reason. I don't know if it was the missiles themselves which look about right for AIM-9D to me so maybe it was the rails. He did not like the underwing pylons either. Before I finish off the development history I though a brief overview of the F-8 might be in order. The Crusader appears to be a fairly conventional carrier aircraft with an arrestor hook and folding wings, and a strong structure to withstand the stress of a catapult launch and an often heavy landing. Unlike the Cutlass, the high wing layout meant that the undercarriage was mounted in the fuselage and although that contributed perhaps to the considerable length of the plane, it meant that it was both short and strong. Carrier aircraft have to be able to take off and land at low speed which often results in them having a long nose wheel leg to angle the plane and wing up a bit, but Vought came up with a different solution. The wingspan was quite short but the wing area at 350 sq ft was large, so much so that there are at least two recorded instances of fully loaded planes accidentally taking off with the wings folded and managing to return to the carrier safely. The wing also had a saw-toothed leading edge which D&S say was the first fitted to a plane from new – others would have it fitted only on later models. Vought also took advantage of the new technique of boundary layer control with air bled from the engine and blown over the wing which had leading edge slots along the full length. On top of this the Crusader had a system where the wing was pivoted at the rear and jacks could push the leading edge up changing the incidence by around 7 degrees. This created the extra lift at low speed without compromising the pilot's view and as a bonus, when the plane flared on landing it acted as a large speed brake, helping with the braking! As most students of early US jets will know, one of the major shortcomings was the engines which is why aircraft such as the Panther used copies of he R-R Nene, whilst the F-11 Tiger used a version of the A.S Sapphire. Early US engines were somewhat underpowered and/or unreliable, one of the worst examples being the Westinghouse J40 which nearly killed several designs such as the FH-3 Demon. Fortunately Vought were lucky – by then they were part of the United Aircraft Corporation, as were Pratt and Whitney, so they were able to design the Crusader around the new P&W J57 which was under development, and which turned out to be a very good engine. In its early form it produced around 10000lb dry thrust and with afterburning this increased to 16000lb in the Crusader. Oddly enough, the F-100 used the same engine though initially only giving 14800 lb wet thrust, and due to Vought using new and at times lighter materials in the airframe, in spite of all the extra naval equipment the Crusader was actually over 2000lb lighter than the Super Sabre so it had a much better performance, though probably rather less range. Initially it was given a fixed armament of 4 x 20mm Colt cannon, though these proved prone to jamming during high - G manoeuvres. Later variants had rails for 2 or 4 Sidewinders added, though they could also carry rocket pods. Pylons under the wings could carry drop tanks, Bullpup missiles, rockets or bombs. At some point I will have to decide if I am building it with the wing up or down. As the cockpit will be unoccupied I suspect the wing would normally be lowered? Cheers Pete
  17. Hi Tim, Yours must be the so called "Royal Collection" version with extra etch and white metal legs. Mine just has the rubber tyres and some PE canopy frames. The tyres seem fine after 30 years but I probably won't use them as they are a bit "toy like". Pete
  18. Thanks Col, Anybody know how the "rubber" tyres behave - do they go brittle when painted/glued to the wheels made of a different plastic as seems to be the case with some old "rubber" tank tracks? At the moment they seem fine but a bit too shiny black for my taste. Pete
  19. This my 1988 Fujimi 1/72 moulding of the F-16C - probably a block 30 machine with a GE engine but retaining the narrow intake. I ended up using the kit markings for a machine flown by the 52nd TFW based at Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany in the late 1980's - some of that unit's planes took part in the Gulf War in 1990 but not this one I believe. I was thinking of adding Lantirn pods but it seems that the Block 30 did not carry them so I have built it pretty much OOB. I added a resin seat, Master brass probes, and substituted an AN/ALQ 131 ECM pod on the centreline instead of the small tank provided in the kit. The fit was pretty good except for the cockpit insert - the kit could be built as either a C or the 2 seat D and as often happens with that sort of kit there was a choice of two fuselage sections. I also had to provide a couple of bulkheads/blanking plates to close off the rear of the cockpit and the front of the main wheel bay. I also managed to break off one of what I assume are static discharge wicks on the vertical tail - at least Fujimi do provide them but they are very vulnerable. Not a bad kit but more recent ones are probably better. I had a bit of a problem with the decs - some of the stencils are the same colour as the darker grey paint (which probably should be darker but it is what Fujimi recommended) and so are invisible, hence the lack of walkway lines and the markings around the IFR receptacle, and I used stars from a spare sheet. Anyway that was a quick GB by my standards - thanks to the organisers! Pete
  20. I am calling this finished. Not up to modern standards I guess, and a later block 50 plane would have given me more scope to add on lots of goodies, but it was the only one I had, and it is better than my old Hasegawa one. Thanks to Rich for the GB and to everybody else who helped with useful info. Cheers Pete
  21. I had a bit of a problem with the nose glazing - probably my own fault not the kit. There are 4 pieces and I thought fitting all of them at once would allow me to adjust the fit easier. In fact the small piece on the starboard side was a pain as it kept getting moved as I put the other bits on - with hindsight I should perhaps have stuck the canopy and that bit on first and left them to dry. I ended up with a bit of a gap which I have filled, and there is a step where the canopy and the front top section meet which was not obvious until I started putting paint on. I need to put on another coat of the green and make a few "adjustments" but it is getting there. Incidentally, I don't remember it being mentioned before but there seems to be a mistake on the painting instruction sheet - the green "stripe" at the rear of the wing is shown going well in front of the turret in the starboard view, but through it in the upper view! The circular window in the above pic fell out when I was putting the mask on, so I glued it back with dfifficulty, but it seems to be rather more "recessed" than the ones on the other side. Odds on it will fall out again when I try to take the mask off, but I can always use Krystal Kleer instead. Everybody who has built this kit on the forum says it is well engineered and a good fit, but I have found one slight exception. The air tail on the torpedo is just a butt fit with a small contact area so it is a bit fragile - just like the real thing I suppose as it was meant to break off when it hit the sea. I compared this kit with the old Frog one and they are both quite similar in terms of span and length. The main differences are that the horizontal tail on the Frog one has less chord, and its forward fuselage is rather wider - I always thought it looked a bit fat. Cheers Pete
  22. Here is the plastic. Not a lot really. A review in an old copy of Detail and Scale says it is pretty good - the only main niggles are the cockpit and wheel well detail and the fact that you can see through the nose intake so I will have to put in something to prevent that. Here is my previous build. The pic is a bit blurry but you can see why I wanted to replace it. 40 years ago I did not spray kits with a finishing coat of varnish so a combination of age, weathering and pipe smoke has pretty much wrecked the paintwork and decs. I could refurbish it but I would probably have to pay more for replacement decs than I did for the "new" kit and anyway I want it wheels down this time. Recent research suggests that it probably would not carry a full load of Sidewinders when toting bombs. So before I start here is part one of a heavily compressed background story. In 1917, Chauncey Milton Vought left his job as an engineer with the Wright Corporation and, together with his friend Birdseye Lewis formed the Lewis and Vought Corporation. In 1922, Vought renamed the company the Chance Vought Corporation, Lewis having either retired at that time as Wiki says, or else he had died in Europe in WWI according to Enzo Angelucci in “The American Fighter” - take your pick! The company was moderately successful between the wars producing a string of aircraft for both the US Army and Navy including the first Corsair series of biplanes, and ending up with the advanced for its time Vindicator dive bomber. However they are probably best known for their F4U Corsair fighters of WWII ( the A7 Corsair II should therefore perhaps be called the Corsair III but there we are). As the war was drawing to a close the USN decided to ask both North American and Vought to build them a jet aircraft as a follow-up the the FH-1 Phantom they had just ordered from McDonnell. Both companies produced conventional single engined straight wing planes, the North American FJ-1 Fury and the Vought F6U Pirate which were somewhat better than the FH-1 in some respects but were only built in very modest numbers as they were already being made obsolescent by improvements in engine design and captured German technology. A few years later the Banshee and Panther fighters were in service together with the swept wing Fury 2/3 derivatives of the FJ-1 via the Air Force F-86 Sabre development, and Grumman were starting to build the Cougar which was essentially a swept wing version of the Panther. Vought replied with their F7U Cutlass which was much more radical – perhaps too much so and it was not a great success, but their next venture was a winner! The USAF was introducing the supersonic F-100 Super Sabre and the Navy wanted something similar. The Douglas Skyray was a transonic delta winged interceptor and the latest Grumman fighter was the F-11F Tiger which underperformed due to engine and other problems and could barely exceed Mach 1. The Navy issued a requirement in September 1952 for something faster, and out of 22 proposals from 8 companies there were 4 main contenders – North American proposed a navalised F-100 which they called the Super Fury, Grumman a re-engined F-11F-1F Tiger which eventually reached Mach 2, McDonnell's F3H-3 which was a re-engined Demon, and Vought's F8U Crusader, which was a totally new design and was named as the winner in May 1953. More anon. Cheers Pete
  23. It is the 2009 "new tool" in its original boxing. They have re-released it twice since with new decs - first German and Swiss and now with 2 x German, but this one has German and Italian wartime markings and a Finnish one post war. Pete
  24. Hi Mark, The instructions do not say anything about the mottles but looking at pics and profiles I decided, rightly or wrongly, that they looked fairly hard edged so I did not stipple them. Instead I used thinned green paint on the tip of a long fine brush, wiped most of it off and then just dabbed it on with the brush at a fairly shallow angle to the surface. In the past I have tried airbrushing mottles, but small ones in 1/72 scale are beyond me and my basic Badger 200, not helped by my shaky hands these days. I have seen much better efforts in GB over the years, but it is close enough for me. Pete
  25. Over the years I have built a fair number of Phantoms starting with the Airfix F4H-1 version back in the late 1960's I think - my local chemist may perhaps have been a modeller himself but whatever the reason, he always had a few Airfix kits in his shop and I remember cycling over and seeing that kit not long after it was released as I also did with their NA 39 aka Buccaneer. I still have it but I seem to have binned their later muti-version release which I built as an F-4E, together with the Frog boxed Hasegawa kit of the F-4K/M. I may also have built the Matchbox one though if so it is long gone. I still have the Fujimi F-4B, RF-4B, F-4J, F-4C, F-4E, F-4G and British FG.2 from the 1990's, and when I learned that Airfix were going to release a "proper" F-4K I pre-ordered it. Now I don't know about you but at our age and after 43 years of married life, my wife and I have some difficulty deciding what to buy each other for birthday and Christmas presents, so as the Airfix kit was eventually due for release just before my birthday I suggested that she pay for it as a present. Apparently she did not quite get the message (she is a bit deaf these days as am I) so she ended up buying another one instead which might end up as one of the FG.1 versions from the same order. So this GB finally gives me the incentive to build the kit - together with the myriad of stencil decs! Incidentally, a year or so before this kit was announced I bought a second hand Hasegawa F-4K/M kit which is now redundant so it anybody wants it for the price of the postage send me a PM - I think it is still in my stash! Pete
×
×
  • Create New...