PeterB

When I built the Frog He 162 five years ago I thought I had gotten away with it as it just managed to sit on all three wheels, but when I gave it a finishing coat of varnish it became a tail sitter - I ended up making the nose wheel doors out of lead window strip. That fixed the little beggar but when I took the Gallery photos outdoors I had to wait for the wind to drop!😄 Pete

Hi Selwyn, I have built at least 2 of these and was well pleased with them, except perhaps for the Sidewinder rails which look a bit crude to me. When I first moved down to South Wales in 1979 there was a "museum" in a field alongside Cardiff Airport - actually it was a collection of planes more or less parked in a field but there were some interesting items there as I recall. Back in around 1990 rebuilding work at the airport seems to have resulted in the collection being dispersed though there is still a small museum there. One of the things I do remember being there was a Super Sabre in a rather worn dark green finish - probably Danish, in which case it may have been the F version. Although I did once see one flying over my parent's house during a display at Leeds/Bradford Airport when I was a a lad, the one at Rhoose was the only only I have actually seen close up. I have no idea where it ended up. Pete

Interior work finished. The kit seats are not quite right but will do. I did not have the correct "spectacle" type sticks so have used a pair of Aeroclub "half wheels" - the canopy is clear enough but thick so the view will be pretty distorted anyway so there is not much point in doing any more on it. I therefore glued the windows in and then closed up the fuselage - the fit was not brilliant but not too bad., and once that was dry I decided to put the tail on. Typical of its era the kit suffers from the curse of the "workable control surfaces" and so has twice as many parts as the Airfix one with its "poseable" surfaces. Every one of the ruddy parts needed not only some ejector pin marks removing but also every one of the hinge parts cleaning up before they would fit. Of course, as often happens the surfaces ended up rather thicker than the Airfix ones, with massive gaps between the various fixed and moving surfaces, all of which will need a dose of PPP to make them more presentable. Comparing the fins with the Airfix ones they are about the same size but the profile at the top and bottom is slightly different which seems to make them look shorter and wider - I may try a bit of re-profiling. Another difference between the two kits is that the Airfix one has an extra window above the Starboard wing trailing edge, though on the Port side it is moulded as filled in. So, a bit of work needed before starting on the wings. As mentioned earlier the balance is marginal so I may have to add some more ballast up front - possibly due to a combination of the tail parts perhaps being heavier than those of the Airfix kit and the lack of weight forward in the form of the interior fittings. Pete

I got the tail on. Not a bad fit but it will need a little filler as will one or two other bits. Pete

Hi Adrian, Yes, it looks like I will have to add a bit more ballast once the nose leg is in place, but fortunately there should be enough room - if not there is a fair bit of space in the engine nacelles though that does not give as good a "lever/arm" if I remember my "A Level" Physics!😄 At least with this kit, unlike the Airfix one, the wheel doors are not moulded closed so I can get in if needed before adding them. I suspect it may actually need a little more weight than the Airfix kit for some reason - maybe something to do with a lighter interior up front and a heavier tail structure, of which more later. Pete

Thanks Adrian, Yes, the kit has virtually no interior detail and both the cockpit and nose position will be pretty visible so I have done something about it. The usual Frog arrangement for the undercarriage makes it slightly complicated- As do the massive locating pin supports! However I have managed to get floors and bulkheads in, although there is a non-prototypical step in the nose to clear the wheel leg. I could not be bothered with the access crawl space in the nose, or the curtained "door" behind the cockpit though I might try to represent them with paint. The Airfix one I am doing in another GB needs 25g ballast and getting it in was a struggle but there is more room here thankfully. Also, the locating "socket" for the nose leg in the Starboard fuselage has "short-shotted" so that means that with a bit of luck I should be able to inset the leg later in the build which may be a bit safer as it is rather flimsy! The IP will of course be rather simpler than in the Airfix kit but better than nothing (I hope). The one remaining problem is the dorsal turret but I have a few thoughts about that - I should be able to add it near the end of the build with a few modifications. Pete

Hi Adrian, No it was just a 1920's publication using old terminology for what we now call the Cinema. That is why I chickened out and "regressed" mine as mentioned in my thread. Hi Richard, You are a braver man than me doing the engine rigging but it should be worth it. The other thing I missed out deliberately was the rigging between the cabane struts, though that is not as obvious. Pete

Hi James, No a lot! Hopefully I won't need to as I have got 26g in eventually though some of it is not as far forward as I would like - we will see!😄 Pete

Before I start on the interior I thought I would sort out the ventral turret. The B-25A had nose, tail and beam guns, but the last two were removed on the B-25B as a dorsal and ventral turret were fitted instead. These remained standard up to the B-25G but later the ventral turret was replaced by tail and waist guns, and some of the earlier ones had field modifications When Doolittle raided Japan with his formation of B-25B he had broomsticks fitted to tail position as fakes - a bit like the wooden "Quaker Cannon" used in the past to mislead the enemy. Ventral turrets were quite popular on 1930's designs but usually proved less successful than had been expected. One problem was that when lowered the increase in drag knocked around 10-15 mph off the speed, and another was that when, as with the B-25, the gunner had to rely on a periscopic sight, the field of view was minimal, even when the sight was usable - reports say that the one on this plane easily got dirty, and also that the gunner's position was very uncomfortable and he often got cramp. As a consequence it was seldom used in action I believe, and Frog have moulded it in a retracted position, though it may need the depth reducing somewhat. In fact all they have provided is a shallow turret and no gun barrels, and the slots provided are too short to allow the barrels to go to the horizontal position so the first thing I did was lengthen the slots at one end, then I put some Milliput inside to allow me to drill holes to mount the barrels. Having done that I cut some slots in the lower fuselage and put some card inside the fuselage, thus creating the recesses as shown on the Airfix kit below. And this is what I have ended up with so far - the turret is just a push fit at the moment. Getting there slowly! Pete

Next I added the bulkheads with the wing spars on and the bomb bay roof,, together with the insert for the ventral gun. Then I glued the fuselage together. And when that was dry I added the closed bomb doors and entry hatch doors. The fit is pretty good though I did have to use a clamp to push the fuselage bottom in slightly to meet the bomb doors. I will add a touch of filler later. So far, so good. Pete

Well - here we go! Here are the Frog and Airfix fuselages side by side for a comparison. They seem fairly similar dimensionally. The Frog kit comes with a short "floor" and 2 seats for the cockpit and nose are whilst the Airfix kit comes with this! A bit of work to do with card I think, though I don't need to model the rear section over the entry hatch! Pete

Even so I only managed to get about 10g in the wheel bay, and a further 8g stuffed in the access tunnel running from the entry hatch to the nose compartment, so I had to put the rest in the area behind the cockpit - good job I was intending to have the access hatch closed! I assume Airfix are right about the 25g - it does seem quite a lot to fit in using my normal lead window strip. Time will tell! Pete

I have made a start by painting up the interior and then assembling the front end. The fuselage has a large aperture in each side which are supposed to be filled-in late in the construction by adding the transparent parts from the outside. Airfix clearly designed the moulding to allow for more than one version to be produced, in this case the original boxing being for the B-25 C/D models but then they issued a B-25 B. This had a slightly different arrangement to the windows behind the wing so the engineering allowed for different inserts instead of a complete replacement fuselage. There are already alternative engine cowlings on the sprues as well as a blanking plate for the lower gun turret. I decided it would be easier to do any filling that might be needed now rather when the kit is nearly complete so I added the inserts straight away and then painted carefully around the actual windows with the interior colour. I then assembled the interior which is in 2 levels. I used the decs provided for the IP. The rear section will be on top of one of the access hatches/doors which can be modelled either open or closed - I will be doing it closed, likewise the bomb doors so I don't need to fit the bomb bay interior/bombs. The instructions say that I need to get 25g of ballast in the nose which will have to go in the wheel well - fortunately the main doors are closed when on the ground otherwise it would be a really tight squeeze. As with most if not all of the more recent Airfix kits tolerances are very tight so paint has to be removed from joining surfaces and frequent dry fits are essential. Pete

Nice one Selwyn. If you are doing it with the missile bay doors closed I wish you luck! I was fortunate enough to get replacement "solid" doors for this and the F-106 from John of Aeroclub about 10 years back and they made life a lot easier! Pete

Don't go too far John - the GB does not appear to start until Saturday! Pete

Although in a Tamiya box, this is my build of an Italeri Hs 129 B-2. The instructions do not say what unit it was from but 2 of may sources suggest 8/Schl.G. 1 whilst another suggests Schl.G.2 Here is a link to the build- Pete

Right, that is now finished and I will post it in the gallery. Not a bad kit but could be better. Pete

This is my Frog Vimy which was originally released in the Trailblazer series as the plane used by Alcock and Brown to cross the Atlantic. Near the end of their existence Frog issued a modified version supposedly representing a normal Vimy bomber and I bought one of these later "modified" mouldings many years ago. However I found that the changes Frog made only went part of the way towards representing a bomber and a fair bit of work would be needed to do the job properly. Paul Thompson kindly provided me with details of his conversion and I had every intention of having ago, but as explained in my build thread circumstances meant that in the end I took the easier option and just converted it back to the original moulding. Other than a few modest "improvements" and the blanking off of the fuselage windows and gun positions it is pretty much OOB. It came out better than I expected. I should really have rigged the area around the engines as well but it was too much work for my shaky hands, and I have missed out the double wires and control runs, so it is just an "impression" of the rigging, but better than nothing. Pete

Varnish on and going in the gallery. Thanks to all those who provided help with details, background info etc. It actually went together pretty well and I enjoyed it. Pete

This is my attempt at the old Frog Westland PV.6/Wallace. I had originally intended to convert it to a Wallace in RAF service, but in the end built it as the PV.6 which was part of the Frog Trailblazer series as it was one of the two planes involved in the Houston Everest Expedition. Here is a link to the build thread. Other than a few improvements to the cockpit and adding exhaust pipes and rigging it was OOB. The fit was actually pretty good so it was quite an easy build. Pete

Ok, I finally got round to giving it a finishing coat of satin varnish and will post it to the gallery. A nice simple build that came out quite well. Pete

Thanks, I may get back to you later. Pete

Know what you mean Charlie - I did the same thing on my Frog Shackleton back in Frog Squad 1. It will be worth the effort in the end. Pete

Hi Charlie, Amazingly, given my track record with cement, the wall is still intact and has weathered down quite well - in spite of her indoors attempts at painting it "concrete colour" it is beginning to blend in nicely! On balance I think I would prefer painting windows to lugging rubble up my steps and building materials back down them.😄 Pete

Hi James I believe that American Airlines persuaded Douglas to produce the DST (Douglas Sleeper Transport) aka DC-3 as an improved sleeper version of their DC-2 design with bunks fitted to replace the Condor, though as you say the concept of a "Luxury Night Sleeper Transport" does not seem to have really caught on, perhaps due to the smaller number of passengers that could be carried. Pete