Jump to content

Work In Progress

Members
  • Posts

    7,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sometimes Yorkshire, sometimes Cambridgeshire

Recent Profile Visitors

8,941 profile views

Work In Progress's Achievements

Completely Obsessed Member

Completely Obsessed Member (6/9)

4.4k

Reputation

  1. I generally go with gluing in a piece of clear sprue too. But if you do want to go down the route of making it out of glue (which is basically what Krystal Klear is), I would not use KK. For things like that I use two-pack clear epoxy adhesive . I would cut the little section out, drill in a little hole so I can inset a piece of fine wire or stretched sprue painted to represent the bulb, stick a piece of foil tape underneath, dob on the epoxy, let it set, peel off the tape, give it a day or so to go properly hard then file/sand/polish. Also makes good small cabin windows if you tape over the outside and fill from inside.
  2. Very nicely done: I hope mine turns out as well as yours
  3. I agree with Admiral Puff: comparing the wingtips shapes of the kit with that drawing is not likely to lead to happiness. Comparing the kit to actual Tiger Moths makes a lot more sense. The full size aircraft wingtip bows were not made with reference to that drawing, it's just an approximation and all you can rely on it for is the information it actually set out to convey
  4. I like floral wire too, for things which are not flat section. I also use monofilament fishing line, and Lycra thread. Sometimes for streamlined flat section RAF-wire rigging I use stretched-sprue techniques to make fine sections out of strips of thin sheet styrene stock. There are many examples of models rigged in these ways, suggest you search in the Work In Progress - Aircraft forum for build threads on Tiger Moths, Gladiators etc https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/52-work-in-progress-aircraft/ See also here for some basic technique https://ww1aircraftmodels.com/page6.html
  5. yes, they are wind-up windows like on a car
  6. question for https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/27-classic-up-to-1968/ really
  7. QE2 was an ocean liner, the carrier is just HMS Queen Elizabeth. The flight deck, according to Google, is 280 metres long which is enough to land, given suitably trained deck hands to assist with deck handling (no brakes and on a hard surface that the tail skid cannot dig into, there would be practically no directional control once the tail was down). I am not sure how a Moth would react to going up the ski-jump, so the take-off might require the ship to heave-to with the wind on its stern, and the Moth to fly off the back instead of the front
  8. What you are seeing may very well be primer, a very reasonable theory which would certainly account for the visible tonal difference, but red dope? why? Metal surfaces were not primed red: you may be thinking of the red shrinking dope applied to fabric before the aluminium dope layer and any final finish (camo, markings etc). The area in your pictures is not a fabric covered surface. Hawker's standard primer for metal airframe parts was usually a grey metal primer, sometimes a yellow primer. Previous thread
  9. I am so glad to see this finally getting made, and will definitely have one for back-to-back building with an Airfix one
  10. I do like the box art and would love to have given this a go. In case anyone instinctively wonders "where's the hook", all the usual problems are the other way round. A Tiger Moth is sub 30 knots at a three-point touchdown, and it looks from a google that Eagle, even throttled back to economy cruise, did 21 knots, plus it's rarely flat calm out to sea so there was likely something like 25-30 knots over the deck. So, as I imagine it being done, the first problem is making sure you stay out of the island turbulence and the downwash off the back of the fandeck. The batman would probably have got bored and given up! The second problem is remembering to do a wheel landing in a place where the wires aren't, lest the Moth trip over them. I imagine they left them flat on the deck rather than raised, but you don't want to take the chance anyway. The third problem is having enough sturdy shipmates knowing where they can safely grab hold of the airframe without getting near the prop, so that when you throttle back and let the tail down it doesn't immediately blow back down the deck and fall off the back of the ship (no brakes on a Tiger). What a lark!
  11. I wouldn't bother unless you have a particular reason for wanting to go with a 57 year old mould (which I do sometimes, but that's because I'm a nostalgia hound). Revell recently re-issued the 1/32 ICM kit and that, whether in an ICM or Revell box, would be a better place to start Britmodeller review of the ICM / Revell offering here
  12. Ah, I stand corrected then. What a waste of effort and material.
  13. This is a fallacy. It might have been an aircraft built in a production slot originally allocated to Vc manufacture, but it was a Spitfire IX when it was new. There were no service examples of the Spitfire IX which were converted from completed Spitfire V aircraft. *turns out second sentence correct, first sentence possibly incorrect
  14. I will never really understand the importance people place on comparing kits with drawings by random artists, as if drawings had any greater inherent likelihood of accuracy than the kits made either of those drawings, other drawings, or similar photographic sources and measurements
×
×
  • Create New...