neilfergylee

Hello, Total 3D printing newbie here in need of some help. Back in the early 1980s I bought a Heller model of the Austin Princess. Since about 1981 I have been meaning to build it for my closest friend whose mother had one. We had some great days out in it, exploring pubs and railways together and I have been meaning to build it ever since. I even sprayed the body in the correct BL paint! And no, the kit hasn't rusted... There is a catch: being a French kit, it is left-hand drive and the dashboard is the wrong way round. It is not suitable for conversion but it did occur to me that it it was 3D scanned and uploaded to CAD, it could be mirrored in a few seconds and then a new version printed. I don't have even the first clue as to who might provide such a service. Can anybody advise please? Many thanks, Neil

Thak you Ian. I wonder why some were painted EDSG? Neil

Forgive me if this has been covered before, I did use Google to find an answer but - amazingly - found nothing. I have seen photographs of FAA phantoms with a dark belly tank. Does anybody know the colour? It almost looks black and too dark for EDSG, while I really don't think it's just dirt. Can anybody enlighten me please? Many thanks, Neil

Thank you all very much indeed! Neil

Thank you!

Like many others, I have harboured a desire to build lesser-known Spitfire versions and decided late in the summer that I would have a go at building a Spirfire 21 in 1/48 scale. @CplPunishment is the definitive modeller with regard to the Spitfire 21 in 1/48 scale as his blog here will attest: https://www.vexillummilitaris.co.uk/?page_id=1161 In simple terms, a Mk. 21 is a cross between am Mk. XIV and a Mk. 22. Possessing the traditional high-backed fuselage and empannage of the (early) XIV and the redesigned wings of the 22/24. Modelling this hybrid has its challenges, especially as the Airfix PR.XIX in 1/48 scale is fetching silly money on eBay. Therefore, I embarked on the project with the intention of 'merely' placing an Academy fuselage on the Airfix wings. However, there is a big problem: the Academy fuselage is, well, "interesting". The shape of the Academy fuselage is rather portly; take a look here for a better desrciption: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/building-an-accurate-spitfire-mk-xivc.html. Therefore, after a lot of umming and ahhing, decided to go for broke and graft the rear of the Academy fuselage onto the cockpit and nose of the Airfix 22. Here is a view when first mated. You will see that I made the join aling the kinked jont line, something that matched almost perfectly between the two kits. In turn, the cockpit lined-up perfectly, with the hatch size being exact. The only significant mis-match was on the underside of the fuselage, where a bit of blending took place. I decided to improve the model further with a few Quickboost resin accessories and these included a new propeller, spinner and replacement upper cowling. Once the filling and sanding was complete, I found myself with a pretty acceptable likeness. I used a combination of Xtradecal abd home-printed decals and have reproduced LA195 of 615 Squadron. Unfortunately, I now realise I had used slightly undersized squadron codes. Nonetheless, I hope you willfind thismodel worthwhile. A full set of images can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/26690797@N02/albums/72157720183133143/with/51709767752/ Best wishes, Neil

I thought for a moment you were being rude!

Once option is the ICM kit for the VII / VIII and IX. Essentially, it's the same kit and you can make long- and short-aileron versions. Neil

Jun San, You are a scholar and a gentleman! Thank you very much indeed, those shots are excellent! Kind regards, Neil

Thanks, but not always. That is probably a Mk.8 cockpit with an ejection seat, while it's the bit behind the front seat that I'm after and, so far, Google has steadfastly not been my friend.

Hello folks, I am in the process of completing a Classic Airframes Meteor T.7. It has been a fight every step of the way but absolutely great fun and I am looking forward to showing-off the completed article. I have one issue: the cockpit. Classic Airframes provide some excellent resin parts, so I am tempted to model the aircraft with the canopy open. However, there is a paucity of photographs and drawings showing the interior, especially the gap between the front and rear cockpits. I came across the image below on Facebook and the lady is almost certainly in the front cockpit of a T.7. This answers one questin I had regarding what goes where but I wold be very grateful if anybody had images, or a link to images, of more shots showing this middle section. I would be most grateful for any guidance. Kind regards, Neil

Thank you. That is the kindest compliment I have ever received with regard to modelling. Neil

Gun blisters - how to make them. This had been weighing on my mind for a while: do I try and fabricate them with card and filleror try to get radical. Eventually, I decided to try and mould them by taking a piece of dowel and shaping it to become a male mould and then take a piece of hardboard to create a female former. Much to my surprise, it seems to have worked. Heat was provided with a hot air gun used for decorating and I managed to get the plastic to the right degree of softness through sheer luck. I shall continue to assemble the panel and publish an image once complete. Neil

Yes, I picked-up a copy for a fiver - best bargain ever - and I have read it in detail. The information has to be teased-out amongst a lot of filler concerning one-of trials that doesn’t really support the narrative.

Interesting. I know the XII was earlier than the VIII as it was yet anothe rush job and your tail section remerk would make sense to me. My understanding was that the VII and VIII were basically the same aircraft only that one was pressurised, them both representing what I can only describe as 'next generation' spitfires designed to use the Merlin 60 series and incorporatng many refinements such as flush rivetting, retractable tailwheels etc. However, they were taking a long time to tool-up and the Mk.IX, in true Spitfire style, became another interim mark that nudged the 'proper' versions out of the running. Does that make sense to you? This particular question has fascinated me for nearly fifty years! Neil

Thank you to every body who has given me support. This week, progress has been glacial as I concentrated on, first prototyping the starboard wing cannon bay and then drawing something to work against and with a bit of trial and error I achieved a result. This drawing is crude, done in PowerPoint and mixes imperial and metic units. I'll never make a draughtsman! The metric measurements were taken after fitting the ammunition tray assembly as it was only with a great deal of filing and trial fitting that I was able to achieve a result. Here is the part-finished result. I have manufactured the gun 'tray', the ammunition tray and the wing covers. The big challenge I face is to create the teardrop blister and I think I am ging to have to learn to do vacuforming! Hopefully, things will move ahead this week! Cheers, Neil

Thanks Graham, As I understand it, 50 Mk. XIIs were based on Mk. V fuselages and 50 were based on Mk.VIIIs. Certainly the latter would have been flush-rivetted and, slowly, I am starting to understand why the Mk.VIII took so long to come into production. Thanks, Neil

Thank you Troy! A few replies to your very helpful comments: I doubt if any plans are perfect and, certainly, I found that some of what I would call fixed features (e.g. the demarcation betweem the leading edge skinning and the underwing) didn't match between the drawing and the model. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that scanning and grpahics packages to open -up a pile of possibilities that were not even dreampt-of forty years ago! Riverts are a whole world of pain and, gradually, I am starting to appreciate the detailed dfferences between marks. I THINK the Mk.VIII might have been the lead version for flush riveting although, of course, the Mk.IX was a derivative of the ealrier Mk.V. I think I am going to have to plump for a specific airframe (hopefully well-photographed) and then try to reproduce it to the best of my abilities. I suspect I am going to have to perform some pretty drastc surgery on the undercarriage legs and see that there is a wealth of resourceon this one subject. Also thank yo for the suggestion regarding the different wheel types. One things is for certain: I won't be using the kit parts! It's interesting you mention usig the Eduard model as a reference model, I didn't have one to hand but did use Airfix's XIVe as a bit of a guide. Not perfect but certainly helpful. Cheers, Neil

Hi Rob, Many thanks for your comments. The nose does make me nervous and thank you for the suggestion regarding the fasteners: brilliant lateral thinking there! I have just learned about Buchon, so they might provide a better alternative with the demise of Heritage. Cheers, Neil

Yes, some of this is a bit tricky to nail-down. What I need to do before too long is to decide on a particular airframe and stick with it and one factor will be to fine one that was well-photographed. Cheers, Neil

Hi Rob, It's a huge subject and I have only really scratched the surface. The subject of cannon blisters is on in its own right and you can be right even if you are wrong! This is what I mean: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/01/cannon-blisters.html So, the fat blister is absolutely fine and if anybody challenges you, just look them in the eye and tell them it all repends on the armament fit! I shall be returning to the ammunition bay later today: I see a lot of plastikard being consumed! Cheers, Neil

Thank you! Yes, I can feel a 1/32 VIV or even XII on the list! Neil

The wings Spitfire IXs had ‘C’ or ‘E’ wings. These were essentially similar from a configuration perspective but, of greatest importance to the modeller, were significantly different to the earlier ‘A’ and ‘B’ wings. Airfix’s model was built with the eight-Browning ‘A’ wing and the 2005 Mk.V re-pop provided a few additional components to make the two cannon and four Browning ‘B’ wing. Frankly, it was a bit of a bodge but was probably good-enough for the purposes of making a passable Mk.V. This aside, the ‘C’ wing is quite a progression from the ‘B’. I was fortunate to obtain a scanned set of 1/48 plans taken from the excellent Modellers Datafile on Merlin Spitfires and these could blow-up to ½ 4 with no difficulty. Using good old PowerPoint, I was able to create templates for cutting and scribing, while the image below shows how I had overlaid a ‘C’ wing over an equivalent ‘B’ wing. This led to quite a few significant points: 1. The upper wing panels for the ‘C’ differ considerably from the ‘B’. The area to remove for the cannon it quite extensive. 2. This came as a surprise: in the ‘C’ wing, the inner Browning gun is further outboard than the ‘A’ and ‘B’ versions. The ammunition tanks for the cannon occupied the bay formerly used by the inner gun. 3. Airfix used the position of the inner machine gun as the position for the cannon. It appears that in the ‘C’ wing, the cannon is fractionally further outboard: only a small difference but significant when tying it into the undersurface scribing and internal panelling. The undersurfaces are also significantly different. The panels in the mid-wing area needed filling and rescribing, the cartridge ejection chutes need repositioning for the cannon and the repositioned inner machine gun. None of this is especially difficult but it does need filler, patience, and a lot of rubbing down! The pictures below explain some of the work. In this drawing, I have placed the 'C' wing drawing over the 'A'. Note the very large panels covering the cannon and ammunition bay, and - most important but surprising - the repositioning of the inner browning gun further outboard. In this underside view, some of the Mk.IX panels have been highlighted in bluw. This is a bit confusing because it includes both 'A' and 'C' wing panels. However, it does show how most of the cartridge ejection slots need to be repositioned. Here is the (slightly wet) unmodified port wing underside. By way of contrast, here is the modified starboard wing with a coat of primer to provide a consistent surface. There are more details to add but it does contrast well with the unmodified version. A comparison of the upper wing surfaces with the port wing inverted to provide a contrast to the modified starboard wing. Note the repositionied inner Briwning gun. A quick 'how does it look?' view with the new nose tacked in place. Finally, a trial fit of the cannon in the starboard wing. Thats all for now: let's see what the coming week brings! Kind regards, Neil

Thank you all and welcome onboard! @bigbadbadge is that the Grey Matter conversion? Neil

Many thanks for that. The undercarriage falls into a whole world of pain for me that, so far, I have looked-away from. I have the offer of a Mustang engine (although it comes with strings) but I might 'bottle' that one but you are right to remind me about the upper cowling. I must be mad! Nonetheless, it's assistance like this that keeps me going. Cheers, Neil