Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

224 Peter

Members
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

553 Excellent

About 224 Peter

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salisbury

Recent Profile Visitors

519 profile views
  1. 224 Peter

    BAE Hawk XX154

    Arrived yesterday from Boscombe Down the original and complete Hawker Hawk prototype. For anyone modelling an original Hawk a visit to the Boscombe Down Aviation Collection at Old Sarum Airfield is essential. You can get close and personal, take as many photos as you wish and sit in a Hawk cockpit section that sits next to the full size aircraft. 154 arrived yesterday, by air: slung under a Chinook for the hop from Boscombe Down to Old Sarum. She is the very first Hawk flown, she spent her life being used for test and evaluation work, spending the last 20 years at the Empire Test Pilots School. At the last major overhaul she was painted black and fitted with a late 900 series RR Adour engine. Over the years she accumulated 6000 flight hours, and last flew in December 2018. The engine has been returned to Rolls Royce for re-sale, the pyrotechnic parts have been removed but otherwise she is as last flown. www.boscombedownaviationcollection.co.uk Happy to arrange a walk round photo session if anyone wants to do it.
  2. Ron, thanks: for the heads up. It seems Airfix has history with fragile 1/24 scale U/C legs in that the Typhoon legs are also a bit weak. My feeling is that they should engineer the legs to contain a metal rod, as Tamiya do on their 1/32 F14A. The Mosquito, as it has effectively 4 legs, seems not to have this problem. Peter J.
  3. I've ordered a set. Anyone want the fuselage one?? With a closed up fuselage it would be invisible!
  4. Ron, thanks: I plan on leaving the gun covers off on the extended wing. Thanks also for reminding me about Nigel's Modelling Bench, I'll order the tanks. I thought this was a kit I could build "straight from the box" without buying extras!!
  5. Carl, Interesting! I'd assumed that this wasn't possible. I shouldn't assume anything!
  6. Thanks, especially to Dave, for the film. Artistic licence...we all do it, and it will save space. But I think, in this case, I'll stick with the real world and wings down. Just about finished the main structure of the wing internals, all I need to do now is to position the guns and ammunition boxes. Progress is being reported here....
  7. I'm building the big Hellcat...it really is BIG. The kit is progressing well, I'm at the point of building the wings. My plan is to have the guns and ammunition panel open on one wing: I assume this would only happen with the wing down in the flying position. QUESTION: Was the Hellcat able to have one wing folded, the other extended, or did they fold/unfold together? I have found lots of photos of folded wings and unfolded wings, but so far not one with one folded and one unfolded. Can anyone help with an answer?
  8. More progress, the fuselage is closed up, Ive started work on the wings. This photo shows the typically "tubby" Grumman fuselage, with the centre section beside it. I left all the internal detail of the fuselage, it is invisible unless the lower hatch is fitted open. The centre section is complex, especially round the wheel wells. Everything fits well, as long as ALL sprue gates are removed and surfaces sanded smooth. Build before gluing: if you spray everything first it is essential that all paint is removed from surfaces to be glued. Next, a look down into the cockpit: I've never before put transfers on to a parachute and seat belts. The instrument panel is convincing, with transfers for all the main dials. The plastic overlay needed work, many of the holes for the dials were overshot, not round and not sharp. I should have photographed before closing up. Last, from the front: The engine assembly, positioned (but not stuck) to the firewall and the front spar in the background. A lot more work to be done, I'm working on the wings. This is a big model, so I'd like to show it with one wing folded, one wing down and the gun bay open. BUT is this a realistic pose? Could one wing be unfolded independently of the other? Advice much appreciated! I'm not an exhibition modeller, nor a semi professional with a you tube feed, just someone who enjoys making reasonable representations of interesting aircraft. So far I've nopt found any real problems, other than the engine core, mentioned above. More, in a few weeks!
  9. Thanks for the insight. They sound good....no clear film!! Applied to gloss varnish and then matted down the details should be clear but inconspicuous. I took a look at HGW's website: a temptation to spend money if ever there was one!
  10. The exhausts are over long because the Merlin is narrow, so it can fit in the nacelle: the plastic cowling, if scaled up the cowl sides would 3" thick!! ... or to put another way, the 1/8"/2.5mm aluminium sheet if, true scale thickness in the kit, would be about 0.6mm thick. So almost all kit engines are undersize in some way, usually width and height, in order to fit. When built up the distance between the ends of the exhausts will be spot on.
  11. Hi, All. I have just received a set of 1/32 markings for the Hurricane, made by HGW. Unlike traditional transfers these have to be soaked in warm/hot water, positioned on to a Gunze decal softener solution and after blotting down left for 6 to 8 hours to dry before removing the transfer film. Had anyone used these transfers and are they better/worse/the same as conventional transfers? Also, can I use Micro Softener, as I don't have the Gunze product? Help and advice most welcome!
  12. Thanks for all the positive and helpful comments, much appreciated. I have, at least, done justice to the Mk22 and the kit, it could be better, but given the basics are almost 50 years old, it will do until someone else releases a new tool Mk22 in 1/32nd scale...!! (I'm not holding my breath.)
  13. It is implied in Quill's book that the 5 blade props were feathering, so as to reduce drag in the event of engine failure, but I cannot find any other reference. BUT even so I messed up with the propellor, the intention was to have some pitch on them. But what is done is done and I'll move on to the next project.
  14. The landing gear is wrong...a combination of Matchbox errors and my own. According to Quill, in his book, the Mk 22 and 24 had a new U/C, wider track and longer legs. The idea was to improve directional stability on the ground and gibe more clearance for the propellor. The Brassin legs are for a Mk IXc, I compared them with the kit legs and they are the same length. After reading about the changes I compared the distance between the leg pivot points on a Mk IX kit and the Mk 22 and they were virtually the same. So, longer legs, wider spaced - it is too late to do anything, but it does niggle!
  15. Correct, my mistake! The Frog 1/32nd scale kits were re-boxed Hasegawa mouldings and very fine, in comparison. I have the Spitfire V1 in my stash, and the ME 109E.
×
×
  • Create New...