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. :)

Tomas Enerdal

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Good

About Tomas Enerdal

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Stockholm, SWEDEN

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think I have found the answer to the first question, in Morgan/Shacklady: (Chapter about XVII) "... the long stroke undercarriage under typical service conditions. The wheel wells had been modified to accommodate the chassis which had corrected, toe in wheels. ..." Richard A. Franks refer to these legs as part no. 92178D -The second question remains, how to model them on a kit? Edit: I found a note on Jumpei Temma's drawing; here It states that the modified landing gear/blister was introduced "late", from SX332-SX389. I'll see if that can be confirmed somehow. The shape of blister looks exactly as in one of the few clear pics I have, however. (SX334)
  2. Hmm, Monforton calls these bulges "wheel blisters" and there were even blister differences between c- and e-wings. Again, I made a quick look yesterday night, still have to look this through thoroughly. But since the Monforton book deals only with Mk.IX and XVI I suppose we're talking wartime introduction of this runway modified landing gear/axle? I remember earlier discussions about various types of landing gears; splines, the introduction of scissors links, rear and front. Can the part no of the different types of landing gear help us? Unfortunately I have no other access than to the normal printed references/books.
  3. Dear All, I just noticed a detail on the Seafire XVII wings I had not noticed before: There are wing bulges above the wheel wells. They seem to be the same size and shape as seen on later universal wings with e-armament. According to one reference; "this was introduced when the axle geometry was changed to reduce the toe-in on the existing legs, thus reducing the wear on the wheels when these aircraft operated from tarmac, concrete or PSP runways..." after a quick look in some references I could see these bulges on several Seafire XVII but not on the Seafire XV. The restored SX336 has them, but I have yet to find a pic of SX137 where their presence or absence can be determined. (I will go through my references more thoroughly to see if I can determine any patterns.) These bulges appear on the Tamiya 1/32 and Eduard 1/48 Spitfire Mk.XVI respectively. I don't think they're on the Airfix Seafire XVII. -Is this a previously known fact? This type of folding wing is unique to Seafire XV and XVII (the Seafire III had the separate oil cooler and one radiator) -Are separate bulges available in 1/48? (they are fully integrated in the Eduard upper wing parts)
  4. Dear All, Thanks for input, especially Martian, thanks for the scans! What limited that can bee seen from CAD, it sure looks like well done homework from Clear Prop Models. As Roy Sutherland has helped it should be as accurate as possible with respect to circumstances/available info. My original question is probably rather futile, until other information or (less likely) a survivor turns up. On the other hand, Blackburn us now part of BAe, their library is said to be excellent. We'll eventually see what it looks like. Clear Prop's choice of subject is welcome indeed, hope they continue in that direction. I can't stop dreaming of an accurate 1/48 Barra...
  5. Dear All, Got a jolt the other day when hearing about the forthcoming 1/48 Firebrand TF.V from Clear Prop Models. But the news got me thinking. AFAIK there is no survivor and I have also heard that published plans can perhaps be questioned. What major prime source information is actually available? Production drawings, manuals, pilots notes, illustrated spare-part lists, etc? Making an accurate kit of, for example, a P-51D shouldn't be a problem since a lot of information is available, including survivors. But how about the Firebrand? There has been some kits released in the past, what are they based on?
  6. Jumpei Temma here (simply marvelous!)
  7. Tomas Enerdal

    Ta152H kit

    That is the rational answer. However, I will never stop to be filled with wonder and joy when I see miracles be performed with old or bad kits. The example on hyper scale puts a big smile on my face, Mr. Irvine seems to have had a lot of fun, and the sense of accomplishment he must have felt when finished! That pic of a 1/72 model looks more like a super detailed 1/32 kit. This is very inspirational for me, even if I mostly model from the latest, most detailed kits, and spend far too much on aftermarket. Thanks for sharing!
  8. Dear all, Does anyone know of a clear pic of the instrument panel in the Seafire III? I have gone through my references and note that I don’t have/haven’t found any. The Seafire I and II panels look just like the Spit V, the Seafire XV looks just like the Spit XIV. Quite a lot happened in between, changes on both left side (position of the elevator trim indicator), center (square or ”rounded” blind flying panel) and right (type/size of fuel gauge). Also, very noticeable, type of gun sight, reflector or gyro. And somewhere in there are the elusive Seafire III panels. If I understand it correctly, late Seafire III’s were produced in parallel with the first XV. I wouldn’t be surprised if changes occurred during production. Or differences between Westland and Cunliffe-Owen. I’m aiming for a late Seafire III (BPF) in 1/48 and it would be nice to get it right. I’m even contemplating one in 1/32 (Tamiya IX with engine and oil cooler from the Revell II), it would certainly be noticeable in that scale if you know about it. (i saw one pic of the IP in the restored PP972, its twin large fuel gauges looked spurious..) TIA Tomas Enerdal
  9. Regarding the control surfaces: I don't think there's anything wrong with the kits control surfaces. But the separate surfaces from Barracuda are really exquisite, they will improve the finished model enormously as the control surfaces will look much more like real items, rather than integrated into a plastic part in a model kit. Even if you choose to put them in a strictly neutral position, the improvement will be great. And that's what aftermarket parts often are/aim for, besides correcting inaccuracies. Even the rudder trim tab is separate in this set. I hold Barracuda Studios (nee Cooper Details) in extremely high regard when it comes to quality and ability to improve level of detail. Frankly, highest of them all. Besides, in this case Cooper details instructions even mentioned that "most Spit 22/24 elevators almost always rested in the up position, with the exception of the Spit 24 in 80 squadron in Hong Kong, which usually hung down for some reason." As far as I understand it, all Spit 18/21/22/24 and Seafire 45/46/47 had the round type of exhaust. Flaps should be up while parked. The pilot's check list dictated that flaps should be raised after landing, forgetting to do so was considered bad form and was frowned upon, could lead to fines.
  10. Regarding exhausts; (Warning, the following is on the verge of anal nitpicking) I have compared Moskit 48-63, Barracuda BR48092 and Eduard Brassin 648470, and compared them to pics of real griffon Spit-/Seafires. The Moskit has the benefit of that metallurgical production, deeply hollow and have the "right" burnt look. But I would be reluctant to use them on a kit, each pipe is 1 mm longer than on the other two. I fear that the pipes will stretch too far rearwards, throwing off the correct look of the exhausts. The other two are very similar, but I think the Brassin ones have a slight edge over the Barracuda ones, the rings and welds on each pipe are a little better defined. I can heartily recommend the Barracuda BCR48027 control surfaces! And don't forget to fix the radiators, their sides should be perpendicular to the outer wing dihedral, not the horizontal plane.
  11. Dear All, In pic #6 just above, pranged 155 is seen, with Mk.V guns (short stubs) and no fairings. A clear pic of this same a/c is seen on p.110 of Seafire. From the cockpit 13 by Erik "Wincle" Brown (!) It clearly shows serial PR240. According to Sturtivant it was delivered to 880 Sq in 6.45. The prang is not mentioned, however. Maybe it could simply be fixed with a new propeller and wingtip? (As an aside, the first and second 5 on the starboard side have slightly different styles, should make an interesting marking on a model!) Another aside for our 1/72 friends; I just saw at Hannants that Sword will (re-)release a five-pack with Seafires (IIc, III, early and late XV and XVII); see here
  12. When I look at the pic of NN621 115N it is the length of the stub behind the spring that gives the shorter barrel of a Mk.V away. At the front end of that stub is the front mounting of the gun. The front mounting is further forward from the wing leading edge with the longer Mk.II barrel, leading to a longer stub (more the twice the stub length). It seems that the difference in barrel length lies between the house of the cannon/rear mounting and the front mounting. The spring and the part of the barrel in front of it are the same length, as are the fairings. This I have deducted from gun installation drawings reproduced in the Valiant Wings books about the Spit. I may of course have misunderstood these drawings completely. And it is of course my interpretation of that pic that leads to the conclusion.
  13. My guess is that the weight tables for the F/LF III shows the configuration as originally designed, i.e. with the heavier Hispano Mk.II. Note that several references states (see posts #2 and #4 above) that Mk.V were introduced during production. When production of FR III started Mk.V was probably fully introduced, hence the lighter weight in the tables? This reasoning does not rule out the presence of Mk.V in F/LF III, but an ammended weight table would then be needed for such aircraft. (If I understand the weight tables correct: I wonder if removing cannon weight forward of CoG is compatible with adding camera equipment rearward of CoG. Wouldn't a too far rear CoG be a problem?) The pic of NN621/115N is interesting! This pic can be seen in several references, the largest and clearest I have is in "Eyes for the Phoenix". The proportions of the stub on the wing, the spring on the barrel and the foremost part of the barrel corresponds exactly with what a Mk.V looks like in the installation drawing mentioned in post #2. (I'm reluctant to reproduce it here, copyright infringement?) According to Sturtivant NN621 was delivered to 880 Sq. in March '45. And if I remember "They gave me a Seafire" correctly, 880 together with 801 Sq had several LR III. My conclusion therefore is that they, and therefore Mk.V cannons would have been used operationally. BTW, decals for NN621/115N exist in 1/48, both Aeromaster 48-769 and Kits-at-War K4/5 can be found in my stash. Lets just hope that Eduard starts making short nosed Spit-/Seafires in the future!
  14. Hi, Knew that the Norwegian one had them, saw a pic in Valiant Wings No.12. The USAAF one, though, doesn't seem to have any pump bulges at all, is it really a bowser wing at all? The cockpit seems to be fully equipped, camera control box in place of gun sight.
  15. It may be slightly off-topic, but for those wanting to reduce the Airfix trenches, try this: Fill the offending panel lines with Mr surfacer 500 . Wait untill it has dried to the touch, but not hardened completely, then run a scalpel blade no 15 in the groove. Let dry completely and sand with fine wet'n'dry. By slightly variating the first drying time one will get variation in panel line width which gives life to the surface. I agree, it's a pity it is needed, but it works. If used without filler, sanding alone makes panel lines narrower and sharper. I'm using this method on the Airfix Spit FR.XIVe as we speak. Good luck! Tomas Enerdal
×
×
  • Create New...