Jump to content

Paul Thompson

Members
  • Posts

    739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Thompson

  • Birthday 04/27/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dalgety Bay, Fife.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Paul Thompson's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)

564

Reputation

  1. Nice, and the axle assembly is looking good - you may have thought of this already but to make life easier I'd suggest drilling a hole right through where the axles meet, and a corresponding hole in the fuselage above. There's a wire goes between them and if you try to locate it after the undercarriage is all done then it's very easy to get it off vertical, which means you'll never want to look at the model head on because it will always look wrong compared to where the undercarriage cross bracing , um, crosses. Fairly easy to trim the excess poking through the bottom of the spreader because it's a slightly convex surface, and any blemish can be hidden with a blob of paint, or a wipe of perfect plastic putty if you're feeling serious. With through the wing rigging I find it less stressful, and easier, to put the final coat of paint and the decals on after snipping the excess off. That way you can fill and sand as well if you have to. I've done it with the Airfix Pup, and it's robust enough if you don't go daft. Paul.
  2. All but one of those images shows the Revell fuselage to be deeper than the image below it. The only figures I've come up with are for the tailplane, which confirms what Rimell said about it being too large. I have several built D.VIIs in various scales, and the only one that looks odd compared to period pictures of the real thing is the Revell 1/28th kit (allowing for my first Roden 1/48th having too large a wing gap because I had yet to suss what needed messing with strut-wise). So having other things to do I'll bow out now. Paul.
  3. ..........with which I agree. The original review I think Allan was referring to was by Ray Rimell (who usually knows what he's talking about) in Windsock vol 12, no 2, 1996. It goes into some depth, identifies what sources probably lead Revell to make their errors, and documents many of the erros identified with reference to period photos. I'm happy that all the errors pointed out are real except the fuselage depth - and I wouldn't have questioned that either because it is at least true when you use the 1/28th plans in the review. The plans may not be right, but I'd expect they'd have double checked. Rimell also refers to plans made in 1919 for the German publication Luftfahrt, which should be fairly reliable. The kit seems to have been based on Plans by Joseph Nieto from 1951. By the way, for anyone really wanting to convert real life millimetres to inches in 1/28th scale, multiply by 0.03937 and divide by 28. That's in the review too. Paul.
  4. Not personally unfortunately, but I recall more than one article where various real D.VIIs were measured and hope I can find them. Might take a day or two, there's a lot of junk on my shelves and no filing system. One source I think was an American on the World War One Mailing List, so he'll probably have used inches. Paul.
  5. Okay, I was being optimistic perhaps, but it does happen sometimes. Paul.
  6. You'd be suprised how important it was in the early days of the war. Flown by many nations, and lots of variants too. Then later used for an extended period as a trainer. Paul.
  7. A few Airfix 1/48th Lightnings on Ebay at the moment, most around £20 -30, the odd one for stupid prices. When it was first issued IIRC it was about £24.00. Early issues had the finest part of the wingtips warped a bit but that was fixed in later issues, and the only things I ever read said against it was the simplicity of the cockpit, which as said abov is well enough fixed with an aftermarket seat, or some dressing up of the original. Regarding T4/5 conversions, there was also the CMK version. Maybe I got a bad one, but based on my experience, avoid - lots of detail but major warping of the main components and canopy, not readily fixable with hot water. The Aeroclub conversion was nice, injection plastic and white metal. IIRC some of it was later replaced by components from the Neomega kit. I should know, I used one, but my memory is ................................ what was I saying? I don't yet have a Sword Lightning but have built some of their kits from the same period and don't think there should be much of a problem - perhaps just check the cable ducts are the right length for the version you want. Paul.
  8. Interesting. From your photo/kit juxtaposition, are you not bothered that the (real) pilot's head is stuck on the fuselage behind the kit cockpit opening? Something odd going on there. I'm off to check the kit against dimensions from a real aeroplane. Paul.
  9. I have a reel of armature wire just thin enough to look okay in 1/72nd. Being at least 30 years old it has oxidised to a steel grey colour which looks fine to me. I used to pull it to straighten it, in lengths of around 2 feet, before measuring with dividers and attaching as you would if using heat stretched sprue. But I found out a couple of years ago (by actually taking the time to process something I'd read decades ago), that it straightens just as easily if rolled under a steel rule. The downside is that it kinks slightly more easily than if you'd pulled it straight (because stopping just as you feel resistance at it's elastic limit toughens it a wee tad). I also use elastic thread, it depends on the subject, but if going to the bother of drilling all the way through the location points then I prefer non-elastic fishing line or mending thread. Mending (invisible) thread is nice because being clear it forces me to colour it, which a permanant silver felt-tip will do nicely. Handy for things like Pups and Camels where there are no turnbuckles ideally you want a clean entry of the wire to the wing, the actual attachment lugs being more or less invisible in 1/72nd. Paul.
  10. That would look okay, but not strictly accurate. If this link works you should see a clear photo of the wooden spreader bar and axle geometry. http://www.wwi-models.org/app/album/Acn.php?base=%2FPhotos%2FBri%2FSopPup&hdr=Sopwith+Pup&picInx=30 Paul, always struggling with my own language............................
  11. If you can make a vac wing, why replace it with resin? Even experienced manufacturers regularly turn out resin wings that warp in either the short or long term, and thin WW1 wings are particularly prone. Some of the better ones have metal wire embedded during casting to provide strength, but I have two sets of Al;batros wings from the eighties that prove it doesn't always work - they've warped from the horizontal down 2cm at the tips, and also adopyed sweepback of about 1cm per side, in 1/48th scale. The wires have been bent by the resin, and in some places pulled through the surface. Total mess. As to flexibility, I have many resin kits, and the wings vary from brittle to like the average plastic. So long as you uise rigid strut material the resulting wing cellule once constructed is okay. Won't prevent future warping though (although rigging with monofilament line may prevent it depending on the severity - nothing could have prevented what happened to the Albatros wings). You won't be able to draw a two surface vac wing, the sheet will thin out too much, and anyway the resin will be trapped inside even if you could. If the model you're making is 1/72nd scale, a single surace (the upper one) is all oyou need anyway. Looks fine. Just either add lower wing rib detail afterwards by whatever method best natches that on the kit piece you're replicating. If in 1/48th, well, it depends on the subject as to whether or not a single surface will surfice. Paul.
  12. Looking good. (Dons pedant hat) There are actually two separate axles, technically I suppose a split axle, not one bent piece. The central ends are hinged so the axle can move up and down in response to bumps as a sort of shock absorber (I suppose), the ends towards the wheel being pulled back by the securing bungee cords, and prevented from going too far upwards by the tee shaped metal item nestling between the fork of the undercarriage vee. No matter, because in 1/72nd scale it looks similar to what you've done anyway. The only difference is the wooden spreader which the split axle sits in. A quick way to do this is to cut or file a groove most of the way through a piece of plastic strut, then glue the axle into the centre. What I do (because I've built a lot of Sopwiths with this arrangement) is make the spreader and glue it between the legs, then glue two bits of metal rod in for the axles. Filing a taper towards the hinge end reduces the depth of groove needed. Some types have the axle secured between two metal spreader bars instead. (Removes hat, runs for the hills). Paul.
  13. I might have gone to £25 but forgot to get back in time. Good know I'd have lost anyway. Have fun with it. It's a very good kit of it's sort, and if you're new to the more limited run sort then by the end of cleanup you'll have a whole new bunch of techniques in your aresenal, as well as a set of parts that will fit well to make an accurate model. Only if you stand on one leg. Keep meaning to change that quote - from an old Carradine film, anout the only decent line in it, silly though it may be. Paul.
  14. Aaaagh! It was you! I bid £24.00 and stopped there (I was only interested in the HPM kit). Sorry about that.............................. Paul.
×
×
  • Create New...