Jump to content

Richard Cawsey

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Richard Cawsey's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/9)

178

Reputation

  1. 1/48 Eduard (mostly) Brokker glider, 1922: I have had the Eduard Bristol Fighter kit (weekend edition) for some time, but was always put off starting it by the complexity of the rigging. The obvious solution was to get an Eduard Fokker D.VII and combine the two kits. The Brokker was built for the Daily Mail gliding competition held at Itford in Sussex from 16 - 21 October 1922. Entered by Sqn Ldr A Gray and Fg Off W S Buchanan from RAF Northolt, it was a late arrival, only appearing on the final day of the contest. As it was hastily assembled, it became apparent that it consisted of the wing of a Fokker D.VII attached to a Bristol Fighter fuselage, and it was thus christened "Brokker". Most of the experts treated it as a joke and said it would be uncontrollable, and they were not disappointed when on its first launch the wheeled undercarriage was catapulted down the slope while the glider itself flopped heavily onto its belly. The next attempt was much more successful and Sqn Ldr Alec Gray joined Alexis Maneyrol who had already been soaring his Peyret tandem monoplane on the ridge for two hours. The Brokker now seemed to be the most controllable machine present, but after an hour it was getting dark, and both gliders were forced to land by the light of car headlamps. The Daily Mail prize of £1,000 was won by Maneyrol, who had set a duration record of 3 hours 22 minutes, but Gray and Buchanan received a prize of £50 for their efforts. The Brokker was taken to the Central Flying School at Upavon where it underwent testing until a fatal accident occured on 28.8.23. There are only a few poor-quality photos of the glider, and no accurate drawings, presumably because the machine arrived late at the contest and by the time its qualities had been recognised it was dark. As a result some of the details are conjectural. The tailplane looks too small for a Bristol Fighter, and the wrong shape for a Fokker, but the dimensions of the S.E.5A tailplane (later style with narrow-chord elevators) look right. I didn't have a spare S.E.5A kit handy so cut the Bristol tailplane to shape. The ailerons were enlarged by combining bits from both kits. The nose fairing was made from parts cut from the lid of a tub of butter substitute.
  2. You complain about the deep panel lines, and then you deliberately accentuate them even further with dark washes. I don't understand. . .
  3. I don't know why the photos should work for some people and not for others. Just in case anyone is interested, these are the direct links. . . http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/DSC08424.jpg http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/DSC08426.jpg
  4. A Korean War vignette in 1/72 scale. (With apologies to Roy Lichtenstein.) Sea Fury is an Airfix boxing of the PM kit; MiG-15 also from Airfix. I was doing a Trumpeter Sea Fury at the same time, which made use of the propeller and decals from the Airfix kit, plus some minor surgery in a number of areas where the kit is inaccurate. . .
  5. Great result. I have always thought that the Matchbox Lysander kits capture the look of the aircraft much better than other more recent and expensive offerings.
  6. The instructions are now online at https://downloads.revell.de/Manuals-Modelkits/03854.pdf It appears the kit does not include some of the parts needed for an early nightfighter version, including the segmented wheels, short exhaust pipes, towel-rail antenna and early-style tailwheel. Nor is there any radar receiver in the rear cockpit. Other than that, it looks pretty good. . .
  7. Sorry to disagree, but I find the dark panel lining is overdone and obscures the subtle camouflage scheme. . .
  8. Spitfire night-fighters were used by two RAF squadrons in the winter of 1941-42, as something of an emergency measure, planned at a time when Russian resistance appeared to be crumbling and it was feared the Germans would soon switch their focus back to the west. By closely co-operating with radar-directed searchlights it was hoped that they would be able to find the enemy bombers. As it turned out, there was very little German activity over Britain, and Spitfires were not the easiest of aircraft to fly at night, so in February 1942 the aircraft reverted to their day-fighting colours. The kit used is the Airfix Club Limited Edition 'Specialist Spitfires', which includes the all-black night-fighter scheme used by 111 Squadron at Debden. Other builders report problems fitting the upper-fuselage fuel tank cover, due apparently to interference with the cockpit parts. To try and avoid this, the fuselage was first glued together without the cockpit installed, then the fuel tank cover was added. This fitted well, apart from a gap at the front that needed filling. The tank cover is slightly raised above the surrounding surfaces, supposedly a feature of of the original aircraft, but I can't see it in any photos, so the front lip at the top was sanded down a little so it isn't so prominent. Then the main sections of the cockpit can be slotted together (glue not really necessary), and the hole in the bottom of the cockpit enlarged slightly to make room for the light under the wing. The oxygen tank (part number C1) can be attached between the rear cockpit frames, rather than to the inside of the fuselage as in the instructions. The cockpit then clicks into place from underneath. The only other potential problem area is the undercarriage legs, which each come in two parts. These were glued together and installed before closing up the wings as it is then easier to get a strong joint with the correct alignment. The reinforcing strakes on the wings above the wheel wells were removed - I think these were a mod introduced on surviving Mk.Vs in 1943. The sliding canopy was a spare from a Tamiya Spitfire as it is optically less distorting and includes the oval knock-out panel on the port side. The final colour scheme is a varying mix of Tamiya acrylic black, sea blue and dark sea grey. Opinion is divided over whether this aircraft had roundels on the wings. In photos the blue and red portions of the fuselage roundel and fin flash appear the same shade as the surrounding black, but I have just about persuaded myself there is something faintly visible on the wings. . .
  9. Rivets as far as the eye can see - that takes me back. . .
  10. Very nice. The amount of weathering looks just about spot-on. . .
  11. All very well done. I presume the Tetrarch tank in the Hamilcar is a dummy, or it would not still be resting on its tailwheel. . .
  12. I haven't done many jets recently, but I have memories of the pre-Hawk era of the Red Arrows, and these were on offer at the local shop for the same price as the 1/72-scale Gnat. I was pleasantly surprised to find the sprues in standard pale grey plastic, unlike the red usually found on kits of this type. The only significant change made was to extend the fairing for the tail navigation light along the port side of the fin so it matched the starboard side. The cover for the nose compartment was slightly ill-fitting; it was left off till late in the process in case it needed any ballast in the nose, but it didn't. . . Though not having an airbrush, I wanted to get a smooth unblemished finish as far as possible, as an earlier attempt on a 1/32 Red Arrows Hawk resulted in a very lumpy texture. This had been finished with Fiery Red (Revell 31) which looks just right (from a distance), but appears too orangey for the Gnat. The Arrow Red (Humbrol 238) recommended for the Airfix Gnat looks very similar. The panel lines seem rather overdone, so they were reduced in depth by having a lump of Polyfilla rubbed over them. Then two coats of matt Scarlet (Humbrol 60) followed by two of gloss Bright Red (Humbrol 19), rubbed down after each layer. Then a few coats of Klear before and after adding the decals. The final step is to add the nose probe (otherwise it is certain to get broken at some stage). The end result seems a bit toy-like, but I think the original aircraft also gave that impression. Even in this larger scale the Gnat is smaller than a 1/72 Lightning. Photographing in direct sunlight tends to show up all the imperfections in the gloss paint, so I waited for some thin cloud to go across. . .
  13. I don't understand this obsession with panel lines. If adjacent panels are actually shaded differently on the original then by all means try and simulate this, but on most kits the panel lines are already much deeper and wider than scale and trying to accentuate them further makes them even more unrealistic. On a type like the F-15 most panels are close-fitting and the edges are almost invisible from any distance. Pre-shading and oily washes may satisfy your artistic urges but you just end up with a patchwork effect which is completely unrealistic and breaks up the clean lines of the original aircraft. . .
×
×
  • Create New...