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. :)

kitnut617

Members
  • Content Count

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About kitnut617

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 09/17/1954

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West of Trochu Alberta Canada
  • Interests
    Almost exclusively 1/72 Military Aircraft

Recent Profile Visitors

1,902 profile views
  1. Cracker Steve !!!!!! love it.
  2. I paid about US$90.00 for it which included the shipping charge, which when you look at the resin you get is fairly cheap I think
  3. The Rutman detail sets in 1/72 scale are I've discovered OOP and won't be continued with. JRutman is now concentrating on just 1/32 detail sets.
  4. Well I still have to use the rear of the fuselage Kirk, do you want what's left of it once I cut off what I need ? There is a clear vacuform part too as I'll use the clear resin canopy that comes with the upgrade. This is all I've got of the Anigrand update: Here's an interesting comparison between the CC-177 (C-17), A400M and C-130J
  5. Sorry everyone about this very late reply, I've been away from the forum for quite a while and only just got back onto it. But to answer Kirk's question, erm! no it didn't. But a few months ago I got hold of the Anigrand forward fuselage correction set for their kit, it comes with two forward fuselage halves (nose to just behind the wing), a new canopy and a new starboard sponson. I then got hold of a port sponson too so I had something similar. The plan now is to mix the two C-17 kits together.
  6. It is to appear in a future issue of Aviation News, but when exactly I'm not sure. Tony had done a previous article about the DH.101 sometime ago, maybe as much as five or six years ago, and his latest one is a re-vamp of this article. Once I get my model finished I will be sending him photos of it, but I also think Joe Cherrie is building one too, so that might be the model pics that Tony will use (as he's used a lot of Joe's model pics in his books)
  7. Joe Cherrie has built a model of the Jet Mosquito and you can find photos of it in the BSP-Fighters & Bombers book.
  8. I am currently in the progress of building a DH.101 Sabre Mosquito in 1/72 scale. I'm using information that has been discovered during the last five years or so and working from some drawings that were found at the same time which Tony Buttler was very kind in supplying me with a copy. Even though it was said to be a scaled up Mosquito, it has a number of subtle differences that make it fairly different. To use a base model for the build you need a 1/60 scale kit of a DH.98 Mosquito but as everyone probably knows there's no such animal, I'm building mine from scratch. From what Tony Buttler has written about (and can be found in the Sharpe/Bowyer book [Putmans too]) the project came to grinding halt when De Havilland were told the particular engines that was planned for the DH.101, they weren't going to get and D.H. were told to consider using Griffons. The Sabres have been described as being a two-stage, three speed variant and this matches with the Sabre VII and VIII engines, both producing a bit more than 3000 hp. While doing some research for my build I found that the engine cancellation coincides with the time English Electric bought out Napier (in 1942 IIRC) and all development was stopped by EE so that the Napier engineers could concentrate on making the Sabres already in production, much more reliable. It doesn't surprise me at all that D.H. cancelled the DH.101 because the Griffons would have been about 600-1000 hp less powerful (and that's each engine). The DH.101 was designed to carry 8000 lbs of bombs inside the bomb bay, plus two underwing pylons to carry an additional 1000 lbs each. As far as can be determined, quite a bit of design work was done on the DH.101 and when DH stopped work they started the DH.102. This was to be Griffon powered and contrary to popular belief, wasn't a DH.98. It was actually a scaled down DH.101, still bigger than a DH.98 though. At the time the drawings for the DH.101 were found, so were drawings of the DH.102 and what was called the Jet Mosquito. This was a development of the DH.102. Even though the DH.101 was 1.2 times bigger than the DH.98, it still used the same canopy as the DH.98. Some differences in the design are the top line of the fuselage is dead straight and not tapering off like the DH.98, and it was to have single leg undercarriage, similar to the DH.103 Hornet but bigger (the DH.102 drawing also shows single leg undercarriage). The wheel sizes on the drawing measure out to be close to B-25 Mitchel in size, or the same size as the wheels found on the amphibian Catalina. The tail wheel measures out almost exactly as the front wheel off the Catalina. The contra-rotating props (not counter-rotating) would have been the same diameter as the Hawker Tempests, around 14 feet in diameter and the spinner almost matches the spinner found on the Centuarus Tempest, just a little bit longer but the shape is the same. Unfortunately, I can't show you any of the drawing as Tony has asked me not to, not until he publishes it along with an article he is putting together all about the DH.101, DH.102 and Jet Mosquito.
  9. He! He! He!, nice to see another that's going be built, I've got two of them in the stash, one will be the Shuttle Carrier with Shuttle (got two of those in the stash too, one on the tank with boosters), the other I'm going to convert it into the Boeing XC-X contender which was the competition to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. I've got a 1/72 C-5 too, so the plan is to display them together
  10. Vacuforms, I've discovered, aren't as daunting as I first thought and I really enjoy building them now. But this might help with your build, this is how it's explained in a book I have about building vacuforms.
  11. Welsh Models do a couple of 1/72 -700's http://www.welshmodels.co.uk/MTpage.html
  12. Actually, it's the NF.12 and NF.14 that are the same length, what makes the NF.14 nose appear longer is that the windscreen is at a steeper angle so it starts further back where the windscreen to fuselage connection is. (From John Adams explaination of what he discovered)
  13. Sometime ago I was after info on what rp's were used by P-47 in India/Burma by the RAF because in the Squadron P-47 in Action book it sort of infers that the regular RAF rp and rail was used. Having not ever seen any photos that would have the author come up with that, I wrote to the National Archives (Kew I think) and I ended up buying a report about rp trials that RAE or the other outfit I can't quite remember it's name is, had done. It turned out to be a report saying that the 3-tube rp set-up was tested in the UK, and had some photos of it etc included. Anyway I built my Thunderbolt like this, more than like it's not historically accurate.
  14. I've got a 1/72 KC-10 in the stash, and they're about the same size as the Tristar but I wouldn't call them big myself. Not when you compare them to a 1/72 747 or C-5 that is And I've got two of the 747's and one C-5 in the stash too -- Although I'm surprised that Aircraft in Miniature haven't done a Tristar by now.
×
×
  • Create New...