Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

427 profile views

Lummox's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)



  1. Cheers LayZee. I disagree, I think you could do it. Thanks Vytautas. Given the exemplary work that's gone into your Salvenmaschinenkanone I think you know all about accuracy, neatness and 'are you sure that's really 1/35?' Cheers Jochen. I'm starting to think the Spriegels may be OK in height now, but more on that later... Thanks Mr P. I initially thought that it would be an impossibility for a model to be nicer than the real thing, but then I started to think about British Leyland's finest. I suspect that this completed with bits stuck on upside-down, gluey fingerprints on the windscreen, and a paint job done with a toothbrush will still be much better than the real thing: I appreciate the kind comments Ed, thank you. Thanks John - glad to hear I'm not the only weirdo in refusing to throw anything away. My first experiences in the world of soldering were with an iron, which I never really got on with to be honest. It was fine when soldering larger items, but small work ended up being immensely frustrating. I'm sure you know that it is critical in soldering for the pieces that are to be joined to be positioned in such a way that they are stable and in contact with each other. I don't know if it was me being ham-fisted, but I used to find that introducing the iron to the subject would always result in some movement or displacement, especially if the pieces were delicate. Several years ago a friend suggested I try a torch, and it turned out to be an epiphany! I find it so much easier; position and secure the pieces to be soldered, paint the joint with flux, slap slivers of solder in the flux, waft the torch over the joint, and bingo! This is the torch I use: For completeness, this is the flux and solder I use (bought many years ago on a friend's recommendation). I'm sure there are many, many alternatives that work just as well: Now just a quick ramble on the Spriegel height. Digging a bit further, I'm now not convinced that they are too tall (or not overlying tall anyway). Firstly, let's compare with the kit versions (which I used as a guide in the first place, so no surprise that the heights are the same): Comparing with the excellent diagrams found here - maybe slightly tall, but not a great deal in it: Comparing with one of the few pictures I've found showing the stowed Spriegels - it's a poor picture, but a similar story: And finally, there doesn't seem to be a standard Spriegel height anyway, as illustrated by these very different examples: So in summary, I'm not convinced that the Spriegels should be shortened, but that being said, I'm sure it will probably gnaw at me, so no doubt I'll end up shaving them slightly anyway Cheers, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  2. I agree that etch holders will look better Jochen, but I doubt I'd be able to re-purpose the Voyager versions without something going snap, so let's see what can be knocked up from spare brass runners. Firstly, we'll do some measuring and sketch a diagram for the more complicated lower holders that are basically open boxes: I squirrel away all the brass runners from any etch set that I use 'just in case' something ends up being useful. Looking through the stash of brass bits I came across a runner from an Eduard set (no idea what it was for) that had something of the correct dimensions: After some careful bending/soldering we end up with something that bears a passing resemblance to the kit holders. Not perfect by any means, it being tricky to form precise 90 degree bends without engraved fold lines, and you can see that the two boxes are not quite the same size, but hey, they'll do. Spare strips of brass were soldered on to serve as the attachment brackets: The upper holders were much easier, being simple open loops that can be folded in one go from a brass strip along with the attachment brackets: The Voyager versions were then carefully prised off the truck bed ready for the home-made replacements. For etch items like this I use Klear/Future as 'glue' which has the advantage of forming a relative weak bond that can be easily broken if necessary. That being said quite bit of force was necessary, which was surprising given the small contact area, but reassuring in that you know things won't drop off too readily. Here's a comparison of the old and the new which illustrates the change in shape of the holders (from long and thin to short and fat): Without too much ado the home-made holders were slapped onto the truck bed: Inserting the Spriegels into the holders it soon became apparent that things got very messy, very quickly (it being impossible to keep to two neat rows of three and two). I resorted to soldering the base of three Spriegels to form one row, but inserting this highlighted another interference problem, in that the bed side clasp wouldn't allow the Spriegels to 'sit' vertical within the holders. Sigh! More deconstruction was therefore necessary, reducing the length of the clasp loop so giving more 'headroom' for the Spriegels: The Spriegels still wouldn't stack tidily as the remaining two needed to be slightly wider so they could 'sit' outside of the row of three. Fortunately I still had the 'jig' that was used to originally create the Spriegels (did I tell you I never throw anything away ) so I modified it slightly by introducing a slight gap, and used it to create two new Spriegels. These were soldered together at their base, and now we had a row of two that slipped over the row of three: So, after all that, what's the end result? Not too bad actually. The Spriegels stow quite neatly, and there is no longer any interference with the trafficators: The Spriegel storage compares pretty well with the one good reference picture I have, Looking again though, they do look to be a bit tall. Sigh! : Cheers, thanks for looking, and a belated Happy New Year to everyone, Paul.
  3. Yeah, it is a shame Mr P, but I suppose it's fine for it's intended purpose as a memorial, not so much for use as a reference though. Long overdue an update, and the good news is that the replacement pipework is finally compete. The rat's nest of plumbing up front is finished (apologies for the rubbish pictures - the shiny bling isn't the easiest to photograph): For reference this is what we're trying to achieve. In retrospect I should probably have used smaller gauge brass rod (0.8mm was used) as the pipework is just a little chunky, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it: The final piece in the jigsaw was the pipe run that goes the length of the starboard side, and that was finally that: I must admit that I'm glad it's over. It seemed to be a good idea at the time, but proved to be a time consuming and frustrating chore. It would be nice to have full comparison before/after pictures to prove it was all worthwhile, but this is the best I have: I'm not sure what I'll be tackling next, but you can be sure it won't involve bending brass rods. Cheers, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  4. Some smashing detail work going on here Andrew. That brush is fantastic, utterly bonkers, but fantastic nonetheless.
  5. Many thanks for your kind words and your vote of confidence Vytautas. They do say there's no such thing as problems, just challenges and opportunities. They do look like cement mixers Mr P now you mention it. They must be on their way to build an extension to the F├╝hrerbunker That is a good point Jochen, why have they loaded the trailer onto the flat-bed rather than just tow it? It reminds me of something like this: Another good spot Jochen. Zvezda do indeed provide a option for 'WH 142893' this supposedly being a 64th infantry division L4500: The pictured truck is most definitely not a L4500 though, it apparently being a L3750 (see pg 48 entry here). The L3750 is quite different (as can be seen in this comparison) so I don't know how Zvezda could make such an error (assuming that the license plates weren't reallocated to different vehicles over time?): I'm with you 100% on this Jochen. The problem stems from the etch Spriegel holders being narrower and longer than the kit equivalents. There is a mm or so difference in length (hmmmm, that sounds familiar!): The narrowness of the etch holders only allow one row of Spriegels, but if we switch to use the kit equivalents we can achieve the two rows of three and two as you describe: It's clear that the route forward is to dump the etch holders. The only question is whether I attempt to manufacture new holders of the correct size, or just use the kit versions (which may well be OK after a touch of thinning). Two steps forward, one step back (as Totally Mad Olivier may well say). Cheers, thanks for the input, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  6. Very, very nice John - lovely work and a fantastic end result. Just a minor observation - has the hull mounted MG34 had a slight ding that's bent the sight? Paul.
  7. Cheers John. Thanks Mr P. I've not seen any examples of the trafficators removed just leaving the attachment brackets, although there are a few cases of nothing there whatsoever. It's an interesting point you make about them being a bit sticky-outy as I've thought the same thing. They certainly look to protrude more than examples seem in photos, but I'm not sure if it's camera angles and perspective - that what I keep telling myself anyway. The trafficators in this example look to be quite pronounced, although this is a L 6500 (I think) so may well not be representative. As an aside it's an interesting load being carried here, don't really know what those things are - searchlights maybe? : Could really do with a period head-on shot but I haven't managed to find one. The best I could come up with is this extant example where I've tried to mimic the photo angle. I don't think there's much difference in sticky-outiness to be honest?: Ultimately the raison d'etre of trafficators is that the semaphore signal needs to be visible to other road users, so the unit needs to protrude enough to provide clear sight for following vehicles. Here's an impatient Kubelwagen drivers eye view when attempting an overtake maneuver. I'd say just about right protuberance?: I'm glad that the question was asked as taking these pictures has highlighted an issue that would have been really annoying further down the line. Let's see if the eagle eyed among you can spot the problem: Spotted it yet? Yup, that's right, the stored tilt supports interfere with the trafficators. It's only a mm or so, but it's enough to spoil your day.: Hey ho, better to find out now than during final assembly when everything is painted. I suspect that the etch tilt support holders are to blame - you do wonder sometimes whether all this etch malarkey is worth the grief. Cheers, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  8. Thanks Los. The windscreen will still be tilted (more of which later) but without a 'working' hinge (probably a crazy idea in the first place to be honest!) Your solution to paint a grey stripe on your trafficators has worked really well - sometimes the simple solutions are the best. Cheers Vytautus. I started to worry that I was a bit 'strange' in enjoying to learn about the traffictors, so it's reassuring to find I'm not the only strange person around. They'd be nicely at shoulder height on good old Moggy Minors so likely did take some hammer Mr P. Quite a bit higher on the L 4500 though so probably a tad safer, unless Shaq O'Neil happens along! Thanks John. I agree with you that the etch trafficators don't look very much like the real thing, which is something that has been bothering me. I've been mulling over what to do about this and have come up with a kind of compromise (more of which later). Cheers Nik, I appreciate your kind comments. Thanks for the Sd,Kfz. 9 picture too - very interesting, and certainly not too late, in fact just about perfect timing! Right, first things first, a loose end to tie up. A while ago @Jochen Barett kindly posted a cab interior picture which I thought was strange and 'non standard'. Coincidentally I stumbled across an interesting site on fire trucks based on the L 4500 chassis. One of the examples appeared to tally with the odd cab interior picture (split screen, bottom wiper location, wide cab, and the 'how on earth did I miss that' spotlight thing): Here's a fire-truck with the standard cab for comparison (note the full screen, top wiper position and slim cab). I reckon this would make a fantastic scratch build project, but I mustn't get tempted, no I really mustn't: Moving on, John mentioned that the etch trafficators don't much look like the real thing, and he is bang on, certainly with respect to the brackets. Voyager have been a bit too cute in attempting to cater for two trafficator variants using the same etch. The instructions indicate that the bracket (B17) merely has to be flipped to produce either the '\/' (top/right option) or '/\' (bottom/left) variant. Unfortunately in reality it's not that simple. For the '\/' variant, the etch housing is OK but the simple bent bracket is totally wrong. For the '/\' variant, the simple bent bracket is OK but the housing is wrong (it being more of a simple rectangular box). So, in attempting to provide both variants Voyager have, in effect, provided neither: What to do? Well I thought I'd have a go at manufacturing replacement brackets, which was very fiddly, with a disappointing end result (being too crude and chunky in my mind): So I was left with a compromise of leaving the bracket alone but enhancing the cab attachment point to more resemble the real thing. You'll see from this shot that I've attached the cab roof to the cab back, where the fit was excellent needing only the slightest smear of filler. The door fit is very good too, which is reassuring even though I'll probably have both doors open: It was about at this point that I noticed that the attachment point on the kit looked to be much lower than on my 'go to' reference picture. 'Oh bother', I said (or something similar ), but thought I'd check further references before attacking things with a scalpel. Strangely, there appeared to have been variations on the attachment point location, some being around 2/3 up the window, others 1/3. The cable exit hole however, looks to have been pretty much at the same point: We have the low attachment point, so all is good. Phew! Here's what the compromise looks like with the trafficator in place (nothing is fixed here pending paint). I don't see how to improve this any further, so I'm afraid this is about as good as it's going to get: Finally, news on the windscreen replacement, in that we have a proof of concept! It's just tacked on at the moment to see what it looks like, it being nice and clear and suitably to scale (perhaps a bit too thin if anything?): Looks pretty good doesn't it? Well yes, and no. In a certain light and at a certain angle you see these bubbles. I'm kicking myself as this is self inflicted, being due to the Klear/Future I brushed on (an old trick used on aircraft canopies to give a glassy look). I'll see what it's like in better natural light (if we ever see the sun again!) before I decide whether I'll need to drum up some mojo to strip it back and start again: And that's things up to date. Cheers, thanks for looking and thanks for the feedback, Paul.
  9. Ah, 'Scotland Forever!', one of the few good reasons to brave the one-way and parking nightmare that is Leeds. The painting is surprisingly small when you see it in the flesh, but fantastic nonetheless. Just needs a Tiger in there somewhere to finish it off.
  10. I probably wasn't clear enough. The Maiale at Taormina reminds me of fibreglass Spitfires insomuch as it looks fake and toy like:
  11. Blimey, it's the boss! <adjusts tie and tries to look busy> Cheers Mike, I appreciate the comment. Better late than never Mr B, and thanks for the link Thanks Mr P. The relic is apparently a 'rebuilt' Maiale that was erected at Taormina as a memorial to local boy Sgt Salvatore Leone who was killed during a Pig attack on Gibraltar in Dec 1942. Not sure about it's originality or accuracy to be honest, It reminds me of the fibreglass 'Spitfires' you see at various museums. Cheers Icy. Your friend Dominique is very talented, those models look fantastic! It's tricky to judge the scale, but I'd guess around 1/16th?
  12. Thanks Mr P. Not sure about an equivalent Italian phrase, but 'spaghetti' certainly springs to mind I been slowly plodding on with this and thought it was about time for a quick update. I'm sure you're all fed up to the back teeth with bent brass pipes by now (I certainly am!) so I'll keep things short and sweet. The next two legs on the 'pentapus' lead into what I think are trim controls of some kind, these being attached to the control binnacle. The binnacle is one of the few poor areas in the kit, the gauges being simply represented by decals which give an unrealistic 2D appearance: The binnacle will be totally rebuilt as a box structure containing the scratch built gauges that will have some depth, this being the start of the process: The trim controls that are attached to the binnacle have also been heavily modified to cater for two in/out pipes (the kit version only had a single pipe). The uppermost pipe leads into/from the 'pentapus': Here we have the rebuilt binnacle box with the modified trim controls and the associated pipework. Fours legs on the 'pentapus', just one to go: Cheers, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  13. I noticed the screen tilt arrangement in the image you linked Jochen. I must admit I discounted it as an option due to that particular example appearing to be a very different beast to a 'standard' L4500 (not just the split window, but also the wipers moving from the cab roof to the bottom of the windscreen, the 'plank' dashboard, etc.) The whole cab seem to be substantially larger than the norm (note the position of the steering wheel and pedals). I'm wondering about the cap on the seat and whether this may give some clue as to why the cab is so different. Might it be something like a firetruck conversion? I'd agree that photo evidence is king Mr P, but as mentioned above, I'm not convinced that this particular photo is representative of what I'm building. I may well be wrong though (I frequently am). Your representation of glass in your battle bus is fantastic Wayne - extremely realistic. Thanks for posting the link. I made a start on the windscreen, in that I soldered sections of brass tube onto the etch surround to represent a hinge. I planned to make the hinge workable, but solder went where solder wasn't supposed to go, so a fixed windscreen it is: One of my (many) failings is that I get too easily distracted. Instead of focusing on the windscreen, I found myself looking at the cab door latch housing things: The housings are quite evident, but are totally missing in the kit. No matter, a few swipes of a scalpel, attach some scraps of suitable spare etch, and we have housings: My next distraction were the trafficators (I didn't know what these were called until @Kelscale happened to mention them in his L4500 & trailer masterclass). Voyager provide etch replacements for the kit offerings: Looking through references there appears to be several trafficator variations, the kit and etch representations being closest to these examples. Note the wire leading out of the cab body into the bottom of the trafficator (I must remember to include this): I made a couple of modifications when building the etch; namely drilling a hole in the mounting bracket so it may be pinned to the cab, and removing the plate at the bottom of the trafficator as photos seem to suggest it was open (and the wire has to go somewhere!): I haven't yet fixed the semaphore indicators so allowing the trafficators to be shown in the 'on' or 'off' position. I quite fancy showing one of then 'on', but as I plan to have the L4500 parked I'm not sure whether the trafficator would remain 'on' when the engine is switched off...? The Voyager instructions look to be incorrect as I suspect they'd have you insert the semaphore indicators upside-down (as per the left in the image). I reckon that the indicators should be as per the right in the image, similar to the Lucas example. I've no photographic evidence to confirm this though: I'm also unsure about the size of the etch trafficators, they being much bigger than the kit versions. I don't have a suitable L4500 'head on' shot to confirm one way or the other, but I suspect the kit version may be a tad undersized, and the etch version too 'jug-eared': I'm committed to using the etch though as I've sacrificed the kit versions to use as a base to attach the etch brackets. Nothing is attached here, I'm just preparing the bases prior to construction of the cab. The plan if for the trafficators to be added much later when they have a chance of surviving clumsy fingers: That's it for now. Cheers, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  14. Cheers Stef. You're right about the shape being easy enough to replicate, especially as I have the kit version as a ready made template. Both the windscreen and the rear window are totally flat which simplifies things no end. Many thanks Jochen for taking the time to search around. I think I'll reserve judgement on the other modeller's solution until I've had a go myself. The Vivak (PET-G) looks interesting, but I'll initially run with some Evergreen sheets which I have used in the past with good results. We're still in 'armoured glass' territory with 0.25mm, but it looks OK in situ: Thank you Lazy M, that's an interesting suggestion too. Definitely one to keep in mind if things don't go to plan. Cheers Mr K, and another glazing option with food thrown in to boot - what's not to like! The Voyager set does indeed come with a surround which is what I plan to use as the basis for the new windscreen. Strangely the surround isn't mentioned in the instructions in any way, this also being the case in the equivalent etch set for the Maultier. There are other 'mystery' items on the frets that have escaped the attention of Voyager's authors, but sadly none of the bonus items appear to be tilt mechanisms: Many thanks for the feedback and the search hint Ned. I seem to be finding mostly 'splitty' camper vans rather than full screen, but I get what you mean about the slotted bar and thumbscrew: As for the wipers, I naively assumed that the arm would hinge in a similar way to as they do on modern vehicles (although I may well be missing something)? Cheers Mr P. Blowing up the image of the Maultier, I think I can just see something in the blurriness that could perhaps be the slotted bar - maybe? Finally a big thank you to everyone for the feedback - it is very much appreciated. Paul.
  15. Ever resourceful I see Andrew, but I think I may find a home for the tachograph in my Maiale human torpedo build going on over in Maritime. Happily I reckon it's just about the right size to be recycled as a compass, which should please Greta. There's absolutely no reason for you to apologise Jochen. You've been an invaluable font of information throughout this build. It's been quite some time since the last update (doesn't time fly!) Unfortunately quality bench time has been as rare as hen's teeth, but I do have some minor progress to report. I'm also taking the opportunity to ask for advice from you smart, charming and highly attractive people, but more on that later... Firstly, the troublesome instrument binnacle has been reconstructed with all the various knobs and switches. There will just about be enough room for the film representing the instrument faces to be inserted behind the binnacle following painting: The fuel tank has been finished, with the filler cap sitting on top as if removed during a refuel stop: The battery has also been completed, this being a flight of fancy as I haven't a clue what the battery may have looked like on a L4500: The fuel tank and battery will 'live' under the seat something like the arrangement below. It's not too clear here, but I've also attempted to introduce some shallow depressions into the seat back where driver and passenger backs and shoulders will have rubbed/worn/stressed the seat. Not sure how accurate this kind of wear is to be honest, but it does temper the pristine 'arrow straight' look of the original seat: And that brings things up to date. We're getting perilously close to paint, but there is one thing I'd like to run past you if I may...? Before I commit to painting and constructing the cab components, I need to consider what preparation work my be necessary for the windscreen replacement. I will definitely need to replace the windscreen (and the back window for that matter) as there is an odd mould flaw which looks like a hair running through the middle of the 'glass'. The transparencies are quite thick too, which although clear, do cause severe distortions: While mulling over how best to replace the windscreen, I came across these excellent illustrations which seem to suggest that the windscreen could open by being tilted forwards: Looks interesting I thought, let's see if I can find any supporting references for an opening windscreen. Easier said than done, but I did mange to find a couple of examples, the first being a poor quality still from a film (I think, which would not be the most reliable of sources), the second being a period shot of a Maultier (which is more promising evidence): Now I quite fancy going for a tilting windscreen, but don't really know whether they were standard fit in any way, or indeed how the things worked! I assume there must be some kind of hinge at the top of the windscreen, but I'm unsure what the opening/closing latches may have looked like or operated. Might it have been as simple as this Beetle example, there being a couple of sliding brackets that you pushed forwards to open the windscreen...? As ever, any comments, suggestions, ideas, etc. gratefully accepted. Cheers, and thanks for looking, Paul.
  • Create New...