Jump to content

Kari Lumppio

Members
  • Posts

    508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kari Lumppio

  1. Hello Peter! If you really are serious with the Brewster please take advantage of the knowledge and primary sources here in Finland. I for one would gladly point you to the right direction and help where I can. I would boldly claim the best sources are here at the time being Of course for the other than B-239 model ("read non-Finnish") Brewster details and such other stones have to be turned. Most of the basics are the same, though. . Cheers, Kari
  2. Hello! I have researched this in Finnish archives and while the overhaul thing is generally correct personally I wouldn't choose "as soon as" in this context. Brewsters arrived in 1940 and first mention of bottom window panes replaced with metal sheets is from September, 1942 (BW-379). Before that official overhaul etc. documents I have read show the bottom windows had been repaired. The last mention of repaired bottom window for Finnish Brewster is from overhaul report dated March 12th, 1943 (BW-363), Even in Summer 1944 can be found notes that window clear panes were only partially replaced with metal sheets. Most of people will build either BW-364 (Juutilainen) or BW-393 (Luukkanen / Wind). BW-364 had three clear panes replaced with metal in October 19th, 1943. Six months after Juutilainen had been transferred to Messerschmitt squadron. I would probably model BW-364 with full clear bottom window, especially if before early 1943. BW-393 got new clear bottom windows in the overhaul May 1942 and it was the last example released without the mention of matte light blue undersides. I take the "Painted according war plane painting instructions" note in the report to mean light grey undersides for the BW-393. Next time it was reported in June 14th, 1944 when transferrred to another squadron and then clear panes were partially replaced with metal sheets. Once again I would model BW-393 with full bottom windows and light grey undersides when flown by Luukkanen and also later when flown by Wind (at least for the year 1943). So there is no hard and fast rule with this. There never seems to be when Finnish aircraft are in question. Cheers, Kari
  3. Hello! I do not have the kit so cannot verify, but the clear nosecone just might represent the Finnish Air Force Lear ADF-14 radio compass installation inside the cone? Which had perspex covering. Internet pictures of the kit did not reveal the part 29, but if it looks like ADF antenna then maybe my guess is right. The installation was done certainly for three Finnish individuals: VA-4, VA-5 and VA-6. Could not find the installation on the earlier three - VA-1. VA-2 and VA-3 but it was only a cursory look through one book. Cheers, Kari PS Found this with googling: http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/avenger_adf14.html
  4. Hello! I haven't ever seen Paragon two stage Mosquito nacelles in real life. My experiment is result of three things: 1) curiosity, 2) Airfix 1/72 Mosquito is the most numerous kit in my stash (I have four or five) so I can waste one 3) anything ordered from UK takes more than five weeks to arrive here and by then I have already forgot the whole thing... Absolutely no disrespect against Paragon products is meant. Are the pieces available? Hannant's does not list them. I have read an Internet thread about where very convincing background data was given for the Gauntlett drawings (not the one linked below).Especially the fuselage was based on original loft drawings, IIRC. Wing plan and nacelle perhaps not on similarly solid base. Cheers, Kari From thread "Modeller's Datafile - Griffon Spits" http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/56819-modellers-datafile-griffon-spits/
  5. Hello! Just back from my son's football match. A grand day out. Excellent info Magpie, thank you and thanks for the other fellow ponderers, too. I have used Mark Gauntlett's 1/48 scale drawings in SAM Publications's Mosquito FB. VI book by Dave Brown as the baseline. If I measure correctly the FB VI upper cowling length is 77 inches (40,8 mm in the drawing). So only 1 inch difference? Also I measured the Airfix 1/72 kit cowling length from forward edge to the cowling panel line upper corner to be about 27,9 mm which is about 79 inches in real life. So it does have two stage Merlin length! But the kit seems to have the rear panel line and undercarriage too far back measured from the outboard wing leading edge. Something like 6,8 mm (19,3 in.) when it should be 4,4 mm (12,5 in.) according Gauntlett's drawings calculated downto 1/72. Real life measurements in parenthesis. I started yesterday to marry an old Hasegawa Mustang lower cowling section to the Airfix nacelle just for the fun of it. And to see if the combination looks like two stage Merlin cowling at all. It is not too bad, though some drastic cutting and adding is needed. It is easier to keep symmetry using donor kit parts than to make everything from scratch. These new measurements do throw a spanner into system, though. Cheers, Kari
  6. Hello! Thank you, Graham. I stand corrected about the Hurricane Mk II Merlin. Two speed supercharger engine indeed. This also explains why Spitfire IX has more than twice the 4 inch difference what Hurricane Mk I and Mk II have. I agree Mosquito two stage Merlin cowling is likely to be around 9 inches longer, but is it more? Cheers, Kari
  7. Hello! Measurements I got from a friend show that Hurricane Mk I (one stage) and Mk II (two stages speed supercharger) length difference on the panel behind engine is 4 inches. German Spitfire evaluation report gives 230 mm (~ 9 inches) length difference between Spitfire Mk I-VI (one stage) and Spitfire IX (two stages) engine installations. What is the length difference between the one and two stage Merlin installations on the Mosquito? I have tried to measure from the few good published photos I have. The calculated results have varied from 9 up to 20 real world inches! I would prefer to be somewhat more accurate. I have used the panel line over the exhausts as sort of datum line. Total length measured from the cowling forward edge to the cowling corner (vertex) at firewall postion against the wing underside. So the question is: has anyone measured length of the two stage Merlin cowling on Mosquito? Thanking in advance, Kari
  8. Hello! This may be ignorant, but can Ocean Grey / Dark Green camouflage be interpreted as sea camouflage? Note low case letters. I do have Gauchi's Malta Spitfire book and IIRC it (or was it some pilot memory in there) mentions later Spitfire deliveries being in standard grey/green (shoulde be OG/DG, then). So the Day Fighter camo upper colours would have been acceptable flying over la grande bleue around Malta.? Cheers, Kari
  9. Hello! I just got updated Finnish Hurricane wing status list and some additional material from mr. Pentti Manninen. Only HC-461 remains unclear but it was left in Scotland and never arrived in Finland. HC-454 and -456 got metal outer wings later in Finland. HC-454 from another Mk I and HC-456 from war booty VVS Hurricane Mk II. All of these were originally with fabric wings. Gloster changed metal outer wings to those with defective fabric covering before they were sent to Finland. Mid wing remained the original with partial fabric covering. Later the partial fabric was covered with metal sheets attached with screws (like HC-452 in the picures). Cheers, Kari
  10. Hello! HC-452 seems to have got light blue colour on wheel wells etc. But not too evenly and covering, see the pictures below. Finnish sotamaalaus (war paint - camo) was green&black top and light grey unders. Later edit to explain why HC-452 today has light blue undersides. Light blue undersides were ordered in May 1942. This was considered as a modification to the war paint. It is reflected in technical documents like overhaul reports. Light blue undersides were mentioned separately. Otherwise painting was usually mentioned only like "painted according the war paint instructions". IF no mention of light blue, light grey was to be used. Cheers, Kari
  11. Hello! Kuivalainen has 1/32 decals for Finnish Bf 109 G-6. This is brand new sheet. You may be able to adapt it for G-2 type with some modifications. Tactical numbers may be a problem. http://kuivalainen.mycashflow.fi/product/12019/messerschmitt-bf-109g-6-suomi-132 Kuivalainen's shop homesite: http://kuivalainen.mycashflow.fi Kuivalainen decals do have the stencilling in Finnish as is correct. Some (most?) decals have this detail wrong. I have searched through most of FinnAF Bf 109 G-6 papers and according them stencilling (and cockpit placards etc.) were changed in Finnish when FinnAF markings were painted on. Even during the the hot Summer 1944 weeks when this was done on the field in the literal sense. Painting and other finishing was done by a VL (State Aircraft Factory) detachment of professional people, not by units. Some FinnAF Bf 109 individuals did fly sorties for couple of days with original German markings. MT-462 probably the longest as it wore German markings even on 2nd July.It was damaged the day and did not fly during the war any more. MT-462 was of the reconnaissance - G-8 - subtype and it is likely that a return to Germany or other unit was planned and therefore no repainting. Disclaimer: I have no other connects to Kuivalainen but being a very happy customer. Cheers, Kari
  12. Hello! You are probably thinking the Yugoslavian made fuselage shells, wings, aluminium raw material etc.? Which Germans indeed sold to Finland. They were probably used at least partly for the V and IV sarja and repairs. No full airplanes. They had to be built first. The title of this thread is "Blenheim Bomb Bays and Bombs". Finnish manufactured and sarja I Blenheims did have different bomb bay and bombs than the British. This is all I wanted to say about the photos. There are lots of other detail differences. For example the sand filters which you can see on the BL-199 (long nose being fuelled) cowling. Radio equipment, instrument panels, landing lights, wooden propellers etc. Cheers, Kari
  13. Hello! This is just a quick response of this complicated subject of Finnish Blenheim bomb doors, wells and equipment. In short only the Blenheims arriving to Finland during Winter War have similar equipment than RAF. So of the pictures above not all are suitable reference for other users models. So Caveat. All photos in Daniel's post #1 and #2 seem to be III-sarja which is similarily configured than RAF Mk IV bomber at the time (there are differences, too). And is useful reference for the same. On other posts there are sarja I (open bombbays) and sarja II (bulged bomb bay doors) and sarja VI (Finnish manufacture long-nose with yet another version of bombbay and doors) and sarja V (Finnish manufacture shortnose, bombbay similar to sarja VI). If you want more clearer picture of this subject you can do no better than obtain issue 4/2001 of magazine Suomen ilmailuhistoriallinen lehti which has good article with photos and drawings. Homesite of the magazine is: http://www.kolumbus.fi/sil/ . English translation is available with request. E-mail address for inquiries is given at the site, too. I have no fincancial interest in this, just happy customer. Finnish, (Swedish?), British, German (later edit: Blenheim did not have electrical system to prime the German bomb detonators. No German bombs carried by FinnAF Blenheims. My slip of mind, apologies) and Soviet bombs were dropped by FinnAF Blenheims. Have to go now. Cheers, Kari
  14. Hello! Quoted from the old posting of mine: "Finnish Hurricanes arrived without the seat armour and got it only later in their career. The colour of the installed Hurricane armour looks to be British Interior Green, but it's pedigree is unknown to me as is the origin of the armour (British or Finnish-made?)." The HC-452 armour is most likely not of British origin. The shape is different and the plates are curvaceous (see photo below). Those are possibly cut from armour plates from shot down Soviet bomber of Winter War. The armour plates are likely painted lately, some photos taken by a friend show the armour backside (at least) more like olive green. The rest of Finnish Hurricanes perhaps had similar plates, but they are most likely indigigeneous design. So caveat with these, more research is needed to be certain. Cheers, Kari
  15. Hello again! It must be a lighting thing (metamerrism). I remember I took the Il-2 model photo in our kitchen with a Summer morning sunlight, but the shadows do suggest that automatic flash has also been triggered. The digicamera was on loan from work and had tiny integral flash. I went and looked the sorry model in cabin corner and indeed Revell 87 seems quite dark, darker than I remembered. Perhaps some scale effect lightening is needed? I am still in opinion that Revell 87 has the right amount of grey and brown to match moist sand colour in these latitudes (in Russia, too?). And despite the linked photo is almost dead-on match in natural lighting on Albom Nakrasok sample. Modelling decisions are in order. All the best, Kari
  16. Hello! See below my Dako model using the given paints for the upper colours (photo seems to have been taken in June, 2001). Underside is in Humbrol 23 which my eyes looks too pale. Yes the mg is missing in the picture as is the final finishing and weathering. Still is, actually, as the landing gear was broken while the model was in a museum exhibition for a period. I thought to correct some minor details and redo the decalling after the show but have never been to it. Massimo's artwork is nowadays the reference point? I wrote about the Il-2 piece and Humbrol paints. Found the comparison photos for Humbrols 115 and 65. As you can see Hu 115 would be very good paint, but unfortunately is not produced any more. My tin is more than dozen years old now. Humbrol 65 was the next best (I had all the WEM light blue samples with me) and certainly is not too dark if that is to be avoided. Il-2 piece and Humbrol 115 (these photos are from July 2007): Il-2 piece and Humbrol 65: You seldom seem to agree with me on anything, Graham. I hope it is not some a priori -thing. I cerrtainly have high regard for you. Cheers, Kari
  17. Hello! The linked thread is indeed difficult to read. No fuss paints for the Il-2 colour scheme above: Humbrols 65, 150 and 32 plus Revell 87. See my explanation below quoted from the looong thread. Revell 87 compared to Albom Nakrasok AMT-1 sample see below: Cheers, Kari
  18. Hello! I have done a lot of angle measuring with inclinometer during my work career. If you stop thinking for a while, the only logical reason to use a dihedral board (as in gingerbob's quote) is to take the wing thickness taper "error" out of the measurement. Effectively making the dihedral board top surface parallell to wing datum. If wing (spar) top surface is the datum surface absolutely nothing is needed between it and the inclinometer as it would only increase the possibility of error. In my opinion anyways. Aerodynamists do not specify dihedral angle for wing top or lower surface. It is always for wing datum line, which is referred as the straight line connecting airfoil leading edge saturation stagnation point (of course. Thanks G.B!) and trailing edge (at all wing stations). Graham Boak will surely correct if I am wrong? In scale model kit datum line is roughly the mold line between upper and lower part. I agree with CarLos diagnosis (see below). If you cut off the offending aligning pins you may be able to make the upper and lower wing halves (at least near) match in length and have correct dihedral angle as added bonus. Cheers, Kari PS. I may continue with the issue of Hurricane hood in future as Pentti Manninen provided some very interesting material to me.
  19. Hello! As now corrected in the previous posting the Finnish Blenheim turret shown in the earlier five photos was installed with Finnish L-33/34 machine gun and Vickers VGO reflector sight. Mr. Pentti Manninen sent me a photo of Browning machine gun installation as done in the "Sarja V" Finnish manufactured short nose Blenheims. "Sarja VI" long noses should be the same, AFAIK. Browning was belt-fed and the mechanism can be seen in the photo. Finnish Air Force wanted to get rid of the disk clip feeding for the machine guns and Browning was used on the later Blenheim serieses and probably installed on older planes during overhauls etc. Turret canopy and movement mechanism should be the same for all Finnish Blenheims (except the post-war unarmed cupolas). Here is the photo of Browning installation: Cheers, Kari
  20. Hello! Here is some photos from SA-kuva online archive ( http://www.sa-kuva.fi ). Guns is not my cup of tea and cannot say what version this is. In any case it is shortnose Blenheim turret and photos are taken July 31st, 1941. Edit. Got help for the weapon identification from a friend. All photos below show turret with the Finnish L-33/34 mg and Vickers VGO reflector sight. Not applicable to BL-189, sorry to say! Hope this helps some. Other things to do now. Cheers, Kari
  21. Hi! Not easy to measure with the devices I have at home. Manninen's front view shows wing top line dihedral as about 0,5 (half) degree and underside line a hair more than 4 degrees (4.1 - 4.2 degress). This says to me that datum line is at airfoil leading edge tip. The gap I measured as ~ 1,7 mm in Airfix kit is about 1 mm on the drawing. I can not explain the difference. Did Hurricane have any twist (washout) in the wing? In any case Airfix looks just fine. BTW According the book Hurricane had CLARK YH, root airfoil is 19% and tip 12,2% thick. Thickness is calculated from wing chord at the point (or sometimes virtual/projected point). No word about twist. Dihedral angle 3,5 degrees. Cheers, Kari
  22. Hello! I bought the new Airfix Hurricane Mk I fabric wing kit and managed to do some work and checks before Christmas holidays. Now back at home and reading this thread. I must say I wonder if we all have same kit in our hands. In my opinion this Airfix Hurricane is the best. There simply is no competition in 1/72. And I am rivet counter, especially on something used by Finnish Air Force. The wing dihedral I put the upper wing half on straight aluminium bar like the picture below shows (hopefully). Clearly the wing top is not straight. The gap measures more than 1,5 mm and less than 2,0 mm (photo below). Let's say it is 1,7 mm. Outer wing panel upper half height at root is 3,6 mm and 1,6 mm at the tip where the aileron ends. Distance between the measurements is about 58 mm. Wing datum line is the mould line between the kit wing upper and lower halves. The dihedral angle can be calculated as arcus tangent (or arcus sin as the angle is so small): Dihedral angle = arctan ( (3,6 mm + 1,7 mm - 1,6 mm) / 58 mm ) = 3,65 degrees ( arcsin 3,66 degrees) (Datum line height = 0 at root, at tip the height is root thickness + 1,7 mm - tip thickness = (3,6 + 1,7 - 1,6 ) mm My measurements and arithmetics show that dihedral is too much if anything (correct is 3,5 degrees). I would say Airfix nailed it. I have thinned the trailing edges with curved scalpel blade from the inside surfaces. Don't know if that makes any difference. Comparison to scale drawings The only Hurricane drawings on which I have trust are by Pentti Manninen. He works from manufacurer drawings, measurements on real item, archival documents etc. the same way as for example mr. Bentley. The Manninen Hurricane drawings are published for example in book Lentäjän näkökulma II (ISBN 951-96866-0-6). Compared to these: Fuselage matches exactly, even on lenght although it does not photograph well (see the photo below) Wing planform matches Horizontal stab and elevator are good Rudder is good One deviation from the drawings I have found is the landing light position. Landing lights are one bay further out in on the Airfix kit. Like they should be for the fabric wing. Manninen's drawings are for the metal wing. On starboard side Manninen's drawings do show additional hatch not on the Airfix kit. Airfix also got the canopy rails right, distance between them coming narrower on the windshield compared to the hump behind cockpit. The sliding canopy height should be more at windshield end than rear when canopy is shut. It is not much, but should show. My measurements gave the Airfix sliding canopy being of equal height throughout. The difference might still be there, only finished model will show the truth. Fin is canted the right way in Airfix kit. Another detail often missed. Undercarriage wells are excellent for this scale. Yes the wheels should be with five spokes. Kuivalainen has sorted this, too. CMK too? Above all Airfix should be thanked of the great fabric effect on the fuselage. Correct number of formers in right positions. No starving cow or "lets glue half round sticks on" - look. Faceted is the right thing for this kind of fuselage structure. On fuselage top half of the formers end at the right position. On wing underside the fabric effect could have been more restrained as the CLARK YH airfoil is flat for most of the span chord on underside. The concaveness radius should be about the same as the wing rib (or any other perpendicular) local curvature radius. No curvature > no concaveness a.k.a "fabric effect". This is true for even - or actually especially for - tautened fabric covering. I hope that Airfix will provide the same excellent quality with their Blenheims. Keeping fingers crossed. Cheers, Kari PS I hope the photo links work for all. Google has messed the Picasa albums as a part into their account and nothing is the same any more. Had to create the ****** account, too. I genuinely hate these "share with everyone" -type virtual face shows.
  23. Hello! Not Gabor, but some answers. According Jyrki Laukkanen's book MiG-21 in Finnish Air Force our MiG-15 UTIs, MiG-21F and MiG-21U were painted with clear laquer AK-113F over which was painted clear coat AC-16 mxed with 7% PAK-4 aluminium powder. These planes looked natural metal superficially, so the coating was not opaque. After long period of use (or if corrosion detected) following paint system was applied: KF-030 (КФ-030) primer, then laquer 170A with 10% aluminum powder and top laquer AC-16. High temperature areas were painted with KO-814. These planes look solid overall aluminium doped, or may even appear to be light grey. My material shows that PAK-4 aluminum powder was made according Soviet standard GOST (ГОСТ) 5494-50. According this page: http://www.ngpedia.ru/id348901p2.html PAK-4 is лепестко-образный - petal-shaped - aluminium powder (thanks to translate.google). So leafing aluminium? Cheers, Kari PS Soviet origin "Technological Instructions" for corrosion protection of magnesium surfaces (from 1960) does list A24G gloss green glyptal enamel, HV-16 perchlorovinyl enamel (green, blue-grey, aluminum and black colours) and HVE-32 blue perchlorovinyl enamel for exterior use on primed surfaces. At keast the former two types were in use before Korean War.
  24. Hello! Thank you messieurs Averin and Tessitori for very interesting colour samples. Seems there is some kind of "ketchup effect" going on with these soviet colour etalons and numbers after the MiG-15 colour discussion at this forum: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234949599-mig-15-korean-war-camo-colours/page-2 One can find the even the AII colour etalon numbers from this scalemodels.ru -forum post some years back ("Цветов НЦ-5133 и НЦ-5134"): http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17492 AII (later НЦ-5134) type paints were (and are still?) needed for (natural) fabric covered pieces. Over AI (НЦ-551) dope. Also the AMT (later НЦ-5133г, НЦ-5133м) are mentioned in the Soviet Estonian metal surface painting handbook from 1969 for use on fabric surfaces - not mentioned as aviation dopes. Cheers, Kari
  25. Hello! Have not researched this myself, but I've been told that some of the Finnish Hurricanes were rewinged and they did indeed have the fabric covering left on the inner wings. This was done in UK already, not a Finnish mod. One of the Finnish ones got a Mk II metal wing (war booty) later. Don't remember which one and right now cannot check. Cheers, Kari
×
×
  • Create New...