Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HBBates

  1. as tbolt says, the Bronco kit makes the same mistakes as previous kits, so why bother.

    the new Airfix kit has a test build in the latest Airfix magazine

    extensive discussion here on Hyperscale


    I'd wait until Hume Bates gets one to review, as he's the P-40 expert (note his posts in linked thread) and see what his opinion is.

    Thank for the compliment..but I wouldn't call me the expert

    Just from the photos ive seen ..while i see several kind of explicable odd issues nothing looks like a deal-breaker so far (ie they look to be fixable issues).

    The fundamental correct shape seem to be there (wing shape and wing to fuselage to firewall looks correct for once.. fingers crossed)... it look to be the best of any kit or ever drawing out there( don't judge it by any drawing out there cuz there's no good drawing out there)

    (Fyi i had a small input on this kit early on providing some Curtiss blueprints and manual....ive got high hopes for the kit)

    • Like 2
  2. I would say that I would not use a restorative or rebuild example for a template of skin finish... effectively a restored or rebuilt example is a hand built aircraft ...

    Look to original photos of original production examples when there a new coming off the line the quality of finish is usually superior...

    And im basing that opinion on conversations with actual rebuilders in the warbird community..

    • Like 1
  3. On the subject of the Tomahawk underside color...I've posted this before but late last year I got to go over a large collection of recover Tomahawk parts

    The photos below are of different underside color samples (of many different parts) I got to look at


    In the first photo..


    The color in person was almost a white gray..

    HOWEVER.. the paint was so broken down and highly oxidized the color literally came off on my pants like chalk... ..I really do not think its a valid sample of the original color especially in context of the large numbers samples I got to look at at the same time

    I bring this up because there was a few posts on Hyperscale contending a white or light gray based on some other small samples the person had... the really is, I belive, this paint breaks down to white or light gray over time and environmental exposure

    Bottom line IMO a white or light gray is NOT CORRECT..it what the paint breaks down to over time


    In the second and third photo..



    The color in person did have the Green/Grey color of the Dupont 71-021 chips..it was a good match... and the large major of parts in underside camo seem to match this color

    So IMO Dupont 71-021 is the correct color for the Tomahawk .. and no matter what the name is (Sky-Type S Grey) it has a Green/Grey tint to it

    • Like 1
  4. Page 43 of the manual posted by Laurent clearly distinguishing cockpit floor from "upper surfaces of the wing within the cockpit"


    Óttar you reference the above link on Page 43 (really manual Page 42) use of the term "cockpit floor"

    Please see photo below ..I took a different manual photo of the wing top that has labels and and took the linked manual Page 42 references to "cockpit floor" and pasted them on this photo .. you will see they are on the wing top ...


    • Like 2
  5. The two opening in the port rear glass is fuel in the forward and oil to rear

    The mod done by the raf of the fuselage access hatch and fitting of the camera show in the photo, will be included in the new airfix 1/48 kit...it will have the fuselage access position open with a stock hatch, a photo hatch and a camera

  6. So Question.. could it be it just mimicking the desert Italian scheme to confuse/delay the enemy gunners?

    If this is on reconnaissance aircraft coming in low and fast at the target from head on.... it might cause enemy gunners to think for few critical seconds "Italian aircraft" so you could scooter in and get away before they realized who you were

    I just find it very odd it distinctly mimics the Italian camo in the same theater of operation, but just its from a head on view.... what's the point unless to confuse identification of an on coming low flying aircraft for a few seconds

    • Like 2
  7. That window spill is oil.. you have the two fill.ports in the left rear window.. the front is fuel the rear is oil

    Because the service port is under the glass.. if you spill it goes behind the glass so its hard to get at to wipe up

    While some fuel spill is common.... oil spill under the glass and then leaking out of the edge of the rear glass seems to be very common...

    Anyone that's dealt with motor oil spill know how messey it can be and you can't clean it up completely and it doesn't dry up.... it finds every little nook and crevice to hide in... just look at your car that's why your have to somtime steam clean the engine sometimes just to get all the grease and oil out

    That area is very typically a mess.... with oil blow back streaks and oil capillary action into the seams and panel lines

    it even can be seen some times on the restored examples and you know how well those are maintained

    • Like 1
  8. The the likely reason you dont see a 1/32 of somthing then have not done in 1/48...is the main expence is the original research they put in... if it takes 1000 hours of research of shape and detail to do a 1/48 kit right.. figure it x10 that on 1/32... the actual design of a kit in CAD is the simple part

  9. Moreover - IIRC - the P-36 has three wing spars, while the A-17 features five.

    Should I add anything more?

    Agree with most of your points ...but the P-36/P-40 wing does have five spars (or webs on the drawings)...the two rear most do change an the start of the aileron, four ends, five bends to follow the aileron

    From what I've seen the A-17 and P-36 share many of the same construction techniques but they're not in anyway identical / interchangeable components

  10. 20151106_164511_zpsev0olfx4.jpgHello i thought in share some photos of recovered Tomahawk parts in the orginal paint... in person there was a definite green cast for the underside....nicks 71-021 was a good match to what i saw

    The top photo is the top on the seat mount and did seem to match the dupont version of British cockpit



  11. The belly faring profile did not change beween B and C model...in fact, as best as I can determine, the main belly faring profile from wing web 2( start of the wing fuel tank bay) back did not change for the entire P 40 line all the way to the N model....the only change is in that front belly faring (that the area forward of the fuel tanks to the radiator faring)..and all the long nose has that same shape front faring save for minor changes for fuselage gun shell casing ejection or collection

    take that Hyperscale.post with a grain of salt .. there is a lot of half correct speculation going on there..

    It is true that the restorations out there due not have truly correct lower radiator cowl in some cases that forward belling fairing I just referred to....And Airfix is aware of this..

    • Like 1
  12. I'm not sure if nowadays this is much of a problem- what remains as a problem is Humidity! (And I'm not getting hot under the collar here...).

    I've personally witnessed how pieces of paper move quite a bit with changing humidity, this is especially apparent if you try to join two sheets of paper: Today they may butt perfectly, but tomorrow with a change in humidity they just won't line up over all of the joint.

    AutoDesk/AutoCAD have a piece of software (rubber sheeting program) to specifically deal with the paper image instability problem- you scan the drawing, import it into the program and then establish 'control points' using known dimensions- the program will then stretch and pull the digital image until it establishes the best fit to your control points. Then you use another program (called raster to vector ( bitmap to scalable ) ) to trace the image either manually, automatically or semi-manually.

    Published Dimensions are unaffected by humidity, but now how accurately do you need to transfer the dimension....

  13. With regards to the idea that "The argument that Airfix did so much research before making this kit is a bit far fetched"... I think you could be missing a point

    All the the source your looking to that went before...were avaible to Airfix before they even started... the simpliest low cost path for them would of been to follow the well know commonly accepted drawings.. and producted something that matched the other... same references, same assumptions, same results

    But they didnt...they came up with something diffrent

    So if they did not follow the same references and get the same results

    Then they either blew off all the previouse information and got an error

    Or they added new original information to revalidate previous information (no assumtion), found an error and corrected.(However let me add the bigger the new diffrence you find from the past data the more you must double check yourself, else you get Eduards 109;)

    I worked for years troubleshooting telcom... I dealt with what is called "chronics" things that never seem to get resolved and I resolved them.

    The way you do that is to toss out all the assumptions in the old trouble tickets going back to day one .. all the conclusions ...and just look at the data and revalidate everything ... basically tear down and reassemble it again and you would alway find errors in the past that were the cause, the source of the problem...

    • Like 1
  14. So how is the H-75/P-36 project progressing?


    Good.... its a fixed gear R1820...found out lots of tibbits...cowl shape, engine mount, thrust line on the fix gear R1820 vs the retract R1820 are diffrent as are the landing gear mount points(ahead of the spar vs on the spar)

    Also found the wing screen on P36/H75 vs early"Longnose" P40/H81 are not the same shape where it meets the fuslage..side glass lower edge two straight angles vs one soft curve and flared out, should of noticed that in photos before(well did but dismissed it as to vage to tell). Seem to be due to changes in fuslage guns setup.

    I have open invite to go to the guys shop next time im on the US East coast and go through his files

  15. The Blenheim kit in a way is my point...there was a reason ...they used a restored aircraft that was not 100% Blenheim....that not and excuse that a reason... they didnt just make it up.. and it alse give you a logical path to fix....

    So on the hurricane kit ...it does not match the Bentley drawings...from 2005.... reprinted in a magazine... and Al Bentley himself has spoke of errors in his early hurricane drawing.from error in the original Hawker drawing that did not match the actual production aircraft...

    Many time production aircraft do not even exactly match existing manufacture blueprints!

    I know that's shocking to some but anybody has worked as an engineer understands revision revision revision of drawings and then once in production revision again that never makes it back into the manufacturer drawings

    I just had this conversation last week with a well-known Warbird restore that I digital remaster a microfilm roll of set of production blueprints for particular aircraft....and we both spoke of the fact that even with orginal blueprints... and when he parts from a recovered airframe he finds that sometimes they simply don't match always exactly match tha blueprints here have been changes in production that did not made it back in the rev of production drawing

    guess my point is yes if there is a discrepancy between the Bentley 2005 drawing from a magazine and the Airfix 1/48 kit dont assume the Bentley 2005 drawing are the final word....really like I said.. I would make good bet Airfix had copy of those drawings ...or should of had a copy of thoese drawings ... Al Bentley drawings are very well known and easy to come by ...its would shock me if the best UK kit maker did not make it first stop in research the best most well know craftsman accurate aircraft drawing who also happens to be UK... The Bentley drawing were your first choice for Hurricane drawing why wouldn't they been Airfix is first choice

    and it would have been the easiest path for Airfix then to simply to utilize them as is... and also the cheapest.. hell what research do you need just port in to CAD and your done

    Im just saying do not assume. investigate the reason it may be

    fyi ...forgive the typos I'm doing this on my cell phone with my thumb

  16. Troy... I would put out a few things...

    One. I know from personal experience the level of research Airfix tries to put into their latest kits...tha they want to do it right

    Two. Bentley and accuracy of his drawings are well known and Airfix would have known that and I would say with a high degree of confidence Airfix knew of these drawings.. and would make their life so easy just to use them...if it WAS that easy

    Three. The drawing are from 2005 printed in a magazine...the kit is from 2015 done direct in CAD it from the data points, the measurements......so question if you took the drawings and measure the measurements to see if they responded?

    If something says it a foot, or if something said it measures 30 feet 6 inches, oes it actually measure a scale foot or scale 30 feet 6 inchs on the drawing?

    Airfix is no slouch in doing the research and im sure they knew this resources so there if there's a discrepancy there's may be a good reason

    They may of had later data or work from an actual hurricane or the drawing from 2005 is not reproduce correctly

    bottom line I'd be really shocked if Airfix didn't talk to Al Bentley during the research for this kit...

    So while it legit question why there's a discrepancy I'm inclined to think there's a legit answer..

    I could be wrong and Airfix didnt do their homework... but it just doesn't sound like the Airfix of late

    They seem to one of the few model companies that really does their homework

    I'd withhold judgement at this point and have an open mind as to what the reasons are for the discrepancies

    • Like 1
  17. But to clarfy...the the Packard Merlin aircraft COULD (in theroy) have in the field a flat top cowl with no filler port put on the aircraft with no issue other then if you needed to fill the coolent header tank you would need to remove the whole cowl top

    And the RR Merlin aircraft could have the bulged / filler port cowl

    So you cound have both types side by side and swap cowl ...no problem

    If you needed spare cowl as a replacement and you only had one type in you spares... it would work on either aircraft type

    so bottom line the cowl type you might see on a given aircraft is not an absolute to tell you Packard or RR...IX or XVI.. once in the field... correct?...

    Guess I look at this as years of being a field service engineer and doing wants needed to keep equipment in operation...doing a little part swap "Frankenstein" is going to happen if parts are interchangeable...

    That even the point of the bulge ...to make the Packard fillport cowl also be able to fit the RR... the bulge is a mod that only point is to make it fit both RR and Packard.

    And that same cowl interchangeability could in theory go the other way..

  18. So Edgar if i read you right both cowl tops would work for both the RR and Packard Merlin...its more early and late version of the cowl top....

    the early flat one would fit both engines.. but had to be removed to fill the coolant header tank on the Packard

    The later version added a filler port for the coolant header tank of the Packard Merlin and that new filler port also required the cowl top be bulged for the filler port to clear some pipeing on the RR Merlin.

    relevant point is either cowl top could be on either engine..... its just an early and later version cowl top

    The later being bulged with an extra fill port ....correct?

  • Create New...