Jump to content

fharris

Members
  • Posts

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fharris

  • Birthday 10/03/1936

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests
    Royal Australian Air Force and Australian Civil aircraft, all types, in 1/72nd scale.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,400 profile views

fharris's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)

124

Reputation

  1. A comment or two regarding the " quote" attached to the link to "RAAF Foliage Green" a brief discussion. on Friday 14 (?). It refers to matching the colour on a piece of Wirraway to Humbrol 30. The discussion took place some 35 years ago and I am now a little hazy about the outcome but the conclusion that Humbrol 30 was the choice surprises me. In fact there were four items from Beaufort aircraft, probably more than one, recovered from the graveyard at Laverton, Victoria, circa 1950. They comprise of two 'stalks' and two caps from the oil tank vent pipe fairing. The discussion in the article referred to agrees that Foliage Green is close to Medium Green 42, the question being exactly what colour was 42 and its nearest equivalent in the FS595 range. At some time I carried out a simple comparison on the dark green patches of the items by placing dabs of paint of three colours, Testers 34079, xtracolor RAF Dark Green and Humbrol 30. 34079 was (,is) an excellent match followed by xtracolor with Humbrol close but not as good as the previous two. However, it was (is) a reasonable match for the green on one of the vent caps. All items showed over painting of the Earth Brown. At the base of one of the stalks there is a number of patches of a lighter brown, almost certainly Dark Earth that has escaped the painter's spray gun, twice, once when overpainted Earth Brown and again when it too was overpainted Foliage Green. The paint on the items is still in reasonable condition since it was retrieved fairly soon after the war's end Fred H.. p.s Any strange words or ones that appear our of context should be blamed on predictive text despite proof reading.
  2. At the commencement of my career as an aeronautical engineer I worked as a design draftsman in the Drawing Office of Government Aircraft Factory (GAF) so I fully understand and appreciate the argument that the dimension is the important item, not the drawing. That is why drawings are often annotated DO NOT SCALE. However, the measurements of A9-13 were not taken to draw a set of super accurate plans of a Beaufort, but to obtain some measurements to check the accuracy of the Control Column drawing. Exactly as mentioned above, check out the drawing against known dimensions. The areas chosen were those readily accessible and often had a clearly defined starting and end point for extra accuracy. There are no long chain dimensions which create cumulative errors. For the purpose of the exercise, +/- 1/2 inch was accurate enough. !/2 inch reduced to 1/72nd scale is 0.007 inch which is well within GAF's considered acceptable limits (post 12). I doubt whether many modellers would complain if the model is accurate to +/- 0.007 inch. An examination of some manufacturer's drawings showed that a General Arrangement type drawing was dimensioned down to 1/8 inch while a fully dimensioned production drawing was as tight as 1/16th inch with a tolerance of +/- 1/32nd for whole or fractional measurements. The most difficult error to correct in the Frog kit is in the plan view where the fuselage tapers from the windscreen to the sternpost whereas it should be parallel to just aft of the turret then tapers. F Harris
  3. [/url] [/url] [/url] These drawings might be of some use. The dimensions were taken from Beaufort A9-13 (ex T9552) in mid 1970s when preparing an article on RAAF Beauforts for IPMS (A'asia)'s Modelcraft Magazine. This aircraft was built by DAP and intended for the RAF but was taken over by the RAAF and assigned A9-13. A quick check of a few of the dimensions suggest that the 3-view drawing is fairly accurate. Fred H
  4. Hello Mike, It definitely is not the 'Harris' conversion. Fred H.
  5. Hi Ed The problem with your suggestion is that Red Roo's standards are far higher than mine which are far from shake'n'bake. With second thoughts too I notice that the BAF Carvair nose has some differences from those in post 8. Maybe yet another one exists. Fred
  6. [/url] Could this be the source of the fibreglass nose? The original was made for the orange-tail Ansett Carvair in Ed Russell,s post. From memory, only two copies were made. The photo shows the pattern, plaster mould and fibreglass casting. F. Harris
  7. [/url] On its undercarriage, temporarily, and first colours of AIR CHARTER livery applied. FGH
  8. Scratch built nose grafted onto a Mach 2 (unjustly maligned) DC-4 airframe Hawkeye decals. Both Ansett colour schemes available from Hawkeye in various scales. Fred H.
  9. Seafire 47 conversion from the old 1/32nd Revell Spitfire Mk I. This was the culmination of a number of conversions of this kit, a Spitfire Mk V, a Mk VIII and a lowback Mk XIV. Tempest II conversion of the Revell Typhoon. Apart from the fuselage from firewall to stern post and a few small items, not much remained of the kit. FGH
  10. [/url] Scratch built nose grafted onto the (unjustly maligned) Mach 2 DC-4 Decals are from Hawkeye Models, a one-man operation in Canberra, Australia. His catalogue is extensive featuring, predominately, Australian civilian and military aircraft in most scales. FGH
  11. [/url] or Johnny Skyrocket's Mystery Jet. The aircraft was the brainchild of John E. (Johnny Skyrocket) Morgan, a flamboyant aviation enthusiast who flew a gold painted ex-RCAF Vampire. He acquired a number of ex-Royal Australian Air Force Vampire trainers with a plan to convert them to seven-seat Executive aircraft. The outcome is unknown but two photos exist, the earlier one showing a complete aircraft in what appears to be airworthy condition. It is not known whether it was capable of flight or an elaborate mock-up. The second photo shows the same aircraft with modifications to the rudder and a slightly modified livery. Was the modification as a result of flight testing? The Vampire components are believed to be from A79-624. The 1/72nd scale model depicts the aircraft after modification, the registration is believed to be fictitious. The Vampire bits are from the old Heller kit and fuselage reworked Beech KingAir. FGH
  12. I have posted an image in Work in Progress under Avro Tudor IV Fred H
  13. Here it is.. 1/72nd scale scratch built. Gippsland Airvan FGH
  14. Hello Jim, All my own plus a well stocked plastic model graveyard. Regards, Fred H.
  15. Thank you Adrian, AIR CHARTER- LONDON (injet printed) Fred H
×
×
  • Create New...