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. :)

Patrik

Members
  • Content Count

    432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,253 Excellent

About Patrik

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bilovice nad Svitavou, Czech Republic
  • Interests
    Interwar RAF and FAA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,050 profile views
  1. Hi Carlos, it is Air Enthusiast No. 63.
  2. My next project. And the ingredients. I cut the plastic already, and as with my previous Airfix new tool, I am a bit disappointed. Looks beautiful in the box, but the intakes are heavy and the mould seams are omnipresent. More shortrunish than some of the recent shortruns in this particular matter.
  3. The struts are supposed to be perpendicular to sweptback wings in dihedral, and the complex geometry then causes the distinct inward lean from certain viewing angles. I have to admit that despite careful measurement and calculations, my struts are a bit more inward inclined than they should be, but I decided - for the sake of sanity - to be happy with it.
  4. Thanks guys. After quite some strut engineering, finally biplane to show today.
  5. Patrik

    Westland Wapiti TT

    Sad to hear that the Wapiti/Wallace drawing project was stalled due to ill health, John. I wish you that your health improves soon, and with it the hopes for seeing accurate Wapiti/Wallace kit renew. Patrik
  6. The most prominent sub-assembly ready for display, minus the final coat of flat varnish that comes later on.
  7. Thank you John, seems we have two more unknowns (or here, as it seems in some cases, more like variables) solved.
  8. Painting job in half-time. I have to say frankly that the size of the kit seems to be very close to, if not slightly over, the limits of my hand brushing techniques. Applies especially to the silver dope, I needed three coats to be satisfied. You can spot the wheels in making in their Mk.2 disguise among the other extra parts. The first attempt to produce the desired marking below, ended up in Mk.1 having been stripped of all paint without mercy. Additionally, below my new best friend. Magnification 2.25 x. It means - if I calculate well - that I will be building my kits virtually in 1/32 from now on.
  9. I love the thread, as it makes me feel every page less and less nerd and helps me find the strength to push my own stones up the hill, though I know only too well, that as soon as I am on the peak with the recent one, another one is waiting for me right at the foot of the hill. Amazing work.
  10. The thread here https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235059212-hawker-turret-demon-rear-cockpit/ made me mildly curious, so at first I decided just to compare all Mushroom book drawings with the dimensional data of the Hart family. I started by looking for the dimensions in the available references, which seemed to be available in plenty. Span was easy – the most frequently quoted figure is almost unanimously 37 ft 3 in for the whole family except Hart Trainer – 37 ft 4 in, Osprey – 37 ft 0 in, and Hector - 36 ft 11½ in. Length looks easy too – in case of the Kestrel/Dagger variants. 29 ft 4 in without the rudder light, 29 ft 7 in with it. Hector has been quoted as 29 ft 9¾ in, or 29 ft 10 in eventually. Now come the radial variants, the publications suddenly stop being communicative, and to a man (or ape – just reading – again – one of Terry Pratchett’s novels) bashfully avoid saying single word on the lengths. And this made me definitely curious. Has no one ever researched the subject? Therefore, I decided to measure the side views from the scale drawings available (to me), and compare. The results are in the table below, which I decided to share with you. Please do not consider the figures definitive. I would say the accuracy of my measurements is ± 1 in at best. I used the lengths of the Kestrel/Dagger variants as a reference for the reliability of the various sources. Now some details on the particular drawings. Regarding Mushroom [1], make your own judgment. For me it means I will be using them with utmost diligence in the future. Would be nice, if someone in possession of the 1:48 drawings, published in an extra volume, made the same measurement as I did, so that we can say with certainty, if the drawings itself are in fact that wrong, or it is something in the print. However, as the spans are not that bad, the plan views had often been printed on the same page as the side views, and they have the same proportions, no matter if the plan view had been printed “portrait”, “landscape” or “oblique”, I would almost say the side views are simply wrong. [2] – [4] look all like reliable sources to me, at least concerning the dimensions. [6] is far more on the colour profile side, but the dimensions of the profiles are stable on all pages, and they do fit well with the known figures. [7] + [8] have evidently the same origin. They both claim 1:72 and even contain scale bars on many pages. Unfortunately, the same Hart variants, on the same pages, do show quite various dimensions, so the drawings are definitely not reliable and I included them in the measurement only because they feature quite a few of the more exotic variants, not present elsewhere. I even skipped measuring the lengths of the Kestrel/Dagger variants, because they were so variable. Feel free to amend, correct, dispute, oppose. I believe I am not the first one opening the issue, though my search in the paper references or over the internet has brought no results at all so far. Even not in the case of the Swedish Hart, which is available in the Royal Swedish Air Force Museum. Patrik
  11. If I said, the short exhaust stubs would be a piece of cake, I apologize for it. It was an apparent blasphemy, and blasphemy has been very seldom rewarded with a piece of cake. The middle part is Mk.2 version. Mk.1 (seen above] ended up in rubbish. The fuselage is completed, except a few small details, and ready to be painted.
  12. Very nice. Thank you for sharing the build.
×
×
  • Create New...