Jump to content

Curt B

Members
  • Posts

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Curt B

  1. I was going to  pass on acquiring this kit based on some of the comparisons to the old 1/48 Tamiya  Corsair, which I still have in the box.  But, I broke down, and just got it delivered.  Just very quick look in the box leaves me with a quite favorable impression.  A few very current day Tamiya-like large full color sheets to identify paint colors and decal locations, and instructions that look pretty good.  I will have to see how the build goes, but it's impressive at first glance! 

    • Like 1
  2. I don't know if it's worth giving another up-vote for the 1/48 Arma Hobby Hurricane Mk Iic or the Trop version, but it is an absolutely spectacular kit, which I have in hand.  You  cannot do any better in a Hurricane model ki!!    I can't say from personal experience about the ease or difficulty of the build, since I haven't  put  mine together yet, but the videos of builds of these aiirplanes seem to show that the build is not difficult. 

  3. On 10/10/2023 at 12:52 PM, Tail-Dragon said:

    Thanks, it doesn't show well in the photo's, but the way it was painted helps, solid green first, then highly thinned grey on top (same way the real airframe was painted), sprayed lightly and repeatedly, so it'd semi-transparent in places. Two of the difficulties are that there isn't any definitive scheme for the wings, and the subtle overspray seen on the serial number masks, and the black invasion stripes on the fuselage. 

    real_Gabby1

    paint 4

     

    Yellow overspray was airbrushed, then oversprayed with more thin grey, white overspray was done with pastels, sealed with Future.

    Great info, thank you!!  Honestly, I hadn't noticed the white overspray on the invasion stripes until you pointed it out.  You created even greater detail than I'd noted previously.  Again, WOW!

    • Like 1
  4. Wow, GORGEOUS work thus far, really!  Like you, I have a number of 1/48 Tamiya P-47s,  one in progress, and 2 more that haven't been started yet.   I was planning to do one of these in the Gabby Gabreski livery, but now I'm debating whether I should wait until the MiniArt kits are available, which is really the way I'm thinking of going, though the Tamiya kits are just so amazing in their fit.  I was wondering if you (Tail-Dragon) have a plan about how to achieve the sort of translucent green paint work towards the middle of many of the grey patches that is so distinctive on this plane's livery.  I've been pondering how to do that when I build this plane, and don't have a plan yet about how to do it.  Thanks for any thoughts you may have, or if anyone else has ideas about this.

    • Like 2
  5. 3 hours ago, Hoops said:

    I imported the Detail and Scale plans, as well as about half a dozen pictures from Flickr that were as close to perpendicular as possible into Inkscape and measured the depicted angle.

     

    What I came up was that the landing gear is angled 8 degrees forward from vertical when referenced to the lower surface of the fuselage.

     

    If somebody else has something where it actually written down, please correct me if I am wrong, cheers and happy modelling!

     

    Hoops

    Wow, thanks for going to that extent to come up with a number that I requested, whether you did it for me or for yourself.  I'm sure it took you some time to do this, but it's super appreciated, sir!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  6. 6 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

    I think you’re probably better measuring it from a photo and replicating that than relying on drawings. This seems like a good one:

    071030-F-1234S-015.JPG
     

    https://media.defense.gov/2007/Oct/30/2000435686/-1/-1/0/071030-F-1234S-015.JPG


    best,

    M.

    Thanks, M!    I think this is the best photo I have seen, which comes as close as possible to a full-on 'perpendicular to the camera' side view of an A-10.  I think I can finally use this photo to come up with a close to accurate rake for the front strut.  Again, many, many thanks!!!

    • Like 1
  7. 5 hours ago, Hook said:

    Oh, I totally understand where you're coming from! I think most of us here do.  :) 

     

    I pulled out my WAPJ thingy - the drawings give a rake of 2 percent. However, the photo I linked to earlier appears to be at a more acute angle. 

     

    Ain't references fun. 

     

    Cheers,

     

    Andre

     

    Andre....references are, indeed, fun!  Especially when they don't give you what you need!!!!  ARGHHHHHH!!!!

    • Haha 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Hook said:

    Hi Andre, yes it does help somewhat.  I have the great Jake Melampy book about the A-10, which has several photos similar to the one you provided the link for, and it's a great image, no doubt, and clearly shows that the front strut has SOME amount of rake, that is, the strut is angled a bit 'forward' ,as opposed to making a fully 90 degree angle with the ground.  Ideally, though, I'd like to know how much of an angle, in actual degrees, the strut makes with respect to the ground.  I know I'm being way too anal about this, and using the photo you sent, along with some I have, may end up being the best I'm going to find, which isn't the end of the world.  Thank you so much for replying, Andre!

     

    By the way, Wikipedia sometimes shows line drawings of airplanes from top, bottom and sides, sometimes with wheels down, and Eduard often, in their instructions, provide similar types of line drawings, intended to ensure that modelers know the angles that landing gear need to be at to be accurate.  I've just never seen such line drawings like that  for the A-10.

  9. I'm working on my Academy A-10C, and there seems to be a bit of 'play' in the front landing gear strut.  I'm pretty sure that the strut is not perfectly vertical with respect to the ground, but I've been unable to determine what the actual 'rake angle' (using motorcycle terminology) is for this strut on the A-10C.  Does anyone know?  No one else seems to have a concern with this, and maybe I'm just not aligning the parts exactly correctly, but I'd really like to know what that angle really is.  Any help out there? 

  10. Super build, paint and weathering!  A great job, including the figures and the Kubelwagen.  I have this kit, and just  found a number of the new Eduard aftermarket items that I've been waiting for (found on Scalemates), and am anxious to begin building this airplane.  As others have written, you did a spectacular job on the riveting, though as Skyraider3D noted, perhaps much of it wasn't needed?  I have no idea if the riveting on the real plane was like yours or not.  How did you find the guidance for locations for the rivets, if you don't mind? 

  11. 3 hours ago, Hook said:

    The bomb door could indeed be closed for flight, rotating to the open position for weapons delivery.

     

    Cheers,

     

    Andre

    Andre, thank you, sir, for what I THOUGHT had to be the answer, but I wanted to be sure!  Still deciding if I want to build mine with the bomb bay open or closed!  I appreciate the quick reply!

    • Like 1
  12. I'm sure the answer to this is posted somewhere already, but I couldn't find it...

     

    I just got the new (2022) Airfix 1/48 Blackburn Buccaneer kit, and I note that they identify Option 4 as having bombs loaded in the bomb bay, and (I presume) that the bay is left open.  The question is, if there were weapons in the bomb bay, did the Buccaneer fly such missions with the bomb bay open for the entire flight, that is open during takeoff, flight and landing, or did Airfix just include an option to display an open bomb bay?  I've seen at least one picture that shows the bomb bay open with the landing gear retracted, which leads me to believe that an open bay was a mission alternative.  Certainly, an open bomb bay, either with or without ordnance, would result in significant drag, but I haven no knowledge of how the Buccaneer was flown.  Thanks for any help.

  13. 33 minutes ago, ReccePhreak said:

    Thanks for your suggestion Curt. I think I will stick with the kit's instrument panel decals, even though they're not super detailed. I am definitely not going to spend ~$100 for the new kit, as nice as it is. With my age, and the number of kits in my stash, I just can't justify the expense.

    Larry

    Hi Larry.  Understood.  I'm recently retired myself (January) and I agree that I have at least 20X the number of kits I could ever hope to finish before I head off to the big model making room in the sky! 🙂  Still, doesn't stop me from wanting and getting more kits.  There will be some happy folks receiving my stash, or pieces thereof, after I'm gone.

    • Like 1
  14. I can't answer your question directly, but I might take a look at the Kitsworld decals and compare them to the plastic in the kit you have in hand.  My guess is that they would probably work, even if it takes a bit of trimming here and there.  I'm getting the new Buccaneer myself, and need/want a cockpit set myself.  I see that Eduard Space has a 3D printed set as well, for the new kit that you may consider.   

  15. You answered my question perfectly!  Based on a few other things I found, your recommendations are just what I was looking for.  Thanks so much!  The only thing I haven't found yet (in stock) are any cockpit/interior sets.  Looks like Eduard has a nice (though expensive) Space set which is probably what I'll get.

  16. Hey All,

     

    I'm about to order the new 1/48 Airfix Buccaneer, and I'd like to get most of what I need for the build, including paint, if possible.  I have no idea what cockpit and exterior paint colors would be appropriate for the plane that is depicted on the box cover, so, could anyone educate me on what paint colors would be appropriate for this aircraft?  I figured if any folks would know, they would be here!  Thanks in advance.

  17. Excellent info, gentlemen, thanks so much!  I'm thinking, now, that I'll probably do my Uhu with the ports in place, but without the guns.  Not that I'm so terribly anal about historical accuracy, but my guess is that there probably had to be some real life WWII examples where the guns were left off the plane, but the gun ports were left as-is, due to circumstances.  Nice to see the NASM example painted and displayed like the plane I am going to do!  Thanks again, guys!

  18. Hi All,

     

    I'm working on my 1/48 Tamiya Heinkel 219 A-7 Uhu, and have been thrilled with the engineering and fit, particularly for a kit whose mold is 20ish years old, plus the design of the built-in forward weight to make sure it sits on the nose wheel when completed!  All of this is amazing for a kit this old, and the subject being unusual but highly interesting!   I can't wait to see it done, with painting and weathering.  It's gonna be HUGE for a 1/48 scale airplane...not even sure where I'm going to find room to display it!!  And I thought my 1/48 Tamiya P-38s were big!  LOL

     

    Anyway, on to my question,  The kit includes two vertical firing guns in the aft part of the fuselage, but I've noticed that photos of completed Uhus don't seem too show those guns on display, and in fact, it appears that the openings where the gun barrels would protrude through the aircraft skin are always smoothly faired over, apparently with putty of some sort, but the instructions don't address this at all.  Am I missing something?  Is there any additional part that I'm just not seeing that include those openings as faired over?  Or does everyone just use putty of one kind or other to eliminate those openings?  Seems like a VERY common modification, but I've never seen a reference to it at all.  Thanks for any info that anyone may have!

  19. Well, as much as I absolutely HATE the F-35 due to it being what I think is the most homely/ugly modern fighter aircraft, if the build reviews end up verifying that it builds up as perfectly as all the other recent 1/48 Tamiya airplane kits, I'll have no choice but to get this model!  As I'm sure everyone here knows that even older Tamiya kits are just amazingly fabulous to build, like their 1/48 He217 A-7 Uhu, P-47, and so many others.  While Tamiya may not have the ultimate in detail, and they have the unfortunate reputation of less than great decals, and almost no planes include seat belts/harnesses, these are minor nitpicking issues more than made up for with stellar fit and engineering.  No reason to expect the F-35A will be anything different!

  20. On 9/22/2022 at 9:10 AM, Dave Swindell said:

    The Sabre undernose radiator/oil cooler/intake arrangement didn't change from the Typhoon through to the Tempest V, it consisted of the engine radiator block with a centrally mounted circular oil cooler with the carburetor intake passing through the centre of the oil cooler.

    54051_o-jpg-_nc_cat-107-ccb-2-_nc_sid-92

     

    When it was realised that dust ingestion was causing engine problems a deflector system was tried, consisting of a dome arrangement in front of the carburetor intake, this reduced the ingestion problem but didn't cure it

    720px-Napier_Momentum_Air_Filter_in_Hawk

     

    This was followed by an annular filter unit fitted to the front of the intake tube with a blank metal plate front, this was much more effective, but the filter unit was liable to be blown off forwards through the propeller if the engine backfired during starting.

     

    (Not a Typoon/Tempet filter, but it gives the general idea...)

    e17370d4356e2d191e54a27c4e458028e7c3a5fb

     

    To prevent this spring loaded forward opening "cuckoo" doors were fitted in the metal plate front of the filter unit.

    image3-jpg-jpg.628599

     

    The dome and filter units were easily removeable add-ons and not specific to aircraft type/mark, more they would be relevant to aircraft operating from airfields susceptible to dusty conditions during periods when this was a problem, typically Normandy temporary landing grounds. As always, check your references for your aircraft, or other aircraft of the same squadron during the same period to see what was likely fitted.

     

    Dave,

    Thanks a ton for the additional info about the carburetor intake on the Mk. V Tempests.  I gather that the 'cuckoo clock' doors allowed forward (i.e. reverse) opening, in case of engine backfire, while preventing the destruction of the filtration/diversion hardware used to prevent injection of dust/debris into the engine when air flow was 'normal'.  I've seen photos of the 'dome' previously, but yours is the first time I've ever seen anyone explain what the dome was there for.  Also, in case anyone is interested, for the current 1/48 Eduard Tempest Mk. V Series 1 and 2 models, Barracuda Cast makes absolutely fabulous replacement parts for the intake, which, unfortunately, Eduard does not include (that is, the extended air intake tube, surrounded by 4 'fins' with the fins surround by a partial inverted cone piece.  The Modeling News articles from back in about 2020 do a great job of showing builds of both the Series 1 and 2 kits, along with the Barracuda improvements.  Eduard DOES include, in their Series 2 kit, a very nicely detailed photo etch 'cuckoo clock' door assembly, but nothing like the Barracuda items in their Series 1 kit.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...