Jump to content

Navy Bird

Gold Member
  • Posts

    8,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Navy Bird

  1. Maybe Nick knows the answer to this one, but does anyone have an idea of how Model Master Azure Blue compares to the MAP standard? This is the only sample of Azure Blue that I have, as Humbrol, Xtracolour, Lifecolour, etc. are not easy to find in the US. Model Master Azure Blue was mentioned earlier in the thread, but those posts are pretty old now...maybe some new information has come to light. Cheers, Bill
  2. All right, just one photo for today. After a thorough search of the stash, I found some photoetch speed brakes which will work. Well, not from the stash proper, but rather removed from an old model and soaked in lacquer thinner to remove the paint. Here they are, after I modified them just a tad: They're just about the right size, but the hole pattern is different. I'm OK with that, as I suspect there will be few here or at any exhibitions that will know how many holes were in the Jaguar's speed brakes. Well, except for Tommy of course. So, Tommy, look the other way when these speed brakes come into view! I got as close as I could, these are from a McDonnell F3H Demon, which was a contemporary of the XF10F Jaguar. Who knows, maybe they both used the same speed brake vendor, like Speed Brakes 'R' Us or something. I'm going to paint these and apply after the fuselage has been painted and the transfers applied. This is because I have some photos that show the US national insignia underneath the speed brake, which is slightly proud of the fuselage surface. I'm not surprised at this, as the speed brakes were added well after the aircraft was built. The model has been painted Glossy Sea Blue, and will now sit and cure for a few days before I even attempt to touch it. Glossy Sea Blue does NOT look good with my fingerprints in it! Cheers, Bill
  3. From the CAD shots, it doesn't appear that Cyber Hobby fixed any of the problems that were present in their FAW.1. Which would mean that all of the problems they copied from Xtrakit (long booms, wrong cockpit, bang seats for hobbits, canopy misshape, tiny nose wheel, nose cone, upper fuselage bulge, air conditioning duct, windscreen demisters, etc.) are still there. Airfix, you know you have to do it! Look, I built the absurd 1:72 Trumpy Lightning, fixing what I could by kit-bashing with Matchbox, Aires, and Quickboost, with all the gory details right here on BM. What happened? You announced a new tool 1:72 Lightning! Then, when I wanted you to scale down your excellent Sea Vixen, I decided to build the unbuildable Xtrakit job, with all the gory details right here on BM. That was your signal to announce a new tool 1:72 Sea Vixen. What are you waiting for? Cheers, Bill PS. Just for nothing, my Sea Vixen took First Place at the IPMS Northeast US Regional Convention at the beginning of May. Woo Hoo! Maybe it was worth it.
  4. These two Devastators are remarkably intact after a similar time in salt water off the Marshall Islands: http://tighar.org/Projects/Devastator/tosave.htm Be sure to click on the links at the bottom to view more pages on the project. On "The Jaluit Survey" page, both "American Aircraft I" and "American Aircraft II" have some more detail shots of the Devastators. The deeper wreck is in better shape, with less coral infestation, and this could bode well for the Electra if it's there. Cheers, Bill
  5. Thanks, Tommy! I read the F9F, but didn't read the Dash 6 in the description. An F9F-6 is most definitely a Cougar! Here is a shot of the Cougar horizontal stabilser installed on the XF10F: Just finished re-scribing and rubbing down the primer. I found a bottle of Glossy Sea Blue in the stash and I'm off to stir it up! Edit: No paint yet! I forgot all about the speed brakes! These were mounted for the 17th flight as well. You can see them on the forward section of the Stars & Bars in the photo above. Hmmm...I'm going to have to dig for this. Cheers, Bill
  6. I agree. It's different, that's for sure. For all its coolness, the horizontal stabiliser was a constant source of problem on the plane. I believe the general idea behind it was that the stick moved the tiny canard delta, and the aerodynamic forces on it would move the larger delta. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, Tommy!) Think of it as an elevator in front of the horizontal tailplanes. The biggest problem was lag - Corky would move the stick and some seconds later he would get a response. If the stick were moved too far, and he had to correct, the lag time resulted in over-correction and at times an uncontrollable aircraft. After trying numerous different methods to solve the problems, they ended up mounting an F9F Panther tail (EDIT: F9F-6 Cougar horizontal stabilisers), which worked quite well. If that had been there from the beginning, and of course if Westinghouse could have delivered an engine to spec, things might have been different for the Jaguar. The test rig for the double delta tail was mounted on a rocket sled traveling on rails. Check this out: Cheers, Bill
  7. Great comments, Duncan! I appreciate the time you spent to write "War and Peace!" I agree with everything you said. The plan was not comprehensive enough to cover the contingencies that always happen, and it didn't provide them with any oversight. Having contracted with Phoenix, who is the US Navy’s primary contractor for deep ocean search and recovery, I suspect they felt they didn't need the oversight. Much learned for the next time, tentatively scheduled for summer of 2014. Although the thought comes to mind that since they know the location of the new target, isn't there a simpler way to go there and verify whether it is indeed part of an Electra fuselage, or just another staircase from the Norwich City? Looking at the sonar trace, if it does show a track where the object slid on the catchment, it's unlikely to be from the Norwich City, which lies a considerable distance to the right of the sonar scan. It would be an interesting current that would cause the object to follow that pattern. But I suppose a nice violent storm could do it. And, of course, it could be an outcropping of coral... Your experience sounds like a lot of fun! I have a desk job, no deep sea adventures for me! An USAAF aircraft loaded with gold bullion on its way to Europe? Any evidence for that one, or was it just an urban legend? Cheers, Bill
  8. Hi mates, Much to show you! At last report, we epoxied the wings. After the epoxy had cured, the bond was tested and I think it will be OK. Unfortunately, due to the compound curve of the forward fuselage when the wings are put into swept position (remember the wings move forward as they are swept), it left a huge gap. And I do mean huge! What to do? Well, there's filler...and, uh, filler, and I suppose it that fails we can use some filler! First step is to pack the gap as much as possible, and hope for the best! No doubt, due to the size of the gaps, this will take multiple applications. And, of course, it did. The sanding was a bit tricky as I did not want to end up with a filet radius between the wing and fuselage. Remember, the wings move so there should be a defined sharp line where the two meet. Another rather tricky area was where the front of the wing meets the fuselage. On the starboard wing, the area in question wasn't fully cast, and a big chunk was missing. On both sides I had to try and sculpt a nice forward wing root, and Michelangelo I ain't! Perhaps I could do a diorama and have a maintenance cloth covering this area.... After I was happy with my sanding, I sprayed a little primer to see how bad it really was. Another application of filler and re-sanding followed. I did this until I was tired of it and didn't want to be bothered anymore. Luckily, it didn't end up too bad. I added the unique "double delta" tail, sanded and filled a few more places, and primed the entire model with Alclad Gray (this is really good old automotive primer, isn't it? Sure acts like it and smells like it!) Now you have to admit that the XF10F looks rather cool in that last shot. It looks like a lawn dart! There aren't many photos of the plane that show this aspect of its design. This was 1952, and it's unfortunate that the Jaguar didn't make it into production. Damn that Westinghouse! They should have kept to radios and refrigerators. Oh, and steam turbines, too. And avionics, I forgot about that one. And radar, of course, the radar! Uh, there were those reactors for the submarines and carriers, too. And the roads, aqueducts, sanitation, of course those are all a given. You may recall that I plan on building the model with the horsals that were installed beginning with the 17th flight. Horsal is an Americanization of "horizontal dorsals," the source making about as much sense as the word. These were aerodynamic surfaces applied to the rear fuselage to improve directional stability. According to Corky the test pilot, they did a good job on that, as well as improving several other nasty habits of the bird. I made the horsals out of card stock, but I want to paint them separately (due to the aluminum leading edge) and apply later. Here they are: They will look cool. More pointy things for a pointy aircraft! Well, that's it for now, the next step is to do some scribing to add back in the panel lines that got lost during the build. Then, it's on to Glossy Sea Blue! I haven't painted that colour in several years, and I'm looking forward to it. Cheers, Bill
  9. The owner of that trademark is General Chuck Yeager, Inc. So I don't need the ® when I'm yelling at him personally about his outrageous Spitfire comment from a few weeks back. Cheers, Bill
  10. In their own words: "The search contractor, using an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV), acquired side-scan sonar data along roughly 1.3 nautical miles of shoreline off the west end of Nikumaroro. The reef slope was surveyed from depths of about 100 meters (328 feet) down to 1200 meters (3,937 feet). We considered the primary search area to be the reef slope between the Bevington Object and the wreck of SS Norwich City. "After analyzing the sonar returns, the contractor gave us targets to investigate using video cameras mounted on the Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV). When we weren’t trying to find and video selected targets, or rescue the AUV from underwater hang-ups, we “mowed the lawn” running up and down the reef slope. We also explored along the bases of underwater cliffs – known as “catchment” areas – where sinking objects might logically come to rest. "All the targets we checked turned out to be coral rocks or Norwich City wreckage and, because we lost more than half of our budgeted search time to equipment problems, we didn’t get to finish mowing the lawn and exploring all of the catchment areas before we had to leave. The sonar anomaly that now has our attention was never given to us as a target to explore and it’s in a catchment area that we didn’t quite get to. The side-scan data that include the image are among the “deliverables” the contractor gave us but that information was not turned over to us until after the search was concluded and we were at sea on the way back to Hawai‘i. "After the expedition, trusting that all suspicious sonar targets had been brought to our attention, we concentrated on reviewing the high-definition (HD) video to see if there might be something we missed (the high definition video system provided by the contractor did not allow us to see HD video in real time)." I'm not seeing any gross incompetence by rich tourists, but I wasn't there. None of us were. If anything it appears they relied almost entirely on their contractors (this becomes more obvious when you read the more detailed dispatches). They also rely exclusively on their contractors/partners for image interpretation and analysis. The general search area was provided by TIGHAR, but not any of the specific target areas. If TIGHAR wasn't seeing the sonar scans, and primarily using the ROV to look at sonar targets given to them by the contractor, then they weren't chasing shadows. They were following their plan, and relying on the specialists who were part of the team. There is a great description in one of their dispatches of one sonar target which for all of the world looks like an aircraft wing, complete with spars (coincidentally the same number as an Electra 10E). On the way to investigate with the ROV, the AUV got hung up and they almost had to leave it behind. By the time they were able to view the sonar target (days later I believe), it turned out to be more wreckage from SS Norwich City. It's possible that this will be the case for the new sonar target. Ric Gillepsie is the founder and executive director of TIGHAR. I can't speak for his personal finances, but his CV states he was a US Army Cavalry Officer, and an Aviation Accident Investigator. Hardly professions that lead to multimillion fortunes! I only bring this up since there is this perception that TIGHAR is a bunch of playboys who have no business doing what they do. The truth is that none of us know that with any certainty, and to assume so is what I referred to as an "ad hominem" attack, especially when it's used to denigrate their research. Another example: The theories of Erich Von Daniken can't be taken seriously because he's a convicted felon. This is an ad hominem attack - it's not the theories that are attacked, it's the man. The fact that he's a convicted felon has no bearing on his theories whatsoever. The theories stand or fall on their merit, and the evidence that supports them. (In this case, I don't think Von Daniken's theories have much merit at all.) The team for last year's expedition is listed here. Which ones are the rich businessmen? http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku7/niku7expedition.html#team I know it will take a long time, but I encourage anyone interested in the fate of Amelia to read ALL of the TIGHAR web pages on this subject. Also, please read whatever you can find on alternate theories (this will be easier, as there isn't much). If you don't do so, it is likely that you will form opinions or perceptions on the TIGHAR research based on insufficient data, or worse, a television program or an Internet forum! There is a LOT to this case, and a cursory skimming of material will not provide you with a greater understanding. Cheers, Bill
  11. Thanks for that, Alpha! Quite a few years ago, the 1941 Historical Aircraft Group in Geneseo NY tried to get all remaining airworthy Flying Fortresses for their annual airshow. At the time there was maybe a dozen. They managed to have 8 or 9 for the show, and it was just incredible to see them all in the air at the same time. Really made me wonder what it must have been like to see a few hundred in the air at once! Cheers, Bill
  12. Take that Chuck Yeager! Cheers, Bill
  13. Great pictures! And what a wonderful show, and fantastic weather to boot! What more could one want? Besides an accurate 1:72 Lightning that is! Which B-17 Memphis Belle was that? IIRC (and I may not be!) there are two painted that way. Both used in the movie, and one is kept just south of where I live near Rochester NY. Surely it wasn't that one! Does Duxford have the other one? Cheers, Bill
  14. Thanks! I thought copper sounded odd for the tailpipe, but I don't know much (OK, anything) about Meteors! I'll cross that out of the Airfix instruction sheet. Cheers, Bill
  15. The results of the DNA test were inconclusive on the bone, the report is on their web site. Oddly, though, initial tests indicate that the fecal material found contained human mitochondrial DNA. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/59_DNAResearch/59_DNAResearch.htm From the beginning, TIGHAR has stated that the partial "finger" bone found could be human, or that of a sea turtle. This is what I mean when I say that they look for alternate explanations. The first DNA test showed positive for human mitochondrial DNA, but the second test did not replicate that. This is not unusual for an old sample. There is not enough material left to conduct additional tests whilst also leaving enough material for a second test. What is left will be preserved to await new technology. The story of the bones found in 1940 is true, unless you believe that the report and measurement analysis written and filed at that time is a fake. Initially the examiner said the bones were male, and likely a Pacific Islander, IIRC. However, the measurements he took of the bones have been re-examined recently by forensic pathologists and the conclusion is that they belong to a Caucasian female of Northern European descent. Forensic pathology has come a long way since 1940, so this conclusion is interesting. It would be much better, of course, if the bones themselves were still around, but they're not. To answer your question of how many white females were lost in the South Pacific at that time, the answer is one, as far as anyone knows. And we all know who that is. The bones are just one piece of the circumstantial evidence in the Nikumaroro theory. There's a lot more. The alternate theories have very little evidence of any kind. Cheers, Bill
  16. Very good questions. Having never been an ROV operator I have no answers. I believe this and the sonar mapping was contracted out because TIGHAR, like me, are also not ROV or sonar operators. If you go further and read the daily dispatches from last summer, you'll find that they had a huge amount of problems with the equipment, including one snag where they thought the ROV was lost. Perhaps these problems account for some of the odd tracks. The real-time visual monitoring was via CCTV, but not high resolution. The HD films could not be analysed until after they returned. I thought this was quite odd, what with today's technology. What on the surface looks like poor planning may indicate "contracting with the lowest bidder" due to the precarious nature of their funding. It's obvious they did not have the best equipment. They very nearly did not even have this expedition last summer, I believe it was Fedex that came in at the last minute to get the equipment to Hawaii to be loaded on the boat. Pity, really. I think they should link up with Robert Ballard, as he has a rather nice track record. Cheers, Bill Precisely my point about having to play the "marketing" card to raise funds. Tabloid style headlines tend to emerge from that unfortunately, and the media run with it. Cheers, Bill
  17. Hi mates, Thanks to your excellent advice, I ordered the kit and it arrived today. I must say that I'm very impressed with the parts in the box, this is way beyond the quality of the MPM Sea Vixen I recently built. If this goes together as nicely as it looks, this will be a real winner! I'm going to go for WK799 of 92 Squadron. Those red and yellow checkerboards are calling out to me! Might be a little fiddly on the tail bullet fairing, but we're supposed to be modellers, right? The painting instructions just say aluminum for the airframe, can I assume this is HSS? How about copper for the rim of the tailpipe? Cheers, Bill
  18. Building these old kits is such a blast! Great job so far, I can remember building this one, well let's just say a really long time ago. Since you're going for a "what if" do you know what markings you'll use on the Glossy Sea Blue? You're right about the colour appearing much lighter in your photo, at first I thought you were going for the Blue Angel scheme. Cheers, Bill
  19. I'm familiar with the New Britain hypothesis. It's always fun to follow all of the competing theories, especially with a mystery like the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Two concerns that come to mind about this theory are as follows. There is no physical evidence, no artifacts that have been presented, and no photographic evidence. The story of the constructor's number on the tag is given by recollection of witnesses. Which can be fine, of course, but by itself isn't much to go on. The constructor's number for Amelia's Electra is well known, and has been for many years. Who knows when it was written on the map? No one has tried to date it. The Nikumaroro theory also relies on many witnesses, but is backed by other physical evidence and considerable scientific analysis and historical detective work. The New Britain theory doesn't have any of that, it just has the story. It's a good story, but just a story so far. Second, it doesn't seem possible that Amelia would have had enough fuel to turn around and make it 2,000 miles back to New Britain. Why do I say 2,000 miles? Based on radio transmissions of her position, and more importantly their strength, it is extremely likely that she was near Howland Island (where Itasca were monitoring her radio). Several independent estimates say no more than 200 miles away. She had fuel for 24 hours, and had already been flying 20. Turning around and making it back to New Britain is not very probable. Her last transmission was "We are on the line 157/337…We are running on line north and south." This refers to compass headings, and they were flying along this line to try and find Howland. They wouldn't be flying this line if they didn't think they were near Howland. Neither of these headings takes her back towards New Britain. I think it's fascinating that a line of 157/337 through Howland Island and southeast goes to Nikumaroro. I can only assume she was telling the truth and was indeed flying on that line. Why would she lie? Plus, Pan American Airways Radio Direction Finding stations on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island took six bearings on the post-loss radio transmissions (the distress calls). The four strongest of the six cross near Nikumaroro. A seventh bearing taken by the Coast Guard also passes near Nikumaroro. Many distress calls at the time were obvious hoaxes, but several were considered genuine at the time, including those that seemed to originate at Nikumaroro. If the Australian patrol saw an aircraft engine that day in 1945, it was likely from a B-17 crash (41-2429) on August 7, 1942. The B-17 exploded in air and the wreckage was spread over a very large area, including the area where the Australian patrol reported the engine and other wreckage. I believe they saw pieces of the B-17. In the meantime, it will be fun waiting to see if any of the theories are right - there are lots of them! It's an enduring mystery, and it's sobering to think that there's a big chance that we'll never know what happened! Cheers, Bill
  20. I grew up in the US and the mud guards on my bicycles were always called fenders, and they still are. The same holds true for a motorcycle. We also used fender as the description for the body panel on a car that surrounded the tires. Different things, but we use the same word for them. I believe that DaveM is correct in his description of the derivation of the term. Cheers, Bill
  21. Although I won't resort to playground insults or "argumentum ad hominem" attacks as posted earlier in this thread, it is unfortunate that a research organisation like TIGHAR must often play the "marketing" card in order to generate funding. Short of a long term government contract, they must rely on donations to fund their work. They're not the only ones, of course, it is the new norm for many research endeavors. Tabloid style headlines will no doubt continue, but you need to look beyond that. What I like about TIGHAR is their objectivity in first trying to falsify each of their theories or discoveries. If you read their publications thoroughly you will find that they go out of their way to explore other explanations for what they find. As I mentioned earlier, all (and I do mean all) of their evidence is circumstantial. Most, taken by itself, can perhaps be explained away (but not all). Taken together, however, and they form a body of evidence that is rather convincing. To hear me say that is quite interesting, as I am a card-carrying member of the Skeptics Society (sorry for the American spelling). I'm not easily impressed in matters such as these. I won't repeat the TIGHAR case here - read their website to start. Also, as I mentioned earlier, until an artifact is found with a serial number that is directly traced to Earhart's plane the case will remain unsolved. There has been a serial number found that is indirectly connected, and that is the serial number on a sextant box found on Nikumaroro in 1940 that is consistent with the type used by Fred Noonan. There are photographs of him with this make and model of sextant. But this is, of course, not enough. A definitive linkage must be found. And that's what TIGHAR is doing, looking for that linkage. To ridicule their efforts with childish taunts is, well, childish. Cheers, Bill
  22. Jeff Glickman is an expert in forensic imaging. He runs a company called Photek, and is a Board Certified Forensic Examiner, a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, a Senior Member of the Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and President-Elect of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. He's using the term "fender" because that is the accepted word in American English for that object (i.e. a mud guard around a tire). I wouldn't be surprised if Lockheed also referred to it as a fender. Further Reading Cheers, Bill
  23. Exciting! TIGHAR's working hypothesis is the only one that holds water (pardon the pun) in my opinion. This is a very interesting development that needs further investigation. I've read Ric Gillespise's book, I've scoured all of their web site, and I don't believe there are any lost military planes "of the same type" reported near Nikumaroro. Artifacts from other known aircraft (B-24 for example) have been found on the island, however, but these are believed to have brought there. This new anomaly could again turn out to be debris from SS Norwich City, so one must not get one's hope up prematurely. In my view, the circumstantial evidence for Earhart and Noonan having come down near or on the Nikumaroro reef is considerable. TIGHAR's methodology is not pseudoscience. Ultimately, we won't know for sure until aircraft wreckage with traceable serial numbers is recovered. For those who haven't done so already, have a good long read at the TIGHAR website. It's great stuff. Cheers, Bill
  24. I recently purchased the F-8 wing from Obscureco, and it had no warping at all. Very nicely cast, actually, and superbly packaged to prevent any damage to the razor thin edges. I wonder if you saw some early samples of the F-100 wing that had some production problem? You can e-mail Chris at Obscureco and see what he thinks. Just use the e-mail link on his site. Roy, thanks for the info on the F-105 and RA-5 kits. Neither problem seems to be in the same league as this F-100F error. Cheers, Bill
  25. Ugh. Now I wonder how bad the Trumpy F-105D or RA-5C kits are that I have in the stash. Never really looked at either one of them very closely...
×
×
  • Create New...