Jump to content

Rob de Bie

Members
  • Posts

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rob de Bie

  1. That's a great story! I guess there are similar sites in every country, so there is a much larger marketplace out there. Rob
  2. I tried to solve the problem of the unfindable Firebee review by creating a signature - I hope that doesn't break the rules. The review is on the 'Scale models' part of the site, not the 'AQM-34 Firebee' part. Rob
  3. OK, clear, I can't post a link to a review on my own site - I did not know that. That feels unfair: the site only costs me money, there are no commercials on it - it's just my contribution to the hobby. The Firebee review webpage is so new that you cannot find it through Google, so good luck if you're interested.. The review is way too long to copy here, but I will post the conclusions: I think the PlusModel kit is a reasonably good model, but it's no improvement over the old Italeri BQM-34, except in having engraved panel lines and availability. If you're not very particular about shapes, the PlusModel kit will do nicely. But I can't 'unsee' the various shape errors of the model it's a slightly oversized model the model has nice variety in the decal options. A big contrast with the Black Dog model that contains no decals but costs more PlusModel could have included many more parts to make this a much more interesting kit; there are plenty of target systems that are mounted on Firebees. More ambitious would be a ground-launch platform errors that can be fixed quite easily: extend the inlet forward 2 mm if you're building the original J69 design tilt the radome 4-5 degrees up if you're building the later J85 design shorten the span of the horizontal tails 2.3 mm on each side ensure the horizontal tails are set at 45 degree sweep angle add 'slider' brackets under the wings if applicable to your airframe add JATO collar attachment brackets on the parachute cone if applicable to your airframe replace the pitot tube with a longer one, maybe using Albion microtubing, and point it more downwards. See my AQM-34L where I tried this move the canted bulkhead panel line on the front fuselage forward by ~4 mm, and extend the skid to that line errors that are more difficult to fix: correct the sweep angle(s) of the vertical tail. This will also affect the fit of the tail decals the double bubble shape of the fuselage-nacelle area can be filled with putty the area behind the exhaust needs extensive reshaping Here's a comparison of the old Italeri Firebee on the left, and the slightly bigger PlusModel kit on the right. Also note the difference in sweep angle of the vertical tails. Rob
  4. Oh dear... I'm working on a review of the old Italeri, and new Black Box and PlusModel BQM-34A kits, and the Black Box version is by far the worst. The fuselage is far off the published dimensions and looks way too fat. It is possible that my idea of the Firebee's shape was ingrained by playing with the Italeri model for many years, but the dimensions don't lie. If I was you, I would not spend a minute on the Black Box kit. Rob
  5. Thanks! You already made me very happy with that photo of ground crew painting '1000' on the Bullpup. They seem to use Reese 'lockedge' stencils, and I had never seen those 'in action' in the USAF. I spent many an hour trying to find the stencil type that was used on AQM-34 Firebees, yet another research and modeling favorite of mine. Here's an example: Rob
  6. What a great photo! I did a lot of research on the subject of aircraft shelters in Vietnam (see: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/tabvee.htm ) but I had not seen the use of a section of Wonder arch as exhasut gas deflector. Rob
  7. I checked my colour notes, and you are correct. For the F-8P I noted Flexa SO.10.40 as the best match, and 35164 as the best match in my FS 595B fandeck. For a Mirage F1C at Cambrai in 1993, I also noted SO.10.40. So again 35164 would be the best FS match. The lower side was Flexa ON.00.60 - ON.00.75, with an aluminium-type look like FS17178. Rob
  8. My answer is not going to solve your quest, but judging from what I see at the Dutch classified ads site Marktplaats, there are still plenty to go around. They are usually offered around the 30 euro mark, which is very decent I think. I was tempted to buy one several times. Maybe there's a UK equivalent? https://www.marktplaats.nl/l/hobby-en-vrije-tijd/modelbouw-vliegtuigen-en-helikopters/#q:b-47 Kingkit in the UK has a few B-47s too: https://www.kingkit.co.uk/shop.php?search=kitfinder&search_term=b-47&brand=&cat=&scale= Rob
  9. I colour-checked an F-8P at an air show in 1992, and FS35164 came closest. The inlet was in the same colour, but roughly aft of the cockpit it became zinc-chromate yellow. Rob
  10. Just to be clear, the Hasegawa and Academy MiG-27 kits have a sprue with two wing tanks and one centerline tank. But the wing tanks are anemic, at 6.9 mm diameter. The centerline tanks matches the 4+ drawing much better at 7.8 mm diameter. The difference is 13% in diameter, but 28% in cross section, and I think we 'see' the latter. Hence my strong preference for using two centerline tanks, with modified shapes at the ends and simple flat fins. The runner with the tanks can be seen in this BM thread: Rob
  11. I have to disappoint you: my earlier statement that the Pavla Su 17/22 set would yield the correct tanks is incorrect. I just checked the 4+ booklets on the MiG-23 and Su-17/22, and both show 'PTB-800' tanks. I thought that would mean they are identical, but no, they are different. The Pavla set agrees with the Su-17/22 drawings, that's something. But the shape is just too far off for the MiG-23 tanks. Back to the MiG-27 kit centerline tanks, or start with another tank from the spare parts box, with a diameter of approximately 7.7 mm. Rob
  12. Uhm... Sounds like you interpreted my posting as if I would be able to send you the required tanks. That is not the case - I need them for my own MiG-23 model. Rob
  13. The Hasegawa (or Academy clone) MiG-27 centerline tank is almost correct for the PTB-800 wing tank. Except that the ends are slightly too pointy, and it does not have fins. So you need two MiG-27 kits if you want wing tanks on your MiG-23. Altenatively Pavla sells a Su-17/22 drop tank set with two PTB-800s. The Pavla tanks are 8 mm longer than 4+ MiG-23 drawings, diameter is OK, nose and rear are more pointed. Photos confirm that the real tanks are more blunt in shape. Rob
  14. Today I found a video on Youtube that shows unique footage of the adventures of Sturzkampfgeschwader 2 'Immelmann' from ~1939 to ~1944. Among many other interesting details, it shows a mechanic carrying two Stuka bomb rings at 15:03: https://youtu.be/Z_ticBaqL5A?t=903 I combined three screen shots. One can see an opening for the standard bomb lug, two trunion pins at either side, and at the bottom a tightening mechanism using two bolts. This answers many of my initial questions. I heard the following German descriptions, with their approximate translation following OP 1666: 'Bombenring' = 'bomb suspension band' 'Oese zur Anbringung' = 'bomb lug' 'zwei zeitiche Stutzen die in die Wurfgabel eingelegt wurden' = 'two trunnion pins that attach to the bomb trapeze' Further Google searches with these German words yielded nothing unfortunately. Rob
  15. Many thanks for your extensive explanation! I learned new things that I will try to use for my parts. Rob
  16. Thanks for the suggestions! Your picture shows an interesting alternative solution: put a 'tower' of supports next to the print object, and support the print object with a few horizontal bars (the float supports in your picture). It's almost like a sprue attachment on a normal injection moulded part. You write 'reducing the surface in front of the tray', can you explain that? Do you want to minimise the area when viewed vertically down on the printing tray? How does the hollowing out help? Is it because it reduces the printing area, therefore it reduces the forces on the print object, and therefore less support is required? Rob
  17. I don't see it listed.. Unless 'Fine Detail Plastic' is the same? Rob
  18. A couple of months ago, I spent a lot of time making 3D CAD models of some model parts that I wanted. But the outsourced resin printing was a bit of a disappointment: the great number of supports left a lot of 'nubs'. Take for example this M116 napalm tank in 1/48 scale, that had more than 50 nubs: The work removing the nubs and repairing the detail lost made it a useless exercise. Most of my parts were pretty much unusable. I let the experience sink in, and then remembered that I had a model printed many years ago, in PMMA resin, with *wax* supports. Here's the model, and all the whitish areas are formerly supported by wax, that was subsequently removed by the manufacturer before delivery: If I remember correctly, the Shapeways 'FUD' (Frosted Ultra Detail) looked similar (but not blue), so maybe they were done the same way. Is this printing technique still commercially available? I would gladly spend some more money and get parts without those annoying supports / nubs. Rob
  19. Perfect indeed! I checked my Academy kit, and if judged this way, it has the J57 fuselage length, but the J75 opening diameter. Hmm.. Rob
  20. As the original poster I have to report that I know almost nothing of the Stuka, so I cannot answer any of your questions. I selected this kit so I could build something without drowning in research, as so often happens with other projects Rob
  21. Thanks Jari! I found some more goodies there. - it's a great site! The SC500 manual has a list of mounting devices (like 'Schloss 500/XII' ) but so far I have found more on the Stuka-specific bands with trunnions. Rob
  22. If you plan to add weapons: I just finished a study of all stores used by the RNLAF on the F-84F; https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/f84f.htm Rob
  23. Thanks! I tried to use the lengths measured in the photos to see if it's an SD500 or SD250. The forward bomb is 92% of the length of the SC500 in the rear, ignoring perspective that I cannot calculate. OP 1666 says the SC500 is 80", making the forward bomb 74". Or smaller if perspective is accounted for. But the SC250 is 64.5", and the SD500 is 82". That's quite a difference with the calculated 74". Your reference to the SD500 had an unexpected benefit: the drawing contained the 'Stuka' suspension details that I was looking for! See here: https://books.google.nl/books?id=lWzV-xUdkpMC&lpg=PA102&dq=OP 1666%3A German Explosive Ordnance&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q=SD500&f=false It's page 22 if the link does not show a page of the manual. They use the terminology 'suspension band' and 'trunnion bolt', and the band has an opening for the standard suspension lug. If someone knows the German words, I would be happy to learn them. Rob
×
×
  • Create New...