Jump to content

sharkmouth

Members
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sharkmouth

  1. The upper wing surface is right before the eyes of the pilot and probably this leads to some confusion. Manual makes a distinction between it and the cockpit floor

    Right before the eyes of the pilot? Before the pilot, looking where? Up, down, left, right, or behind? Looking up is the sky and the canopy with the central bar most models omit. Looking behind is the armor, headrest, and scalloped sides to improve vision of the sky. With peripheral vision, one can barely make out the landing gear horn and fuel port. Looking forward, the pilot sees the sky, the gun sights (one of which is the ring and bead), instrument panel, & gun butts. Looking left is the sky, port wing, throttle, belly tank release, and so on. Looking right is the sky, starboard wing, radio, map case, hydraulic hand pump knob, and other items. Looking down ahead are the rudder pedals, control stick, starter pedal, main fuel tank gage to the left of the central seam, reserve tank gage to the right of the central seam, shut off valves, and the emergency hydraulic pump. What is the central seam? The seam created when both wings are attached together (meaning it is the upper wing surface that one sees). All these items described are in the cockpit. The upper wing surface the pilot sees and has access when flying is his/her cockpit floor.

    Tom Cleaver, who actually was in the same model of P-40 as the kit purports to be, stated clearly that "In both cases the wing is the "floor"." In the end, that means that there is no separate floor in the cockpit.

    Anyway, to return to the model being released, it seems that Airfix will be the only one correct. Bronco can, at the last minute, make corrections. I would love to see what they do.

    Regards,

    • Like 1
  2. On 5/10/2016 at 3:31 PM, sharkmouth said:

    Well Óttar, unlike Tom Cleaver (who sat in a P-40B/C) my experience is limited to the later P-40 series (an E, a K, M, and N) and none had a cockpit floor above the upper wing surface.

    Note that Troy Smith quoted Tom Cleaver's experience with the Tomahawk. What he explained was that the seat rails on the Tomahawk are vertical (the seat on aircraft are adjustable) so there is room to sit 'normally' while later versions of the P-40 have a cockpit which is ten inches shallower causing the pilots legs to be out in front, nearly horizontal. I've sent an e-mail to Tom Cleaver to ask for clarification.

    Regards,

    I have received a reply from Tom:

    "If you look at a Tomahawk fuselage in profile and a Kittyhawk fuselage in profile, the Tomahawk fuselage is deeper (or higher) while the top of the Kittyhawk fuselage is cut down in comparison. This is why the later cockpit is more shallow. In both cases the wing is the "floor".

     
    Tom"
    On 5/10/2016 at 4:46 PM, mhaselden said:

    Bottom line is that the extra floor in the Trumpy kit is entirely inaccurate, indeed one could argue they made the kit far more complex than it needed to be because of that er

    Well, this is the Bronco thread which does share the same error as the Trumpeter.

    Regards,

  3. Sharkmouth

    Step (w) Disconnect the airspeed lines at the upper surfaces of the wing within the cockpit

    Step (v) specifically mentioned the area you are talking about: Disconnect the two hydraulic brake lines at cockpit floor aft of firewall

    My current interpretation is that there is a cut-out in the cockpit floor into which a portion of upper wing surfaces (those fuel gages etc) coming like into a slot, thereby making the whole joint more sturdy. The sockets for the seat should be under the floor

    Troy Smith

    The picture I've posted in my first message shows Tomahawk pilot also sitting with his shoulders above the cockpit sill

    Well Óttar, unlike Tom Cleaver (who sat in a P-40B/C) my experience is limited to the later P-40 series (an E, a K, M, and N) and none had a cockpit floor above the upper wing surface. This is why the seat rail sockets are on the upper wing surface. The seat mounts to this rail and can be adjusted up and down as you might have seen in the paragraph at left whereby it states:

    "If cables seem too short, adjust rudder pedals to full aft position and seat to down position."

    This explains your pilot with the shoulders above the cockpit sill.

    P40E1MaintenanceFig17.jpg

    Note that Troy Smith quoted Tom Cleaver's experience with the Tomahawk. What he explained was that the seat rails on the Tomahawk are vertical (the seat on aircraft are adjustable) so there is room to sit 'normally' while later versions of the P-40 have a cockpit which is ten inches shallower causing the pilots legs to be out in front, nearly horizontal. I've sent an e-mail to Tom Cleaver to ask for clarification.

    Regards,

  4. On 5/9/2016 at 3:49 AM, Óttar said:

    I'm well aware of this. Manual called it upper surfaces of the wing within the cockpit. It is not the same, as cockpit floor. Manual makes a distinction

    I'm well aware of the procedure to remove and install the wing but I can't find your quote in my quick perusal of pages 43-44. I wrote that the upper wing serves as the cockpit floor so each time you see "cockpit floor" it refers to the upper wing surface within the fuselage where the pilot resides. The cockpit still extends further forward and there is an area behind the rudder pedals (from the pilot's viewpoint) where the oil tank and (from the P-40C on) armor plate was found. This area can only be reached through the cockpit and is past where the pilot resides thereby making it the wing surface.

    The only way to make the distinction is to put it in context once I find that quote. Is it referring to the area forward of the rudder pedals, the area behind the back plate armor where the fuel tank is, or where the pilot is located during the operation of the aircraft?

    Regards,

  5. WingCdr_Jeffrey_RAAF_in_Curtiss_Tomahawk

    Comparing a crew member sitting on the wing to the pilot on a seat in the cockpit is a flawed approach to proving your point as the latter sits on a seat, not the cockpit floor (which in the case of this aircraft is the top surface of the wing)...

    Looking at the pictures, if the seat is attached to the floor how high would the brackets be holding it

    The seat is on rails which fit into sockets on the wing top which serves as the cockpit floor.

    Thbolt

    I've heard for years that "the floor of the cockpit is basically the top of the wing in the real aircraft", but placing seat and controls at the "top of the wing" is impossible....

    It is of great interest to me who made the initial statement that the cockpit floor on the real plane is the top of the wing? What is the source of this statement?

    Then believe the impossible. I have no idea who made the initial statement but my experience with working with these warbirds tell me that the wing upper surface served as the cockpit floor as it is where you can find the shut off valves, hand pump, and fuel gages.

    This photo tells me it was a separate floor indeed, the guy would not be able to stand in the cockpit without the wing attached otherwise.

    Or maybe he has his feet on a frame, confusing lol ...

    image004-787651.jpg

    It's hard to tell what's on the center of the top wing here:

    image015-721803.jpg

    Occa, you are correct in that the worker has his feet on stringers to keep from falling through, note the position of his legs? There is a crouched factory worker in the second photo.

    Anyway, people won't believe unless they see so I fortunately have all the manuals and here are some scans from the erection of a Tomahawk:

    P40E1MaintenanceFig12.jpg

    P40E1MaintenanceFig13.jpg

    P40E1MaintenanceFig14.jpg

    P40E1MaintenanceFig17.jpg

    Regards,

    • Like 3
  6. Vince, that was from Stevens Hobby, not Trumpeter. Trumpeter sent a blank sheet and Stevens Hobby asked me about the aircraft history (since it does have a sharkmouth after all). Please note that the person posting as "Trumpeter&HobbyBoss" on Facebook, states it is all new:

    https://www.facebook.com/TrumpeterModel/posts/600334090125188

    Regards,

  7. Announced as a new tool so should have nothing to do with the previous Trumpeter's 1/48th Curtiss P-40B Warhawk /Tomahawk Mk.IIA kits - ref. 02807 & 02228 (http://www.trumpeter-china.com/index.php?g=home&m=product&a=show&id=2186&l=en & http://www.trumpeter-china.com/index.php?g=home&m=product&a=show&id=1110&l=en).

    Vince, ref. 02228 is 1/32nd scale and their is also the 72nd scale ref. 01632

    http://www.trumpeter-china.com/index.php?g=home&m=product&a=show&id=1699&l=en

    Regards,

  8. Curtiss P-40C (Hawk 81-A2) Fighter AVG "Flying Tigers" for June US release!

    Kit 04006
    MSRP - $49.99USD

    In 1937 Curtiss put an Allison V-1710-19 liquid cooled engine into a p36 fighter. The plane was the military project code XP-40. The aircraft first flew successfully in October of the following year and reached a maximum speed of 587 km. In April 1939, the U.S. Army ordered the P-40A to start production and type B and C followed over the years. The P-40C (Hawk81 A-2) improved the self sealing fuel tank from type B, effectively improving the comprehensive protection of the fuel system. At the same time it also increased the Ground Weapons. Two weapons including a 12.7 mm machine gun and 4 wing was on a 7.62 mm gun. After the outbreak of World War II, the British government purchased a large number of military aircraft from the United States, including 930 P-40C, called the Tomahawk MK.IIB. The United States Army Air force was also equipped with 193 P-40C aircraft. In early 1941 the Chinese Air Force purchased 100 aircraft from the British production of the Tomahawk MK.IIB, and all equipped the American Volunteer Group, known as the "Flying Tigers".

    l_BOM04006.jpg

    l_BOM04006_MFU2.jpg

    l_BOM04006_MFU1.jpg

    Regards,

  9. I am NOT on facebook, so... maybe sonebody con forward this to KH if seen relevant....

    I will forward it to the owners. You picked up some of what I saw and the rear fuselage may be separate indicating that the M3 may be on the horizon as well. This would be part of the sprue tree design which comes later as there is still a bit missing (such as canopy details).

    Regards,

    • Like 1
  10. I have Tamiya's 1/35 Panther Ausf A on the go and I'm looking at getting some aftermarket tracks.

    Which Tamiya Panther A? If it is the original one prior to their later PzKpfw V Ausführung G, you may have a problem with tracks as it wasn't exactly 1/35th scale. Your best bet is the then the ATL-08 tracks with their AW-13 replacement sprockets to ensure they fit.

    atl_08_uj.jpg

    aw-13.jpg

    Regards,

  11. Where can one get aftermarket tracks for the Tiger tanks?

    I prefer resin tracks from MasterClub as they are the most accurate and have the proper look to them. I only buy the pinned series. MasterClub are now releasing them in metal. LionMarc Model Designs (LMD) had a resin set but it is now out of production. Also out of Production but extremely nice (and a great value if bought as part of their detail set) were Anvil Miniatures resin tracks. They re-appeared as WW2 Productions but are gone again. Friulmodelismo makes metal tracks but they are too thick and it becomes obvious when comparing to actual photographs. Metal tracks are also available from Spade Ace and Karaya. Avoid the latter. Polystyrene tracks are available from AFV Club, ModelKasten and one more but I only have experience with the named products. The AFC Club tracks are delicate but assemble easily while the ModelKasten has you adding the teeth separately.

    Reading kit reviews is all well and good, but it's good to hear about individual build experiences etc.

    Well, I stated I have build Academy, AFV Club, Dragon, Idea (a poor copy of the Tamiya kit), Italeri, Rye Field Model, and Tamiya. I have also had the opportunity to use many of the aftermarket items such as barrels, tracks, detail sets, design for each of the kits. If you stated a subject tank, then we can narrow the options to something less than three. Mention a budget and we can then discuss what detail sets, if any, to use.

    Regards,

×
×
  • Create New...