Jump to content

Graham Boak

Gold Member
  • Posts

    14,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Graham Boak

  1. "..the cockpit is a bit large for the fuselage..." isn't this to be expected on short run kits? I could make a long list, I thought the habit was dying out but it is even true for at least one recent mainstream Spitfire kit - perhaps others could be suggested but I'm not in the mood for naming names today. My experience is ALWAYS to dry-fit. Check such things and sand the mating pieces before using brute strength to force fuselage or wing halves together. By all means whinge to the producer, but if you have to force parts together then stop and look to solve the problem before gluing.
  2. Are AE her only initials? If so, there are a lot of possibilities from RAF Germany or Coastal Command in the early 50s, although I don't have an A.E to hand I suspect I could find one. If she has a third initial there may be options on WW2 aircraft.
  3. Your picture would be more obvious if you'd presented it on grid paper. Perhaps you could compare the Airfix kit with the Higgins plans?
  4. I've just compared the Hasegawa fuselage with the recent Terry Higgins plans in Airfix mag. Because of the curious shape of the Hasegawa rudder, the shortage in the rear fuselage is between 1mm and 2mm The larger difference was measured by aligning the rudder post, the shorter the end of the rudder tab. I don't have the new Airfix one to compare, but for those who do I'd have thought putting the LHS of one up to the RHS of the other would make things clear. Then aligning the cockpits should bring out the difference between the rudder posts. Occa: if you have used vertical lines to align your differing parts, I'm afraid that they don't show on the picture.
  5. There's already been some discussion on the Wildcat. It is pretty clear that the canopy is too low and the spine too squat, but if it only is a matter of this fault making the F4F appear too fat, then it's fairly easily corrected with a replacement from Falcon/Squadron and some putty. If on the other hand it kit is too fat, perhaps someone could measure it against other kits and plans and quote these values? People have played with photo side views of kit and original without proving anything.
  6. The c cannon bulges are over the cannon - if you've moved the cannon outboard then the bulges have to move likewise. The little knobbly bits are wedges to change the airflow to ensure that the cartridges dropped away clearly.
  7. Nick: When the Airfix PR Mk.XIX appeared there was considerable discussion about its (apparently) short nose, which largely died down after the comment that the leading edge chord was too far forward (because of the excessive chord). However, I don't know that the matter was entirely settled, and this posting of yours raises the doubt again. I have three appropriate fuselages: the Fujimi, a Ventura Mk.XVIII, and a Frog. The Frog one was lengthened slightly many years ago - I believe the recommended solution was an Airfix Tiger wheel behind the spinner (and slightly drooped), though looking at it now I just used plasticard. All three fuselages are very close to being the same length, and a close match to Peter's fuselage drawing. If the Fujimi is the right length then both the Academy and the Airfix are too short. I presume in the nose?. Looking at the highlights in your photo, although it is of course difficult to be certain, it does seem that the Academy fuselage is too rounded too low - look just in front of the tailwheel for example. This, coupled with the short nose and the deep fuselage, may explain why Spitfire enthusiasts considered that it just didn't look right without ever needing to resort to scale rules and micrometers.. Going back to the Frog for a moment: if a short fuselage was produced before Peter Cooke's drawings were ever available, perhaps there is some older plan that Academy and others were working to. That in the Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, perhaps?
  8. Beard: the Airfix Mk.IX was criticised because of being slightly longer in the fuselage than earlier kits of the subject, so this is really why I turned to Monforton then. The Airfix kit matched the dimensions pretty well exactly. I don't recall just where the difference with earlier kits came, other than in front of the cockpit. The AZ Mk.IX is 1mm short overall, but (AFAIK) spread over the whole kit rather than being in any one place, so is unlikely to affect any comparison. However,I've no idea what it is like on fuselage depth - the only AZ Spitfires I have are very late ones of a slightly earlier vintage than their Mk.IX. If you place a scale rule on an unassembled Academy fuselage, at the end of the trailing edge fairing, the depth should be easily measurable. If it's assembled you'll need a micrometer. If it comes out over 16.7mm it's too deep, but maybe not by much?
  9. Code letters should be Sky. MSG code letters are for the BoB period.
  10. Returning to this, I hauled out the relevant Scale Models - and it is indeed a fine looking plan - also the Monforton book, the Airfix Spitfire Mk.I fuselage halves, an assembled Mk.IX, a scale rule and my trusty micrometer. The first point to check was that the two Airfix Spitfires agree, on the (possibly unwarranted) assumption that having been convinced of the Mk.IX's fuselage matching Monforton (the wing doesn't, sadly) then it was worth checking if this read across. It does. I chose station 15 as a reference, because this is immediately aft of the trailing edge fairing and thus the full depth is readily comparable. Any faults here, in width and/or height, should be noticeable on a kit. Using Monforton first, the width of the Airfix kit is a very good match for the value given. So is the Peter Cooke drawing. So if the Academy kit matches Peter Cooke's drawing, it should be OK. (I've left the numbers upstairs - ask if you're interested.) I then checked the height - I find Monforton's definitions of the section ordinates unhelpful on this point, but his drawings are, particularly the one in 1/24 scale hence saving the use of calculators to get to 1/72. The depth was 50mm in this scale, 16.67 in 1/72. The Airfix kit is a good match, the Peter Cooke drawing slightly larger (17.12). To confirm this, I laid the Airfix Spitfire fuselage half on Peter Cooke's plans and lined up the rudder post and the bottom of the fuselage. There is a small gap between the top of the Airfix fuselage and the line of the fuselage top in the plans, more or less continuous along the top of the fuselage. I remain unable to compare the Academy Spitfire directly to either Peter's plans or the massive amount of detail in Monforton. Or, indeed, any Airfix equivalent.
  11. This thread is going round and round in circles. Those who like the kit seem determined to discount anything and everything counting against it. The current "gold standard" of Spitfire drawing is the book published by Paul Monforton, something only discounted by those who don't have a copy. It is far more detailed than any set of magazine drawings, however distinguished their creator. Giorgio has compared the Academy kit with these drawings, and says that they don't match. Further, that the differences are in accordance with the "eyeball" comments that the kit fuselage is distorted in height and width. Has no-one else attempted to make this comparison? Apparently not. OK, let's make it easier to break out of the circle. The current Airfix Spitfire Mk.IX fuselage (and IIRC also the Mk.I/II) match the Monforton dimensions (not just drawings but quoted station numbers etc. taken from Supermarine information). How about someone with the Academy kit comparing the fuselage to the Airfix one, from the firewall aft? To my knowledge, no-one has ever suggested that this Airfix kit is too fat or too sleek.
  12. One of the prime drivers of our military procurement and operation has been compatibility and inter-operability with the US: you may phrase it rather stronger than that. It is difficult to see how this would be maintained by a buy of the Kawasaki P-1. Nor would it be cheaper than the US alternative, quite the contrary I suggest, quite apart from any other quid-pro-quo that might ensue. Would the best place for an MPA base be in Scotland? Yes, as the Greenland Gap is still there, if with little real evidence of a genuine threat. No, because most of our trade is not across the Atlantic but from the South, so St. Mawgan/Newquay would be better positioned to protect these routes. Is it financially a good idea to invest heavily in a base in Scotland where the secessionist movement is so strong and unwilling to accept the result of the recent referendum as anything more than a short-term setback? Is it politically a good idea to invest heavily precisely because that weakens the secessionist arguments? The Navy still has a strong investment, but for obvious if controversial reasons that does not carry the same political benefit. Has the continued operation of the UK in the absence of an MPA strengthened the case for re-introducing the capability at a time of continued financial stress? If it was to be re-introduced, and Scotland chosen for its base, is Leuchars the best place for it anyway?
  13. Supermarine long wanted to fit a curved windscreen to the Spitfire family, to reduce drag, but it was always ruled out on the grounds of distorted vision. Quite why that was no longer important I can't say The comment above about improved visibility on a curving approach is interesting, but there was still a thick frame in much the same position, if not identical. Only the original flat pane windscreen was rounded, not the entire front of the canopy. Or so I believe - that's what it looks like to me.
  14. Another trick that you can use is to mount it on a base, drill a couple of holes in the base under the nosewheels, then loop some/invisible thread/whatever around the axles and knot the threads underneath the base. I suppose if it was really determinedly tail-heavy you might have to nail down the base!
  15. As a minor diversion, USAAF aircraft had red-outlined stars'n'bars too - it's a matter of chronology not services.
  16. Sorry, I don't accept that, and my eyes are pretty old. In any different-scale kits the smallest part available is the same size. It won't be the same part - the larger scale kit has more parts and equipment that comes as a single piece in 1/72 will be split into several pieces in 1/48. This is because the larger scale allows this - the size of the smallest part is driven by the moulding limitations not the scale. Yes, I know there are older kits where this wasn't true, the Airfix 1/48 Spitfire V for example, but it is nowadays and has been for a while. And if your eyes don't allow you to see the joins clearly, it doesn't matter what scale you're using. After all, there are a wide range of optical aids available.
  17. Agreed about the censor, but there are enough very clear photos of B.Mk.Vs in Oughton's book to rule it out in their case. Not necessarily all. I'd work on the assumption that if at least one aerial is visible in the existing photo, then the censor will not have removed any others. One out, all out! Some CC Liberator photos do show something below the pitots, but none I've seen are convincingly these forward-raked aerials. I agree that the photos of AM929 do look rather as if it does have the side fuselage poles, but not clearly.
  18. A number of the engine conversions are already available, and I'm sure more are coming; but depending upon which North Star you want to do, there's rather more to it. See http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/index.php?act=SC&c=437557
  19. There are a number of photos of GR Mk.Vs with the nose Yagi aerial and no visible aerials on the rear fuselage or wing. What may be relevant is the thread on this site dealing with the Beaufighter Mk.X, which shows two thin aerials, angled forward, on the nose of the Beaufighter, together with the Yagi. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234988982-beaufighter-tfx-wing-armament-question/ This is described as an ASV fit. It appears likely to me that this is the fit on the Liberator, although I've been unable to make out the thin aerials on the nose in the photos - they aren't always particularly visible on the Beaufighter either. If AM929 was, as claimed, fitted with "modified ASV" then this could be it. Alternatively, it could have had the full fit which was then replaced by this later device.
  20. That's a nice little beast. Did Ocidental release many subjects in this scale? Or is it someone else's tooling?
  21. Yes, but be careful because existing aircraft may not have been painted in their original colours.
  22. The text says "modified ASV Mk.II radar" but doesn't define that. Clearly the dorsal masts are missing, but I can't see the others apart from the nose and (maybe) the wing-mounted ones.
  23. There's a simple answer to the Hawk matter. Anything with Red Arrows on it sells. Enthusiasts can always make the option that comes, or buy specialist transfers. The continued existence of that bad old P-51 is testimony to the lack of information in the mass market. It's a Mustang, it'll sell. And no doubt any kid will be happy enough with it on his shelf. Yes, it would be possible to tool a much better new Mustang, or just repackage an Italeri one (or any other of your choice). But that would cost more money than taking the old mould off the shelf, and Revell are need to make profits. Satisfying enthusiasts with new tools is clearly considered, judging from their range, but not seen as the highest priority. Getting down to the nitty gritty, do we really need a new P-51D anyway? Or can we get good ones elsewhere, and let Revell spend new tooling money on some kit that isn't already widely available? Personally, Revell have got more money from me for their Halifaxes than they ever would have done for a P-51D. Shame they bollixed those, but it happens. So the aftermarket suppliers also made more money from the Revell Halifax than they would have done from a P-51D. Gains all round. Is there really anything to be said in favour? OK, if I hadn't bought two Halifaxes, each of which required much extra work, I'd have finished long ago and been back at the hobby shop much sooner! But I still wouldn't have bought P-51s.
  24. I've made my share or more, but whereas it had a nice fuselage there were a number of faults with the wing, Tip shape, aileron size, and something very odd with the wing root - which led, I suspect, to the too-thick chord of the awful Mk.Vc wing from the Dark Ages. The Mk.Vb was considerably inferior to the Mk.I produced very shortly afterwards, to a perhaps surprising extent. Without rose tinted nostalgia, it really doesn't look good compared with more recent kits.
  25. 16 sq.m is 172.2 sq.ft 16.4 sq.m is 176.5 sq.ft One point to bear in mind is that for aerodynamic calculations Messerchmitt may well have used a reference value for the wing area that may not equal the "actual", which itself can be measured in different ways. Is the area under the fuselage calculated from the extended leading and trailing edges or by parallel lines drawn at the wing root chord? Given the small difference originally quoted for the E and the F wing (just over 1%), the aerodynamics office may not have altered the reference value in their calculations but let any difference fall out of the calculations for the aerodynamic coefficients. Going back to Vol.1 of Radinger and Otto (actually Radinger and Shick for this volume) they give 16 sq.m for the wing area of the Bf109B and 16.4 sq.m for the Bf109C/D and for the E. The wing loading and weight figures they provide for the F in Vol. 2 give a wing area of 16 sq.m. However, I think the wing loading numbers are really what you want.
×
×
  • Create New...