1/32 Gamecock

[drdave]

Montex have a 1/32 resin Gloster Gamecock out soon!

[Rowan Broadbent]

Here's a link:

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/preview/Mo...k/Gamecock.html

My resistence to 1/32 weakens daily!

[hacker]

My resistence to 1/32 weakens daily!

As on who enjoys 1/72 for many years and still do l like 1/32 as you can do much more in that scale. Having said that alot can be done in 1/48 and 1/72 as many have proved. My advice try it but dont give up the other scale .

You are healed my son, to forth and walk amoung the choosen ones and have fun

hacker

[Iain Wyllie]

Here's a link:

<a href="http://www.largescaleplanes.com/preview/Mo...k/Gamecock.html" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.largescaleplanes.com/preview/Mo...k/Gamecock.html" target="_blank">http://www.largescaleplanes.com/preview/Mo...k/Gamecock.html</a></a>

My resistence to 1/32 weakens daily!

I was looking forward to this one but that engine............it really is poor; the cylinder fins are grossly thick and about half as many as there should be. They are also too small in diameter which makes the engine look a bit weedy, like a WW1 rotary. In any case the versions of Jupiter fitted to Gamecocks had cylinder fins which tapered in diameter, getting larger towards the cylinder head. It wouldn't be so bad if you could get a replacement engine from Vector but, sadly, they don't do one..yet.

In the colour photos, the steel tubular bracing of the fuselage side members is painted to represent wood - they should be black and much smaller in diameter.

All in all I had hoped for better research and detailing. The cord binding on the control column grip, for instance, is more like cooling fins and in this scale, unnecessary. The seat is incorrect, too, as are other details.

Still, with a new engine and a bit of tidying up, it could look very good but it's just a pity that the research had not been a bit more thorough. It will also be OK for someone who is not too concerned with 100% accuracy who simply wants an inter war biplane in 1/32 and prepared to pay the asking price but for the builder wanting an accurate scale model of a Gamecock. extra work will be required.

[Rowan Broadbent]

I was looking forward to this one but that engine............it really is poor; the cylinder fins are grossly thick and about half as many as there should be. They are also too small in diameter which makes the engine look a bit weedy, like a WW1 rotary. In any case the versions of Jupiter fitted to Gamecocks had cylinder fins which tapered in diameter, getting larger towards the cylinder head. It wouldn't be so bad if you could get a replacement engine from Vector but, sadly, they don't do one..yet.

In the colour photos, the steel tubular bracing of the fuselage side members is painted to represent wood - they should be black and much smaller in diameter.

All in all I had hoped for better research and detailing. The cord binding on the control column grip, for instance, is more like cooling fins and in this scale, unnecessary. The seat is incorrect, too, as are other details.

Still, with a new engine and a bit of tidying up, it could look very good but it's just a pity that the research had not been a bit more thorough. It will also be OK for someone who is not too concerned with 100% accuracy who simply wants an inter war biplane in 1/32 and prepared to pay the asking price but for the builder wanting an accurate scale model of a Gamecock. extra work will be required.

Agreed that the engine could be better, but the Gamecock was of wooden construction - Spruce and Ash for the fuselage structure. Could you elucidate about the "other details" which you say are wrong?

I haven't seen it in the flesh, but the photos look pretty good to me.

[Iain Wyllie]

Agreed that the engine could be better, but the Gamecock was of wooden construction - Spruce and Ash for the fuselage structure. Could you elucidate about the "other details" which you say are wrong?

I haven't seen it in the flesh, but the photos look pretty good to me.

The engine is unusable if you want an accurate model. The least that needs to be done is to make a new set of cylinders with the correct number and diameter of fins, tapering in diameter to the cylinder head. If you go with the kit engine, then you will hardly want to do the other corrections.

Regarding the fuselage, the wooden structure is incorrectly represented insofar as the bulkheads are not the correct shape. In the photo posted, you can see that the bulkheads are cut from 1" plywood and are not simply vertical members of the side frames. You can also see the tubular members to which I referred - note that these are not broom handles butting against the side members as in the kit but various diameters of steel tubing, also that they pass through the cutout in the side of the bulkhead. There are other errors such as the diagonal bracing in the wrong place in the bay forward of the instrument panel, the taper at the ends of the exhaust in side view were actually caused by the pipes being flattened to a fishtail, i.e. they were square ended in plan view. Some things would be easy to improve, such as cocking handles on the machine guns for example.

It would take too long to go through the whole thing and in all probability, more things would be noticed during assembly and, as I said, a lot of this is not going to bother the kit assembler who will be happy enough building it OOB.

I have had a look at photos of their Fury patterns and it didn't take long to see that the nose is wrong. It has great bulbous fairings like blisters over the front end of the rocker box covers - these were simply fairings necessitated by the streamlined nose, so the top of the fairings are horizontal to clear the covers. The nose itself seems to be a little on the fat side.

These two models seem to be based on Alfred Grainger drawings as they exhibit the same errors as the drawings. It is a pity as there are sources of information that would allow superb kits to be produced. I have emailed Montex about the errors and offered help but, as I have contacted them before with no result, I am not holding my breath.

Iain