Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Kwakou61

Airfix Sunderland

Recommended Posts

Decoman, thank you.

It has been done more often and it has its drawbacks. But perhaps it brings you some creative ideas? Try it and show it!

Jgrease, I can imagine. I hope to visit the RAF museum one day. Especially after seeing the great photo's above it must be a treat.

Alan, see my pm.

Scott, thanks very much for the interesting info!

It really brings such a modelling project so much more into perspective with all that background information. There is probably a story behind each model to tell that one often is not aware of. But I am all 'ears'. So please share everything you are willing to share.

Neal, thank you for the tip.

This is another possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott

So as not to hijack Rons thread, just a few comments

If I read your comments correctly, you seem to base the Sunderland turret procedure

on PBY/Canso/P2B-1/2 turret procedure. I'm not discounting your knowledge in this, but

in short, the Short Sunderland did not operate that way.

I could put the Sunderland in Rons photo as an exception rather than a rule if

it was a turret turned in -pilot preference- squadron preference....

I have photos of other Sunderlands (Mk V prototype) which has a covered in turret, which again

tells me that the turret was enclosed for a reason.

I have Pilots notes for the Short Sunderland and it gives direction as to procedure

pre take off/landing especially the bow turret, and nothing is mentioned about turret turning.

I have a pilots commentary written by a WWII Sunderland pilot, who again walks through the pre-take/landing

procedure and again nothing remotely in respect to turret turning.

I have personally seen an in Service Short Sunderland landing/take off and I assure you the turret was not turned

Finally a picture paints a thousand word a photo note the picture is a Canadian Sunderland, more Sundys at the top

Short Sunderlands

Kind regards

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more on the turrets issue.

Just to bother..

From a modellers' point of view these kind of details are important, for me it is anyway. So besides absorbing you guys'information I've done some research myself too, some time ago already before even buying the kit.

I have downloaded quite some photo's (amazing what can be found on the internet nowadays) and read some texts. This is what I've learned so far and please correct me if I'm wrong;

The transition from 'old' style nose turret (with single gun) to 'new' style (double gun) happened during the Sunderland Mk III timeframe.

Aircraft with old radar installation with antenna arrays is called a Sunderland Mk III, and with new radar with large fairings under the wings a Mk IIIA.

Now, there are texts that state that the Mk III and Mk IIIA can also be ditinguished by the turrets. Old turret Mk III and new turret Mk IIIA. But to be honest I have some doubts about the latter.

I have one picture (among about 20 others) that shows an aircraft with both the antenna arrays and a new style nose turret. So in theory the aircraft in the top photo could have a new style turret.

The difference is often very hard to tell, especially on small photo's and when the typical 'bulge' of the new turret is turned away or towards the viewer.

However, I found some more features that enables determining which kind of turret is involved.

I've done some fiddling with photogrphs and below is a combined picture of the same aircraft as above, 2*U on the left, and 2*G (the Airfix Sunderland) on the right, sporting the old style turret.

If my old eyes are not deceiving me I see a somewhat downslope of the fairing behind the turret of 2*G (the turret on 2*U seems a little higher)

And 2*U seems to have a little more pronounced fairing over the top pivot point above the turret.

noseturrets.jpg

To make a long story short, my (ignorant) thoughts are;

Given that I think that Scott is right, and that the many scattered pictures of 2*U are in fact from one series of photographs taken at the same occasion. That perhaps the 'mystery' turret has been a mystery for only one day. And that the occasion is that the aircraft is perhaps just returning from some conversion factory with a new turret wrapped in some kind of protective cocoon? I could imagine that the turret is not yet operable and yet has to be unwrapped before further fittings (weapons) are made at base.

what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is. But I'm not familiar with microscale kristal klear and I can't live with oversized portholes ;)

Thanks for the tip though. I will keep it in mind for the next time.

Cheers,

Ron

Try PVA glue cause that is all Kristal Klear is

Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI Ron

Nice work on your model, had thought of doing similar on my build, but opetd for the tubing

Re Photos

I have Video of the cockpit but I don't think I have any actually panning rearward.

However I can post you some photos applicable to your Mark of Sunderland

On 1st pilots side (port) behind him is the radio station, this is what it looks like

from the rear Not a very good shot I'm afraid (Important note this for a MKV)

DSCF2788copy.jpg

Now it's important to know that the Mk III used the TR1154 Transmitter and R1155 receiver, and those boxy items show only their rear parts

at the the rear of the console (which is only some 40cm wide (about 5.5min 1/72))

Behind the second pilots postion in your version of the Mk III with the Yagi Aerials, is the ASV (Air Surface Vessel)II station.

This is looking at it from the operational side, but you could easily fabricate the area, it was attached to the back (in part) to the pilots seat

DSCF2785copy.jpg

One thing to consider is that this area had black out curtains which surrounded it so you(depending on landing/take off)

could add those which will hide material.

The same is true for the radio station, but only a side blackout curtain

Now if you wish to be accurate in the Mk III Instrument panel, I present this for you perusal (NOTE: this is off an RNZAF Mk III transport version)

1 Genuine Mk III Sunderland Inst panel

Sunderland Mk III Inst panel

I was going to save this until I sorted my build out but, you'll get there before me :lol:

As far as my build goes, yes still going, I am trying hard to complete a RNZAF P-51D for a group build on LSP, so if I concentrate

what little modelling time I get on one, then I should be back to the Sunderland shortly :lol:

I will go through my video material and if I find anything else, I'll post it for you

Hope that helps

Regards

Alan

is that the one from MOTAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try PVA glue cause that is all Kristal Klear is

Ted

Or use Humbrol Clearfix. It dries a lot clearer than PVA glue. Besides it is excellent for gluing canopies and PE too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the tips on PVA, clear and christal clear.

But I wonder, can it be scribed?

Because I didn't want to just fill in the holes but also downsize the circles and I want something of a panel line between opaque and clear. That looks better I think.

The sheet does give a lot of work though. Still busy making it flush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks guys for the tips on PVA, clear and christal clear.

But I wonder, can it be scribed?

Because I didn't want to just fill in the holes but also downsize the circles and I want something of a panel line between opaque and clear. That looks better I think.

The sheet does give a lot of work though. Still busy making it flush.

This might save you a bit of trouble, but it will cost. FWIW, I'm in the same boat, but I will bite the bullet, on this...

I noticed by your initial post that you had the (original) Aviaeology decal sheet for RCAF Sunderland's. I don't know if you've ever been on the Aviaeology site, but he's re-done a number of his sheets to include new information, new options, etc., as well as to just improve the product. One of the subjects he's re-done, is the sheet for the Sunderland. (http://aviaeology.com/aod004-rcaf-sunderlands.html)

Quoting from the description text "The 1/72 scale set also includes a sufficient number of printed white rings for use as a quick fix to hide the overly large portholes present in the old Airfix kit". I know that line got me to consider getting this release. I can always use the original sheet for 'spares just in case'.

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is that the one from MOTAT?

Hi Ted

Yes it is, NZ4115 "Q" for Queenie

Regars

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This might save you a bit of trouble, but it will cost. FWIW, I'm in the same boat, but I will bite the bullet, on this...

I noticed by your initial post that you had the (original) Aviaeology decal sheet for RCAF Sunderland's. I don't know if you've ever been on the Aviaeology site, but he's re-done a number of his sheets to include new information, new options, etc., as well as to just improve the product. One of the subjects he's re-done, is the sheet for the Sunderland. (http://aviaeology.com/aod004-rcaf-sunderlands.html)

Quoting from the description text "The 1/72 scale set also includes a sufficient number of printed white rings for use as a quick fix to hide the overly large portholes present in the old Airfix kit". I know that line got me to consider getting this release. I can always use the original sheet for 'spares just in case'.

Scott

This absolutely would have been a fine solution!

Yes I saw it too. but the last time I visited the site the old sets were sold out and the new sets were pending. One never knows how long that takes so I was happy to find an old set elesewhere. But it appears that I should have waited a little longer..

Get it while you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some more on the turrets issue.

Just to bother..

From a modellers' point of view these kind of details are important, for me it is anyway. So besides absorbing you guys'information I've done some research myself too, some time ago already before even buying the kit.

I have downloaded quite some photo's (amazing what can be found on the internet nowadays) and read some texts. This is what I've learned so far and please correct me if I'm wrong;

The transition from 'old' style nose turret (with single gun) to 'new' style (double gun) happened during the Sunderland Mk III timeframe.

Aircraft with old radar installation with antenna arrays is called a Sunderland Mk III, and with new radar with large fairings under the wings a Mk IIIA.

Now, there are texts that state that the Mk III and Mk IIIA can also be ditinguished by the turrets. Old turret Mk III and new turret Mk IIIA. But to be honest I have some doubts about the latter.

I have one picture (among about 20 others) that shows an aircraft with both the antenna arrays and a new style nose turret. So in theory the aircraft in the top photo could have a new style turret.

The difference is often very hard to tell, especially on small photo's and when the typical 'bulge' of the new turret is turned away or towards the viewer.

However, I found some more features that enables determining which kind of turret is involved.

I've done some fiddling with photogrphs and below is a combined picture of the same aircraft as above, 2*U on the left, and 2*G (the Airfix Sunderland) on the right, sporting the old style turret.

If my old eyes are not deceiving me I see a somewhat downslope of the fairing behind the turret of 2*G (the turret on 2*U seems a little higher)

And 2*U seems to have a little more pronounced fairing over the top pivot point above the turret.

noseturrets.jpg

To make a long story short, my (ignorant) thoughts are;

Given that I think that Scott is right, and that the many scattered pictures of 2*U are in fact from one series of photographs taken at the same occasion. That perhaps the 'mystery' turret has been a mystery for only one day. And that the occasion is that the aircraft is perhaps just returning from some conversion factory with a new turret wrapped in some kind of protective cocoon? I could imagine that the turret is not yet operable and yet has to be unwrapped before further fittings (weapons) are made at base.

what do you think?

Hi Ron

The Mk IIIa can be recognised essentially by the change in bow turret glazing, ASVIII blisters under

the wings, but also by the two portholes in the bomb bay doors as found in Mk V's

The new FN glazing did have a an altered fairing in top as in this photo

1c26c14b.jpg

Close up of the Turret

Sundybow100_1167copy.jpg

The Mk III in your photo may well be the Shorts MkIII/V prototype as in ths photo

Mk III/V prototype

This is the Mk V prototype -notice the turret, it's not turned (you can't on the new glazing) it's covered in

either paint or a cladding

Mk V prototype

In the pilots commentary I have, writtten by a WWII Sunderland pilot, he makes mention that a number of Mk III's in the UK

had conversions done to replace the single turret to a twin. Because his squadron (RAF 270) was in West Africa it

didn't happen to theirs. Any conversions would have been done at either one of the Shorts factories or at MU level.

You can find photos in books or the web of Mk I/II's etc at these sites overhauled in new paint jobs etc

One final comment on the turret turning in issue that I thought of (eventually), was the turrets would have a traversing mechanism

to prevent the turret turning and damaging the aircraft/guns. The upper turret traverse mechanism used to raise merry havoc for

the pilots as it tended to cause a severe yaw whilst flying.

Hope that helps

Alan

Edited by LDSModeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Alan, again!

This is most helpful. I just love this detailed background info! It gives so much more insight when staring at pictures of this aircraft.

The photo's are wonderful too. Especially the last one is very useful at the moment since I'm working on the nose section to try to get it a little into shape. The curves are very well shown in this picture. Thanks a lot!

I hope to really make some progress this weekend with the actual modelling. Work requires some attention too. So it will be snippets of modelling I'm afraid but the updates will come, sooner or later.

Cheers,

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small update.

sunderland03.jpg

The fuselage is inspected for for flaws in general shape with the aid of photo's.

And a little to my surprise there is not much wrong with the kit as it seems so far!

The part between wings and tailplane seems a tad too long. But that is so little that it could also be a measuring fault. And considering the amount of work and the negligible effect it will have on the model's look, it will not be corrected.

There are two things that I would like to have resolved though.

The curve behind the 'step' in the fuselage which is too strong. And the leading edge of the wing which should be more rounded.(marked in the picture)

Furthermore does the kit need a considerable amount of finetuning to enhance the shape. So far the upper nose part and the end of the tail have been 'squeezed' a little by sanding off some material from the mating surfaces. Also clear inserts have been placed for the portholes on top and a small window at the front.

What will be done next is final conversion work on the nose part and a lot more sanding..

Regards,

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see it taking shape Ron. Perhaps add a bit of miliput to the leading edges once the wings are on to 'round' them more.

Could you squeeze the nose in a bit more using hot water to soften the plastic then pressing with your fingers ? I did this with some success on the tail of a Tristar to get a more pronounced S bend. Might need to put some kind of support inside to squeeze against where you don't want it to pinch in. Again, miliput could be used here.

Enjoying your build :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great to see it taking shape Ron. Perhaps add a bit of miliput to the leading edges once the wings are on to 'round' them more.

Could you squeeze the nose in a bit more using hot water to soften the plastic then pressing with your fingers ? I did this with some success on the tail of a Tristar to get a more pronounced S bend. Might need to put some kind of support inside to squeeze against where you don't want it to pinch in. Again, miliput could be used here.

Enjoying your build :)

Thanks Neil.

This Miliput stuff I really should try to get my hands on soon. I have seen you guys do miracles with it. And your suggestion to use it for the wings would be a good opportunity to try it myself!

As for the squeezing, it is already done but not literally. Well, actually it is done literally when the gap between the mating surfaces was closed. But no material was deformed locally. So it is only 'squeezed' compared to the original kit layout, if you know what I mean.. :fraidnot:

It is nice to know that you enjoy my craftings. As I do yours. Lets keep them coming!

Cheers,

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A small update.

sunderland03.jpg

The fuselage is inspected for for flaws in general shape with the aid of photo's.

And a little to my surprise there is not much wrong with the kit as it seems so far!

The part between wings and tailplane seems a tad too long. But that is so little that it could also be a measuring fault. And considering the amount of work and the negligible effect it will have on the model's look, it will not be corrected.

There are two things that I would like to have resolved though.

The curve behind the 'step' in the fuselage which is too strong. And the leading edge of the wing which should be more rounded.(marked in the picture)

Furthermore does the kit need a considerable amount of finetuning to enhance the shape. So far the upper nose part and the end of the tail have been 'squeezed' a little by sanding off some material from the mating surfaces. Also clear inserts have been placed for the portholes on top and a small window at the front.

What will be done next is final conversion work on the nose part and a lot more sanding..

Regards,

ron

Hi Ron

The Leading edge does have the wrong aerofoil shape, you can see in this photo that it's a rounded profile,

and the hull step does have too high a curve on the model, as in the photo

100_1161copy1-1.jpg

QQuuenieportwing2copy.jpg

Just remember if you do the leading edge, you will have to attend to the trailing edge also

Interesting way you have dealt with the transparencies, don't forget that if you scribe in the portholes in, you will need

to scribe two concentric circles for the portholes which do open (forward o the bomb bay only) and only certain ports open

47adfbb7.jpg

Not sure what you mean by 'squeezing"? Exactly which parts are you referring to?

Regards

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much again Alan!

I think you're absolutely right. The trailing edge should not be forgotten either. A model looks so much better with a sharp trailing edge. I believe I have yet to see a kit that has that right.

The concentric circles will be a challenge though.. I wonder if I can manage to scribe them really concentric. But it will be tried. Fortunately I have a good scribing template and your excellent photo's so the tools can't be blamed.

As for the squeezing I hope the picture below clarifies things a little.

Without removing material between the mating surfaces the nose part would look like the dotted line (exaggerated) But when material is removed were the red arrow points to, then the nose can be 'squeezed' to a more rounded arc. As I believe it should look like.

The same thing was done to the tail end in order to make it just as wide as the turret is, for a more natural transition.

sunderland04.jpg

It looks like Airfix had the kit constructed around the 'movable features' such as the ailerons, sliding turret and bomb cradles at the expense of accuracy. But the fun is IMHO to try to get it all into in shape again.

The kit also has very soft edges as can be seen in the picture. The corners between bottom and sidewalls should be as sharp as knives. This is where the sandpaper and elbow grease comes in. .

So I'm not quite finished yet.

Cheers!

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Ron

The Mk IIIa can be recognised essentially by the change in bow turret glazing, ASVIII blisters under

the wings, but also by the two portholes in the bomb bay doors as found in Mk V's

For every rule, there's an exception.

Page 118 in the book "RCAF Squadrons and Aircraft" (S. Kostenuk & J. Griffin) shows 3*D, s/n ML825; a Mk.III of 432 Sqn ... moored on the water, clearly showing the updated twin Browning .303 nose turret. 4 fixed forward firing bow guns, ASV Mk.IVc blisters under the wings and three portholes in the bombay doors.

Still ... in the "AviaDossier 1 - Canadian Aircraft of WWII" (http://aviaeology.com/aad001-aviadossier-1-canadian-aircraft-of-wwii.html), there's a maintenance photo showing several 422 Sqn. Sunderlands on pg.17. Two are featured prominately in the foreground ... Mk.IIIa (no sqn code, but a/c ID of "V", s/n ML883) and a Mk.III (no codes, s/n ML857). ML883 is outfitted identical to ML825, as described above ... while ML857 is basically the same configuration as the Airfix kit. What is interesting about this photo is that while identically fitted as per ML825, ML883 does has the two portholes in the bombay doors.

I guess this only proves the old addage - always consult your photos!

I must say, this thread is causing me to take a 2nd look at my own future build for things I may have missed. :huh:

Scott

Edited by Scott Hemsley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For every rule, there's an exception.

Page 118 in the book "RCAF Squadrons and Aircraft" (S. Kostenuk & J. Griffin) shows 3*D, s/n ML825; a Mk.III of 432 Sqn ... moored on the water, clearly showing the updated twin Browning .303 nose turret. 4 fixed forward firing bow guns, ASV Mk.IVc blisters under the wings and three portholes in the bombay doors.

I don't think anyone would disagree

Here in these two links, you will find a Mk IIIa with a a three Porthole Bomb bay door and the next

link with a two porthole door

Mk IIIa Three porthole door

Mk IIIa with two porthole door

You will find anomolies, generally though the majority of Mk IIIa's will be the latter photo.

Other anomolies

Very early Mk I's had three portholes on the starboard side upper deck, later ones had two

Many Mk II's had three portholes aft of the bomb bay, yet some had only two

Early in WWII circa 1939-40 Sunderland guns were not removed while on the water, covers were placed over them to protect them (Mk I/II's)

Not all Mk III's had the x4 forward firing bow guns - 270 Squadron and 490 Squadron Sunderlands (based W. Africa)

did not have them, generally only UK (Britain) based Sunderlands had them.

Some Mk III's had the upper ventral turret removed when the threat of the maruading Ju 88 became less,

while others kept them.

You find that 270 squadron Sunderlands in West Africa didn't have them because the Luftwaffe threat was perceived by

the RAF at that time to be minimal.

Some Sunderland Mk III's had the full "Porcupine" exhaust, while others had only a stub.

Most Short sunderlands carried x8 250lb Depth charges, on occasion some carried x4 450lb depth charges

Some Australian Mk III's carried a galley gun, in his book "Fly West", Ivan Southall made mention of these in

the Sunderland Mk III he flew.

Photos won't always tell you SOP's either

Sunderlands when on the water were required (by maritime law) to have a mast mounted upper fuselage with a beacon,

yet you wil find some photos with and some without.

Standard SOP for take off and landing was to remove the upper hatch/astro dome, in case the crew was required to

egress the aircraft. Yet you will see photos of a Sunderland taking off/landing with the hatch in place.

(many/if not all 1st pilots AFAIK, had their crews on the flight deck during takeoff/landing for this reason) The Sunderland

had a weak spot, being the bow section which could crumple up, if a take off/landing went askew.

Regards

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you very much again Alan!

I think you're absolutely right. The trailing edge should not be forgotten either. A model looks so much better with a sharp trailing edge. I believe I have yet to see a kit that has that right.

The concentric circles will be a challenge though.. I wonder if I can manage to scribe them really concentric. But it will be tried. Fortunately I have a good scribing template and your excellent photo's so the tools can't be blamed.

As for the squeezing I hope the picture below clarifies things a little.

Without removing material between the mating surfaces the nose part would look like the dotted line (exaggerated) But when material is removed were the red arrow points to, then the nose can be 'squeezed' to a more rounded arc. As I believe it should look like.

The same thing was done to the tail end in order to make it just as wide as the turret is, for a more natural transition.

sunderland04.jpg

It looks like Airfix had the kit constructed around the 'movable features' such as the ailerons, sliding turret and bomb cradles at the expense of accuracy. But the fun is IMHO to try to get it all into in shape again.

The kit also has very soft edges as can be seen in the picture. The corners between bottom and sidewalls should be as sharp as knives. This is where the sandpaper and elbow grease comes in. .

So I'm not quite finished yet.

Cheers!

Ron

Hi Ron

Looking good!!!!

to help you out here is a head on shot of a Mk III with it's turret retracted,

gives you a good view of what the shape is.

Warning image may cause weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth

Mk III Sunderland Bow

Another shot, this time, sans turret/housing,note this is a MKV, essentially still the same

Sunderland bow II

Edit: What mine looked like after a bit of sanding, still not quite right but will get there

102_0230.jpg

To help you out, stern shot sans turret again MkV, the V and III had same rear turrets

Sunderland stern

Hope that helps?

Regards

Alan

Edited by LDSModeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert, but I remember reading that US planes had NACA wing profiles that afaik showed the cross section for the wing. So I was thinking that the British used the same standard perhaps.

I found this webpage that might or might not be helpful: http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

The short sunderland is listed there, indicating "Goettingen 436 mod" for the wing root. On the top there is a list where this is shown to be: "Gottingen - the AV Gottingen aerodynamics research center in Germany"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil

Edited by Decoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am no expert, but I remember reading that US planes had NACA wing profiles that afaik showed the cross section for the wing. So I was thinking that the British used the same standard perhaps.

I found this webpage that might or might not be helpful: http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

The short sunderland is listed there, indicating "Goettingen 436 mod" for the wing root. On the top there is a list where this is shown to be: "Gottingen - the AV Gottingen aerodynamics research center in Germany"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil

Here's a plot of the original Göttingen 436:

OS0093_A.png

and of one mod of the above:

OS0093_A01.png

However, cross the info of the profile from several sources. I searched the profile for the Fairey Hendon and what turned up was nothing near reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow guys! What a load of information!

I'm not very knowledgeable about the Sunderland, but this thread is becoming a encyclopedia of it.. Good for the future Sunderland builders too.

Scott, I think you're going to be the one who builds the ultimate Sunderland. Thanks very much for the info.

Alan, excellent photo's of the bow and stern. Especially the factory shots are very useful. The one of the bow shows very well that the rivet arrays on the bottom of the Airfix kit should not be used as guide for rescribing. On the kit these lines are parallel with the centerline while they apparantly should follow the curves of the sides. Good to know!

Funny to see that your kit is moulded in grey plastic by the way. I'm sure the kit from my childhood was white, as is the one I'm building currently.

Another funny thing is that we seem to be at the same stage in building. But I have to confess that I cheated a little, since there is no interior in my kit yet..

Please tell me, what is the pin at the front for? I can't relate it to anything on photo's. Or is it a part of the interior?

Decoman and Carlos, great info, thanks a lot! These profiles could be printed and used as a template. Then guessing is no longer needed.

I'm not able to check it as I don't have any reliable source to compare with. (the kit part is not the first thing that crosses my mind)

But as soon as I get to that stage, I will try to find some.

Thanks jimbuna.

Are you contemplating to pick one from the stash too? Sure, go on..

Regards to all,

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CarLos is pointing out something very important, to not settle for one source where the result seem conspicuous in a negative way. The profiles shown here are flat on the bottom which seem odd to me.

I know there are free software that might be helpful in showing the profiles, which might be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...