Jump to content
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. :)

Homebee

1/72 - Short Sunderland Mk.V by Special Hobby - box art+moulds+sprues pics+decals+schemes - release April 2019

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Wez said:

Like the decal sheet.

 

@LDSModeller  what does this WIP of a test shot tell you?

Well .... Looks like a Sunderland if that's what people want??

 

Few comments

1) Not all Mk V/MR5's had the indented mooring divots in fuselage, some had push out push

    in type, so you would not see them, this limits your build potential????

2) If you want to build Post WWII Mk V's/MR5's  then the Rear Entry hatch is missing the cut out panels

    for the crash ax and fire extinguisher

24369a18-1eb2-4935-8b68-015e8c09f2b8.jpg

Interior

134da079-1d18-4e38-914b-be0e6f907b1f.jpg

 

You can see the Plexi glass cutouts in this photo, which also shows the Beam Hatch missing in the model

build in link, as well as modeller has three portholes when there are only two

6e0bd9a9-d39b-45ec-8d92-0d235cfc4d2e.jpg

 

3) Can't see Flare chute Starboard side aft of rear hatch

dabf3d34-ffa4-4512-81a9-13ae8acdef6e.jpg

b47adae6-2820-4427-8734-1fc72cf14df6.jpg

 

From Interior

be843be1-b5c9-4c44-967f-3c0a70f2f1d6.jpg

 

The model's rear Turret well/fairing seems too short/shallow for FN4B Mk 2 Turret

7cd3c52f-6d40-4f51-97d1-d8bc776ad35c.jpg

 

I would be interested as to what the diameter of the Opening Portholes is on model?

In 1:1 scale the opening is 35cm which is 4.86mm in 1/72

7fcfe07b-3399-4a52-a714-4ce42d0455f6.jpg

 

Be interested how they plan to mount the R1830 engines to the Firewall and what the

Cowling looks like, Mk V/MR5 and Mk III are different (whole 1 size fits all thing I guess)

There are other things like the flight deck (not shown) and upper hatch is in wrong place,

Do they include the hatch - if they do, how do they tell you to display it open?

 

Just some comments, some might find petty..............

 

Regards

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mick b said:

Thing is; when a model is sat on your shelf or a table at a model show or even a competition table does it really matter how accurate say a PE interior is given that nobody really cares or is knowledgeable to know otherwise but the builder has had the satisfaction of using said PE to refine his model however accurate and only you and a few other experts will know any better?

 

Mike

Modellers can build their Sunderland any way they want, fictitious or otherwise

 

Have you visited the forums and read the amount of posts asking how accurate the Italeri

Sunderland is? I guarantee same will happen with the SH Mk V. Modellers want to be "Accurate".

Over the years I have read magazines/web builds with the modeller stating things like "This really

adds accuracy or this is accurate, when you can tell they wouldn't even know what a real Sunderland looks

like.

 

Here in New Zealand the Italeri Sunderland's sell for between 80-100NZD - Why would I personally want

to build my Sunderland with say the Eduard Exterior set, when every photo I have seen in a Sunderland

book or seen on the real aircraft looks nothing like Eduard portray. The Bomb bay tracks aren't even real

in portrayal, because unless the bomb trucks are out under the wing the whole thing is seal;ed off with

metal strips

 

Partially open/closed

6be1e68e-d230-45b2-8f82-256f8ff1a907.jpg

 

Fully closed

980eeff8-49ce-4768-9936-3d7e8b02e833.jpg

 

Modellers like to portray Depth Charges hanging out on Beached Sunderland's, when in

reality, Depth Charges and other ordnance was removed before beaching.

Build how you want, I'm simply putting it out there to help modellers who want to be

"Accurate", be informed.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes I am well aware of the shortcomings in the Italeri Sunderlands and I have bought both the MK1 and III versions as it is one of my favourite aeroplanes of all time and I will endeavour to produce as accurate a model as I can given the models and aftermarket spares currently available and I welcome your posts regarding areas that need addressing but as I would like a Sunderland on my shelf I will not postpone buying such a kit as by the time a truly accurate model appears that has no faults or shortcomings whatsoever inherent due to the restrictions of cost and manufacturing processes, as I will surely be six foot under by then?

 

Agreed the kits are expensive hence I waited until they were offered considerably cheaper on eBay and recently half price in a local hobby craft shop.

 

I have the white ensign PE set, what is your opinion on that? 

 

Regards 

 

Mike

Edited by mick b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mick b said:

I have the white ensign PE set, what is your opinion on that? 

The White Ensign Flight deck is one the nicer sets, I really like their rendition

of the Sunderland seat frames. Though exit/entry galley way are more steps than stairs.

if you were not planning on leaving the main bow hatch open no big deal.

The Flight deck is more fit for a late production Mk III/IIIa or even a Mk V

In looking at it (un-built) and with builds I have seen, it has the Flight Engineers Atrodome Access ladder

(I kid you not, that's it's real name (from manual)), which was only found on Mk I/II and possibly early Mk III

Sunderland's, as in photo below (from IWM ). You can see it stowed and my red addition deployed

 

f1c9d02d-76f7-487e-8871-33d6ce1d7eee.jpg

 

Later Sunderland Mk's didn't have this, as below (Mk V/MR5) retaining only the stand which folds out

d8f83c05-7439-4d5d-9ac7-a9b3bcc5dec3.jpg

4bfdc3e9-a9b9-4594-966f-aaf56cd0379c.jpg

 

The wireless semi bulkhead is missing some of the rudimentary items from the front, such as The depth

Charge selector (Mickey Mouse), Fire extinguisher, engine crank handles etc

The rest of the station though is pretty much spot on

I have seen at least one build, where the builder has stuck the WAG's seat/back armour half way up the panel behind

Whether that is the way White Ensign shows or modellers fault ? Below in photo you can see the seat mounted to Main spar

2b683b13-2e81-4adb-b0e4-3aa16744c688.jpg

d493531f-8a86-4205-b1cf-b83dc3d0a7f9.jpg

 

The only thing missing form the White Ensign flight deck is the ASV Station/curtains behind second pilots seat

3f016acb-875e-489f-901c-561b06f8202d.jpg

 

The Bomb bay Set :hmmm:Looks nothing like an actual Sunderland Bomb Bay.

Again whether it's White Ensign's design or modellers fault, I have seen a number of builds where the

rear flight deck bulkhead (has the church door) is at some acute angle 30-40 degrees, when in real life

it is quite vertical

Flight Engineers position

d99adc47-bb84-4b9d-bd7d-ca590944ed55.jpg

 

Looking from Bomb bay roof side into flight deck

f856672e-1df6-49d5-b8d1-35600121a649.jpg

 

Hope that helps You?

 

Regards

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just caught up to the schemes provided, so they are all post war ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the RAF versions are from 205 Squadron, however does anyone know what units, bases and time period all these schemes belong to? 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SZ566 Z, and NJ117 (?) V were with 209 Sqn, '566 saw action during the Korean war.

PP117 4X W, 230 Sqn, guessing immediate post-war.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's what the 230 sqn option is?  They were out there at the time wearing 4X codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Procopius said:

Surprised there's not a Berlin Airlift aircraft.

 

9 hours ago, 71chally said:

Maybe that's what the 230 sqn option is?  They were out there at the time wearing 4X codes.

If you check out this quick You tube clip, there is  a Sunderland coded with 4X-D (though could be O),

another appears to be 4X-Y,  other 4X's not so easy to discern

Berlin Airlift Sunderland

 

According to "Ocean Sentinel",  PP117 seemed to have a unlucky life as it had it's fair share accidents,

mostly based at Pembroke. Serving with 228 Sqn, 201 Sqn and 230 Sqn

No mention of Serving in Berlin Airlift (that of course doesn't mean it didn't happen)

There is s nice aerial shot of PP117 on page 133 in same book circa 1949

 

Regards

 

Alan

Edited by LDSModeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 6:48 AM, Homebee said:

After my last post above, I continued looking at the other RAF aircraft in "Ocean Sentenial"

and noted the following:

 

Going by the photo in Ocean Sentenial, PP177 (4X-W) does not have the waterline Grey Lanolin Water Proofing

as depicted by SH artist

 

SZ566 Coded Z with 205 Sqn circa Aug 1950, then to 209 Sqn circa Jan 1953 was coded F also Z

and finally transferred to reserves 88 Sqn coded C - photo of SZ566 in Far East (page 142) shows

that the airframe did not have waterline Grey Lanolin Water Proofing as depicted by SH artist

 

Of NJ177 - no photo, but with 209 Sqn, Coded V,  was destroyed during a Japanese Gale while on

detachment in Japan circa Aug 1954

 

Hope that this is of help?

 

Regards

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 71chally said:

No, it's a Black & White Photo of PP117, but she's definitely looking worse for wear though.

 

Nice photos in those links - thanks for posting them

 

Thanks

 

Alan

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

×