LDSModeller Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 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 Interior 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 3) Can't see Flare chute Starboard side aft of rear hatch From Interior The model's rear Turret well/fairing seems too short/shallow for FN4B Mk 2 Turret 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 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSModeller Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 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 Fully closed 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 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick b Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 (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 March 7, 2019 by mick b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSModeller Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 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 Later Sunderland Mk's didn't have this, as below (Mk V/MR5) retaining only the stand which folds out 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 The only thing missing form the White Ensign flight deck is the ASV Station/curtains behind second pilots seat The Bomb bay Set 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 Looking from Bomb bay roof side into flight deck Hope that helps You? Regards Alan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick b Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Great thank you for the info, very useful. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 Schemes - ref. SH72162 - Short Sunderland Mk.V Source: http://www.specialhobby.net/2019/03/sh72162-sunderland-mkv-nahled-kamuflazi.html V.P. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 I just caught up to the schemes provided, so they are all post war ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Leader Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Surprised there's not a Berlin Airlift aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Maybe that's what the 230 sqn option is? They were out there at the time wearing 4X codes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSModeller Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (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 March 13, 2019 by LDSModeller 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSModeller Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 On 3/13/2019 at 6:48 AM, Homebee said: Source: http://www.specialhobby.net/2019/03/sh72162-sunderland-mkv-nahled-kamuflazi.html 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 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 11 hours ago, LDSModeller said: There is s nice aerial shot of PP117 on page 133 in same book circa 1949 Regards Alan Is that the nice Charles E Brown colour photo? ...just seen these of 4X W at Lake Wansee, that's not to say it is definitely PP117 of course - scroll down for the pics https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flyingpioneers.com%2Fpixlg%2Fm04855.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpast-to-present.com%2FM04855&docid=RxEuWe5DlhcQHM&tbnid=9npTsYTYwD7gLM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiYmJiNwIHhAhWSlxQKHdFhCowQMwhEKAMwAw..i&w=900&h=632&bih=625&biw=1366&q=sunderland berlin airlift&ved=0ahUKEwiYmJiNwIHhAhWSlxQKHdFhCowQMwhEKAMwAw&iact=mrc&uact=8 http://usgerrelations.traces.org/BerlinAirlift.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSModeller Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 12 hours ago, 71chally said: Is that the nice Charles E Brown colour photo? ...just seen these of 4X W at Lake Wansee, that's not to say it is definitely PP117 of course - scroll down for the pics https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flyingpioneers.com%2Fpixlg%2Fm04855.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpast-to-present.com%2FM04855&docid=RxEuWe5DlhcQHM&tbnid=9npTsYTYwD7gLM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiYmJiNwIHhAhWSlxQKHdFhCowQMwhEKAMwAw..i&w=900&h=632&bih=625&biw=1366&q=sunderland berlin airlift&ved=0ahUKEwiYmJiNwIHhAhWSlxQKHdFhCowQMwhEKAMwAw&iact=mrc&uact=8 http://usgerrelations.traces.org/BerlinAirlift.html 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted March 29, 2019 Author Share Posted March 29, 2019 Ready for release. Source: https://www.facebook.com/specialhobby/posts/632240777216286 V.P. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Great! Looks like a 'proper' box too, not an end-opener! Edge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted April 7, 2019 Author Share Posted April 7, 2019 Released - SH72162 - Short Sunderland Mk. V Source: https://www.specialhobby.eu/en/our-own-production/special-hobby/short-sunderland-mk-v.html V.P. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Looks there are some build issues with this kit as can be seen here. https://ipmsnymburk.com/forum/viewtema.php?ID_tema=40445&page=&idp=&idc_d= Not in English but the pictures tell the story. Cheers, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSModeller Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Basilisk said: Looks there are some build issues with this kit as can be seen here. https://ipmsnymburk.com/forum/viewtema.php?ID_tema=40445&page=&idp=&idc_d= Not in English but the pictures tell the story. Cheers, Peter Would love to know what the diameter of the Portholes are, some appear too large especially along the lower fuselage. As an FYI, the Mk V didn't have bunks and crew table in the Bomb bay, those were for the Mk I/II only and only by special order from Shorts - someone screwed up there? The other issue is that the Mk V/MR5 didn't have a full rear deck as kitted by SH, as in these photos of the real thing Regards Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Well, it's obviously an unbuildable and monstrously inaccurate pile of dreck. Still, being the masochist I am, I will no doubt be buying one. Oh the horror... Best Regards, Jason 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichG Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 (edited) On 4/10/2019 at 5:25 AM, LDSModeller said: Mk V didn't have bunks and crew table in the Bomb bay, those were for the Mk I/II only and only by special order from Shorts - someone screwed up there? An interesting point, thanks Alan. Those of us used to our own "home English" acquire many new turns of phrase, and we get used to even more. But for most of us, some phrases just never sit right and I wonder if the term "screwed-up" used in this thread a few times about this kit, is one. I suspect to English speakers outside the UK (in Australia or NZ, and possibly the US... not sure), it simply means "made a mistake"; whereas to those of us in the UK the term does tend to imply something very much stronger along the lines of "to make a total mess of something," or "to completely ruin something". And as such has the potential to cause some strong reactions. Just sayin' .... another case of divided by a common language? 🤔 Rich Edited April 11, 2019 by RichG 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJP Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 I guess it works in both directions. I just spent a month in England and could never quite reconcile myself to the local abuse of the word "coffee". 😉 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gruffy Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 On 4/11/2019 at 1:18 PM, RJP said: I guess it works in both directions. I just spent a month in England and could never quite reconcile myself to the local abuse of the word "coffee". 😉 You think that’s bad? Try being a Briton who loves coffee not tea! The horror! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr T Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I drink both and it is possible to get good coffee, although rare. For home I buy coffee beans from an independent tea and coffee merchant. The worse coffee I have ever had is in the US, weak and no body. Back to the Sunderland, looks like some fit issues and parts in the wrong place or should not be their at all. Having said that, it is probably still better than the Airfix Mk3 and how much of the interior can be seen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now