Reggiane RE2002 Ariete - Italeri 1:48 - Completed and waiting for good pics!

[IPMS19]

- THat may explain why grafting a 2001 wing to the 2002 is so easy (in modeller point of view of course )

[fw190ddora]

your work really interesting, I wait for the final result (I hope that sooner or later Italeri put his hand to the mold and correct it ...)

[giemme]

Thanks everybody; just to make it clear, I'm not going to correct the fuselage, except, as I said earlier, for the fuselage spine (using the quickboost aftermarket). I'll try to fix the wings in some way - last proposal from Troy sounds the way to go, provided that the Classic Airframe RE2001 kit isn't easy to get nor a cheap one.

@fw190ddora: thank you for popping in. I very much doubt that Italeri would correct the mold, but you never know, let's live and see.

Ciao

[gingerbob]

Thanks everybody; just to make it clear, I'm not going to correct the fuselage...

Sure you're not

Well, I ducked back into the 'in Action' book, and it didn't really clear things up. They referred to a 'recontoured fuselage' on the Re.2001, but then they said that the Re.2000 prototype was converted to be the second Re.2001 prototype. Granted prototypes don't necessarily represent production configuration.

I confess that I didn't do a careful analysis of photographs- I'd rather let someone who knows more steer, and I'll just look at the scenery... The line drawings in the book aren't much help because each type is done in a different "style" in terms of panel lines, etc, so it is hard to tell what's different and what isn't. My real interest in the Reggianes is the Re.2000, primarily because it is such a "Seversky knock-off"! (Someday I want to do one of each in Swedish markings.) But of course I'm also always interested in encouraging someone to make life more difficult for themselves with a kit project... I mean, always interested in learning more about the subject.

bob

Edited June 19, 2014 by gingerbob

[tempestfan]

But of course I'm also always interested in encouraging someone to make life more difficult for themselves with a kit project... I mean, always interested in learning more about the subject.

bob

I second that. It's where progress for mankind derives from.

[giemme]

Ok, so I did it: last night, had dinner, had a good beer, had a half an hour rest on the sofa, and then ... tackled the wing thinning

I printed this pic (posted only for modelling purposes)

which is the best shot of the wing profile, scaled it and cut out a profile from an acetate sheet (I wasn't being very precise, I used it only for reference)

From the two pics above, one can see that it's almost impossible (at least with my abilities) to exactly replicate that profile with the kit wings, so the best I could do was:

thinning the lower wing by removing the black areas in the next two pics:

Here is the first one done, compared to the other (undone):

See the difference on the sides also: modified wing

Original wing:

And this is how both the upper wings seat:

Next was to trim the upper wings as per the black markings:

Again, I wasn't trying to be absolutely precise with those markings, I used them as references, started trimming a little then comparing and so on

Left wing trimmed:

Right wing:

Next would be trimming the wing root on the fuselage (again, black markings only for reference)

So, what do you guys think? Maybe from the pics it's not easy to see a huge difference, but I don't feel really comfortable going much beyond this point.

Any thoughts appreciated, as usual

Ciao

Edited June 20, 2014 by giemme

[gingerbob]

Thoughts:

In the final "now here's the wing" shots, it still looks thickish (rather than- uh oh, that looks awfully thin...) so I'd say you're safe!

With the very last shot, have you compared the proposed blackness to the actual subject? Another way of putting it is, will this mess up the apparent incidence or shape of the fillet? (Or will it improve it, perhaps?) Are you also then allowing the bottom part to come up a bit to compensate for the thinning? I'd want to be fairly confident in the sit before I committed myself on either top or bottom re-shaping at the root/fillet.

bob

[giemme]

Bob, I see your point. From the first picture I posted above and from another that is on Govi's book, my perception is that the real wing fillet is sitting much lower than the kit's one, so I tend to think that this way I'm improving it.

The key here is not allowing the bottom part to come up (I'll have to put spacers under the roots to do that) because, again looking at the first picture, it lays very flat compared to the bottom line of the fuselage in the wing area.

Then I might as well be totally mistaken, but that's what I can see from the pics I have.

As for the thickish look: you're right, but I'm confident this will improve a bit when I glue the wings together and refine them (especially the fillet); still, I might consider thinning down the upper wings a little more, even though this is the most critical job, because it involves rescribing and sanding, more rescribing and more sanding and so on.

Thanks for your comments

Ciao

[gingerbob]

Giving it another superficial look (couldn't find a photo that showed the kit's wing very well in profile, to judge the underside to fuselage) I think you're right. The bottom (at fuselage, stance of gear) seems approximately good, but comparing that last "blackened fillet" shot to the photo at the top of this page (or last, if this starts a new one!) does make it look like it needs to come down some- the top line seems about right, but there isn't much distance between the top line of the fillet and the wing surface. Unfortunate, because this is a bit more difficult, but I think it'll improve the look. Hopefully there's enough plastic there that you just need to sand away.

I'm not able to judge how well your thinned wing conforms to the real airfoil (do the trailing edges also need sharpening?) so don't take my "thickish" comment as suggestion that you need to take away more.

bob

[giemme]

The bottom (at fuselage, stance of gear) seems approximately good, but comparing that last "blackened fillet" shot to the photo at the top of this page (or last, if this starts a new one!) does make it look like it needs to come down some- the top line seems about right, but there isn't much distance between the top line of the fillet and the wing surface.

Bob, I'm not sure I completely understand you here. What are you referring to as the "top line"?

As for the thickish wing: it wasn't only your comment, the thought was in the back of my mind. But to thin it down more I'll have to work on a larger surface, moving towards the trailing edge - so to say. This would imply much more rescribing (panel lines and rivets) - well, much more than I care of - so, not sure I will.

As for the trailing edge: the fit between upper and lower wing isn't the best, so I'll probably have to thin this edge, regardless to the effective correspondence to the real one

Thanks again

Ciao

[gingerbob]

"Top line" - I was referring to the upper edge of the fillet, where it meets the fuselage proper.

I agree, I wouldn't want to sand down the surface of the wing!

Where's Troy?!

bob

Edited June 20, 2014 by gingerbob

[Troy Smith]

"Top line" - I was referring to the upper edge of the fillet, where it meets the fuselage proper.

I agree, I wouldn't want to sand down the surface of the wing!

Where's Troy?!

bob

trying to avoid spending hours hunting for pics and squinting at bits of kits!

The root thinning looks to be working well, though I would suggest some more sanding to the outer wing to wing tips, as this appears quite slim.

to be honest if I ever tackle this beast I think this will come out the box to play.... I used it once to sand back some resin casting block...made that very easy....

Right, I need to do something far less entertaining now...

T

[gingerbob]

Compare apparent depth of wing root fillet- I think these two images show it well:

[giemme]

trying to avoid spending hours hunting for pics and squinting at bits of kits!

The root thinning looks to be working well, though I would suggest some more sanding to the outer wing to wing tips, as this appears quite slim.

@Troy: I suppose you mean on the leading edge? I didn't touch it yet because there are a few bits towards the tip that are right in the way, and I'm still considering how to work on them.

@Bob: now I get It. Yes, full of plastic there, but not even close to a flat surface, so not very easy. I'll work on it bit by bit and see what comes out. Your other post shows another interesting area to work on, but that's too much for now, let's first sort the leading edge

Thanks guys

Ciao

[giemme]

Week end update; before going on with refining the wings, I decided it was time to close the fuselage halves.

All the bits in place:

I'm posing the flaps open (even if it's not entirely correct, because at rest they're normally closed, but the fit in closed position is, needless to say, awful), so I had to remove something

After Dremel, sanding and putting

Then I started working on the tail: added some bits of plastic to fill in post-surgery gaps

After sanding to shape, I put some putty on for refining

Same with the moving part

Top view with wings fitted (not glued)

I took this picture to compare with the following one, because it seems from here that the wing root fillet on the kit isn't that bad (source http://fotodiguerra.altervista.org/index.php )

Ciao

Edited June 23, 2014 by giemme

[gingerbob]

It also reveals a rather pudgy fuselage, so I guess you can relax about that! (and your photos make the kit fin look quite thick, but I don't know whether it is thicker than it ought to be. At any rate, I wouldn't worry about it!)

bob

[giemme]

Hi Bob;

Looks thick also from here ((source http://fotodiguerra....a.org/index.php ))

and here

Still, the kit's one might be thicker than the real one (I have no actual measures to compare with), but after sanding away the putty, that should improve a bit

Thanks

Ciao

Edited June 23, 2014 by giemme

[PlaStix]

Hi giemme

Your build is progressing very well. I have to say I am impressed at the amount of modifications you are having a go at with the wing etc. - serious model making skills being developed here!

Kind regards,

Stix

[giemme]

- serious model making skills being developed here!

Being developed: you are 100% right here, meaning that it's the first time I try some of the things I'm showing. See for instance the wings thinning, thanks to Troy here, or the "details with micro-drill holes" that I borrowed from your build.

I must say that BM Forum is of an invaluable help about this, because I found lots of tips and hints during the last few months and now I'm trying to use them myself.

Ciao

Edited June 23, 2014 by giemme

[Troy Smith]

Week end update; before going on with refining the wings, I decided it was time to close the fuselage halves.

All the bits in place:

I'm posing the flaps open (even if it's not entirely correct, because at rest they're normally closed, but the fit in closed position is, needless to say, awful), so I had to remove something

After Dremel, sanding and putting

Then I started working on the tail: added some bits of plastic to fill in post-surgery gaps

After sanding to shape, I put some putty on for refining

Same with the moving part

Top view with wings fitted (not glued)

I took this picture to compare with the following one, because it seems from here that the wing root fillet on the kit isn't that bad (source http://fotodiguerra.altervista.org/index.php )

Ciao

I think this photo is distorted, as if taken with a fish eye lens. note how bulbous the fuselage looks, and how small the tail. Accidental photo from a reconnaissance camera? It also makes the fuselage sides look curved, like the kit.

This shot, you can see the thick fuselage, but also the sides are straight, not a curve like the kit!

I posted it before, but the more I look the more useful detail appears. Note ailerons, [Frise type?] and tail and wheel well detail.

It also reveals a rather pudgy fuselage, so I guess you can relax about that! (and your photos make the kit fin look quite thick, but I don't know whether it is thicker than it ought to be. At any rate, I wouldn't worry about it!)

bob

If you look at the photo below, the cockpit section looks to have straight sides, and then is a cone back to the tail.

To fix the kit....looks like backing with plastic card and a lot of sanding!!!

Hi Bob;

Looks thick also from here ((source http://fotodiguerra....a.org/index.php ))

and here

Still, the kit's one might be thicker than the real one (I have no actual measures to compare with), but after sanding away the putty, that should improve a bit

Thanks

Ciao

Sterling work again GM. Been a very interesting build so far.

cheers

T

[giemme]

Thanks Troy;

I also notice, looking at your pic, that it looks like flaps are of a different shape compared to the kit ones, which are more like these

(source http://fotodiguerra....a.org/index.php )

Also the tail wheel surrounding panels have a different shape, again the kit ones being more or less similar to the last pic.

Maybe two different versions of the AC; what puzzles me more is how to reproduce the pointy tail cone. The kit one is way too thick, but it doesn't seem I have room enough to sharpen it without adding material (and going too long, sort of)

Ciao

Edited June 23, 2014 by giemme

[Troy Smith]

Hi GM

the plane showing the underside was for catapult operation, so may well be a different sub type, or have specific modifications?

a quick search shows up that the Re2000 were used

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10668

The pic i posted may be a Re2000? I have to confess, I don't know the differences!

right, from what i can gather, the Re2001 wing was different to the Re 2000, I'm presuming as the Re 2000 did not have self sealing fuel tanks and all the fuel was in the wing!

On the wiki page it mentions a redesign, but tlaks about spars etc, so, I'd not be surprised if the wing planform remained the same? The above picture is captioned as a Re2002...but is it?

the Re2002 used a modified Re2000 fuselage. But the catapult Re2000 had a specific colour scheme, light blue on top, and the pics is a dark colour.... so...I don't know.

EDIT - Reggiane Fighters in Action has this

Reggiane proposed a carrier based a carrier based Re2002 to equip aircraft carrier Spaviero and Aquila then under construction. Catapult trials were carried out with a navalised Ariete, however cancellation of the carriers ended shipboard Re.2002 project in 1943

So, looks like that is a navalised Re.2002

Builds of the old SMER kit as this

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4101-4200/gal4191_ReggianeRE-2000_La-Civita/00.shtm

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47751/thread/1363630984/Reggiane+RE+2000+Cat.+-+SMER+1-50

Looks like I might have to join the Stormo! site and find out for sure!

cheers

T

PS - I joined the Stormo forum!

[IPMS19]

- Re 2000 were used in Sweden and in Hungary under the name of Heija

[giemme]

Not much of a progress, although very time consuming:

Trying to work on the tail cone: material added (it's CA glue mixed with talc)

and sanded

That's how the tail has come out

Complete:

Not exactly what I wanted, but despite of the added material, trying to sand it to a pointy shape also meant removing a lot of it, so I'm afraid I can't go any better than this

Started working on the cowling, as well; first of all, sanding the fuselage side

then removing a lot of plastic from inside

That's it for now; I guess next update will be for the weekend

Ciao

[PlaStix]

Looks like it's all coming together very nicely.