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. :)

AdrianMF

Bristol Beaufort Plans

Recommended Posts

I've come to the conclusion that the only way I can make Airfix release a new 1/72 Beaufort is to make a start on my Frog one.

I've lined it up against the 1/72 plans in the Warpaint booklet and there are, ahem, "significant differences" in the fuselage department. Can I assume that the Warpaint plans are right, or at least righter than the Frog model?

Regards,

Adrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know which is likely to be better, but I wouldn't trust either. Manye years ago I was in touch with Greg Meggs of High Planes, he sent me a copied set of reputedly accurate plans to help with a 1/48 Beaufort I was working on at the time. I've no idea of their provenance, but they should still be here somewhere,

Cheers,

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

The search function brings up nowt :(

Cheers

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the set in Warpaint No.50, by Tim Brown.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how accurate these are from the Book of Bristol Aircraft, published 1946 so pretty soon after the event. I've overlaid my Encore Beaufort VIII

over them and they look pretty good. However I think these plans have been used by manufacturers to produce models so if the plans are wrong the model is too, consequently just cos they match is not an indication of accuracy! Had an instance of this recently with a Bristol M1C which matched the plans but in realty was quite wrong. Proceed with caution!

IMG_4488_zpsorctigbm.jpgIMG_4487_zpsbdk1io9f.jpgIMG_4485_zps2wgfbjin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will good you a good laugh, from the 1940 "scale Plans of Military Aircraft". To be fair its probably from one or two photos of the prototype. And this is one of the better drawings in that book

http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=5727&fullsize=1

Later all redrawn more convincingly in the 1942 edition

http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=7499&fullsize=1

I think this one is probably the same as that in Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, and probably later traced and redrawn for the Book of Bristol plan above (the later AFP books have much higher "line density", i.e. more drawing but not necessarily additional useful detail; all these drawings are from the Aeromodeller / Harleyford stable.

Or just make your own kit out of wood using the USN plans!

http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=1006&fullsize=1

http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=1007&fullsize=1

Cheers

Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses everyone. I have also had some helpful messages.

I actually have all the "Aircraft of the Fighting Powers" books (including both versions of Volume 1!) and the "Bristol Aircraft" book but I tend to distrust them!

I think the main visual problem with the Frog fuselage is that it curves upwards underneath towards the front; this makes the nose higher and the canopy is consequently shallower than it should be. I think I will have to apply the "looks like a Beaufort" approach!

Regards,

Adrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bfort%203%20view%20-11_zps1n7hmcyt.jpg[/url]

Bfort%203%20view%20-12_zps7nzshy4h.jpg[/url]

Bfort%203%20view%20-13_zpsv5ui33rc.jpg[/url]

These drawings might be of some use. The dimensions were taken from Beaufort A9-13 (ex T9552) in mid 1970s when preparing an article on RAAF Beauforts for IPMS (A'asia)'s Modelcraft Magazine. This aircraft was built by DAP and intended for the RAF but was taken over by the RAAF and assigned A9-13. A quick check of a few of the dimensions suggest that the 3-view drawing is fairly accurate.

Fred H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still hoping Ed Russell can come up with his set. Unfortunately he can't contact the copywrite holder yet, so we are still waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Selected portions of disputed areas for research & discussion i dont think breaks copyright.

but in the end it would be up to the Mods if it was posted on here.

cheers

jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as a former draftsman (Is that draughtsman in England?), I can definitely say "Don't trust plans!" The drawings are mere representations of what the product is to look like

and are mostly there to give you something on which to attach dimensions. Do you really think a drafter takes the time to redraw an entire plan because of a mere dimensional change?

It's much easier just to change the dimension! A part layout is what is important, but it's hard to get an overall length for an aircraft by trying to piece together dimensional lengths from all those part

drawings.

Notice those dimensions on the plans Fharris supplied above? Notice anything strange? There are no 3/16" or 7/16" fractions on the dimensions, only 1/2" or whole inches. So they measured to

the closest 1/2" and not 1/4" or 1/8". Using a tape measure or yardstick, this is okay. They're good enough for government work, but overall you may be missing a few inches.

So when you see a set of plans and there are no dimensions on them, do not trust them. Trust only the dimensions on plans, and double check those. That's why when people say that a

model is 1mm or 2mm off, I just shake my head. Even those overall lengths they give on an aircraft are usually inaccurate.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well speaking as an engineer who has manufactured components for old aircraft, i wouldn't like to fly in an aircraft if you designed it.

Without exception everything had to be accurate within ±0.025", the only leeway you had was with loft drawings where there was problems making things actually fit together and there was a degree of interpretation. Even then there was additional Works Query Note that state dimensions/interpretations. The drawings posted are not manufacturing drawings, only from what I can make out, rough measurements.

The loft drawings only enable error in general shape, not measurements like overall lengths widths ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on: GAF is talking about GA drawings, Gomtuu about detail drawing for manufacturing the actual parts. The two of you are both correct. Loft drawings are made from the actual engineering drawings, and in the case of photo-lofting are printed onto the metal and used to make the actual parts. I dealt with a few HP137 Query Notes in my time at Handley Page, but still know that the GA drawings of the Jetstream are based on project outlines not corrected to be a series of re-integrations of the design as it progressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Gerald-J-Elliott-1-72-Vacuum-form-Bristol-Beaufort-RAF-Light-Bomber-NISB-/151943549499?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276

There is this one currently on evil bay. I am looking for the Special Hobby kit that navy bird built but also going to do the frog kit with kiwi models vac canopies, necelles and Barracuda Beaufighter wheels. Just been looking for seats. If John Aero is reading still hoping you found the engines for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on: GAF is talking about GA drawings, Gomtuu about detail drawing for manufacturing the actual parts. The two of you are both correct. Loft drawings are made from the actual engineering drawings, and in the case of photo-lofting are printed onto the metal and used to make the actual parts. I dealt with a few HP137 Query Notes in my time at Handley Page, but still know that the GA drawings of the Jetstream are based on project outlines not corrected to be a series of re-integrations of the design as it progressed.

Thanks, Graham! I thought I made it clear that parts drawings are different from scale drawings, but I guess not. I've dealt with enough engineers to know not to take most of what they say seriously. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The set I am after are 1/32 scale, and have been made from back measuring an actual airframe, and double checked. I will chase Ed up, as he asked me to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

Apologies for joining this so late, I have the frog and the special hobby versions, assuming I can find them in the shambles that is the stash, I'll take so parts together to compare, a bit the the "show and tell" we used to do at school !

Cheers Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The set I am after are 1/32 scale, and have been made from back measuring an actual airframe, and double checked. I will chase Ed up, as he asked me to.

Hi

I keep looking at my tigger/I.D. models beaufort and wondering when i will start it :)

cheers

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the commencement of my career as an aeronautical engineer I worked as a design draftsman in the Drawing Office of Government Aircraft Factory (GAF) so I fully understand and appreciate the argument that the dimension is the important item, not the drawing. That is why drawings are often annotated DO NOT SCALE.

However, the measurements of A9-13 were not taken to draw a set of super accurate plans of a Beaufort, but to obtain some measurements to check the accuracy of the Control Column drawing. Exactly as mentioned above, check out the drawing against known dimensions. The areas chosen were those readily accessible and often had a clearly defined starting and end point for extra accuracy. There are no long chain dimensions which create cumulative errors. For the purpose of the exercise, +/- 1/2 inch was accurate enough. !/2 inch reduced to 1/72nd scale is 0.007 inch which is well within GAF's considered acceptable limits (post 12). I doubt whether many modellers would complain if the model is accurate to +/- 0.007 inch. An examination of some manufacturer's drawings showed that a General Arrangement type drawing was dimensioned down to 1/8 inch while a fully dimensioned production drawing was as tight as 1/16th inch with a tolerance of +/- 1/32nd for whole or fractional measurements.

The most difficult error to correct in the Frog kit is in the plan view where the fuselage tapers from the windscreen to the sternpost whereas it should be parallel to just aft of the turret then tapers.

F Harris

Edited by fharris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi there,

My ten cents worth, neither the Frog or Special Hobby kits are that accurate, the Frog is riddled with problems I would suggest binning it. The Special Hobby kit has hideous wing dihedral problems, making it look like a Stuka! The cowlings look weird, and there are other problems with the kit such as the turret also is a weird shape! I'm building the High Planes kit and for accuracy it is by far the best of the bunch, but it requires a lot more effort to put together, but it can be built and if you are looking for an accurate RAAF Beaufort it is the one to go.. but the Frog kit... vomit ... As for plans there was the set by Modelaid... in 1:72 and 1:48 scale, not sure of their accuracy though. I also have the 1:48 scale vacform... okay I am slightly keen on the Beaufort.. the kit is pretty hard work and dubious accuracy.

Edited by Slywolff
Addiotional information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Slywolff,

 

I was with the late Fred Harris when we took the measurements added to the Control column drawing in post #9 above. Fred did most of the writing, I did most of the measuring tape and scale rule work. As Fred noted, that drawing is pretty good. Copies were given to HP when Greg was doing the patterns for their kit - as you say easily the most accurate kit available, if a right cow to build.

 

Re the Frog kit, Fred was an 'engineering' modeller and would go to quite extreme lengths to correct a kit. He undersold his modelling ability in his last comment in post #21. He did far more than correct the plan-view shape. To him that was difficult, to we mere mortal modellers, that was well neigh impossible!

 

I binned the 1:48 vacform and am well into a scratch-build using Tamiya wings etc. I keep stopping every time there is a rumour/announcement that someone is doing a 1/48 kit, only to pull the project out again when it turns out to be yet another false lead. I had better finish, then I am pretty sure I can guarantee someone will do a kit. 😊 :banghead:

 

Cheers,

Peter M

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Slywolff just to prove one man's meat is another's poison, have a look at Adrians build, it's in the 'ready for inspection' section and includes a link to the WIP build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a thought, Jay's Models in New Zealand has Falcon Vac canopies for the 1/72 Beaufort, vacuforn ccorrected cowls, resin wheel at a very reasonable price, with surprisingly modest shipping.  I ordered sets for a friend and was impressed with the quality of the products, and the speed of the service (2 weeks New Zealand to Canada)

 

http://www.jaysmodelkits.com/jaysmk/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&zenid=97he756ki3agr7p1uc5abq33k1&keyword=beaufort

 

 

 

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...