Frog E28/39

[Kes]

Here's one I put together on ATF, thought you might like to see it?

One Frog (Novo) Gloster E28/39 in 1/72

Despite the age of the mould (1966) and that this one had been reissued by the less quality conscious Soviets? It's remarkably good with very little filler and a good fit of parts, it has fine raised panel lines and a well cast transparent canopy, maybe not up to modern standards lacking in landing gear bay and cockpit detail, I found it required 'lead ballast' detail in the cockpit to prevent tail sitting! along with a scratch improved seat with masking tape seat straps plasicard instrument panel and stretched sprue control column with a tiny loop at the end similar to that in the Spitfire, improved the look of the thick walled tail pipe with a 4mm drill bit, the only other parts added a 'fuse wire' pitot at three quarters span out on the leading edge of the port wing and a tiny strip of plasiticard to better shape the intake splitter. Brush painted throughout with Humbrol enamels and Metalcotes



This builds represents E28/39 (the 28th'E'xperimental requirement issued by the 'Air Ministry' in 19'39') The names 'Pioneer' and 'Whittle' where never officially adopted, it having the Gloster designation G40)

In bare metal finish with red doped fabric covered rudder and heat sensitive strips along the rear fuselage sides to gauge thermal output from the 860lbs thrust Power Jets W1 engine.



The aircraft undergoing taxiing trials and 'hops' at Glosters Brockworth airfield from 7th April 1941 the aircraft fitted with a non flight rated engine and a stencil which read 'For ground use only'!

The Aircraft became W4041/G (the G indicating accompanied by armed guard at all times) first flying from RAF Cranwell on 15th May 1941 by Gloster chief test pilot Fl Lt Gerry Sayer, after a career testing with RAE Farnborough can now be found in the Flight Hall of the Science Museum in South Kensington

. . . Kes (Experimental aircraft builder)

[BritJet]

Looks really good to me and even better to see it in this scheme.

A very neglected subject and pity Frog messed up the fuselage proportions so much.

Steve

[Kes]

Thanks BritJet, I don't get too concerned with dimensional accuracy, for me the worst thing to do is measure a nice new kit against published plans,(which are frequently wrong!) it's never going to end well and just add stress to the build, which is the last thing I need!

A case in point is my ZTS Plastyk A&AEE Javelin build (it's in this forum somewhere?) there isn't an accurate dimension on the thing, still it looks great and it was fun to put together! I just like to build interesting British experimental and prototype aeroplanes.

. . . Kes (who's a bit fed up of camo greens and air superiority greys?)

[Meatbox8]

That's a great looking 'Whittle'. The natural metal finish looks very convincing.

[Dave N]

Turned out very nicely for an oldie, enjoyed the background details too.

[Martian]

That's a sweet little build!

Martin

[BritJet]

Thanks BritJet, I don't get too concerned with dimensional accuracy, for me the worst thing to do is measure a nice new kit against published plans,(which are frequently wrong!) it's never going to end well and just add stress to the build, which is the last thing I need!

A case in point is my ZTS Plastyk A&AEE Javelin build (it's in this forum somewhere?) there isn't an accurate dimension on the thing, still it looks great and it was fun to put together! I just like to build interesting British experimental and prototype aeroplanes.

. . . Kes (who's a bit fed up of camo greens and air superiority greys?)

I hope you don't feel I was suggesting you should have spent ages correcting the old Frog kit as that wasn't my intention!

I'm with you on not being too bothered about the dimensional accuracy and I rarely put kit parts anywhere near plans as either or both could be wrong anyway. Your Javelin looks like a Javelin and that's all that matters - not to mention the spectacular scheme. I did the same scheme on the Frog Javelin about 35 years ago and it still looks pretty good.

Dimensionally the Frog E28/39 isn't too bad and the wings are very good but for some reason Frog made the fuselage very fat which to me spoils the delicate look of the aircraft. Still, like the Javelin, it looks like the full-size aircraft and you've certainly captured the initial look of it very well.

We seem to share an interest so let me know if you need any info etc.

Steve

[Snorry]

Nice little thing! As for dimensions, I could tell you a story. Once upon the time Snorry started working on another early jet, BI-6. He, i.e. I, wanted to make best BI ever, so I cut fuselage of that small plane in several pieces and put between them countless pieces of plactic sheet of different sizes and thickness. And, after lot of filling, sanding and wasted time finally I made fuselage looks like BI on photos. Well, I was so tired of that kit, that when things come to applying decals, I put on that most correct in shape kit stars with slided white background - at that time it was all the same for me. I just had tired of that kit. So, the point is if you didnt like work too much, do not do it when the only desired result is fun. Just keep balance between how you wish to see your kit built and what you can do while keeping your modelling mojo on. In that case may be you should have invested some (little) time in sanding of the landing gear doors - they look too thick for me.

But nevertheless now you get a cute silver fish! I have always thought that airplanes look not like birds but like fish. And by the way, anyone please remind me did E28/39 ever fly in that (missing ) livery?

[Kes]

I hope you don't feel I was suggesting you should have spent ages correcting the old Frog kit as that wasn't my intention!

We seem to share an interest so let me know if you need any info etc.

Steve

Hey Steve, no no not at all, but lots of modelers do like to mention kit inaccuracies and the need to correct them! Kudos to them really some of the work put in to their models with ingenious plastic engineering with the addition of highly detailed resin and etch replacement parts is absolutely phenomenal, but not my thing really, I'll scratch a few details but resin stuff is really expensive and where the satisfaction of buying a replacement when creating your own gives a greater sense of achievement . . .

. . . but thats just me!

As for sharing interests, if you're interested in British experimental research and prototypes then yes we do! I've been considering a special interest group for such a thing? as for info, well that's a huge part of this model building hobby for me, the research into the history of my builds (as can be seen above with the E28/39 or Gloster G40 and not 'whittle or pioneer!) is as important as the build itself, so now I have quite an impressive library of reference works and many museum visits undertaken and many more planned, but I would appreciate any help with research you can offer?

Nice little thing! As for dimensions, I could tell you a story. Once upon the time Snorry started working on another early jet, BI-6. He, i.e. I, wanted to make best BI ever, so I cut fuselage of that small plane in several pieces and put between them countless pieces of plactic sheet of different sizes and thickness. And, after lot of filling, sanding and wasted time finally I made fuselage looks like BI on photos. Well, I was so tired of that kit, that when things come to applying decals, I put on that most correct in shape kit stars with slided white background - at that time it was all the same for me. I just had tired of that kit. So, the point is if you didnt like work too much, do not do it when the only desired result is fun. Just keep balance between how you wish to see your kit built and what you can do while keeping your modelling mojo on. In that case may be you should have invested some (little) time in sanding of the landing gear doors - they look too thick for me.

But nevertheless now you get a cute silver fish! I have always thought that airplanes look not like birds but like fish. And by the way, anyone please remind me did E28/39 ever fly in that (missing ) livery?

Hey Snorry, thanks for you reply (I think?) interesting you see aircraft as more similar to fish than birds, I suppose fuselage wise they could be? As for the landing gear door thickness, after exhaustive research can I assure you they're just fine thank you for pointing that out, Ha!

As for flight in this configuration? Nope, as I wrote at the top this thread my build represents the aircraft at Brockworth airfield undergoing ground tests with an engine not rated for flight

[ForestFan]

Looks great to me, good to see what can be done with an old kit!

[theplasticsurgeon]

Nice build Kes, I built the Chematic copy in 2008 - model now residing at Jet Age, Staverton.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17497-chematic-pioneer/

Jet Age also has a full scale fibre-glass replica, and the brass model from Cheltenham Beechwood shopping arcade.

The Tim Kershaw (also a member of Jet Age) book referred to, gives reason why this model is so out of proporton:

"More disturbingly for this model, it explains about a set of fuselage drawings being produced in 1:63 - and being used for this kit. Result: the fuselage is 5 scale feet tooo long, and is out of proportion to the wing."

As to whether it flew with this scheme at Brockworth, well some Jet Age members are adamant that during one of those engine tests, a hop occurred on the runway - and all wheels were off the ground at the same instant in time.

I've not see it on film though!

[Snorry]

Kes, yes, it was reply and a long one. Sorry for a lot of words and for making you do that search. My referencies are out of reach now, but anyway your model is very nice. Fish vs birds - its all the matter of feathers i have never seen feathered airplane (may be some are there, but havent come in my sight yet. I sow feathered helicopter once, but it didnt look like a bird ether) but i have seen those rays flying in the sea, and they look more like airplanes than birds. And the faster the airplane, it is more fish than bird in it. So I made some conclusions

[Kes]

Nice build Kes, I built the Chematic copy in 2008 - model now residing at Jet Age, Staverton.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17497-chematic-pioneer/

Jet Age also has a full scale fibre-glass replica, and the brass model from Cheltenham Beechwood shopping arcade.

The Tim Kershaw (also a member of Jet Age) book referred to, gives reason why this model is so out of proporton:

"More disturbingly for this model, it explains about a set of fuselage drawings being produced in 1:63 - and being used for this kit. Result: the fuselage is 5 scale feet tooo long, and is out of proportion to the wing."

As to whether it flew with this scheme at Brockworth, well some Jet Age members are adamant that during one of those engine tests, a hop occurred on the runway - and all wheels were off the ground at the same instant in time.

I've not see it on film though!

Hey theplasticsurgeon, I have a great book published in association with 'Jet age Museum' by Tim Kershaw, 'Jet Age Photography' the Russell Adams story, a brilliant book, one of my favorites! However the research for this build was from 'Gloster Aircraft Company' by Derek N James, who I quoted at the top of this thread the aircraft did indeed carry out short 'hops' at Brockworth before being road transported to Cranwell for first flight.

Nice G40 you have there, it had a few different paint schemes it seems??

. . . Kes

[Head in the clouds.]

That's nice Kes, those little details you added make a big difference. I will be keeping my eye open for this kit in the coming wekks/months.

[theplasticsurgeon]

However the research for this build was from 'Gloster Aircraft Company' by Derek N James, who I quoted at the top of this thread the aircraft did indeed carry out short 'hops' at Brockworth before being road transported to Cranwell for first flight.

Ah Derek James, another member of Jet Age - sadly passed away about 2 weeks ago.

Looked frail when I last saw him at Jet Age a few months ago.

[Kes]

That is a significant loss to the world of aviation writers, I have a few of his books, seems he covered histories of aircraft manufacturers in that corner of Britain, titles included works not only about Glosters but Westland Bristol and Folland. His writing style was interesting and informative, a difficult balance to achieve. Sad loss indeed