Jump to content

Catching Pictures in the Air


Recommended Posts

Nice work Tony. My Bloody Mary usually contains a good few dashes of Worcester Sauce, a splash of hot sauce, Sherry vinegar, Calvados or brandy, hearty pinch of celery salt, a good grind of black pepper + tomato juice of course. I often leave the vodka out to make a nice Virgin Mary.   :eat:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloody Mary ??? Did I hear Bloody Mary ??

Let me help that poor mary...

Nice job Dear Baron, look right to me ! and the riveting is very convincing

Far better than .50 trials on the TBD !

Sincerely.

Corsaircorp

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree about the rivets. Your panel test looks just fine. :penguin:the BT looks super  smooooooooth to, soon not to be so smooth but you know what I mean.;) mighty fine looking specimen gallivanting across the kitchen there el Baron, I'm sure she (it was a hen right?) will adore the new feed shelter.  Looking forward to the parts coming together.

 

Take care.

 

Johnny.

Edited by The Spadgent
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said:

 

In a past life as a barman/wine waiter in a nice Derbyshire hotel, I concocted another variation;

 

Why am I picturing this Antoine?:D

tumblr_m29qfc3lex1rpf9sro1_1280.png

 Did the hotel have a maze at all? :unsure:

 

The Angostura sounds a nice touch in a BM btw.:thumbsup2:  

17 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said:

I hope you can get on with the Humbrol filler Tony; they seem to have changed it for the better in recent years. An absolute godsend on some of my early eastern block projects. Small layers, smeared on quickly with a finger while it's still very liquid (say, 5 seconds, don't touch it again after the first 'smear', it will roll or wrinkle, leave it smooth) are very good for filling unwanted panel lines, finishing off a surface heavily filled with other stuff, or a little reshaping if applied in a few layers.

I'm looking forwards to trying it tbh as I've yet to settle on a brand that gives me a hassle-free smoothness on broad & shallow regions. I think @simmerit resorted to some high-build primer a while back on his Chinook epic iirc for a similar task.

17 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said:

 

Just think, if you were a bit stuck for something to do or low on mojo, you could have a go at the engine or undercarriage sub assemblies...

I've had a go at them just now TT, but possibly not in the way in which you had anticipated (see below)!

 

Ps. Antoine des Tigres has an insouciant and rakish air about it so it may stick as far as this thread goes.:lol:

16 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

No pleasing some people is there? I bet if you said you had got it as a store for the overflow from her shoe and handbag stash, the sell would be easier. :devil:

You better pray Mrs. B never reads that or you'll be missing more than a tentacle!:lol:

16 hours ago, Nigel Heath said:

Nice work Tony. My Bloody Mary usually contains a good few dashes of Worcester Sauce, a splash of hot sauce, Sherry vinegar, Calvados or brandy, hearty pinch of celery salt, a good grind of black pepper + tomato juice of course. I often leave the vodka out to make a nice Virgin Mary.   :eat:

Thanks Mr.H.

 

Oh but I am now salivating at that concoction. I'm afraid simply pouring a beer into a glass pales into insignificance for me when compared to the alchemical luxuries of a good cocktail.

 

Not that it ever stops me pouring beer into a glass you understand....

 

Cheers!:D

 

15 hours ago, corsaircorp said:

Bloody Mary ??? Did I hear Bloody Mary ??

Let me help that poor mary...

Nice job Dear Baron, look right to me ! and the riveting is very convincing

Far better than .50 trials on the TBD !

My thanks for that Cc. :thumbsup2:

 

Of course the test is the easy part. Getting that done in a regular fashion around the shapes of the aircraft is going to be a whole lot of fun.

 

I may need to invest in some of that Chimay I see gracing your bench from time to time to help get me through that phase later!;)

13 hours ago, The Spadgent said:

I totally agree about the rivets. Your panel test looks just fine. :penguin:the BT looks super  smooooooooth to, soon not to be so smooth but you know what I mean.;) mighty fine looking specimen gallivanting across the kitchen there el Baron, I'm sure she (it was a hen right?) will adore the new feed shelter.  Looking forward to the parts coming together.

My thanks to you for that Johnny. Keeping the fowl-feathers out of the Alclad later on is going to be fun if we're to avoid some unorthodox patinas to the paint job...

 

 

I'd dwelt briefly yesterday on how I was tearing up the existing cable-deck on both aesthetic and structural grounds. Aside from having to create a new deck that is wider at the back, these bits were really bugging me:

36265150401_2080e7d60a_c.jpg

Cleaver idea eh, stringing them on some wire to stop losing them?

Don't.

It creates the perfect catapult mechanism. I encourage you to refrain from asking how I know that.

 

Although these needed some regularizing and thinning-down to scale thickness in a couple of places, it wasn't these pole-holders above per se that were annoying me but rather the hydraulic actuating mechanism underneath used to support and angle them into position out of the rear of the aircraft, to whit:

36005699830_8f8d975606_s.jpg

Each time I looked at my original effort to reproduce this structure (in a robust enough form to support the wight of all the gear hanging off it out of the back) it was with more and more contempt for a job done poorly. I always knew that at this scale there were going to be necessary compromises between accuracy and strength, nonetheless, with the passing of time my dissatisfaction grew.

 

Possibly M. des Tigres comment about the undercarriage had planted a subliminal seed in the old coconut but either way, after rummaging through the spares box and then moving on to the kit sprues, I beganto ponder the possibility of cannibalizing the hydraulic structures of the undercarriage:

35566753534_55e268f8de_c.jpg

With this build being of the aircraft in flight these bits aren't needed, so I decided to utilize the legs from the main gear.

 

Before doing that I chopped off some 1mm plastic scrap left over from vacforming in order to form some new attachment plates to the collars:

36265151371_61e4395d4a_c.jpg

I don't know has a geologist's hammer ever featured in a bench shot on the forum before but it gives a nice controllable clout to the edge of a Stanley blade for neatly guillotining small sections of thick styrene. The beady-eyed amongst you will have also noted a set of RB Productions contour saws in that photo (a tip o' the hat to @CedB for making me aware of these), which arrived with perfect timing on Friday. They are gorgeous to use and a testament to the adage about getting the tool you pay for:

36265149741_c991a21ed9_c.jpg

Immaculate. (The tool, not necessarily my use of it!:rolleyes:)

 

At this scale the blade was just perfect for the cutting tolerances required. Pretty soon, what had once been oleos were now serving as potential actuators:

35566751954_911585e80b_c.jpg

I then drilled these out:

36265150081_56173337ac_c.jpg

With some 0.6mm piano wire to temporarily hold these parts together, you get the final idea:

35566752614_0b10d5f19c_c.jpg

This solves two of my main concerns at a swoop, namely having a secure enough way of attaching the hydraulics to the collar in the first place, along with having the hydraulics themselves as a single piece with no weakening joints to snap under the weight of whatever ends up hanging out the back of the aircraft. It also means that in terms of construction, the actuators can be easily positioned at the correct angle and a little CA added to hold the metal pin in place permanently later on.

 

It's not a perfect replica by a long shot, but I doubt at this scale one would actually be strong enough unless soldered out of brass pieces. Had I the required materials and tools (which I just know I'll need in the future but not right now)...but not at this point in time.

 

This small area of work took up most of this morning but I feel a major obstacle has been cleared.

 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice use of unneeded parts there....I wonder just how long it took to spot the potential of these parts? If anything like me, I would have spent at least an hour going through the spares box and other options before noticing the solution sitting on the bench almost under my nose!

 

Ian

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff Mr. Le Baron :thumbsup2: 

 

It takes at least three Weetabix in the morning to be able to spot a solution like that. A very nice feeling when the bulb goes on; good for the studio audience too  :).

 

It's all too easy, with our big screens, to forget the tiny size of these scratch built assemblies; the undercarriage parts have worked a treat.

 

TT

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2017 at 19:42, TheBaron said:

Richard Dawkins is hot as mustard on this kind of thing James so be careful. He may be on Britmodeller under an assumed name.

I doubt it - he's a prickly pedantic old sod* and would attract a ban in no time

 

(* and I say that even as an atheist and fully fledged science geek)

Edited by LostCosmonauts
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, the tail door.

 

Looking at the illustration in the Italeri book, and various internal/external shots it looks to me like the underside tail door might be in two parts, ie the main aft part and a smaller section of a say 4-5 ft long at the leading edge of the beaver tail.  The smaller panel looks like it extends from the BT leading edge to inline of the major frame just aft of the rear side doors.

The question for me is, how does it operate.  It looks like it might form a ramp for loading of say shallow loads with the tail closed but the underside door open, but obviously it can't fold downwards when the door is opened up in flight. 

It could of course just be attached to the larger aft rear door and open upwards with it, but why does it look so different in section.

In the museum pictures of the Sat catcher it looks like the underside door might terminate at where the forward panel would be, ie up to that major frame, is that forward part removed?

 

Will try and illustrate my point later.

 

However, I could be talking bollards!

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2017 at 2:27 PM, limeypilot said:

Nice use of unneeded parts there....I wonder just how long it took to spot the potential of these parts? If anything like me, I would have spent at least an hour going through the spares box and other options before noticing the solution sitting on the bench almost under my nose!

Your time estimate was bang-on Ian - uncannily so! :lol:

On 8/6/2017 at 2:52 PM, TonyTiger66 said:

A very nice feeling when the bulb goes on; good for the studio audience too  :).

 

giphy.gif

Terms & Conditions

Caution. Thoughts may be subject to changing conditions. Your thought may be at risk in strong wind or unexpected downpours. Thoughts are taken outside the head at the owner's risk.

On 8/6/2017 at 3:06 PM, 71chally said:

Right, the tail door.

 

Looking at the illustration in the Italeri book, and various internal/external shots it looks to me like the underside tail door might be in two parts, ie the main aft part and a smaller section of a say 4-5 ft long at the leading edge of the beaver tail.  The smaller panel looks like it extends from the BT leading edge to inline of the major frame just aft of the rear side doors.

The question for me is, how does it operate.  It looks like it might form a ramp for loading of say shallow loads with the tail closed but the underside door open, but obviously it can't fold downwards when the door is opened up in flight. 

It could of course just be attached to the larger aft rear door and open upwards with it, but why does it look so different in section.

In the museum pictures of the Sat catcher it looks like the underside door might terminate at where the forward panel would be, ie up to that major frame, is that forward part removed?

You had me intrigued enough to scan through every pic I have James - including a number of excellent ones that you've sent my way over the course of the build. I'm by no means hostile to the idea but am currently unconvinced by the suggestion, due to the following:

  • What would be the necessity for a 'shallow-load' capability? In all the crew testimonies I've been through there is no mention of this in mission requirements or emergency procedures.
  •  I've not seen any graphic / photographic evidence showing such a structural element in operation, either in flight or on the ground. 
  • By my understanding the beaver-tail mod to the original 'G' clamshell airframe was solely to allow for egress of the poles, crew observation of capture phase and ingress of the captured payload. As the tilt-up/single retractable lower door allows for such operations in full, using Occam's razor why would the mechanism need to be further complicated?
  • I can see no corresponding external line on the beaver-tail in the region you indicate that you might expect to see if there were an additional break in the structure at that point.

Please now feel free to publish in full the maintenance manual documents you have that completely contradict all this. :lol:

On 8/6/2017 at 3:12 PM, corsaircorp said:

Don't you worry, Pierre and me will bring on some stuff at Telford !

Sincerely.

It's a date Cc!:cheers:

On 8/6/2017 at 3:50 PM, keefr22 said:

 

Did you get one of the chookies with it...?! 

Thankfully no. But Lt. Gay Ellis had a very nasty shock as it arced toward her:

35620060233_47050518f7.jpg

 

Being a bank holiday here it has characteristically slipped by in a dringey void. With the full moon scrambling the neurons I've achieved very little of note, save for commencing work on reconstructing the cable deck. You saw a lot of this happen the first time round so I'll only stick up a couple of shots. Blocking-out the main structure:

36030439890_6cf950c206_z.jpg

Adding back the salvaged detail:

36290298161_886444cc39_z.jpg

There's a couple of bolt-like details on either end of that rear strip I need to carve-off and rebuild further out towards the now-widened edges.

 

Day off tomorrow and heading out to lunch with friends so I'll try and squeeze in another hour at this in the morning before we head.

:bye:

Tony

 

Addenda: It only occurred to me earlier as well that with this aircraft being modelled in a flying posture, it is currrently a ghost-ship without any crew! Shots of the Pelican 9 crew immediately on their return from the first successful capture show them in standard non-descript military overalls:

34226203831_3b89efdda1.jpg

Crews on such missions seem to have often worn such a whole rag-bag of assorted items on various aircraft that I wanted to make sure that they hadn't just gussied-up the crew here in a uniform manner for the posed press shots on landing. Thankfully there's some surviving colour film of them on the mission prior to landing that confirms they were dressed this way (with the addition of intercom headsets, plus parachutes for the cargo-bay fellas):

I'm currently hunting through Preiser's 1/72 offerings as aside from the Airfix WW2 USAF set I'm not seeing to much that I can use without major adapation of figures....

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More impressive scratch building Tony, and glad to see you are underlining my modus operandi of never ever throw anything away (aside from domestic waste and smelly rotten stuff of course).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBaron said:

What would be the necessity for a 'shallow-load' capability? In all the crew testimonies I've been through there is no mention of this in mission requirements or emergency procedures.

acch!  Right from the threads inception I have said this, the 119J was conceived as an alternative layout as a transport before, and separately to the satellite catching role.  Don't get hung up (get it!) on that use.

I can't find any pictures substantiating a ramp idea either sadly, but just trying to interpret from the images what might be going on. 

It is without doubt a separate structural element to my eyes, though it might operate entirely with the main door.

 

It is literally just musing on my part, but I would hate to notice something, not mention it, for it to possibly slip through the net.

 

 

Edit, quick and dirty illiustration,

36032830920_0ee634b4ef_b.jpgC-119J dia by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

 

Superb work and progress on the floor and pole anchors details!

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick note Tony, following on from what 71chally wrote above; I'm not sure if other airforces operated the C-119J, but I had memories of seeing them (C-119s in general)  in Italy.

 

A quick Google and it would appear the 46th Air Brigade (translated from the Italian, it's my translation so could be wrong) had some 'J' aircraft.

 

There are pictures on places I shouldn't link to from here :rules: , but if you follow the link, you'll see a photo of an Italian C-119 J in  service. Half way down, page left, This would be, I think, mid 1970's.

 

I'm no Italian aircraft expert (at all), but a closet enthusiast :).

 

I realise that you probably know about the Italian 'J's already. If some more pictures etc of them might be helpful with your build, drop me a PM. I can write fairly well in Italian (French, Norwegian.....got to be fairly good at something; it was languages with me) and it helps with the Googling etc.

 

http://www.aviationairroutes.net/Aviation News/recens-198.html

 

Best regards 

Antonio delle Tigri

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to trace much on the Js sadly, however there are references for them being produced for the USAF, before the sat catching programme.

I believe the idea was for a more practical aerial delivery platform, ie not having to operate without the back end of the aircraft on flights that were dispatching aerial loads.

I have seen pics of them in standard USAF service, but darned if I can find them at the mo.

There were 68 J versions, the  Italian A/F took 25, and they were regular visitors to the UK.

 

Some more images of what I'm trying to describe.  In that flying shot, inspect the original image and you can see a fine line where I've highlighted, its not as obvious as some of the panel lines around it, but it is a hard and well defined line which suggests a separate part to me.

I'm trying to work out in the sat catcher museum images if that panel is attached to the front of the underside door and opened upwards with it, or whether it was removed completely which would leave a gap when closed, or a door that doesn't extend to the top beaver tail hinge when open - that's the hard bit to fathom out!

 

36430763445_48324cbed9_b.jpg119J int c by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

36384179606_48de3fdb06_b.jpgC-119J by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 71chally said:

I can't find any pictures substantiating a ramp idea either sadly, but just trying to interpret from the images what might be going on. 

Those graphics are very helpful James. From your previous description and the interior of the Italian BT posted above that's pretty much where I imagined you meant the separation to be.

 

From the historical information available (the Aerofax volume is the best-referenced guide to the development of this aircraft I've found as too much of what is available on the web contains the same basic general information, not always recycled accurately) the beaver-tail mod (to initially 'F' variants, later 'G') began back  in 1955 specifically for Drag Net / Genetrix reconnaissance balloon payload recovery missions by the 456th TCW. The aerial recovery procedure was broadly identical to that of the later (1960s) Corona capsules (barring differences in payload weight and parachute numbers - the Corona payload was much lighter than Genetrix and only required a single 'chute). A few years after Genetrix, a number of veteran crew from that program were cycled through to the Discovery/Corona series, for obvious reasons of familiarity with the operational procedures involved.

 

Operational and oral history aside, I just don't currently see evidence in close-up photography of Pelican 9 to support the thesis for a two-part lower door James:

c-119j_51-8037_72_of_90.jpg

c-119j_51-8037_71_of_90.jpg

C-119J_51-8037_016.jpg

 

This description seems pretty emphatic about a single lower door:

 

'  I am a former member of the 456th Troop Carrier Wing. I first went to the Wing in May 1953. We were stationed at Miami IAP and the Wing had recently changed from the 435 TCW to the 456 TCW and our aircraft had been upgraded to C-119F models (they had Wright Cyclone R-3350 turbo compound engines and Hamilton Standard 24260 propellers. The C-119s of the 456th TCW started with serial numbers 51-803? to 51-8159. 
Later that summer we transferred to Charleston AFB,SC where we were an active Troop Carrier Wing. Again later we started training for our future role as a Aerial Recovery unit for a project we, in the lower ranks, were not officially informed of...
During the next few years our aircraft were modified for the new project; there were engine modifications, hydraulic systems to handle the recovery poles, winch reels for the recovery of parachutes and their packages, long range fuel tanks were added and special rear doors to replace the old style clamshell doors. The new doors were called beavertail doors and were flight operable: lifting up in flight, then the bottom door surface raised into the upper part of the door, allowing recovery procedure..'

(Italics mine)

Source

 

That's one of the things I love about this forum - a good puzzle that sets you thinking and looking.:thumbsup2:

 

2 hours ago, TonyTiger66 said:

quick note Tony, following on from what 71chally wrote above; I'm not sure if other airforces operated the C-119J, but I had memories of seeing them (C-119s in general)  in Italy.

My thanks for that info el Tiger.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBaron said:

Operational and oral history aside, I just don't currently see evidence in close-up photography of Pelican 9 to support the thesis for a two-part lower door James:
 

That's one of the things I love about this forum - a good puzzle that sets you thinking and looking.:thumbsup2:

Absolutely, not that you would necessarily from those angles. Certainly no gap there either.  As I speculate, it could be that the sat catcher doors were joined where the cargo ones might not be.  I was trying to judge where the door ended in this shot and I was coming to the idea of abeam just aft of the side doors - but it's more than likely an optical illusion.

35597591154_442f1b1022_b.jpg119 US c by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

I have seen references to the design being brought about for the satellite programme, but I have also seen it was cargo first with it being adapted for the retrieval business.  I have to lean towards the latter given numbers built, the major redesign, and practicality for cargo air drop.  Interesting that many of the Kaiser built aircraft were converted, as there was much political chagrin with their production of the type

Even the pages in t.he link provided state four aircraft modified for the Satellite programme, and I do wonder if it means that they were conversions of J conversions.

Can't help thinking AW were looking at this when they came up with the RAF Argosy C.1 rear doors.

 

I have electronic copies of other 119 models manuals, but would love to know where Italeri found their J drawings - for sure.

 

 

 

Anyway filter out my waffle, cracking work as usual Tony, and looking forward to the next installation.  Enjoy your day out!

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just catching up after a trip away - great progress Tony :) 

I'm glad you like the contour saws - I haven't had mine out yet but I hope to rectify that soon (fnarr fnarr!) :wicked: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

Mrs Martian wants to know where you got her photograph from!

Ed Straker's desk! :lol: (I'd watch that lad if I were you...I mean, that one piece trouser-suit....)

20 hours ago, 71chally said:

 

Anyway filter out my waffle, cracking work as usual Tony, and looking forward to the next installation.  Enjoy your day out!

Cheers James. :thumbsup: Back just now from a marathon Mexican nosh session and not even room for a waffer-thin mint. Luckily for this decadent state of affairs  I did manage to lay hand to plastic before leaving earlier....(see below). One pleasant surprise was finding out that the nephew of one of our hosts is now a qualified airline pilot with shares in a Cessna. Word will be put in for yours truly to man the front turret next time he's heading up the West coast. I've an mp3 of William Walton's Battle in the Air on the phone in preparation...

20 hours ago, CedB said:

Just catching up after a trip away - great progress Tony :) 

I'm glad you like the contour saws - I haven't had mine out yet but I hope to rectify that soon (fnarr fnarr!) :wicked: 

Hope you had a good trip Ced.

Those saws.

Majestic!

Best get yours out before the weather turns cold...:winkgrin:

 

I'll make this this update short and sweet as it is effectively a reprise of stuff you saw happening the first time around, only hopefully better in this manifestation.

 

Looking at some of the rear roller fittings I'd salvaged at the back of the sheave deck (I'd been erroneously calling it the cable deck but it's sheave, sheave I tell you...) when I woke this morn, they looked somewhat burred and folorn from all the pulling around, so I binned them and started a fresah set by using the best of them as a template:

35641697623_ab2c64872c_z.jpg

There are five of them there, temporarily glued to get identical shapes to all of them. Despite the large and heavy nature of it I'm finding a standard Stanley knife perfect for shaving parts such as this down. Being much lighter, a scalpel tends to skid out a little when you cut down the pile, whereas a Stanley has enough weight behind it to remain vertical all the way to the bottom.

"Ooh. Controversial." (As Mr. Shuttleworth might say.)

 

Once installed that region looks a whole lot sharper now:

36312370621_9b7acb1f88_z.jpg

I added some brass tube to represent the bolts at each end that hold what seem to be adjustable angled 'shields' under each actuator.

 

Feeling like having a good gouge at something I got the Dremel-clone out and set-to boring a couple of angled channels through the actual floor of the cargo area in order to allow the actuator hydraulics more room to be secured. Not having done this the first time taught me just how little space there was just trying to secure them to the underside of the sheave deck alone:

35641699903_6dbd2b6576_z.jpg

Once assembled you can see how this should improve the strength of the final assembly, when viewed from the side:

36312375111_c31c813bc5_z.jpg

I still need to trim and reduce that actuator down of course but you can see how that vertical depth should make this more robust this time around:

35641698493_c1006bf0a1_z.jpg

With that task completed, that should now be the last of any rebuilding that needed doing to the deck details and we can proceed on. Next task is to look at reinstating stations etc. in the fuselage and BT.

 

Have a pleasant evening out there in Modelville all of you.

:bye:

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 71chally said:

Absolutely, not that you would necessarily from those angles. Certainly no gap there either.  As I speculate, it could be that the sat catcher doors were joined where the cargo ones might not be.  I was trying to judge where the door ended in this shot and I was coming to the idea of abeam just aft of the side doors - but it's more than likely an optical illusion.

35597591154_442f1b1022_b.jpg119 US c by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

Its an optical illusion. Those Orange lines are vertical with the door in the picture in a Horizontal position which would thus form a right-angles triangle when viewed from the the side. And if you remember Pythagoras's theorem will realise that the sloped underside of the tail will then be the hypotenuse and thus longer. What you need is an equilateral triangle to work that out. It's not helped much by the tail being angled upwards a bit as well. Nice picture by the way :thumbsup:

 

Gondor

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Martian Hale said:

It looks like the worst is over now.

 

Martian von Famous Last Words

Oh

 

I thought he said he'd been eating Mexican not German

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is some serious planning going on here, if NASA need help sorting out similar Mission Kit in future I am certain they will be emailing Tony

 

 

nice stuff mi'laddo, very nice

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some great updates Tony.

 

FWIW I'm seconding (thirding? fourthing? fifthing? sixthing?) approval of your riveting plan.  I've used HGW rivets on the ar*e of my 1/72 hawks - and whilst I reckon (with due appreciation to the pioneering work of his Crispness) I've now figured out a reliable way of applying them I'm yet to be convinced they'll be visible after painting....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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...