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. :)

TheBaron

Listening to the Solstice

Recommended Posts

wait!  what page is this?

 

 

what.... 4 ?    :yikes:

 

 

and he still hasn't done anyTHING?  

 

 

 

 

Edited by hendie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kallisti said:

Are we there yet?

 

shouldn't the question be - Have we started yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey.  I spent ages forging the note from my Mum making excuses Ahem explainingmy lateness and I need not worried as he hasn't started yet.  ☺

 

All the best  

Chris 

Edited by bigbadbadge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, he's just holding back to increase that 'Whizzo' feeling when he kicks off

 

 

 

 

😱

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2018 at 9:25 PM, Martian Hale said:

That's better! Now you seem to have all you need, you may proceed.

I think I'm going to paradoxically start with the smallest bits first Martian. Build the Flightpath bits and then see what needs to be done to introduce them to the plastic. Especially those complex-looking flaps....

On 9/5/2018 at 9:29 PM, pheonix said:

I did not know that the German system had been detected so early and via the method you have described

There is something oddly beguiling about that period that was a mixture of electromagnetic physics and aircraft still built of wood...

I think it was in Andrew Hodges' excellent biography of Alan Turing where he talked about all those country houses being taken over by the war effort as a mixture of physics labs and medievalism.

22 hours ago, giemme said:

:Tasty:

58727_XXX_v1.tif&qlt=75&wid=315&cvt=jpeg

Napkin?

22 hours ago, CedB said:

Nice PE Tony, and I'm sure that's not all that's going to go inside... :) 

Quite. The smaller the space, the greater the obsession.... :rofl:

5 hours ago, limeypilot said:

well, if you're going that far you may as well throw in some home brewed PE at the same time.

 

You know what these four handsome chaps say...

I feel like their friend Stan:

 

'My friend Stan’s got a funny old man
Oh yeah, oh yeah
He makes him work all night 'til he can’t do it right'

 

6e0c61718ffbfd5ddd4d05d3cf6e827e.600x616

:laugh:

15 hours ago, bigbadbadge said:

I have a couple of Ansons in the stash

As any gentleman should.

11 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

I promised I wouldn't ask............

You are nothing if not a man of your word Terry. 😁

9 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Besides, prodding someone else to get on with doing some modelling is so much easier than getting on and doing some modelling yourself...

Harumph!!

giphy.gif

:winkgrin:

5 hours ago, limeypilot said:

In your own time, carry on!

Right. You said it Ian.

 

Some further nuggets of research tonight due to me being too lazy to reallygo round reading other people's builds of the same. How does the overall shape match up?

I'm not as a rule one to necessarily trust working from drawings though I do know people speak highly of the Warpaint series so I did obtain the Anson one and photocopy the relavent parts. 

Both wing:

43800037994_3f93f859c3_c.jpg

and fuselage:

42708879920_9367d5c10f_c.jpg

appear almost bang on.

The only disparity seemed to be this region on the rear underside, just behind the tailwheel where there's an extended shallow triangle visible:

43608412485_64373f7473_c.jpg

I want to stare at some photos before ncessarily trusting to that.

 

The maintenance manual was a different kettle of fish and those more expert than myself (@71chally if you have time...) might care to comment on the much larger disparity between kit and technical illustriations therein. 

 

Wing:

43800037484_258006d60f_c.jpg

Wing:

43800037784_1dc07b1807_c.jpg

Neither of the two drawings of the mainplane from the manual match. From wingtip to aileron isn't bad in either case but by the time you'reback to the trailing edge of the wing root, the drawings differ considerably in aspect.

 

I would assume from this that the drawings in the technical manual are for illustrative purposes and not scaled versions of the actual plans? 🤔

 

Side view of the fuselage similarly has a much deeper curve along the whole of the underside:

43608412685_485b9b6631_c.jpg

Though interestingly the Flightpath jewellery is an almost perfect match to the plan for the tubular framework inside the fuselage:

43608412935_3a1eed4907_c.jpg

It's a pity as I'm going to build that myself using brass tubing to give it greater dimension, but at least I know I can pin it up against the drawing to get it right.

 

Where does this leave things?   

 

Well, I'm inclined to trust the Warpaint plans for overall outlines tbh, but I want to spend some time just staring at Anson photos. Increasingly I find this hypnotic kind of absorption in photographs helps me to build up a mental map of an aircraft so that you end up with this 'tactile' model of it in your head to work with on an ongoing basis. I really do believe more and more that you need to internalize a certain amount of imagery in this way so that you can move around the shapes and forms in your mind, in order to shape it with your hands.

 

I know you're itching to see stuff built but work really is going to limit the pace that I can produce this one at - at least until Christmas.

 

That said, I really would like to make a start on building the etch for the flaps over the weekend.

 

Keep 'em peeled.

:bye:

Tony

 

Edit. Oh crap. I hadn't seen there was a page 4 already:

4 hours ago, hendie said:

and he still hasn't done anyTHING?  

You DO want this to be longer than 125 pages don't you?

4 hours ago, Kallisti said:

Are we there yet?

You're still not too old to be sent to your room without any supper you know. :chair:

3 hours ago, hendie said:

Have we started yet ?

And you older gentlemen should be settting an example to the ill-disciplined youths that seem to proliferate on this forum!

3 hours ago, bigbadbadge said:

I spent ages forging the note from my Mum making excuses Ahem explainingmy lateness and I need not worried as he hasn't started yet.

You'll be staying behind to help Mr.Jenkins launder the shirts after rugby if you're not careful...

3 hours ago, perdu said:

he's just holding back to increase that 'Whizzo' feeling when he kicks off

Yes.

Yes. That's it. 

Err.

Hmm.

2 hours ago, Spookytooth said:

"Why are we waiting" 

tenor.gif?itemid=4797969

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

I would assume from this that the drawings in the technical manual are for illustrative purposes and not scaled versions of the actual plans?

 

Or it might be that way back in time Airfix used a copy of the plans the Warpaint ones are 'based' on & they're totally inaccurate...!! :whistle: :coat: :)

 

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

The maintenance manual was a different kettle of fish and those more expert than myself (@71chally if you have time...) might care to comment on the much larger disparity between kit and technical illustriations therein. 

 

 I would assume from this that the drawings in the technical manual are for illustrative purposes and not scaled versions of the actual plans?   

 

 Well, I'm inclined to trust the Warpaint plans for overall outlines tbh, but I want to spend some time just staring at Anson photos

Hmm, interesting.  Ordinarily for the era of APs and plans that I use (post-2nd world war) I don't trust the drawings and concur absolutely with your 2nd sentence here.

However those pre-war drawings always strike me as quite well executed and I struggle to believe that they were drawn with all that detail but without regard to scale.

 

I think it has been known for a bit of tale wagging the dog with this approach, ie warpaint drawings being based on a plastic kit, seem to remember the Frog Gannet might be a case of that.

 

Just my observations, and I just know that you won't produce anything without a good deal of picture looking and research Tony!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting story!

And nice vintage kit and aftermarket!

It looks all the ingredients ar there!!!

Nice project!!! I'll be watching!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

And you older gentlemen should be settting an example 

 

But don't forget young whippersnapper, the older we get the less time we have left to waste with your prevaricating...!! :clif:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheBaron said:

I think I'm going to paradoxically start with the smallest bits first Martian. 

You leave my Martianhood out of this build, you naughty pantomime dame you!

 

Martian of the Long Tentacle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, keefr22 said:

 

Or it might be that way back in time Airfix used a copy of the plans the Warpaint ones are 'based' on & they're totally inaccurate...!! :whistle: :coat: :)

 

K

Little did I think upon returning to modelling that I would spend a lot of time emulating Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose with aircraft reference books Keith... :laugh:

I'm pleased to say that Airfix seem to have done a not bad job and it is in fact the Warpaint drawings that appear to err most. (See below)

18 hours ago, massimo said:

Nice project!!! I'll be watching!!!

Glad to see you here Massimo! 😁

18 hours ago, 71chally said:

I think it has been known for a bit of tale wagging the dog with this approach, ie warpaint drawings being based on a plastic kit, seem to remember the Frog Gannet might be a case of that.

I wasn't ware of such matters James and that made me uncomfortable enough to go deeper into the research.

18 hours ago, 71chally said:

However those pre-war drawings always strike me as quite well executed and I struggle to believe that they were drawn with all that detail but without regard to scale.

That was nagging doubt - I was far too quick to trust the nice neat match between Warpaint drawing and kit - possibly deluding myself that this build was going to prove simpler than the last one! After some deeper reading last night I think I've solved the conundrum now and concur with your idea reagrding the fidelity of the original  AP drawings.

 

The Warpaint drawings aren't quite correct in a number of areas.

 

Airfix come much closer (which is really warming to be able to say for such a venerable old kit).

 

Evidence?

 

From Section 7 of the maintenance manual, describing the mainplane section:

30662832828_6e8abeeac3_h.jpg

As we're build N9945, this means that the original comparison I did in last night's post (showing the kit wing against Fig. 1) is not in fact a valid comparison. Being previously unaware of two types of mainplane changing between production runs,  I therefore needed to find Fig. 2 instead.

 

Confusingly, the Air Ministry chose to print this on the page immediately following Fig.1. :rofl2:.

 

Probably the easiest way to show you the difference between the drawing from the manual and the Warpaint one is to superimpose the former on top of the latter:

44532687551_2a919b8028_b.jpg

The Warpaint drawing (black lines) starts off fine along the leading edge and wingtip region but grows steadily more inaccurate the closer it gets to the fuselage and trailing edge - witness the position of the engine housing, size of aileron and wing root shape.

 

Looking at the Airfix wing in relation to the manual drawing:

30663139048_3ef3c21f3a_c.jpg

The engine position (and even the fuel tanks) are practically spot on (in sharp contrast to the Warpaint drawing), as is the overall wing-shape until the rear of the wing root, whereupon kit and Warpaint drawing share a similar issue with root shape and over-long aileron (which should stop at Rib 10a. not about 7a.)

Verdict? 

Airfix match the maintenance manual drawing more closely than the Warpaint drawing.

The correction should be simple but demanding: a more pronounced 'flare' to the wing root of about 4mm at maximum extent and reduce length of aileron by about 19mm.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, you're putting up a good fight here too, aren't you? :fight::boxing: 

 

Looking forward o further developments ... :popcorn: 

 

Ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to complain about this one being inaccurate, you shall be forced to build the Fairey Battle next!

 Looks as though Airfix did a pretty good job with this, I'm really looking forward to seeing it Baronised!

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to bluntly say the Warpaint drawings are inaccurate Tony, because I didn't actually know that was the case - & still don't. But, and it might just be modellers Chinese whispers, they do have somewhat of a reputation of sometimes being thus. Personally I never use plans, because I've always been a simple soul & if it looks right that's good enough for me, and nobody with a micrometer or scale ruler will ever get close enough to measure one of my models without incurring a severe slap....!! 

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, giemme said:

Tony, you're putting up a good fight here too, aren't you? :fight::boxing: 

 

oh, I dunno... the way I see it is that it is simply a reasonably plausible excuse (probably pre-planned!) for not actually starting any real work.

 

 

 

 

there's only so many plausible excuses

 

 

tin-foil-time-bomb_o_2193543.jpg

 

 

it's only a matter of time...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great story so far Tony, and I would say you have (technically) started! I'll be away in Canada for a few weeks, but will dip in now and then to see how things are going.

 

Bye for now

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/09/2018 at 00:05, hendie said:

wait!  what page is this?

 

 

what.... 4 ?    :yikes:

 

 

and he still hasn't done anyTHING?  

 

 

 

 

Do you reckon we’ll get to five pages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I believe something like twelvty five has been budgeted for, seems on track to me. :) Liking this Tony, I've one tucked away too. I'll try to keep up but I can't guarantee there won't be times my eyes will glaze over & I'll have to duck out for a bit. :)

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fascinating piece of history from a time of genuine termoil and change. Love the attention to detail and effort put in so far in researching both the story & the aircraft/model. 

 

Will be be following along in awe.

 

Edge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit late to the party with this thread, but I was able to get some photos of Montrose Heritage Trust's stripped down TX266 a couple of months ago. 

I know it's a later mark but the Anson didn't go through *that* much of an evolutionary process... 

 

John 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of ailerons, I seem to remember that earlier Ansons had longer ones and they were shortened at some point. So the Warpaint drawings may simply be showing the other configuration.

 

Regards,

Adrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this one would show the other ailerons but the photographer was more than a little overwhelmed by his surroundings and kinda missed out on any decent pictures of her

 

😱

 

Makes for another excuse to wander back to Old Warden though, gotta be worth it

P1130976.jpg

 

She seems to be undergoing an annual or something

 

Reminds me of the research I had fun with on my Auster a while back, inspection holes pulled open in the fabric

 

And bits off all over the floor

P1130975.jpg

 

I will pull these off thread if you like Tony, just thought they might help inspire

 

Nudge nudge

 

 

😯

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...