Tri Motors in 1/72 or 1/48

[Seahawk]

And Supermodel Bv 138.

[Jure Miljevic]

Italeri's Do 24 kit has some rather visible inaccuracies, like its nose shape in plan view. Unfortunately, one does not have many other choices in 1/72. It can be built into a nice model, though. Cheers

Jure

[72modeler]

16 hours ago, Roger Holden said:

The only thing the C-2 has in common with the Dutch F-VII airliner is the wing. The fuselage was an entirely new design to US Army requirements and was longer,wider and deeper; not just the different cockpit area.  Tail is bigger and different engine nacelles.  A parallel development was the US built F-10 airliner, which also used the F-VII wing design with everything else new. 

Thanks for this post, Roger! I was thinking about getting a Valom kit and doing it as a C-2, as I really like the early USAAC markings and finish; guess I will just have to do my Airfix Ford trimotor in USMC or USN markings.

Mike

[TISO]

On ‎28‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 08:54, JWM said:

Interesting that they were RAF colours!

Got that from this greek modelling site:

https://helaf.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/junkers-g24he/

 

Considering greeks used Gladiators, Battles, Blenheims it is a sound theory

 

Now back to trimotors.

Serbian moddeling company AEROPOXY produces resin Spartan Cruiser II in 1/72:

https://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/models/aeropoxy-props/spartan-cruiser-ii-1-72/

 

It is a bit of work (nothing a file and a bit of putty can't solve) but very buildable. I have the AEROPUT packing. Incidently one of Spartan IIs of AEROPUT (YU-SAO) was depicted on one of the original PLAYERS cards (i just had to buy that too)

[TISO]

10 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Italeri's Do 24 kit has some rather visible inaccuracies, like its nose shape in plan view. Unfortunately, one does not have many other choices in 1/72. It can be built into a nice model, though. Cheers

Jure

Depends what you are building. If you want to build D-24K i.e. Dutch machine you also have to correct the fuselage Windows, panel lines, pontoons, engines, cowlings, turrets (go according to pis's) and above all "hump" behind the centre engine on top of the wing. It was longer than on the german ( two humps - what is in the kit). Basicly dutch hump is as long as both humps on the german machine. Also tail around tail turret is on the thin side. Nothing some cutting and a bit of putty with some glue won't solve

Edited August 30, 2018 by TISO

[TISO]

On ‎28‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 05:58, tempestfan said:

The Stinson would be an ITC mould I think, with Kleeware being the UK licensee. As such, Glencoe may have it as they appear to have acquired a lot of the ITC tools.

Has the Ca. 133 been mentioned? Kits of it would likely not be easy to get, though. The Ali d‘Italia on it may however be easily obtained from Bancarella.

As a civil type, Arc en Ciel.

AFAIK Arc en Ciel was produced by Heller i think in 1/72 but i'm not shure

[Admiral Puff]

Spartan Cruiser by Aeropoxy - be afraid, be very afraid ... I've seen one built up, so it can be done, but from the looks of my kit it's a LOT of work!

 

And the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.154 Argosy - I'm sure there was a vacuform kit issued years ago.

[e8n2]

20 hours ago, Roger Holden said:

Not sure what the precise difference is, but it's quite visible. The rear upper fuselage on the C-2 is practically a straight line from the trailing edge of the wing to the rudder post, whereas the F-VII drops down just aft of the wing for a few feet and then becomes a straight line to the tail, which is several mm difference in 1/72.  Not sure about the lower profile of the fuselage, but that may be different too. 

I have included two photos of the Army C-2 Bird of Paradise.  This first shot of it inflight shows what could be a defensive gun position with a windscreen right behind the trailing edge:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=army+c+2+bird+of+paradise&fr2=piv-web&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001#id=0&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fae%2FFokker_C-2_Bird_of_Paradise_in_flight_051127-F-1234P-033.jpg&action=click

 

This second shot is of the Bird of Paradise on the ground after flying to Hawaii.  It looks like there is a bit of a hump just aft of the trailing edge then a straight line to the empenage.  The belly looks like it may be a bit deeper, but not by much than on the F VII 3/m:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=army+c+2+bird+of+paradise&fr2=piv-web&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001#id=1&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa3%2FFokker_C-2_Bird_of_Paradise_051127-F-1234P-029.jpg%2F1200px-Fokker_C-2_Bird_of_Paradise_051127-F-1234P-029.jpg&action=click

 

Later,

Dave

[Roger Holden]

2 hours ago, e8n2 said:

 This first shot of it inflight shows what could be a defensive gun position with a windscreen right behind the trailing edge:

 

 

 

It's the navigator's position added just before the flight so that Hegenberger could take star sights and estimate the wind drift en route to Hawaii. There are posed photos of him doing so.

 

Only 'combat' use of C-2s was by the Marine Corps (TA-2 version) in Nicaragua.

[JWM]

BTW - Pity that perhaps  the most elegant tri-motor ever, Fokker FXX seems to be not existing as model

Cheers

J-W

[Jure Miljevic]

Tiso, I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. Slightly OT, several books mention capture of at least one key bridge in Netherlands on 10th May 1940 by German troops, transported into action by Do 24 flying boat landing nearby. Do such claims have any basis in real events? Cheers

Jure

[TISO]

Is there any kit of Fokker F.IX or its czeh built bomber variant AVIA -Fokker F.39 in 1/72?

Edited September 1, 2018 by TISO

[Tweener]

On 8/28/2018 at 1:56 AM, tempestfan said:

The other way round I think, Airfix = 5AT. Back when I was actively looking for older kits (up to ca two years ago), they were fairly easy to obtain, especially the late 80s Special Edition. Monogram was 1/77 nominally IIRC, it was reissued not that long ago by Revell.

The airfiix kit, to the best of my knowledge, is a 5AT-D / C-4A. I have been working on and off on making a C-4A, just not sure where I can get decals. I'll have to see if Mark would be up to it.

[JWM]

Here is build of RAF Tri-motor

https://adamrehorn.wordpress.com/model-kits/planes/172-airfix-ford-5-at-trimotor/

But I have not seen any photo of real machine

Here was discussion on RAAF AT 5 

But the photobucket crisis ruined it totally

But here is my attempt to do it

Regards

J-W

 

[VH-USB]

On 8/31/2018 at 3:43 AM, Roger Holden said:

It's the navigator's position added just before the flight so that Hegenberger could take star sights and estimate the wind drift en route to Hawaii. There are posed photos of him doing so.

Here's what Roger is talking about...

https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/albert-hegenberger-in-the-bird-of-paradises-celestial-sighting-station

[Seahawk]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:02 AM, JWM said:

Here is build of RAF Tri-motor

https://adamrehorn.wordpress.com/model-kits/planes/172-airfix-ford-5-at-trimotor/

IMHO this rather hysterical review/build tells us rather more about the modeller than the model.  I am struck by the number of things he did NOT have when undertaking the project (decal-setting solutions, RAF shade paints, RAF transfers, plastic card).  Anyway in my experience the Airfix Trimotor is nothing like as bad as he makes out.  It is a kit of its time (1960s/70s/) and therefore, yes, may suffer in comparison with the latest Tamiya release.  However the comparison with Starfix is ridiculous hyperbole (why would any serious modeller be building Starfix in the first place?).  I bought a reissue in the 1980s and was surprised how well it went together: I doubt that Airfix's current moulds will giving anything like as good service at an equivalent age.  Given how much can be seen through the side windows, the interior detail is adequate, even superfluous, no worse than, say, its rough contemporaries, the Heron and Jetstream.  Not damaging the corrugations is a problem, as it would be with any kit where the fit is not absolutely perfect.  The struts needs cleaning of join lines but so do equivalent parts on the latest Airfix kits.  By all means, go into this kit with your eyes open, accepting that kit manufacture has advanced over the last 40 years, but it is nothing like the hopeless pile of excrement the reviewer says.

 

The idea of using Ju52 spats is an interesting one though: could rescue mine from the shelf of doom.  🙂

[John Aero]

Heller Couzinet Arc en Ciel close to 1:72.

 

John

 

[Faust]

On 9/4/2018 at 5:25 AM, Seahawk said:

IMHO this rather hysterical review/build tells us rather more about the modeller than the model.  I am struck by the number of things he did NOT have when undertaking the project (decal-setting solutions, RAF shade paints, RAF transfers, plastic card).  Anyway in my experience the Airfix Trimotor is nothing like as bad as he makes out.  It is a kit of its time (1960s/70s/) and therefore, yes, may suffer in comparison with the latest Tamiya release.  However the comparison with Starfix is ridiculous hyperbole (why would any serious modeller be building Starfix in the first place?).  I bought a reissue in the 1980s and was surprised how well it went together: I doubt that Airfix's current moulds will giving anything like as good service at an equivalent age.  Given how much can be seen through the side windows, the interior detail is adequate, even superfluous, no worse than, say, its rough contemporaries, the Heron and Jetstream.  Not damaging the corrugations is a problem, as it would be with any kit where the fit is not absolutely perfect.  The struts needs cleaning of join lines but so do equivalent parts on the latest Airfix kits.  By all means, go into this kit with your eyes open, accepting that kit manufacture has advanced over the last 40 years, but it is nothing like the hopeless pile of excrement the reviewer says.

 

The idea of using Ju52 spats is an interesting one though: could rescue mine from the shelf of doom.  🙂

 A bit of both, actually. It tells about the model, and its effects on the modeller! If you think it's hysterically funny, then I'm glad. If you think it's hysterical meaning I was being such, well that's your take on it. That's what happens when  you take on a project that's a lot above your skill level at the time. I built that one a long time ago now, and have learned a lot since then! (Including not to build old Airfixes, which will forever remain a hard and fast rule...)

 

Just so you know, ten years on, I still don't use decal setting solution, and I still don't have "proper RAF shades". I don't have any "proper" shades - I usually find one that's close and adjust it to suit, or mix colours straight away! I find it hard to get colours that are acrylic and a good match. However, I do make much better models now. What doesn't kill you, I suppose...

 

As for why build Starfix? Good question, I must say. However, I would think that a serious modeller could do a rather good job on a Starfix - isn't that what modelling is all about; taking a slag heap and making it good? I would dare to say the Aoshimas (Farpros) I have on  my site (see link in sig) from the early '60s a.) look extremely good and b.) were no worse than the trimotor in concept, just with better plastic and engineering. 

 

The Ju-52 spats do help a lot. I was grateful someone suggested it to me.  I would say go for it on your kit!

[dogsbody]

What about an SM.84?

 

 

 

Chris

[Faust]

25 minutes ago, dogsbody said:

What about an SM.84?

 

 

 

Chris

Now that is awesome! Both the plane, and the box warning!

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

On 11/16/2018 at 4:02 PM, Faust said:

However, I would think that a serious modeller could do a rather good job on a Starfix - isn't that what modelling is all about; taking a slag heap and making it good?

I have never built a Starfix kit. Probably never will, considering I've never even seen one. But i 100% agree with you. That is what modeling is. Some people prefer the “assembling” where a kit is flawless out of the box. But i prefer older kits, I've continually sought out Monogram and similar kits. They allow me to exercise and add to my skills. Besides most times they're cheaper. 

 

Dennis

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

I have never built a Starfix kit. Probably never will, considering I've never even seen one. But i 100% agree with you. That is what modeling is. Some people prefer the “assembling” where a kit is flawless out of the box. But i prefer older kits, I've continually sought out Monogram and similar kits. They allow me to exercise and add to my skills. Besides most times they're cheaper. 

 

Dennis

Try any Mach 2 kit, Dennis- then get back to us with how it went! Ha! 😨 (Snowing yet?) We just had a restored P-51D crash about 75 miles from here- very sad- both pilot and passenger died, but nobody on the ground. Owner was well-known for taking WW2 vets on rides- the Honor Flight. Google P-51 Mujstang crashes in Fredericksburg to see photos and article. F'burg is where the Museum of the Pacific war is located- formerly known as  (and still is, by all of us Texans) The Nimitz Museum.

Mike

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Hey Mike @72modeler i posted a link to the mustang crash story in Real aviation. Yes some snow not much though just some dustings. Ive built a Grand Phoenix FJ-4 fury does that count ? And im on my 4th Roden Biplane ? 

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235046681-plane-crash-in-texas/

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[72modeler]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 2:16 PM, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Hey Mike @72modeler i posted a link to the mustang crash story in Real aviation. Yes some snow not much though just some dustings. Ive built a Grand Phoenix FJ-4 fury does that count ? And im on my 4th Roden Biplane ? 

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235046681-plane-crash-in-texas/

 

I hate you! I'm still torn between my AZ/Hasegawa Hurricane Mk V and aTamiya RAF P-47D razorback as my coming out of retirement project- last completed model was the MB Siskin III in 1986-7! I'm getting tired of looking at all these d--- boxes stacked up everywhere! Hopefully I can learn how to post photos so I can share my meager skills with the rest of you guys! I have all the Roden bipes, and basically they all seem to be very decent kits, just need some TLC to bring them up to snuff.

 

Gotta get up in the hobbyroom today to mix some sky enamel for a buddy who's using the Paragon resin conversion with the Hasegawa Mk VII/IX to do MK XII EB-B He wants to use the decals that came with the Xtrakit Mk XII, which isn't all that good, and he needs the sky band and spinner to match the decal codes..he always teases me for being 'old school' and not leaping on the acrylic bandwagon, but he sure doesn't mind me mixing colors for him! He never had to experience what it was like when we all started out and there were very few, if any, pre-mixed paints matched to official color chips...rookies! Happy Thanksgiving, my friend!

Mike

Edited November 21, 2018 by 72modeler
added text for clarity

[tempestfan]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 10:53 PM, TISO said:

AFAIK Arc en Ciel was produced by Heller i think in 1/72 but i'm not shure

The Heller kit is nominally 1/75 AFAIK, but hasn't been in production for over 40 years, I think.

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:02 PM, Faust said:

 As for why build Starfix? Good question, I must say. However, I would think that a serious modeller could do a rather good job on a Starfix - isn't that what modelling is all about; taking a slag heap and making it good? I would dare to say the Aoshimas (Farpros) I have on  my site (see link in sig) from the early '60s a.) look extremely good and b.) were no worse than the trimotor in concept, just with better plastic and engineering. 

Not much point in building Starfix as I do not think they have/had any original mould but only clones of others (sometimes rescaled) whose originals were better. 

The claim that early Aoshima kits have/had better plastic and engineering than a late 60s Airfix like the Ford is ... stiff ! But then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for old kits - I have a substantially complete collection of Airfix kits in all boxtypes (meaning just about every kit in each bag-/boxtype it was issued in) from 1956 to 1980 -, but Aoshima kits are notorious for having different scales in one kit for different components, and even the better ones do not really have a reputation for accuracy...