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. :)

rob Lyttle

Lockheed Twins (and a CONNIE ) Civvies

Recommended Posts

This is good.  Can’t remember where I got this plan. (Don’t you just love Photobucket’s big logo.) Thought it might be from  BM thread but not sure.  Anyway, now going to give that whole belly line issue a rethink. This looks right to me.  Fuselage a little short based on this plan.  Nice seating layout.  Are you sure you don’t...........

 

Dennis

 

 

resized_9b447f1f-3e28-4e82-8ddd-29be17e0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that throws a whole different light on the matter, doesn't it?! 😮

If that drawing is right, and it sure looks like a good match everywhere else, then your initial idea is correct. 

Just a matter of reshaping from the gun glazing back to the tail. 

WOW. 

 

And there's even a little jump seat for the attendant on the back wall! 

Good find! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.... The Genie is out of the bottle now, Dennis..... 

And I don't think he's going back in... !! 😇

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An easy fix.  Now, anything else?  Nacelles, cowl rings, etc? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a home run from here! 

Just while you've got drawings etc, do a quick check on the fin/rudder shape. 

Nothing that can't be adjusted, but sometimes looks a bit wide and square-ish compared to the usual Lockheed style. 

Share this post


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

It's a home run from here!

Good!  Tail feathers ok, not a mirror image but close enough.  The trailing edges are so fine it would be a shame to try and match them up for a mm or so.  I’ll not change them on mine.

 

Dennis

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test vac on the tail fix.  Might need a little reshaping but it’s pretty close.  I’ll make an insert similar to the top turret one for the ventral turret.  

 

resized_a77b8291-43cb-408a-9fe4-75f73ee6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2019 at 17:39, DMC said:

 Now, anything else?  Nacelles, cowl rings, etc? 

I've been looking into the possibility of having the P&W Twin Wasps on the Lodestar. The 14cyl engines are on the list of "do not use". Unfortunately the right cowlings aren't included.... They are easily by the ring of cooling Gills and a straighter profile. 

I guess MPM have an alternative version that uses them..... Hudson IV, V, or VI.? 

Anyway, it got me looking at engine types, and it's not great news at first glance on the big Revell 1.48 PV1 kit, for making a Lodestar. 

The PV1 was fitted with the 18cyl Double Wasps from the start, R2800 with those 2 big distributors on the gearbox. Just like the F4U etc. 

Revell represents them quite nicely in the kit. 

I can't find any Lodestar version with these though. 

Plenty of Wright Cyclone single-bank 9cyl, and some 14cyl Twin Wasps (which is what I want to do on this one) 

The Twin Wasp is 7+7cyl and a lot less mechanism out front on the gearbox. 

Sooooo... 

Any thoughts, Dennis? 

I guess my first effort is OK, being a warsurplus Ventura repurposed Bolivian style as a passenger transport. 

See what you come up with.... 

👍

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the source of your drawing, Dennis. 

Concensus there is that the MPM special hobby Lodestar fuselage isn't deep enough, and the minicraft academy is Ventura is the right depth and just needs filling and shaping back from the gun position under 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

See what you come up with.

Yes, I clearly need to do some more research.  So, it’s twin(2) 14 cylinder engines we need and the cowlings need modifying?  And, yes, pretty sure that conversation link is where I got the drawings from.  It’s bookmarked somewhere amongst about a hundred other bookmarked modelling topics.

 

One of which is this one:

 

http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/26899/1-48-lodestar-revell-ventura

 

I’m going to have another look in the box.  I had put it away so I wouldn’t be tempted to start hacking away at the fuselage.  The need to focus on the float plane/flying boat GB is paramount right now.  

 

I appreciate your advice and suggestions, Rob.

 

Dennis

 

PM heading your way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No PMs, Rob?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send me another PM to reply to, Rob.  Still a problem with you receiving one from me unless it’s a reply

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly, the tail is assembled... 

IMG_20191001_213438

.... oh that's what all those lines are for! 

Foiled as one sub-assembly and I've left the rudders bare for a paint job or decals.

And on it went... 

IMG_20191003_234431

And the final strip of foil over the midsection and onto the fuselage rise. 

Also done the top of the fuselage and over the cockpit roof...

IMG_20191003_234516

 

Got the chimney stack and leadwork sorted, scaffold tower down and stacked for collection, and picked a shed load of tomatoes.... 

IMG_20191001_204912

I'm on a roll..... 😇😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ve got your foiling techniques down, Rob.  Is the foil you use very thick.  I’ve some but it’s paper thin and wrinkles very easily. 

 

Tomatoes: we’re lucky if we get 20 every year.  Cucumbers a-plenty, however.

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's thin enough for the panel lines to be found and picked out with a sharp pencil or cocktail stick. 

Thick enough to take some burnishing and even a little abrasion if required. 

It'll wrinkle if you let it.! 

Certainly thicker and tougher than kitchen foil types 

General rule no. 1 is start in the middle and work outwards. 

And don't let it wrinkle....!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a review on here (from 2013) for the Quickboost resin cowlings to suit the P&W Twin Wasps for the Hudson in 1.72. 

Turns out that they are too big in diameter at 19mm. Expert opinion was that the cowlings should be 17mm. 

So that's a useful bit of info! 

The MPM kit cowlings (for the Cyclone engines), if the profile is straightened up front to back, will come out under the 18mm dia. 

So they may be up for modification. 

Good to know what to aim for, and what not to buy! It seems shelling out money isn't always the answer. 

 

I've foiled the wings almost entirely, and I've glued one on. 

The joint is very good, and the aids that I made to help with attachment and alignment have really paid off. 

Definitely worth the effort early on! 

Another wing and I've got an airframe to work on. 

😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a quick backdate with a couple of pictures of a wing in the process.... 

IMG_20191004_231401

I'm going right across the top of the wing to the tip joint in one piece ... 

IMG_20191004_222531

The trick here is to reveal only a strip of the adhesive underside and leave the backing on the rest of the foil. 

Now it can be positioned and orientated as required and then the exposed end can be tacked down. 

So when I said the Rule no. 1 is start in the middle and work outwards, what that means in this case is the middle of the wing right along the main spar to the tip. 

This line is dead straight, whereas chordwise is all curve and camber. 

IMG_20191004_222933

I've peeled the backing with one hand and my other thumb following along the top surface to the end. 

Only now I start working along the spar line and gradually towards the TE and LE, nice and straight and not allowing wrinkles to accumulate. 

I worked around the nacelles as much as the foil will stretch and then cuts either side of the nacelle to let the foil curve on over the straight LE and onto the bottom of the wing.

IMG_20191004_231338

Trailing edges I have enough to fold under the aileron to the hinge line, and on the extension piece above the flap it's just folded under by a couple of mm. 

This is to keep the cut edges of the foil away from the places where it's most likely to fray and peel back. 

As long as the edge the foil is going over is straight, it should go OK. 

The very outside ends of the ailerons have a fraction of curve as the beginning of the tip shape, and the foil needs a little nick at that edge to release the bit of surplus foil.. 

Buffing, burnishing and picking out the panel lines and surface details, and trimming back to suitable panel lines underneath, ready for the next piece to complete what's left to be done on the bottom. 

And trimming back to the mating surfaces at the wing root to keep the crucial joint clean and clear of foil. 

 

Then glue 'em on!! 

IMG_20191005_212820

 

IMG_20191005_212722

😇

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely done. I see many hours of previous experience in those photos. 

 

That foil foil is definitely thicker than the stuff I have.

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://images.app.goo.gl/5JPUDA67YXqPBhLF7

The link should take you to a picture of a Lodestar from the Geoff Goodall collection. 

And it seems to confirm a doubt that has been nagging since I looked through that New Zealand website link above. 

Here we are... 

http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/26899/1-48-lodestar-revell-ventura

As the thread continues, data and drawings from the Lockheed manuals start to get pasted....! 

And it seems the Lodestar wing IS JUST the Hudson wing with a flat extension piece built onto the runners. 

And the flap itself has NO EXTENSION to match. 

In fact what MPM have supplied is very much like the real aircraft. 

The parallel edges are clear to see in the picture.... No add-on extensions on the flaps. 

I was rather dismissive of the kit's version of things, so I'll take that back. 

"Sorry, MPM!" 

I'd like to flag this up to @Vingtor

for consideration, and anyone else on the Lockheed bandwagon of course. 

Just that you pasted info and pics of your hassles with this aspect of the build, 

I think we may have overdone the engineering on the flaps, Nils 

Edited by rob Lyttle
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lodestar is different from the Hudson in two major ways, as well as a few minor ones.

 

1) The fuselage is longer. In fact the same fuselage as the Ventura, apart from the missing ventral gun and tail cone. The flaps should be as for the Hudson, apart from wing chord extension.

 

2) The wings have the same inward chord extensions as the Ventura, while the engines and undercarriage housing are the same as same as for the Hudson - either Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp or Wright Cyclone (depending on the version).

 

Nils

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, on all that, Nils. 

And I'm going to try and use the P&W Twin Wasps on this one if I can work it with the cowlings. 

What I'm talking about is this.... The wing trailing edges have the extension pieces on the flap rails, but does the flap itself have a corresponding extension piece to match it, like I've built on mine?? 

IMG_20190927_231248

The photo link above suggests not.... It's just a parallel edged Hudson flap sitting in under the modified wing. 

1 hour ago, Vingtor said:

The fuselage is longer. In fact the same fuselage as the Ventura, apart from the missing ventral gun and tail cone. The flaps should be as for the Hudson, apart from wing chord extension.

A couple of us are discussing the viability of making an L18 out of the 1.48 PV1 Ventura kit by Revell, and it's getting kind of interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I've done with an engine so far. 

With a bit of honing on the tops of the rocker boxes, the P&W Twin Wasp is a real tidy fit inside the assembled cowling. 

Lugs in the cowling are removed for this. 

As is my usual method, the prop will be fitted with an Ali tube shaft and the engine is fitted with a bigger diameter tube bearing. 

The bearing is fixed already, nice and long, the engine is well glued into the cowling, and when set the whole thing goes in the drill chuck and turned like on a lathe... 

IMG_20191007_174941

And I'm looking at the thin plastic corners of my yoghurt pots for the making of a ring of cooling Gills. 

I have no data or any measurements for what I'm doing.... I'm just eyeballing the thing. 

What I can tell you is that the Hudson in the BM walkaround section is fitted with the P&W Twins and the cowlings that are required .

So I'm looking at that one.

The gouging blade in the handle is quite a good tool for turning a shallow step into the plastic to accommodate the thin plastic addition 

IMG_20191007_175009

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here we are.... 

As usual there's lots of pictures up inside wheel wells.... (?).... But there is this, 

07.jpg

 

And I've just noted this.... 

"As a mk.III, it should be powered by Wright Cyclones. This example was re-en gined with Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasps when operated by Ad Astra for common ality with the rest of its fleet. Even so the cowlings are non-standard in t hat the rear of the cowlings are flared."

Oh well, back to the old Google images.... 

Edited by rob Lyttle
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is a Twin Wasps installation on a Hudson, MkIV or V I guess... 

4132509

And from a 3view drawing.... 

IMG_20191007_234658

By means of judicious adjustment and zoom on my phone screen and balancing one nacelle or the other on the screen, and comparing the drawing to the MPM line drawings, etc I'm getting some idea of how they relate. 

I think the prop position stays the same and the extra length of the engine is accommodated in the engine mounting and the longer cowling comes back a little further onto the nacelle. 

And here's what I've achieved so far... 

IMG_20191007_234546

 

IMG_20191007_234532

 

It would be a lot easier if they supplied the **** parts! 

If the back of the engine goes against the front of the nacelle moulding, it kinda looks like it's about right ish. 

🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second thoughts on this... 

C of G is going to be the paramount consideration when installing other engines...... isn't it? 

The centre of mass for the P&W Twin will be further back from the front of the front cylinder bank. 

Also it features a bigger reduction gearbox on the front, and then the prop is attached. 

That says to me that the prop line is going to be a bit further forward compared to the Cyclones, for the C of G to be maintained overall..... 

🤔

 

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...