Jump to content

Beechraft Model 18 Twin Beech, 1/72nd conversions


Recommended Posts

Starting now with the Encore/PM kit.
The locating pins will self-misalign an area of the fuselage. Pins may need removal.

Oh, those panel lines, much worse of what you may see in die-cast toy.

IMG_7559+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

 Shall we call these toilet-able seats?:

IMG_7560+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

The resin ailerons, no gain here, don't even bother:

IMG_7561+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Same for the resin elevator, actually with a thicker TE than the original, and looks the same otherwise:

IMG_7562+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Errr....same goes for the wheels:

IMG_7563+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_7564+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

All resin bits separated, many won't be used, since they make no sense, but the other are gladly welcome:

IMG_7567+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

What are we supposed to do with the brick?:

IMG_7567b+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

This calls for Neanderthal modeling technology:

IMG_7568+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

 And some sanding in the modeling water-sports area, otherwise known as kitchen sink:

IMG_7569+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

The kit's cowls are removed. Surprisingly, the kit has no indication on exactly where you should cut. I guided myself by a line on the lower half of the nacelle and followed the cut on the upper half:

IMG_7570+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Thoughts so far:

I guess "Encore" may have the purpose, which I commend, of rescuing an old kit to fill a niche in the market, given the absence (so far) of a good injected Beech 18.

Some of the resin parts look more like a gimmick to add value, since there is no gain whatsoever in replacing the kit's parts with them.

Other resin parts are welcome, but the silly oversight of not molding a matching peg on the separate cylinder to go into the notches on the engine case is...sad.

Nonetheless those engines ARE an improvement over the kit's, and the new cowls a necessity.

The door is nice too.

 

More will follow on this.

 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a plain, no resin bits, old PM kit.

I think I may use some parts of it for the vac, like landing gear legs, tailwheel and such, so I don't have to scratch those.

 

On a different note, and regarding the question about differences, although it does not address the wing root angle, there are here some interesting facts:

http://twinbeech.com/beech18differences.htm

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

11 hours ago, Moa said:

Marklo, if you keep with this heretical talk, naming those accursed scales and even worse, mixing them, I will be forced to report you posts.

Just for that I am going to try to find a military scheme for my Seabee :). No just joking.

 

49241666846_4bdfc5e55f_z.jpg

So far I quite like this one

Edited by Marklo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that this was later than the D?  It may of course simply be to improve the local flow between the fuselage and the nacelles rather than being linked to anything else. 

 

The washed-out wingtips would strongly imply that some thought was being given to preventing stall beginning at a tip and thus giving wing drop (coupled with loss of height) at unwanted times, but extending the leading edge forward at the root would tend to discourage stall at the root, which is just the characteristic that is desired.  Perhaps the two together gave an increase in maximum lift coefficient and thus reduced landing speeds that had been rising with increased weight?  Well, it is sort-of logical.  Or the inner wing leading edge extension transferred what had been an innocuous root stall to the tips, and the washed-out tips were introduced to counter this?   That's logical too, but is it the actual sequence and reason for the change?  It is frustrating when aerodynamic changes are described without any reason for them being put forward.  Sadly there's a lot of such gaps in the histories, unless the preceding behaviour had been noticeably bad!  Companies tend to keep quiet about (let's say) slightly debatable characteristics, as we have seen much more recently.

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized yet another detail overlooked regarding the civil decals for the Encore kit (VH-FIE):

The intended plane had -as said above- long nacelles over the wing, and not short nacelles as in the kit, as well -as explained too- three-blade props and spinners (both absent in the kit), but also has the modified wingtips, squared and with a pronounced wash-out.

You could modify the kit to show all this, but not without some not small labor, and it would have been nice if the instructions would have said or showed so, which they don't.

I looked and looked searching for may be an earlier version of this scheme that coincides with the kit's features, but found none. VH-FIE seems to have been always already a different model of 18.

Such a waste of good decals by AeroMaster, perfectly printed and in precise register.

As Kurt Vonnegut would have said: So it goes.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is all very interesting..... 

I started into a little Beech 18 injection kit, and abandoned it after some time. 

Looks very like the one you're working on, with deeeeep lining esp on the fuselage. 

Heavily angled wing roots, which I removed (because I "knew it was wrong"!) 

Did another maker use this tooling?? 

I can't find the remaining info right now, but it may come to me 🤔

I've now used a main wheel /tyre as a tailwheel replacement on an F4U-1A in a scale which must not be spoke here. 

So completion may not happen! 

I got the flaps and elevator operational and a fair bit of it foiled, before throwing in the towel. 

IMG_20191219_175813

You may inspire me yet, Moa! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rob Lyttle said:

Well, this is all very interesting..... 

I started into a little Beech 18 injection kit, and abandoned it after some time. 

Looks very like the one you're working on, with deeeeep lining esp on the fuselage. 

Heavily angled wing roots, which I removed (because I "knew it was wrong"!) 

Did another maker use this tooling?? 

I can't find the remaining info right now, but it may come to me 🤔

I've now used a main wheel /tyre as a tailwheel replacement on an F4U-1A in a scale which must not be spoke here. 

So completion may not happen! 

I got the flaps and elevator operational and a fair bit of it foiled, before throwing in the towel. 

 

You may inspire me yet, Moa! 

So you were working with the basic PM kit, which was later revamped by Encore adding resin bits and much better decals, plus a vac windshield (all this is above, but you shamelessly skipped it!)

There is also the RarePlane vac, which I am building in parallel (again, go back to square one, you mischievous, reprehensible metal foiler!)

Wheels are not difficult to replace, and you will find plenty of planes online that you can model with no wingroot kink.

So no excuses. The cowls of the kit have been maledicted a bit, but hey, let's leave that to the rivet counters minority (99% of modelers).

On your way you go now, my lad.

 

 

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...