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. :)

nexus11

Hawker Siddeley Kestrel FGA.1 in 1/72

Recommended Posts

This is what it looks like.

Nice is different, but at least the shape is a little bit right...

 

spacer.pngspacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while the putty dries in the joints, I started with the decals. There's nothing prefabricated, except some vaporware from Vingtor or the mentioned Aardvark-Kit. So I have to draw everything myself. First of all, I started with the roundels, which are the most extensive and are also visually the special attraction of the TES.
After some long minutes in Illustrator it looked like this:

 

spacer.png

 

 

It hasn't gotten that bad…

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, nexus11 said:

should follow my little story here…  

I follow

49 minutes ago, nexus11 said:

mentioned groupbuild

I’m unlikely to participate in this GB because I would like to build Hawker P.1154 but I have no information on the cockpit this aircraft.

11 minutes ago, nexus11 said:

This is what it looks like.

Nice is different, but at least the shape is a little bit right...

FrankenKestrel!?

🤔😁

 

B.R.

Serge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

’m unlikely to participate in this GB because I would like to build Hawker P.1154 but I have no information on the cockpit this aircraft.

Personally I never let details like that slow me down, I would just try to make a representable/plausible interior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Marklo said:

Personally I never let details like that slow me down, I would just try to make a representable/plausible interior.

I would agree with that, except You're building in 1/32 oder bigger… 1/48 and smaller no one looks too sharp at interiors. Just my humble opinion…

Share this post


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

Personally I never let details like that slow me down, I would just try to make a representable/plausible interior.

On most models of jet fighters, the cockpit interior is visible even on a 72th scale with close canopy.  

 

In addition, if there are such cutaway key,

vrrdop.jpg

then somewhere there are also instrumental 

board drawings.

 

B.R.

Serge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hmm probably true. Still I’d be inclined to wing it so to speak. I’m presently building a Snark in 1/48 and as far as I can tell there are only three photos of the thing left, so I am going to just copy ( as much as is feasible) the interior arrangement of  contemporary Sopwiths ( and possibly pfalz’s as the snark is a monocoque ply fuselage)

 

Now switching to my engineer’s brain I’d still be inclined to persevere using inference and deduction. Eg form follows function so the interior stringers bulkheads etc could be worked out from the external detail. Things like instrument panels take a lot of engineering so again would be similar and or predecessor designs to stablemate designs and so on. This is also why I said a plausible interior, have the level of detail but be comfortable to call it an homage rather than a scale replica.

 

Anyway my 2 cents (probably more :) ) up to you how you go.

Edited by Marklo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would say that the planning for the cockpit design comes very late and is always based on comparable types. There is no reinventing of the wheel. In your case I would use a P.1127 cockpit in the front and similar one  to the Buccaneer in the back.Nicht vergessen, Your plane is only a design study, not even a mockup was built, as far as I know. Quit me for wrong…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In my case, I turned now to the cockpit. But I don't do more in the cockpit, it is too small and hidden anyway.  Because if the whole conversion goes to shambles, at least I did not waste too much effort. 

Enlarged like this, I can see that there is still some Decalsoft left on it 😉

spacer.png

 

Originally I did think I had a problem with the grating of the air conditioner behind the canopy. But that was only the case with the first Kestrel XS688, all others had the same arrangement as the Harrier. Sins I decided to build XS692 this so was no issue.

 

Then, except for the 4 parallel scoops, all recesses and raised parts must be removed. It is best to remove these 4 scoops now properly so that they can be reinstalled later. In my case they disappeared during all the sanding and filling work and I had to rebuild them.

 

spacer.png

Edited by nexus11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marklo said:

I’m presently building a Snark in 1/48 and as far as I can tell there are only three photos of the thing left, so I am going to just copy ( as much as is feasible) the interior arrangement of  contemporary Sopwiths ( and possibly pfalz’s as the snark is a monocoque ply fuselage)

I agree that with  IWW aircraft it is probably very difficult with technical manual, but maybe we just did not extract all the knowledge from the archives. Why do I think so?  Just recently, I came across an advertisement for the sale for symbolic money of a Russian technical manual  for an airplane (don't remember name airplane) dated 1913, about 13 (or 25?) pages with photo.

Therefore, I am optimistic in this case.

17 hours ago, Marklo said:

Now switching to my engineer’s brain I’d still be inclined to persevere using inference and deduction. Eg form follows function so the interior stringers bulkheads etc could be worked out from the external detail. Things like instrument panels take a lot of engineering so again would be similar and or predecessor designs to stablemate designs and so on. This is also why I said a plausible interior, have the level of detail but be comfortable to call it an homage rather than a scale replica.

To some extent, you are right, because, as far as I know, at least German and Soviet aircraft had a standard central panel of the instruments necessary for piloting during the 2WW. But other countries and Soviet aircraft after 2WW.... I did not do such an analysis for myself.

15 hours ago, nexus11 said:

There is no reinventing of the wheel. In your case I would use a P.1127 cockpit in the front and similar one  to the Buccaneer in the back.

Can you justify your opinion about

similar one  to the Buccaneer in the back?

About "P.1127 cockpit in the front and similar one" a comparison of the P.1127 cockpit with Kestrel already shows the difference.

Do you really think that a more advanced, specialized navy version of the interceptor will have the same cockpit as an actual experimental aircraft?

.....I don't know....

16 hours ago, nexus11 said:

Your plane is only a design study, not even a mockup was built, as far as I know.

Mockup was built for single version for two places version was built mockup only nose. On Scalemodels.ru 

I have compiled a selection of all the photos and drawings of P.1154 available on the Internet, but me need to fix the links to the images, because postimage.cc have some problem with link.

 

B.R.

Serge

Share this post


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

Can you justify your opinion about

similar one  to the Buccaneer in the back?

About "P.1127 cockpit in the front and similar one" a comparison of the P.1127 cockpit with Kestrel already shows the difference.

Do you really think that a more advanced, specialized navy version of the interceptor will have the same cockpit as an actual experimental aircraft?

.....I don't know....

Actually I have no evidence, it was just my worthless opinion. 

But I would suggest to move this interesting discussion to a separate thread. I'm afraid this is not getting the attention it deserves here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you should rebuild it, please make sure that the inner inlets are not yet adapted to the outer, new ones. Because the shape of the air inlets is much too concave, you have to add some material. This is actually one of the crucial points of this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a hull now, after all.
The shortened stern is on, and so is the nose. The pitot tube will be cut off and everything will be sanded down. Shaping is the keyword now.

Also the root of the fin is already sanded into the right shape. 

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always amazing to see which holes you still find after the first round of sanding. So once again another layer of putty on it.

And since, unlike all the other Kestrel models, the tail was not aerodynamically tapered, since it housed the spin-chute, i put some putty on it. But this was a dead end, finally I solved it with sheet.

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought about doing something like this myself so I am glad that someone else has tackled the project first so when I eventually get around to tackling it myself I know roughly wheat to do.

 

Gondor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, nexus11 said:

But I would suggest to move this interesting discussion to a separate thread. I'm afraid this is not getting the attention it deserves here.

If I restarted my frozen project P.1154 then, I of course maked link inside topic on this discussion.

1 hour ago, nexus11 said:

It is always amazing to see which holes you still find after the first round of sanding. So once again another layer of putty on it.

Don't remember, but probably my last project were I'm mass used putty was Me.P.1099B

after I usually used plastic card

because with putty very hard control finished results.

In addition, do not forget that the putty and plastic have different densities, so you always have problems with describing  panels

line.

 

About instrumental panel

19 hours ago, nexus11 said:

Enlarged like this, I can see that there is still some Decalsoft left on it 😉

spacer.png

If You have small diameter drill set then best maked on thin plastic sheet copy of the dashboard with instrument openings as decals. This thin sheet with holes should then be glued to the main plastic from the box. When you put a decal, the devices will fall into the recesses, after which they will need to be filled with transparent acrylic varnish, this will create a more realistic effect.

 

It's for You future building.

 

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, but I do that when needed in my 1/48 models. But in this particular case any effort regarding the cockpit made no sense. It was never clear whether the project would be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More putty! And sanding!

The fairings in front of the rear outlets have now been sanded and molded into the right shape, so the wings could finally get at it, the nose is now also shortened and has the right curvature, the wing tips now are fine too.

 

The challenge remains with the air intakes. They are wrong on both models. So I put Mr. Dissolved Putty on one side and MilliPut on the other. I just don't know which is better. Now I let it dry properly, which takes some time with the thick sausages and then I grind it into shape. I could not think of anything better.
And if it doesn't turn out perfect, it'll be the first Kestrel XS 688. The air intakes were rubber, but unfortunately I'd have to change the leading edges as well.

Well, we'll see.

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nexus11 said:

It was never clear whether the project would be successful.

All be all right!

😉

1 hour ago, nexus11 said:

So I put Mr. Dissolved Putty on one side and MilliPut on the other. I just don't know which is better.

For this case of cource at the best MilliPut, because this putty almost no shrinkage. Dissolved Putty have big shrinkage.

 

B.R.

Serge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the ESCI model as base kit when I did the Kestrel some years ago.

 

spacer.png

 

Unfortunately the Vingtor Decals TES roundels are now sold out....

 

Nils

Share this post


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

Unfortunately the Vingtor Decals TES roundels are now sold out....

Not bad, nice to see that I'm not the only fool around… well done, it really looks like a Kestrel.

 

But regarding the decals i'm ready to help out, I can send my designs or provide printed decals…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in comparison to Your flying one will mine stand on her own wheels, which is a challenge regarding the different main wheel housing and totally different outrigger wheels.

3 hours ago, Aardvark said:

For this case of course at the best MilliPut, because this putty almost no shrinkage. Dissolved Putty have big shrinkage.

It turned out to be just the opposite…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Two steps forward, at least one step back:

Milliput was the wrong idea, the stuff didn't harden. Although after the first sanding, well, rather scraping, it didn't look too bad formally. So everything off the modell again. Now I want to glue a thin sheet into the approximate  form, then put the putty on top of it, then maybe the inner part will be smooth. It's just an attempt, but of course I can only glue in piece by piece so that it slowly gets the right shape.

 

spacer.pngspacer.png

Edited by nexus11
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what I realized in this moment to my great pleasure: The main landing gear doors are completely different from those of the Harrier, also completely different from what Airfix has realized here in the GR.1 model.


The airbrake and landing gear doors are the same on the Kestrel. So I have to drill out the whole part and build and install a landing gear case myself. Or I can just point it out, you can't see it anyway... I'll have to build the flap myself anyway.

 

So now I'm rather three steps back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nexus11 said:

It turned out to be just the opposite…

 But HOW?

😲

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S. I have both putty,  and Dissolved Putty & Milliput. Milliput it's epoxy putty, this putty have  absolutely other mechanism 

solidification than 

Dissolved Putty.

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...