Revell 1/72nd scale Walrus, Flotille 53S Aeronavale, Hourtin, France, 1948...

[John Masters 11,222]

Here is my next naval aircraft.  I have been wanting to build this one for a while and it has made a few appearances in the stash with other GB but never made it to the bench.  Perfect time for this one, I think!  Just a bit of an hors d'oeuvre before next August's Vietnam GB...not that this has anything to do with Vietnam...53S was a flying school squadron in western France specializing in seaplanes.  

 

 

 

Nice looking decals...

 

 

Good looking plastic, very little flash. I might augment the guns with something from the spares drawer.

 

 

I'll get to it eventually...

--John

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by John D.C. Masters

[Andwil 2,838]

3 hours ago, John D.C. Masters said:

I might augment the guns with something from the spares drawer.

Would a training aircraft have carried guns?

 

AW

[John Masters 11,222]

According to the drawing it has two Lewis guns...So, I guess so.  I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.  The thing is that I have some nifty little Roden Lewis guns with superb detail that would look great.

[stevej60 33,020]

Excellent choice John,I'll be popping in on this one love this kit.

[Shorty84 232]

Hi John,

 

here are some good photos of french Walruses and the machine you are building. They seem to be unarmed: http://avions-de-la-guerre-d-algerie.over-blog.com/article-supermarine-walrus-francais-116117945.html

 

Cheers

Markus

[John Masters 11,222]

8 hours ago, stevej60 said:

I'll be popping in on this one

Welcome Steve!  Thank you.

 

7 hours ago, Shorty84 said:

here are some good photos

Thank you Markus.  Some excellent photos indeed. It's a good source for any scratch building I might want to do as well.  Yes, the photos show it unarmed, however, they may be photos during transport when they would normally take the guns off anyway.  I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, but wouldn't they have armed training as well?  

[rob85 8,111]

Great choice, really like the look of the french option!

 

Rob

[John Masters 11,222]

12 minutes ago, rob85 said:

like the look of the french option!

Me too!  

[PeterB 5,665]

Hi John,

 

Is this a Revell re-box of the Matchbox Kit?  If so I have one in FAA colours and it was a lot better than the first Airfix effort.

 

Pete

[John Masters 11,222]

4 hours ago, PeterB said:

Is this a Revell re-box of the Matchbox Kit?

 

The short answer is 'yes.'  This is the Matchbox kit from 1973.  I am assuming they have updated the moulds a bit.

 

There are two other Walrus kits in 1/72--one from Airfix that goes back to 1957.  The newest version this kit has the Argentinian decals.  That would be cool.  I am not sure about the moulds but they might be new too.  

 

The other manufacturer is Valom from early 2000s.

[John Masters 11,222]

On 3/21/2020 at 1:25 AM, stevej60 said:

I'll be popping in on this one love this kit.

You're most welcome!  And away we go...

 

The kit is not complex.  I like that.  After all the fettling and fretting over the FIAT and the Albatros, this is a nice change.  There is not much in terms of detail so I will try to add some.  Maybe a little on the inside?  I haven't decided.

 

Here are the sprue, all primed...

 

 

What I have done so far:  I have assembled all the halvesies and made them whole.  That would be the wings, the outer pontoons...I have also painted the props a medium brown.  I think I will add some chipping solution before I paint them black.  They were wooden, btw...Give them a bit of wear.  The seats get the same colour.  I'll fix them with some washes to bring out some dimension and add the prerequisite masking tape harnesses.  I have painted the interior of the fuselage a Grass Green from a rattle can and I like it.  I will look for other builds online to see if folks have augmented their interiors, because that's it.  Pretty sparse.  The Bristol Pegasus was given a silver spray.  I will fix that fresh look for sure.  Interestingly, looking through the plans, I will have to assemble the engine nacelle, sans motor, with its support struts and paint it before I add the motor.  

 

 

 

That's it for the time being.

--John

 

 

Edited March 30 by John D.C. Masters

[stevej60 33,020]

Great start John,after the hash I made of the Helldiver 1 glad to say their Gladiator is on track I really do like these Matchbox biplanes especially

compared to their later much more toy like effort's.

[John Masters 11,222]

1 hour ago, stevej60 said:

glad to say their Gladiator is on track I really do like these Matchbox biplanes especially

compared to their later much more toy like effort's.

Thanks Steve.  I like it too.  

[John Masters 11,222]

Problems...the engine nacelle.  To be precise, the position of the struts, etc...Is the engine nacelle supposed to be off-set in any way?  I would think not...

I have assembled the two halves of the nacelle as instructed, paying attention to the little arrow inside and the word 'top' as well.

 

Part B fits perfectly in the end of the nacelle where it is supposed to go.  Look at part A...for one thing, the struts are not bilateral.  

 

Part B fits!

 

 

This is the end of the nacelle that will fit part A.  We hope.  Notice how the openings are out of whack.

 

 

and now with the struts 'attached'...you see the dilemma.  What the heck is going on here?

 

 

I have tried alternate set-ups.  I have undone the halves of the nacelle thinking that the instructions are wrong.  I have tried to fit both struts assemblies on either end.  Nothing works.  This is the kind of #$^**^%$ that makes me want to shelve the kit and start something else.  So frustrating.

 

Here's a dry fit view from above.  This is not proper engineering for an aircraft.

 

 

 

 

Any answers from the collective?

 

--John

 

 

Edited March 31 by John D.C. Masters

[Heather Kay 7,524]

I think the nacelle is meant to be offset. When viewed from the front, it should be angled to the left - but I can’t find an actual angle quoted anywhere. I believe this angling was to counteract the torque effects of the prop.

[John Masters 11,222]

2 minutes ago, Heather Kay said:

this angling was to counteract the torque effects of the prop.

That makes sense.  Thanks Heather.  They should have that spelled this out in the plans....

[John Masters 11,222]

Found it...Wikipedia...third paragraph down under 'Development'.  Thanks again Heather.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus

 

"The engine was offset by three degrees to starboard, to counter any tendency of the aircraft to yaw, due to unequal forces on the rudder caused by the vortex from the propeller."

 

That's a relief.  I thought I was gong crazy.

 

 

[John Masters 11,222]

I think this is something worth doing...

 

 

It doesn't look too complicated...

 

 

--John

 

 

[John Masters 11,222]

Here's the nacelle...

 

I'll clean up the seams later. 

 

Bristol Pegasus...

 

 

I have cut out the side windows and replaced them with scrap clear plastic from a CA package.

 

 

 

Before that, the interior...I have kept it simple.  The work will be on the exterior.

 

 

And now together...

 

 

I have also fixed the cover for the rear gunner position.  I will re-add the frame after I paint it.

 

 

 

And, of course, I forgot to paint the tips yellow first.  I'll have to do it free-hand.

 

 

--John

 

 

[John Masters 11,222]

This is the tail wheel set-up from the kit.  I am not keen on it.  It seems a little...hmmm... I might try to re-fashion it somehow.

 

 

The rear gunner position needed some detail work.  I found excellent sources on-line that had not only photos of the real thing but modeller's solutions and designs.  

 

 

The attachment points for the undercarriage were certainly sparse.   I added better mounting brackets based on what I have seen on the Inter-Web.  Both starboard and port received the same treatment.  You can't tell, but I have drilled the holes at appropriate angles.

 

 

For now that's it.  

--John

[rob85 8,111]

Some fine modelling going into this John. I wouldn’t have thought the engine would be off set, but there you go, learn something new every day.

 

Rob

[John Masters 11,222]

20 minutes ago, rob85 said:

learn something new every day.

Threw me for a loop for sure.  Thanks Rob.

[CliffB 7,410]

57 minutes ago, John D.C. Masters said:

This is the tail wheel set-up from the kit.  I am not keen on it.  It seems a little...hmmm... I might try to re-fashion it somehow.

 

 

 

 

Hi John, I had similar concerns when I built my Trumpeter Walrus in the recent Floatplanes GB.  Then someone pointed out to me that it was actually a combined rudder and wheel unit.  It didn't look so bad then!

I'm not sure if that's relevant to your concerns?

 

Cheers

[John Masters 11,222]

6 minutes ago, CliffB said:

it was actually a combined rudder and wheel unit.

Thanks Cliff.  Right.  I knew that, it just seems a little scant on detail and over moulded.  The detail is lacking.

[John Masters 11,222]

Hunkered down and play with bit plastic and airplane parts...

 

Fixed the tail-wheel/rudder

 

 

Made a scratch built prop boss, yellow tips on the prop and added it to the Pegasus.

 

 

Added a bit of rigging to otherwise hard-to-reach areas...

 

 

And...worked on the swing-wing-thing...

 

This would be the top section.  It will be the starboard side that will be folded back.  According to the drawings, this is what it looked like.

 

 

And the bottom wing, which was slightly more complex.  This is the first time I have even done anything like this so I am happy with the work and know that next time it will be better.

 

 

--John