Noorduyn Norseman Forest Service -modified Revell 1/72 kit

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

What can you do.

I have many models already completed but still waiting for this and that last touch that should come in the mail. But doesn't.

So here is another project.

 

It all started when I realized that I needed a pair of floats for a De Havilland D.H.89 Dragon Rapide.

Since there are no aftermarket EDO floats for it, I acquired an old Noorduyn Norseman. The floats in the kit are not accurate, but can be improved upon.

But the boxing came with floats, skis, and wheels, so no harm was done requisitioning those floats. And besides the design sort of grew on me.

A quick search rendered a few attractive subjects, from which I chose one plane used by the US Forest Service. I think that is a good cause for any plane, to take care of nature, instead of obliterate it.

Here is a link to a photo of the plane on Bill Larkins Flickr photostream:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/4425369018/

 

This is, as many of you know, and old mold, originally a Matchbox release, and then squeezed a bit more by Revell, which is my boxing. It is not a bad kit, but the flying surfaces suffer from Ribitis, that is, the inflammation of the ribs, in all flying surfaces.

The parts were carried to the doctor, who happened to be Sanding Sponge Bob Doctor, that gave the patient a firm and repeated scrub under water, until the inflammation disappeared, leaving a more acceptable skin.

So, without intention or premeditation, I found myself in the process of building a chubby Noorduyn Norseman.

Other than show what I am doing, I won't abound on information since this kit has been with us since Victorian times. It is so old, that Revell actually blotted the original brand an date engraved on the molds.

 

To the right and in the foreground, the original accordion wings, to the left and background, the sanding has already started:

 

There is a difference:

 

All surfaces undergo the same treatment:

 

The floats that come with the kit (that I snatched and will be using somewhere else) are not accurate, and need re-working:

 

All flying surfaces sanded down, all parts cleaned up and ready for assembly:

 

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

 

The detail on the fuselage is nice. Pity I don't know what was in the interior of the Forest Service plane, so I can't open the door and hatches as I often do, but I would love to:

 

The engine is oversimplified and needs to be replaced.

The instrument panel has detail, but looks smallish:

 

The -now blotted by Revell-  original branding:

 

And now the flying surfaces are more like photos of the original plane:

 

All this strenuous sanding exercise reminds me of the hard work on the despicable wings of the Handley Page 0/700 conversion I posted sometime ago.

 

Only the most demanding training at the Shaolin Modeling Temple would allow a modeler to endure the rigors of such harsh endeavors.

I can still hear the voice of Master Sandpaper (or was it Pat Morita?): sand wing, polish wing...sand wing, polish wing...

 

 

 

[Bengalensis]

A nice choice of subject. The wings look much improved, well spent effort.

[StephenCJ]

6 minutes ago, Moa said:

I can still hear the voice of Master Sandpaper (or was it Pat Morita?): sand wing, polish wing...sand wing, polish wing...

 

 

Come on, you love it.

 

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

1 minute ago, Bengalensis said:

A nice choice of subject. The wings look much improved, well spent effort.

Thanks, Jörgen. A bit more will follow on that later on.

Cheers

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

1 minute ago, StephenCJ said:

Come on, you love it.

 

It's the Zen Art of Making Models:

There is no wing...

[StephenCJ]

7 minutes ago, Moa said:

It's the Zen Art of Making Models

Dark Arts and now Zen Art, no wonder I can't get anything done.  Too much to take in

Edited May 27, 2020 by StephenCJ

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

2 minutes ago, StephenCJ said:

Dark Arts and now Zen Art, no wonder I can't get anything done.  Too much to take in

You made my snort my marzipan, that's painful!

😂 

[Britman]

Looking forward to this as I remember it to be a nice kit years ago and a great starting point for a bit of embellishment. Looks odd in that single colour though.

 

Keith

[Vingtor]

Good work on the wings!

 

Note that the kit is a mix between the Mk.IV and the Mk.VI, with various details/configurations from either version.

 

Nils

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

20 minutes ago, Britman said:

Looking forward to this as I remember it to be a nice kit years ago and a great starting point for a bit of embellishment. Looks odd in that single colour though.

 

Keith

It seems like an exciting project, Keith.

We shall see!

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

9 minutes ago, Vingtor said:

Good work on the wings!

 

Note that the kit is a mix between the Mk.IV and the Mk.VI, with various details/configurations from either version.

 

Nils

Thanks a lot, Nils, although I always check against photos for details and accuracy (within reason), I believed the kit was a Mk IV, so thanks for the heads up!

Will be extra careful now.

Cheers

[Andwil]

1 hour ago, Moa said:

Pity I don't know what was in the interior of the Forest Service plane,

Probably a number of hard hats and chain saws.....

 

Will you slow down!  We can’t keep up.

 

AW

[Vingtor]

From the top of my head - I built three Norseman models some years ago, two Mk.IVs and one Mk.VI/UC-64.

1. The stub wings are Mk.IV.
2. The cabin doors are Mk.VI.
3. The nose and engine cowling are Mk.VI. The cowling shape is not good, so I replaced this with one from a Harvard kit.
4. The fuselage shape is Mk.IV. The Mk.VI was a bit "fatter" (although there is a dispute about this).
5. The floats are not correct for any version. They have a closer resemblance to the Mk.IV than to the Mk.VI.
6. The skylight window is in incorrect position.
7. The structure of the wings and fin is terrible. But that you have corrected.
8. The luggage hatch behind the cabin door was only on the Mk.VI, and on the port side only. The Mk.IV had a luggage hatch below the port side cabin door extension.
9. There are of course details to be added, if you like.

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

8 hours ago, Vingtor said:

From the top of my head - I built three Norseman models some years ago, two Mk.IVs and one Mk.VI/UC-64.

Thanks, Vingtor, truly appreciate the list of details.

I am aiming to a relatively simple build, as this is not really within my usual envelope of interest, and the build sprang from the feeling of not wanting to simply discard the kit after having extolled the floats.

You may have seen I am already taking those floats to a better standard for another build.

I will check, as stated, against the photos of my chosen subject and correct the most glaring differences (your list will be also most useful), to the extent I deem reasonable.

Cheers

 

[dogsbody]

Here's the date stamped onto my Matchbox kit.

 

 

 

 

I have a few shots of the Norseman at the Alberta Aviation Museum. Not sure how that might compare to the one you want to build, but here they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This one is stick-mounted outside:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

4 minutes ago, dogsbody said:

Here's the date stamped onto my Matchbox kit.

I have a few shots of the Norseman at the Alberta Aviation Museum. Not sure how that might compare to the one you want to build, but here they are.

This one is stick-mounted outside:

Chris

Thanks, Chris!

 

[72modeler]

I have two of the Matchbox kits, but most likely will do a military  example- nationality undecided. I am really looking forward to seeing all the enhancements and corrections you make to this kit, Claudio. I was unaware of the mix 'n' match nature of the kit as molded, so many thanks to you and Chris @dogsbody  for the heads-up. I found the link below while looking for details of the Mk IV and VI, and while it won't help you with the one you are going to depict, I found the photos and text very interesting, and wanted to share it. I apologize in advance for messing with your forum topic, but thought in this location would be seen by more modelers! Re the interior details of the Forestry Service Norseman- maybe a few 1/72 cases of Moosehead Beer might be appropriate? (I know- back to the naughty corner!)

Mike

 

Most likely Chris already discovered this in  his usual thorough research of his reference library, but just in case...

https://www.goodall.com.au/australian-aviation/norseman/norseman.htm

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

37 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

maybe a few 1/72 cases of Moosehead Beer might be appropriate? (I know- back to the naughty corner!)

Mike

 

🍻

 

Thanks, Mike!

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

Whatever parts come in halves are glued together, and the seams tidied-up even if they are not pertinent to the specific subject modeled. The smaller parts had an awful fit, being the locating devices out of wack or too big in the case of the pips:

[ragnarec]

Interesting subject! I have two in the stash that both will be finished in civilian schemes some day. The Norseman saw extensive use here in Norway from the late forties into the sixties, and there is a rich selection of paint schemes to choose from. Lima November Decals produces a decal sheet some years ago covering some of the options.

 

As you may have noticed, the Matchbox fuselage contains far too few "stringers", but this is a fault that is difficult to correct.

 

Looking forward to follow your build!

 

Regards,

Ragnar

[72modeler]

@dogsbody and @Moa,

 

I found this site just now and I thought the drawings might help, especially the cross sections and the floats. Puzzling, as the fuselage drawings seem to show the same number of stringers as mentioned  in the review of the Matchbox kit but not  nearly as many as  are shown on the floatplane mounted on a pylon that Chris posted.. Could it be that the fuselage construction was different between some of the variants, or was re-skinned? Your thoughts?

Mike

 

https://aerofred.com/details.php?image_id=82986

Edited May 27, 2020 by 72modeler
added link, added text

[RidgeRunner]

Nice

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

Speaking of post office delays:

Here is an envelope a super-kind fellow modeler sent from Sweden, arriving here a month later, opened, torn, and water-damaged, courtesy of the US Post Office.

Not visible in these images are the imprints of transferred ink from other letters that got wet (and stuck) together.

I think they should re-print their label to "WE CARE, BUT NOT A LOT, REALLY".

This is not the first time this happens, and for some reason it tends to happen with modeling supplies.

A few times packages were returned to the sender, from the post office (these packages were from Eastern Europe), not even getting carried to my home. In two of these occasions I had put a hold mail request (vacations).

The other times they claimed they tried to deliver the package (never did, of course, or left that notice card they have to leave when that happens).

The replies to my very agitated complaints were blank stares, and mumblings about how "complicated" things are.

 

[dogsbody]

3 hours ago, 72modeler said:

- maybe a few 1/72 cases of Moosehead Beer might be appropriate? (I know- back to the naughty corner!)

As a natural-born Nova Scotian who grew up anout an hour's drive from that brewery, I'd rather lick the cat's sphincter than drink that crap. More like moose urine.

 

Moa, sorry to be so crude and vulgar on your wonderful topic but some things just need to be said.

 

 

Mike, I have this Canadian Norseman site: http://norsemanhistory.ca/Aircraft.htm

 

 

 

Chris