Work In Progress Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 (edited) Blenheim props aren't anywhere near big enough: they are less than 11' diameter, toothpicks for a Hercules. The prop hubs will be covered by the spinners in any case if you pick one the the Lerwicks that had them. Lancaster II props or Beaufighter props would be my choice. You can see from this pic how close the prop arc passes to the fuselage side Edited June 14, 2020 by Work In Progress 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather Kay Posted June 14, 2020 Author Share Posted June 14, 2020 4 hours ago, 72modeler said: But you would still need a set of props Yes, I can see that. I think I’ll acquire the resin set anyway. As it happens, I have a pair of Beau props with spinners I salvaged from an old model I broke for spares. Thanks, everyone, for the ideas and info, and for the images - which I have, um, borrowed for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 In the discussion above we forgot the radial engine Halifax, which can be also a donor of Hercules engines and cowlings. The other question , besides engines, are turrets. It would be nice to know, from which machine you can borrow the turrets? I expect that good turrets will improve the look. I have found about turrets: "For defence, the Lerwick was equipped with three powered gun turrets. The nose turret had a single 0.303 inch Vickers K gun ; the other two had 0.303 Browning machine guns, two guns in the Nash & Thomson FN.8 turret in the dorsal position and four in the Nash & Thomson FN4.A turret at the tail." So it looks that one in tail is same from Short Stirling or AW Whitley mk V (FN 4A) and Wellington mk III (I think). The FN8 recalls the dorsal Lancaster turret, but it is not same... I found a nice place on TN turrets: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=20042&start=45 Since the Contrail kit is very difficult to get I started to think about scratching it. I have found drawings, which looks reasonable Comments, suggestion welcomed Regards J-W 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather Kay Posted January 16, 2021 Author Share Posted January 16, 2021 Thanks J-W. I’m still in the very early stages of researching this model, so any ideas you prompt will be very welcome. For the engines, the Halifax is a good option. I was considering buying a cheap old tool Beaufighter as a donor kit. As for the turrets, well, more investigation is needed. It may well be worth looking out for scrapped models of likely bombers. The ever-resourceful Seawings web site has some useful photos, albeit a bit low resolution, and a scanned copy of the pilot's notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 The next Hercules driven possible donor of engines is Wellington Mk X (and XIII, XIV). But the props are perhaps different I think. Regarding turrets - I think I have at least two sets of MPM Wellingtons (one converted to Mk VI turretless, the other to early Mk I also turretless) and dome from conversions of Lancaster (Manchester without dorsal turret, York and "Grand Slam" one). So I hope I will find some, maybe even I can share. Here is nice set of photos http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft26192.htm And here rised dorsal turret - it looks similar to Lancaster one Note roundles A from top! Regards J-W 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 Blackbird Models do a nice resin Lerwick. Don't know if they might sell you some parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather Kay Posted January 17, 2021 Author Share Posted January 17, 2021 9 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said: Don't know if they might sell you some parts. Interesting. Thanks for that. I’ve had a quick squint at the site, and the Lerwick is currently out of production. I’ll shoot them an email sometime and see if they might be able to provide odd bits and pieces. Ooh! Manchester conversion for Lancaster kits… If I get the Airfix Lanc B.II, that’s four Bristol Hercs to play with, add the conversion kit and I get me a Manc into the bargain! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 The drawings I posted above are for sure wrong regarding the canopy - here it is clear how narrow it should be at front: The pilots were in tandem, not side by side. So I have to search for better drawings for sure... The above picture shows high demarcation line of colors on fuselage - was it black underside (+side) possible? Regards J-W 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 hours ago, JWM said: was it black underside (+side) possible? Doesn't appear to be- wasn't there a thin yellow surround to the roundels on aircraft with night undersurfaces? It looks like maybe the uppersurface camouflage has been wrapped around leading edge to the underside of the wings I do know the yellow outline wasn't always applied, though. It's kind of a handsome flying boat- looks like an early PBM-2 Mariner, except for the single fin. Can't wait to see how this one turns out! Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludwig113 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 hours ago, JWM said: The drawings I posted above are for sure wrong regarding the canopy - here it is clear how narrow it should be at front: The pilots were in tandem, not side by side. So I have to search for better drawings for sure... The above picture shows high demarcation line of colors on fuselage - was it black underside (+side) possible? Regards J-W it was never black on the underside, or not that i've ever seen, and i have alot of material on the lerwick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludwig113 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 most of the drawings for the main body are correct, it's the details you have to look at. don't make the mistake of fairing the underside of the wing to body as one manufacture did... paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 15 minutes ago, ludwig113 said: most of the drawings for the main body are correct, it's the details you have to look at. don't make the mistake of fairing the underside of the wing to body as one manufacture did... paul Thank you. Since I do not have Contrail model I hope not to follow its mistakes What makes me doubtful is shape of fuselage. If one compare the geometry of the fuselage on the photo and on drawings - the drawings shows in more barrel shaped (bulged) whereas the photo suggest almost triangular section, with much less bulged (straight on some height) sides, what results in much narrowed canopy. Ate least for me...P;ease have a look at that I think there is nothing to do with any perspective distortion since the photo looks like taken with long lenses from a distance, so the perspective tends to be flat (orthogonal)... Regards J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 I believe you are quite right, the plans suffer from misleading assumptions. The head-on view does help to make sense of the tandem pilots rather than the assumed side-by-side. I believe that there was a thread (last year?) about this point because someone is attempting to produce a Lerwick kit (possibly revise an older one?) and has fallen into the side-by-side trap - but I don't recall the details. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludwig113 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 hour ago, ludwig113 said: most of the drawings for the main body are correct, it's the details you have to look at. don't make the mistake of fairing the underside of the wing to body as one manufacture did... paul as i said MOST of the drawings are correct( i have 4 different sets by 4 different people)it's the details you have to look at. also i know of x2 FN4a turrets, 1 in Ireland and one that the RAF museum have and that i've seen. the best engines to use in any scale are Neomega Resin. if you are into detail, have a look at buying the pilots notes from ebay, there are quite a few interior photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludwig113 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 remember when building different aircraft different details apply. such as wing angle of incidence and be careful of the markings, roundels etc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Would props from a Hampden work on a Lerwick? Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 28 minutes ago, dogsbody said: Would props from a Hampden work on a Lerwick? Chris According to the Putnam the Lerwick had 13'6" DH props - midway between the 13' of the Lanc II and Beaufighter and 14' of the Albemarle (taken from an old Aeroclub price list). The Hampden was only 12' (from the same list). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 One point: I've a feeling that the old-tool Airfix Beaufighter engine cowlings are a tad small. The (not) P&W options from the MPM Beaufort and Hudson are big enough for Hercules, so there may be spares around there. I had both sets free but couldn't find them last time I went looking - possibly threw them out in despair (the cowlings, not the entire kits). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 44 minutes ago, Graham Boak said: I've a feeling that the old-tool Airfix Beaufighter engine cowlings are a tad small. I'm sure you're right. Same with the Frog one. And don't even think about the first version of the Matchbox one although I believe the second iteration didn't have the taper. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 And MPM Wellington Mk X? - those are also Hercules engines... And I have spare left from doing Mk VI J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 The Frog one also had taper - which is why I didn't have one. I don't recall about the Matchbox, let alone there being two versions of it. I have found spares from my MPM Hudson, but from a quick look I wouldn't recommend them so I'm glad you've got spares already. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malpaso Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 7 hours ago, JWM said: Thank you. Since I do not have Contrail model I hope not to follow its mistakes What makes me doubtful is shape of fuselage. If one compare the geometry of the fuselage on the photo and on drawings - the drawings shows in more barrel shaped (bulged) whereas the photo suggest almost triangular section, with much less bulged (straight on some height) sides, what results in much narrowed canopy. Ate least for me...P;ease have a look at that I think there is nothing to do with any perspective distortion since the photo looks like taken with long lenses from a distance, so the perspective tends to be flat (orthogonal)... Regards J-W I think the difference in portliness IS down to the perspective in the photo. The drawing is an orthogonal projection whereas the photo is a perspective from just above sea level and centred between the port engine and fuselage. The drawing will be exactly along the nominal level line of the aircraft, in the water it looks like it floats slightly nose up (to help with AOA on take off?). In the photo the contours of the nose coincide with the point-of-view to hide the widest part of the fuselage. But I think you are right that the drawing has the canopy/fuselage to wide where it meets the leading edge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 8 hours ago, malpaso said: I think the difference in portliness IS down to the perspective in the photo. Thank you. Always some distorion happens on photos, but the longer is focus distance of lenses the smaller is that distortion. Please note the tailplane span and the width between engines. In a drawing, you see that the span of a tailplane is only a bit smaller then the distance between external parts of engines. And photo shows it similar, so it suggests the tele lenses used to make the photo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather Kay Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 I’d just like to say I really appreciate all the input here. I’m learning a lot, and getting an itch to dig the Contrail box out and make a start! Now, that would be commitment! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 On 1/17/2021 at 1:33 PM, rossm said: According to the Putnam the Lerwick had 13'6" DH props - The F4U-1 Corsair had 13' 4" props, but would have to check to see if the direction of rotation is the same. The two-inch difference would not be apparent in 1/72 scale, and the Corsair props would just need some reshaping towards the tips. The only airplane I can think of that had a 13' 6" 3-bladed prop was the Boeing XF8B-1, but its props were counter-rotating. There might have been a set that size from Aeroclub, but good luck finding one. PBM-2 and early B-29 three blade props are too long, at 17' Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now