Fokker G.1A 1940 camouflage pattern

[christian Boehm]

9 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Not the first time I've used a better model as example to do mods on an older, less detailed kit.

I totally agree that why I wait

Have you seen the new FokG1 sprue shot on scalemates ?

 

just charged ; here it is

already the twin boom's fins look mare accurate

And you know what ? My detailling SBS sets of Mercury engines and propellers (exactly that Blenheim ones ) will any way help , for sure....

 

[christian Boehm]

9 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Did some speedreading there..

 you read french alt ?

if yes,  it would be easy to get my humble help for an Albemarle building

 

I don't know ? is it possible to send private messages on Britmodeller?

[JWM]

2 minutes ago, christian Boehm said:

s it possible to send private messages on Britmodeller?

The is an icon of envelope in right upper corner of screen. Press it and you can send private massage to any BM member.

J-W

 

[alt-92]

35 minutes ago, christian Boehm said:

 you read french alt ?

if yes,  it would be easy to get my humble help for an Albemarle building

Highschool French, although that's 30 years ago  I can read most of it though.

[warhawk]

13 hours ago, Luka said:

And as for the MPM one in the stash.. well, finally we'll know how far off that kit was!

 

Unfortunately, it's pretty far off...

Please take a look at this excellent review HERE

 

Two main problems:

1. Central pod sits a bit too low on the wing, while the fuselage booms are too high. When assembled, they line up at the bottom, and they shouldn't... The central pod was designed to be higher in order to prevent damage on forced landings.
2. While accurate in length, height and width, the central pod is too squarish in section.

 

I believe these two problems to be too much to correct, as they require modifying almost 80% of the kit.

On a minor note, the landing gear looks too short to me on pics of completed models.

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

 

[Hook]

I still have an MPM in the stash somewhere - it will be built. 

 

What else will I do with it. 😎

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[christian Boehm]

2 hours ago, warhawk said:

Two main problems:

1. Central pod sits a bit too low on the wing, while the fuselage booms are too high. When assembled, they line up at the bottom, and they shouldn't... The central pod was designed to be higher in order to prevent damage on forced landings.
2. While accurate in length, height and width, the central pod is too squarish in section.

 hello warhawk

 

Yes I knew and studied for hours Rob Debie's guide

He's right specially on the 1st point  but it's not addiifcult to correct ; A big sanding work is needed about the plumpy ( worse than squarish) totally bad looking nose and nothing to do with the nice aerodynamic reality

 

But I don't agree the 2nd point : no, the kit measures are not right ; many plans are wrong specially these from Czech Rep

My first step was to start from real plane measures and to watch a credible 1/100 plan

Then to upset to 1/72 , then to mesure the kit and the real  measrues divided by 72 : results are:

> booms are at least 6 mm too short ( also obvious when you look the too short distance beetween the rear edge of the nacelle and the stabilizer's leading edge )

> fins too narrow and width too small

Not finished : catastrophical option with the landing gear nacelle : a plain panel with impossiblity to retract the wheels ! To open it and creating a totally accurate or credible LG nacelle is necessary

 

To finish , yes, Rob's analysis is worth of following but , as I told at the beginning, his presentation is as well  and unfortunaltely not ccompleted about the last stages of building

 

here some of my construction shots (not always best quality photos) :

 

 

 

 

See plan and booms + fin  added plastis styrene parcels

 

 

 

 

 

Let's see some of landing gear wells work  ( underside LG legs totally inadequate and rebuilt as well with different diam wire , an,as as warhawk said with corected height

 

 

Let's come to the actualpre-painting stage while I decided to stand by

 

[warhawk]

Excellent work so far! I completely missed the fuselage booms being too short.

 

On 11/2/2020 at 3:07 PM, christian Boehm said:

He's right specially on the 1st point  but it's not a difficult to correct ; A big sanding work is needed about the plumpy ( worse than squarish) totally bad looking nose and nothing to do with the nice aerodynamic reality

 

I'm afraid that this width 'error' continues beyond the nose - the top fuselage (from windscreen to the beginning of the 'sting') is also too wide.

However, Your solution is indeed the quickest one to enhance the look of the central boom, since I have no idea how to make the rest narrower (without ruining the windows or completely making a new boom from scratch)...

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 3:07 PM, christian Boehm said:

But I don't agree the 2nd point : no, the kit measures are not right ; many plans are wrong specially these from Czech Rep

 

Please take a look at this photo:

 

source: modelbrouwers.nl

 

Now take a look at the MPM kit from the front:

 

source: arcair.com

 

The distance between two red lines does not exist on the MPM kit, while the distance between blue lines should be smaller.

Fairings above wings also show this, especially the part where airfoil is the thickest:

source: fokkerg-1.nl

 

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

Edited April 12 by warhawk

[christian Boehm]

ok Aleksander, thanks

 

You're certainly right as well

 

I personnally tried to place the wings higher on the nacelle fuselage  ( you can see it with the 2 supports ( 1 front thick wire and one rear  thick plastic strip, both to increase solidity)

The inconvenient is now that some windows don't stay at the right places, but what to do ....?

 

So  when we all work together it's obvious how false is that kit

And even I missed to tell the resin cockpit parts ( in the upgraded box) are :

1° not good fitting , have to be sanded a lot (as often)

2° as well fro some not accurate ; just one example : the pilot's rudder pedals are much too far away from the seat ; to reach them the pilot has to have 1.50 meter long legs !! And the rear post (quite always not occupied )  is poorly done

 

So if the new kit is better only on some of these numerous points , it's already a big improvement

 

And on the internet  second market , a normal (pot upgrade ) MPM Fokker G1 costs beetween 80 and 100 € ! ; soon you will get one for a bargain price  (well ,then specially nice only for boxes collectors....)

Christian

 

 

 

[warhawk]

18 minutes ago, christian Boehm said:

And on the internet  second market , a normal (pot upgrade ) MPM Fokker G1 costs beetween 80 and 100 € ! ; soon you will get one for a bargain price  (well ,then specially nice only for boxes collectors....)

 

I agree, they only cost that much because it is still the only 72nd plastic kit of this airplane, and there are still a few people who REALLY want a G.I in their collection.

once the new MikroMir tool hits the shelves, no matter how good or bad it is; these MPM prices will be, at least, cut in half (as happened to the AvUsk/Xotic Do22s at E-bay).

 

I bought my MPM from a friend at a retail price, and sold it for the same when I decided to wait for a better kit.

Edited November 3, 2020 by warhawk

[christian Boehm]

is the finished very nice model on the pictures upside yours ?

 

[warhawk]

No, I sold mine un-started.

The model pics above are from the internet, taken just for illustration purposes.

[christian Boehm]

OK good

Nice done kit but I didn't dare to tell you the light color is false ( not ochre but a creamish grey green...)

Sösterberg Museum's  Fokker G1A and Fokker D21 are false as well on this point

 

I learn it from several dutch written files

Hataka did it well