Jump to content

Young now Old builder returns after a 35 odd year absence!


Lindsey C
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Lindsey C said:

Thanks Colin.

 

I have been looking at the Arma Hobby 1:72 Mk1 Hurricane kits. They all have 4 spoke wheels (Except the Eastern front which has both)! I presume one can purchase a 5 spoke wheel for them?

 

Regards,

Lindsey

Just to clarify, AFAIK, you get 5 spoke only on the first two Hawker built Batches, the ones with serial starting L**** and N****, after that, it's 4 spoke for everything else.

 

The eastern front boxing is for Finnish and Romanian, which were from these batches.  Both were also fitted with the DH Spitfire spinner, and the real planes do not have the 2nd fabric access hatch on the starboard fuselage side. (this, from photos, was not fitted to the L and N batches either, apart from a random one.... which has been debated here)

I don't have this kit so am unsure of what actually in the box.

 

Note, to best of my knowledge, the Hurricane and Spitfire used the same wheel hubs, so you can use leftover Eduard Spitfire hubs in Hurricane wheels which you have drilled the hubs out of.

ALL boxings of the Eduard Spitfires, 72nd and 48th Merlin 60 types have 3 types of hub, covered, 4 spoke and 5 spoke.

 

Annoyingly the Airfix fabric wing, apart from the 4 spoke wheels, has oversize tyres, or that would be a quick fix for those....

 

HTH

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fukuryu said:

 

Hello, @Lindsey C. Never a bad idea to ask, they seem to be very customer oriented; in any case, CMK has a set, available for example from Hannants (although I don't know now how easy is to buy from them from Ireland now): https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/CMQ72081?result-token=DyEcB

 

spacer.png

Hannants unlike it seems Airfix have this sorted. They will deduct VAT on orders to Ireland. 

But from tomorrow 1st of July VAT and customs fees will apply at the Irish end. Whether they bother to collect is another question.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Just to clarify, AFAIK, you get 5 spoke only on the first two Hawker built Batches, the ones with serial starting L**** and N****, after that, it's 4 spoke for everything else

Mine is L1592 so I better go with 5 spoke. I have some on order but don't know when they will arrive. I will carry on with this one and wheels will need to be last. At the end of BoB shelf I may find myself building another Hurricane or 2. Metal wing all the way (maybe). lol

 

Thanks guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh God! Will I ever be finished? I feel like Michelangelo trying to paint the Sistine Chapel Ceiling with Airfix A68216!

 

Now I am looking at radio masts/wires. Hurricane L1592 was fitted with a T.R.9B antenna system (pole) from what I can can decipher and the kit has a T.R.9D! I presume I am correct here? L1592 as is, residing in the Science Museum, South Kensington, seems to confirm same. A bit more remodeling to be done before assembly. 🧐

 

I WILL get this done and move onto the other BoB aircraft! Then at the end of the BoB builds I will also build a couple of more accurate BoB Hurricane kits to address the Hurricane to Spitfire ratio of the times. 🤣

 

Rgds

Lindsey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent read through Sir,.and a jolly worthwhile venture one might add.

 

Like one's self,modelling took a back seat many years ago,of late though,one's wife and now grown up daughter seem rather hell bent

on garnering the aging self with kits(of flying machines naturally)to give "the old boy something to do"in the impending retirement.

 

So far in one's meagre stash is the lovely Airfix Spitfire XIVe in 1/48th plus the starter set Hurricane,Spitfire,Kittyhawk and the rather natty

but tiny Jeep kits.

 

The Boxart den reference material is indeed excellent(remembered in print all those may moons back).

 

Pray continue Sir,the Hurricane will be watched with interest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 12:24 AM, Lindsey C said:

Now it has all got out of hand and is costing a small fortune!

 

It does that...

 

On 6/28/2021 at 1:10 AM, Troy Smith said:

This is a myth.   

 

Interesting post that. I've been pondering the issue of weathering (because I'm not very good at it, mainly) and I've come to the inclusion that many weathered builds (while examples of skillful modelling to be sure) are simply overdone. I've seen pics of pretty worn looking olive drab American bombers and carrier planes I guess could look pretty bleached out with all that sea air, but as you say many planes just wouldn't last long enough to look very weathered. I consider my car, alright there's a difference between flying and driving but it's done the equivalent of around 180 trips to Berlin and back (don't think many bombers chalked up that many ops), it's ten years old and has lived outside for the five I've had it. If I give it a wash it comes up pretty much like new (apart from the holes in the passenger door from the flak going through Mansfield that time.)

 

EDIT: since writing this post I've been browsing pictures of absolutely battered Beaufighters...

Edited by TonyOD
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lindsey C said:

Oh God! Will I ever be finished?

Probably not at this rate. As you are getting bogged down in minutiae here, I suggest you do an out-of-the-box 1/48 Tamiya or Airfix modern jet to give you an idea of how simple modelling can be and give up on looking at this thread until you have finished it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TonyOD Yes indeed. An excellent example of is of current USN aircraft which are often filthy. I've had the pleasure of examining an operational F18 up close. The engrained dirt is obvious but what is also obvious is the touch up paint where panels and fasteners have been disturbed. Clearly to minimise corrosion. 

 

But they are long lived airframes. In WW2 the Beaufighters were relatively long lived depending on their use and what theatre they were used. 

 

That's the issue. You really have to consider the context. If you're modelling a 617 squadron Lancaster during Operation Chastise it will be clean and unweathered. On the other hand a long lived B17 with battle scars will be scruffy. 

 

Context is everything. 

 

Edited by noelh
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TonyOD said:

Interesting post that. I've been pondering the issue of weathering (because I'm not very good at it, mainly) and I've come to the inclusion that many weathered builds (while examples of skillful modelling to be sure) are simply overdone.

Thanks Tony. 

I think this is very relevant

15 minutes ago, noelh said:

Context is everything. 

I recent saw a very well made Eduard Spitfire XVI,  on Farcebook Eduard modellers,  the all black post war one with gold trim, weathered like it was a battle weary veteran...rather than a highly polished one off 'admirals' barge'  ..... which made the very well done weathering....well, just ridiculous.

This debate rolls around, years ago a Spanish modeller did a build of a 1/32nd Tamiya Spitfire IX, as Wing Commander Johnnie Johnston's JE-J,  looking like something on a postwar Japanese aircraft dump.   Very well done effects,  but about as accurate to life as a Battle of Britain movie Spitfire IX with white codes, blue undersides and blinkin' great streaks of gunsmoke.

My comments above were about how most Bob British fighters looked,  and the context, mostly new planes, often very short service lives.

 

As you mention, you have found some very weathered Beaufighters,  

I've posted this image many times,  as it's really amazingly useful, as it has some fresh Dark Earth and Middle Stone, so you can see how the paint fades in the desert, but also note while faded and a bit scuffed, a few stains, and some bare metal where mechanics stand on the wings, and chipped fasteners and dings on the engine covers,  how well the pain is surviving in an inhospitable climate

14780326836_de344e5748_h.jpgRCAF Spitfire V,  1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

as a contrast, a fresh desert SAAF VB  (note orange roundel centres) 

2527331399_29813e39fd_h.jpgSpitfire Vb...............SAAF by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

I did link to the source of these above,   but I will again

Flickr Search

@Etiennedup Flickr, which I raid regularly, as it contains a wonderful resource of period colour.

 

The big problem is modelling fashion, and various Spanish companies selling their products,  and while the models often have a 'wow' factor, they are as fake as a phone filter on a selfie.... 

 

This is why I often post reference images,  I spend a lot of time image searching and looking at the photos of the real things,  so I know where to find  pictures to illustrate specific details.  It's a learning process for me as well,  as it make me look harder at images,  and makes me spot new details.

Keeps me off the street and gets the brain going...

 

cheers

T

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

but about as accurate to life as a Battle of Britain movie Spitfire IX with white codes, blue undersides and blinkin' great streaks of gunsmoke.

😅 You are absolutely right. The BoB movie people really went to town with the weathering. You can see it in contemporary photos. I think like so many of us they saw them as old aeroplanes at the time but of course they were new at the time they were depicting. 

 

You can see a similar thing with AFVs where modellers cover them in rust where in reality they were new and in any case of a metal not particularly prone to rust. 

 

Of course we are all entitled to build anything our way. 

 

Besides with a phone filter selfie, I look particularly handsome. 😘

 

It's not realistic but I like it. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2021 at 11:46 PM, Ed Russell said:

Probably not at this rate. As you are getting bogged down in minutiae here, I suggest you do an out-of-the-box 1/48 Tamiya or Airfix modern jet to give you an idea of how simple modelling can be and give up on looking at this thread until you have finished it.

Damn it! It will be finished 1st (or maybe not if I don't have the ordered 5 spokes in time 🤣)! It is a basic kit that does not fit well together in places and there seems a lot of work if you are pernickety like me. I will put it up as a 'Ready to inspect' when finished with what info I have gleaned that maybe helpful to anyone building A68216 though, I am sure most of you guys have long gone past building an Airfix Starter kit with it's 4 nearly dried up colour pots! Still, it is teaching me a lot after 35 years away god bless it. I have already learnt a huge amount from you guys that should stand me in good stead for the coming builds.

 

Rgds

Lindsey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lindsey C said:

It is a basic kit that does not fit well together in places

If you mean one of  Mk1 Hurricane (A68216), Mk1a Spitfire (A68206) I have built both with no fit issues. Basic kits are better for beginners😁 but I note you said you have some previous experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lindsey C said:

It is a basic kit that does not fit well together in places and there seems a lot of work if you are pernickety like me.

This is a feature of modern tooling that can take older returnees by surprise, because they fit very very precisely, even a coat of paint can throw off fit, let alone mould lines or missed sprue nibs.  Older kits often had a bit of 'play'  and this as not critical.

 

Not always helped by Airfix soft plastic and on occasion poor quality control.   

 

In the case of the fabric wing Hurricane, the wheel well is fiddly,  and easy to slightly misalign, which will cause fit problem on the wing/fuselage joint later.... trick it ot fit the front spar first, and use the wing themselves as a jig,  I suggest making sure it fits by dry fit, scarp and adjust, and then tape the wing together while in the right place, and use a little liquid glue on the lower edge.  Let dry, and add rest of well later. again, use upper wing as jig to get correct alignment.

 

the new tool Spitfire mk.I, care needs to be taken on the interior parts, as these if not fitted properly cause the fuselage to not close neatly and then can affect the wing dihedral.   You may need to slightly bevel the edges of these parts, or scrape off paint.

 

And, some of this is not helped by the factor that a small problem early on, can cause a major fit problem later,  this is certainly the case in the new tool 1/48th Spitfire and Hurricane kits, I have seen few plenty of builds that have had modellers cursing these problems, because they are unaware of the precise fit, and how critical this is, not helped by pictographic instructions that don't mention this, or suggest the use of dry fit to acts as jigs etc.

 

As long as you are aware of these factors, (and it's not a poorly moulded kit) , they fit very well indeed.   ......but If you don't know this and build away merrily, you can find yourself with the problems you describe.

 

HTH

 T

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/07/2021 at 01:56, Lindsey C said:

It is a basic kit that does not fit well together in places and there seems a lot of work if you are pernickety like me.

PS the fabric wing Hurricane does have a wing issue, in that the outer sections if properly aligned, mess the dihedral, or you get a lip of the underside showing.  

IIRC the trick is to align and glue the centre section, then get the outer panels dihedral, and i think align the inner edge of the aileron, then clean up any mismatch when dry.   The landing light may not align in this, but that's not too hard to fix.

This issue is possibly not helped by the 1 piece upper wing.

Leadin onto, I'm not a fan of the split cockpit approach, with some on the wing and some in the fuselage.  the 72nd is less of a problem, but the 48th kit it makes for the need to for everything to line up 'just so'

When i get round to restarting my mk.I to Mk.IIA conversion,  I may see if I can just add the entire cockpit to the fuselage.

 

 In the 72nd Arma Mk.I I was able to add the cockpit to the fuselage though.   

 

HTH

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

PS the fabric wing Hurricane does have a wing issue, in that the outer sections if properly aligned, mess the dihedral, or you get a lip of the underside showing.  

IIRC the trick is to align and glue the centre section, then get the outer panels dihedral, and i think align the inner edge of the aileron, then clean up any mismatch when dry.   The landing light may not align in this, but that's not too hard to fix.

This issue is possibly not helped by the 1 piece upper wing.

I got the lip showing along the rear of wing (and it is not a very sharp edge either) and the landing light mis-alignment (fixed with a little filler and scalpel/sanding) on 1:72. I let wing set and then filled and sanded wing edges. The ailerons are misaligned as you state. Hmmm, gluing centre section. Then each outer wing with extra thin and holding in position until set to obtain correct dihedral. Nothing about that in the 'Starter Kit' instructions Airfix! 🤣 As you state, a problem of the 1 piece upper wing.

 

Re: the split cockpit approach, my 1:72 scale stick is going in after wings and fuselage are together. It would be too easy to catch it while performing and concentrating on the biggest join of the whole model. I tried it dry!

 

Rgds,

Lindsey

Edited by Lindsey C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wahey!

 

5 spokes will be here in a week or so (plus an extra pair I may require later). There was no work on L1592 tonight due to other commitments.

 

Also on the way is Arma Hobby's AMH70023 Mk1 BoB L.E. Hurricane for the end of the BoB shelf building (also with a one piece upper wing!). Any tips on this kit welcomed in months to come. Also a Tamiya 60750 Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 (I never built Tamiya before so I want a comparison and version 2 is Autumn 1940 France, though the kit from what I can discern doesn't look much better in terms of detail) which means my starter Bf109E-3 Airfix A68205 can be a 'Guinea Pig' though I expect it to turn out well.

 

I am getting ahead of myself here I know, but the Bf109's single leg undercarriage (and the spitfires to a lesser extent) is the scariest looking thing for these builds. The real aircraft must have had seriously strong wheel bearings for wheels that sat at that angle to the ground for landing and take off! How are you guys assuring the right angle in both directions for undercarriage? Chocked up from below or braced when upside down or other?

 

I have a lot of work ahead of me now but hours of relaxation (usually!).

 

I am keeping quiet about the SR-71 also on the way! I am an old aircraft fella really but it was one of the most impressive aircraft ever built (a family friend actually got to see one in it's hangar). That will live on the bottom, darkest shelf of the cabinet well below the BoB aircraft where it may well not be detected in a year or twos time! 🧐. Ssshhh🤫

 

Rgds,

Lindsey

Edited by Lindsey C
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lindsey C said:

Any tips on this kit welcomed in months to come.

see here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235080866-hurricane-mki-arma-hobby-72nd-scheme-tbc/

 

Very fiddly in places, but with care, and a little careful adjustment in places, main ones were opening up the holes fro the cockpit framing, the spinner and prop blades, and the wing /fuselage join,  then it goes together very well.   

 

Mine is again stalled while I try to get the upper colours right....   

 

HTH

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Lindsey C said:

Also a Tamiya 60750 Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 (I never built Tamiya before so I want a comparison and version 2 is Autumn 1940 France, though the kit from what I can discern doesn't look much better in terms of detail) which means my starter Bf109E-3 Airfix A68205 can be a 'Guinea Pig' though I expect it to turn out well.

 

I am getting ahead of myself here I know, but the Bf109's single leg undercarriage (and the spitfires to a lesser extent) is the scariest looking thing for these builds. The real aircraft must have had seriously strong wheel bearings for wheels that sat at that angle to the ground for landing and take off! How are you guys assuring the right angle in both directions for undercarriage? Chocked up from below or braced when upside down or other?

 

The 109  was notorious for its evil ground handling, they lost a lot of them in landing accidents. The Spitfire also to some extent, indeed the rake was modified in later Spits. 

 

Yes you're right it's tricky to line them up. I think often we get it wrong. 

 

Lately I struggled with Arma's Hurricane undercarriage. I found it difficult to get the sit right. 

 

 

Edited by noelh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tamiya Bf109E3 & 4 are excellent kits, albeit a wee bit short in length, so you should have no problems with them as the fit is excellent. However if you want (and feel up to) the bee's knee's then the Special Hobby kits are the very last word on the subject, at least for a while.

 

However I would reiterate a previous comment about getting bogged down with the minutiae as the best way to get back into the hobby is to actually build and finish a kit even if it's not perfect or how you imagined it would turn out. The next one you do will get closer to your goal and next one after that even closer etc.. although whether any of us ever reach perfection is debatable.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, noelh said:

The 109  was notorious for its evil ground handling, they lost a lot of them in landing accidents. The Spitfire also to some extent, indeed the rake was modified in later Spits. 

From what I have read and watched, many 109's were also damaged on take off by lesser experienced pilots by not allowing for the torque the engine created with the aircraft having such a small effective 'axle length'. (I know not what, the correct term is for the lateral distance between front wheels on aircraft.🙈) The Spitfire also has a small effective axle length with undercarriage moving outward to the up position. The Hurricane did it the more sensible way. Outwards in! 😊. And at least on Hurricanes there are 3 points of anchor rather than a single leg! Much less strain on landing gear and bearings. I would love to see a Bf109's front wheel bearings or their spec. Just to look at that sideways loading on the bearing makes me wince. Any ball race doesn't like that. Maybe they were tapered bearings? They don't like that either but last a little longer with regular adjustment. Maybe in times of war they did not worry and just kept putting in new ones? The Spitfire seems to have suffered from this far less than the 109 though many were damaged on landing by in-experienced pilots over-braking while landing due to the poor sight over the nose (read inexperience). Great brakes Supermarine.👍. All a matter of learning/experience. The Hurricane just looked & laughed being a more 'hardy but slightly slower animal'🤣

 

Rgds

L

Edited by Lindsey C
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

However I would reiterate a previous comment about getting bogged down with the minutiae as the best way to get back into the hobby is to actually build and finish a kit even if it's not perfect or how you imagined it would turn out. The next one you do will get closer to your goal and next one after that even closer etc.. although whether any of us ever reach perfection is debatable.

Thanks FPB. I know you are right and perfection even unto ourselves is unattainable. But I cannot look at it with 4 spokes, etc. It will annoy me every time I look, though only you guys and myself will be critical. As we all know, none of us are totally happy with anything we build and we know what details we are not happy with. Others may not notice the same. The minutiae annoys me if I am aware of it!🤣  I will get L1592 as close as possible then onto the rest then a Hurricane or 2 to finish. I am only planning on building all the period BoB aircraft then after, the sneaky SR-71.

 

Oh God, I hope I don't get caught again! 😱 I looked at the 1:48 Lancaster today and large scale Mosquito's (my favourite aircraft) and I only have limited space for display!

 

Rgds,

Lindsey

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to seeing your Hurri when it lands so as to speak and absolutely not one for nit picking other people's hard work as my efforts are hardly faultless.

 

Good luck with all your projects and you may even be tempted at some stage to try the Airfix 24th scale 'Mossie', a real beast of a kit but undoubtedly for me the best aircraft we produced during WW2, just a pity there isn't an airworthy example in the UK at present.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 1:08 AM, fishplanebeer said:

However if you want (and feel up to) the bee's knee's then the Special Hobby kits are the very last word on the subject, at least for a while.

Wow, nice looking kits. Great detail for 1:72. Special Hobby 72439 Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 will have to be bought! Slats, positionable flaps, loads of extra detail goodies! It makes my starter Airfix Bf109 look a bit 'Mickey Mouse'🤪 Any one know where I can buy 18 year old eyesight to reinstate my vision for such a kit? 🤣

 

Regards,

 

Lindsey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 4:58 AM, Lindsey C said:

Wow, nice looking kits. Great detail for 1:72. Special Hobby 72439 Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 will have to be bought! Slats, positionable flaps, loads of extra detail goodies! It makes my starter Airfix Bf109 look a bit 'Mickey Mouse'🤪 Any one know where I can buy 18 year old eyesight to reinstate my vision for such a kit? 🤣

 

Regards,

 

Lindsey

I’m 76 and just finished one of those SH 109s so it can be done 😎. There are a couple of potential fit issues with the kit. This topic from the 72 Scale Aircraft forum is an excellent build article. I’m not sure if it crops up in that article, but one early criticism was rear fuselage panel lines improperly spaced; later kit production was supposed to have fixed that. 

Edited by Chuck1945
double negative needed correction
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...