Jump to content

Handley Page O/400***FINISHED***


PeterB

Recommended Posts

I really should not be doing this as it is totally insane, but as my Stirling build has gone quite quickly I may have a go at this.

DSC06748-crop

It is certainly big for its day and not small even by modern standards! Whether or not I complete it probably depends on the other kits I have to build and whether or not we get granted an extension to this GB but I will give it a go,

 

The kit was first released in 1967 and I must have bought it straight away as I can remember getting it from the old Frizinghall model shop, later Frizinghall Model Railways, which was just round the corner from my school, which I left that year to go to Uni! The shop closed quite a while ago after the business moved to a warehouse. The model survived 2 house moves but was then knocked off a shelf and broken beyond repair though I still have quite a few of the bits, and this is a 2012 replacement boxing. The nice thing about this kit is that the various main wing sections are split into upper and lower halves and unusually for the time Airfix have provided holes and instructions for some rigging, however basic. As you can see from the box art there were either 2 or 3 wires in most cases but I will stick to just a single one for simplicity and speed - not accurate I know but at least it gives an impression of the real thing. There were originally 2 paint schemes - an PC-10 over natural linen one and a Post War Nivo ("Night Invisible Varnish-Orfordness" which was the result of testing at that establishment to find the best colour for night bombers) overall version though the reboxing has two in overall Hu155 pretending to be PC-10. Two types of roundel and fin flashes are provided but just the one set of aircraft ID markings for both which seems a bit strange, and there is also an optional big single 1650lb bomb to be carried externally if preferred, though I will probably go with the normal internal load. I have very little info on this machine so it will be OOB with rigging and maybe some replacement Aeroclub white metal Lewis Guns.

 

Liked I said, it may not happen and I doubt it will be finished by the current deadline but what the heck! I like a challenge sometimes, particularly after the odd glass of "Scottish Wine".😄 I had hoped to build at least one of my "V Bombers" in this GB but I just don't have time.

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SoftScience said:

If you can finish this in time, i will eat my hat. :)

Yes, in the cold light of day it does not seem such a good idea so your hat may be safe. Having said that there are only 167 pieces and about 20 of those probably won't be used, the token rigging is fairly straightforward (hopefully) and the paint scheme is simple, so who knows! In the event that I do finish I will be satisfied if you just raise your hat to me rather than eating it.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • PeterB changed the title to Handley Page O/400

Ok, let's get the thorny subject of paint out of the way first. At the start of the war British planes were basically covered in linen over which a few coats of cellulose dope were applied, giving them a colour which varied from pale off white via cream to a slightly brownish shade. It was found that even with the dope, the linen deteriorated pretty quickly due to exposure to sunlight, and by around 1916 it was decided to add coloured pigments to the dope in the form of a final protective coating ( Nieuport added aluminium powder for that reason I think hence their silver colouring) and this had the added advantage of providing camouflage. The most common of these coatings was PC.10 described as a sort of khaki or khaki green colour and subject to much argument, just like US OD which was almost certainly based on PC.10 initially when the US started making their own planes in numbers after the end of WWI. There is even some disagreement as to whether PC stands for Protective Coating or Pigmented Cellulose.

 

So how do the various hobby paint manufacturers deal with this – well mostly the ones I have seen go for green. The Humbrol Authentic HB15 and the replacement Hu108 were both labelled RFC Green, as was the initial Xtracolour X022, though that has been re-named PC10 Khaki and I have no ideas if the mix has been altered. The White Ensign Colourcoats AC GW 02 is called Khaki and is also green but with a definite hint of brown which shows through depending on the lighting as in the Sopwith Dolphin I built a while back. The Sovereign version is called Khaki (PC.10) and I have no idea if it is the same colour.

DSC05208-crop

However, the original Precision paints range included at least 2 versions of PC.10 from the various schemes which were both brown as on this engine nacelle from my old O/400 in my spares box - this might be the darker late one.

DSC06750-crop

It is known that the main pigments added to the dope were lamp black and yellow ochre, but the latter seems to have included a little iron oxide (rust brown in colour)) and the proportion apparently increased as time went by, which is why there were several versions of PC.10. It seems to be generally accepted that the early version was greenish and that it became progressively browner by the end of the war. Another consideration according to some is the effect of the dope itself which is said to have produced a “green shift” when new but as it faded it got steadily browner until it was verging on dark chocolate – the pale sandy brown khaki used on the replicas in the film the Blue Max is probably incorrect though as it looks more like a faded version of the reddish brown PC.12! The original kit offered an early machine in the day bomber scheme of PC.10 and natural linen with red/white/blue/white roundels and flashes, together with a late war Nivo overall one with just red/blue night bomber roundels etc. This reboxing has two both in overall PC.10 or rather Hu 155 OD with red/blue roundels for a late war one and post war red/white/blue roundels etc which they say is "Post 1918" - not sure if they have got that right.

 

Hopefully that should clear the air a bit – feel free to comment by all means but I am not going to get into a long winded discussion on the subject - everybody no doubt has their own views on PC.10. In theory I should perhaps go with a brown version as this is a late war machine, but I will stick to the Colourcoats version as it is all I have in stock at the moment and I rather like it.

 

Pete

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

So, here is what I am up against.

DSC06752

 

The O/400 was a big plane – wingspan 100ft and fuselage length 62ft 10 inches which makes it more than twice as big as the main British day bomber, the DH4/4A/6 and about half as big again as the only other large bomber, the Blackburn Kangaroo. It was also somewhat larger than the Gotha GIV/V but quite a bit smaller than some of the German “R” planes, which were not matched until the HP V/1500 entered service. With the usual caveat about difficulties comparing like with like depending on bomb/fuel load and speed, it seems it could carry nearly twice the bombload of the Gotha a bit further and slightly faster, though as ever increased range usually meant substituting fuel for bombs.

 

So how did this “monster” plane come into being? When war broke out in 1914 the UK actually had two air forces – one being the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) which was part of the Army and it was initially thought it would concentrate on recce and spotting for the artillery. The other force was the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) and that seemed to be a bit more belligerent, as typified by Charles Samson who led 3 Squadron RNAS from Eastchurch to the French/Belgian border. Not content with just looking for and shooting up the Germans, he improvised bomb racks on some of his planes and bombed Zeppelin hangars at Düsseldorf and Cologne. He also fitted guns and armour to some private cars and started armoured car patrols to slow down the German advance, later joined by the Royal Marines.

 

Within a few weeks of war starting, the design team from Handley Page were summoned to a meeting with Captain Murray Sueter RN, who in 1912 had been put in charge of Naval Aviation and presided over the formation of the RNAS. They were expecting to discuss modifying an existing design of a small plane to carry out recce and other patrol work, and to bomb the German fleet if it turned up near the British coast. However, Sueter's staff had suggested that role would be better carried out by a seaplane and by then Samson had told Sueter that what the Navy really needed was a “Bloody Paralyser” of an aircraft – a long range bomber that could fly behind the enemy lines and bomb their infrastructure – road and rail networks, supply and ammunition dumps, factories etc. As a result the meeting ended with HP being told to start work on a big bomber which would be their “Type O”. At that time it was fairly common to include the engine HP in the aircraft “title “ hence the Short type 184 torpedo bomber was more often called the Short 225 after the engine, but the Navy insisted that was not allowed as it would give the enemy information on the plane, so instead it was called the O/100, apparently as a result of the 100ft wingspan, though in some documentation I gather O/300 was mentioned.

 

Unsurprisingly an aircraft of this size and complexity took quite a long time to design and build. For example, I have mentioned in my Stirling build the restriction on wingspan to fit standard hangars, but in this case the hangars were much smaller so the wing had to be designed to fold with all the problems that involved with things like control cable runs to the ailerons etc. Another difficulty was finding engines of sufficient power and reliability, but by February 2015 the design started to firm up based on replacing the proposed Sunbeam engines with the new 250HP R-R V-12 engines. On December 17th 1915 the first flight took place. There were however a lot of further problems to fix and adjustments to make before the type began to go to Squadrons at the end of 1916, by which time they were powered by either 260HP or 300HP (depends on which source you believe) R-R Mk III engines, soon to be named Eagle. 4 Prototypes and 42 production aircraft were built before the switch to the O/400, of which more later. They were initially used as day bombers but switched to night operations at about the same time the O/400 arrived later in 1917.

 

To be continued....... but in the meantime it seems appropriate to end with with a quote from T.E. Lawrence aka Lawrence of Arabia in his book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom". For a while his irregular forces had been in receipt of air support against the Turkish forces, mainly BE.12c, Bristol fighters and maybe a few DH 9 bombers but at one stage they were sent a Handley Page flown by Ross Smith - it may have been an O/400 but more likely an O/100, and when it arrived its great size compared with the previous planes clearly made an impression as he quotes  his tribesmen fighters as saying 

"Indeed and at last they have sent us THE aeroplane, of which these things were foals".

 

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given its age the kit has a surprisingly detailed interior. with bracing wires, planked wood flooring and even holder with spare drums for the Lewis guns in the rear position. The instructions call for brown wood flooring and the door between the front gun position and cockpit, leather for the seat cushions and just about everything else is in Hu155 OD - ie PC10 in my case and I am not entirely sure about that. OK, after a few coats of dope the PC10 was applied to the outside and would probably show through the linen skin but I seem to remember cases where the interior was a different colour, like the red/brown on the inside of the much later Wellington. Unfortunately I do not have much info on this plane as it is one of the few WWI aircraft I don't have  Windsock book on so I will go with PC10 with a few variations. 

DSC06754-crop

So, starting from the front we have the nose gun position separated from the cockpit by a door, then the cockpit itself with a seat, control wheel and an IP for which this boxing provides a dec - I will not be bothering with figures I think. A short wood planked floor is provided for the nose section and like all the other floor and roof parts it has bevelled edges, on which more shortly. It also had a small triangular access door which I have glued in the closed position and a small porthole type window which I will use Krystal Kleer for. Behind the cockpit is the bomb bay together with a couple of fuel tanks which I have painted in red primer as I very much doubt they were PC10 being metal. Under that is the bomb rack which contains circular holes for the bombs. In the original design of the O/100 there were to be 8 x 112lb bombs carried horizontally in a rotating cage, but that did not work so they ended up with up to 16 x 112lb bombs mounted with the nose ring clamped in the rack and they dropped tail first like the He 111. It could also carry 2 more 112lb bombs externally, depending on the range required, or a combination of extra tanks and bombs, and I seem to remember an alternative load was 8 roughly 225lb bombs which is what Airfix seem to have provide though I won't be fitting them as neither the tanks or bombs/rack will be visible. Behind that is the rear gunner's position consisting of a wooden floor with a couple of "bulkheads at the ends, the forward one mounting a seat which I suspect could be folded up out of the way. He had two pillar mounted Lewis guns, one on each side of his position.

 

The design of the fuselage is a bit strange and even more complicated than that of the Whitley I had problems with elsewhere on this GB.  It seems to be designed for somebody with at least 3 hands, and preferably 4! You can see what I mean here.

DSC06756-crop

Just realised the lower horizonal tail section is the wrong way round in the pic! As you can see from the earlier picture the two fuselage sides only actually touch at the extreme nose, and whilst lining up and trapping the various bits and pieces, you have to glue in the various roof and floor parts which is a real fiddle - as you position one, another goes out of alignment and so on hence the need for extra hands! Fortunately it is possible to do this in stages as above. Once the nose section has dried I can add the rest including the lower wing centre section complete with the grid that the bombs dropped through. Initially each "cell" was fitted with a spring loaded flap to close it up and improve the airflow but they soon packed up so in the end the groundcrew just stuck a sheet of brown paper on - a bit like the red cloth patch over the gun muzzles of Spitfires and Hurricanes many years later! Airfix provide an optional 1650lb bomb which sometimes was used very late in the war and sits underneath the centre section grid when no bombs are carried internally, again a bit like the He 111.

 

There was a lower belly gun position as in the Gotha GIV/V to catch out the unwary (that meant the rear gunner actually had 3 Lewis guns to play with), and I have gone for the hatch closed and the gun in the stowed position as the plane will be on the ground - which is also why I will leave out the crew, even though the figures are not that bad. As I said earlier, the fuselage design is a bit unusual, but one advantage of it is that there is no annoying joint along the upper and lower centreline so maybe Airfix were being clever? I don't recall having any problems back in 1967 but it was a long time ago and the model looked pretty good as I recall, before it was broken. No doubt it will need some fettling but it may be OK.

 

At this rate @SoftScience's hat may actually be at risk!

 

Pete

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

Whilst not exactly "fun" it has so far been less tricky than I expected.

DSC06758-crop

With a bit of filing, brute force and clamps/tape I managed to get the rest of the fuselage together without any serious gaps, and just a smear of PPP was needed. The biplane tail was less easy as there are 6 struts and 3 fins making a total of 10 pins to line up in the holes on the upper wing, which is thin and rather bendy which was both a help and a hinderance. Once I had got the centre fin and 4 struts in and partly dry, I was able to push the rest in and CA them in place. Unfortunately Airfix mounted all the struts on the sprue with end attachments so it was difficult to decide what was sprue and what was strut - I ended up having to file the pins down a bit and overdid it slightly on a couple but the CA should fill the tiny gaps. Given that the mould would seem to have been 47 years old when this boxing was produced it is in pretty good nick with just a little flash but then I suspect that it has been fairly lightly used as it is unlikely to have been one of their best sellers. If so that is a pity as it is actually pretty good (so far).

 

I am reasonably sure that the biplane tail would have had some rigging but I have not been able to find any good pics of it as it tends not to stand out against the background. Airfix have not provided any rigging details or holes as the horizontal surfaces are single part, unlike the wings so I may not bother at least for the moment, though stretched sprue may be an option later. After all, it is just going to be an "impression" of rigging, not the whole complicated business - must try and find where I put the thicker E-Z-Line.

 

So, to conclude the story, the O/100 was a success and was operated by the RNAS both by day and night over Belgium,  France, Germany and in the Med. It was however a little underpowered so tests were made with both 275HP Sunbeam Maori and 320HP Rolls Royce Eagle IV engines before 360HP R-R Eagle VIII were decided on. At the same time the fuel tanks mounted behind the engines of the O/100 were moved to the fuselage resulting in much shorter nacelles which is one easy way of spotting whether or not a photo is of an O/100. The modified design became the O/400 with an increased top speed of 97mph compared with 76mph of the earlier version. Also, whereas the props in the O/100 were handed, those of the O/400 both had the same direction of rotation. The first batch of O/400 seems to have entered service in April 1918 (though some sources say late 1917 but there is confusion as they were often just described in record as "Handley Pages" so could have been O/100) with what was now the RAF but by the end of August over 200 were operational and I believe over 400 were built in total at a cost of about £6000 each or so I have read! After the war ended they lingered on rather longer than the massive V/1500 ( 126ft span and 4 engines, max bombload 6000lb) and quite a few became civil transports, but they were considered too big and expensive to operate and so the RAF switched to the smaller Vickers Vimy and its descendants such as the Virginia. The Americans also built some powered by Liberty engines. It may not have been in service very long, but it was the first real heavy bomber to be operated by the World's first independent air force!

 

So, next step the wings which Airfix say should be built right at the start as free standing units. However given the uncertainty over the strut lengths and the pronounced dihedral on the outer section I may do it differently. We will see!

 

Pete.

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

I don't know if it is something to do with the larger size and therefore p[painted area but is looking a bit lighter than I expected from the Dolphin, but does have the brown tinge depending on lighting. Perhaps I should have gone with a darker, browner version to be accurate.

DSC06760-crop

Next up, the wing centre section/engines and that should be real fun given the number of struts involved. Speaking of struts, in the past, when building WWI British planes I have painted them a "varnished wood" colour but the instructions say they should be the same colour as the fuselage/wings ie PC10. I seem to remember reading somewhere that like the ends of the props they were sometimes wrapped with canvas to protect/strengthen them so maybe that is what Airfix are working on, and so rightly or wrongly that is what I have gone with - it saves a fair bit of trouble with the painting anyway!

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now the fun starts! I would have preferred to leave them until later, knowing how clumsy I am, but once the engines are in place it could be a problem getting the wind driven generators onto the fuselage sides, so I have fitted them and the pillar mounts for the rear cockpit Lewis guns.

DSC06762-crop

I have also added the upper part of the lower wings, first threading through some rigging thread, and I have assembled and painted the engines.

DSC06764-crop

They will each be supported by 3 struts underneath and two on the inboard sides so that could be a fiddle, but I seem to have managed it in 1965! The rigging looks a bit problematic as the engines could be in the way, but I will see soon.

 

Pete

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

You're a very brave man Pete

Although to be fair I did see this exact boxing at a show last week; fortunately sense prevailed before I parted with any beer tokens 😉 Thought I'd better get a few more under my belt before getting bogged down with this behemoth

 

Watching with interest though and I've already squirrelled away some dosh just in case I spot one at a price too good to be true . . . 

 

Paul 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul.

 

There is an old modelling saying which goes something along the lines of "perfect is the enemy of good" - my builds are never perfect but I would like to think one or two have been fairly good. For example, with this kit Airfix's idea of rigging is a bit rudimentary and it could, with a lot of work, be made almost like the real thing, but I am just going for an "impression of rigging" so I will use some thicker line than I would on say a single seat fighter instead of the 2 or three thin "wires" that were actually used, but I will hopefully make one change that should improve it a bit. Airfix only provide holes and instructions for the rigging that ran spanwise, but I will attempt to add that that went "chordwise" as well, which will probably mean drilling another set of holes, but maybe not. All should become clearer later when I start on the outer wing "boxes". As with most old style biplane kits with individual struts, the real problem is likely to be getting them all the right length. Although perhaps unrealistic, the later "rectangular pair" type as on the BE2c do make alignment a darned sight easier, as did the small "jig" tool they included in one or two kits, but at least this one has only dihedral, not sweep or stagger to contend with!

 

Incidentally I see what you mean about prices - it seems pretty hard to find one at Kingkit and e-Bay - the only one I noticed would set you back £60 including postage from the States!

 

Pete

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

Engines on.

DSC06768-crop

I will paint the struts and what I guess is the fuel pipe at the top and then comes the top wing which could be slightly tricky. As you can see the props are just behind the cockpit so it must have been noisy. On the Gotha GIV/V the engines were pushers so the props were just inline with the rear gunner's position and he was provided with protective guards - don't know if it was to stop him getting too close with the guns or to give limited protection if the prop broke up.

 

Pete

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

1 hour ago, SoftScience said:

What is that you're using for rigging?

This stuff!

DSC06773-crop

It is elastic and not too difficult to thread through holes drilled for the rigging. I bought the big reel of fine thread years ago when I was intending to make a start on my WWI collection, - a mixture of injection and vac form, but other than the resin Sopwith Dolphin I have yet to make a start, and chickened out with the vac forms ang gave them to other modellers. I have also used it on a Fairey Albacore, but thought it looked as bit thin for a big plane so bought the small reel of heavy thread specifically for the O/400and the Roden Gotha. There are now quite a few other makes of rigging thread about not to mention things like fishing line. This stuff works quite well but as always the problem is getting the CA glue in the right place in sufficient quantity to hold it without making a mess, and then waiting for it to dry. I did buy some accelerator to speed that up but have yet to use it - maybe this time!

 

Pete

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

I have put the centre section together except for the upper part of the top wing.

DSC06776-crop

The struts are both vertical and parallel - it is just macro camera perspective! I had a bit of a problem as the two triangular (cabane?) struts are different lengths but had both fallen off the sprue so I had no idea which was front and which back - this is where a side view in the instructions would have been helpful. Anyway, by trial and error I think I have got them the right way round but time will tell. I have threaded the "rigging" through the holes in the upper wing half though some will need tightening, and I have used CA to hopefully fix them into the lower wing. Tomorrow after I have left that to dry overnight I will start on the upper wing but this may explain how Airfix intended it to work!

 

Sometimes, if you are lucky, you can just poke the thread through the holes, but usually I end up using a needle. I "borrowed" 3 from my wife - one normal fairly long one and a shorter one for tighter spaces, but when I first used this rigging I found it a bit tricky at times so I heated another one up to soften the metal and then bent it so that makes it a fair bit easier to get into the hole at times.

 

Incidentally, the lighting in my study this evening has made the paint look brown as you can see!

 

Pete

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great to see you building another one for the group build.  This is a kit I have always fancied but postponed until I have time.  Now I have to agree, there were things I could do in 1965 which I can't do today. 

I'll have to be content with watching yours.

 

The colour is changing due to the light temperature and the white balance of your camera.  It is possible to get lights with a 'daylight' bulb and adjust the camera but it looks ok to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Colin W said:

 

The colour is changing due to the light temperature and the white balance of your camera.  It is possible to get lights with a 'daylight' bulb and adjust the camera but it looks ok to me.

Hi Colin,

 

A few years back I bought a ruddy great "light bulb" to use in my greenhouse when I was growing a "curry leaf plant" - it allowed me to fool it into thinking there were a couple of hours more daylight than there actually were here in winter and coupled with a heated seed tray underneath it it worked well. The only problem was that it is very bright, like a miniature sun and I had to put screens round it to stop it lighting up the whole street - surprised I did not get a visit from the Heddlu (Police) thinking I was growing cannabis - I think it would be just a bit too much for taking pics with!😄 I have no idea how to go about adjusting the camera anyway so I will live with it.

 

Pete

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might just work!

DSC06780-crop

I have glued the struts to the top of the lower wing and the bottom of the upper wing, taped on the top of the upper wing and the whole lot is a push fit to get the alignment right. Some filling will undoubtedly be needed but the fit does not seem too bad, once I had filed down the tabs on the wings a bit and cleaned up the slots. Exactly how you could hope to get it right by following the instructions and making up the entire wing cell and rigging before attaching it I have no idea, but I almost certainly managed all those years ago. However I expect I was rushing as usual and the glue did not have chance to fully dry so I got away with it. The cotton rigging I used was probably a bit slack, but a trick I learned from making model ships such as the Airfix HMS Victory was that if you then sprayed it with water it would shrink, though you had to be careful not to overdo it as the thin topmast could get pulled to one side - guess how I know!

 

Incidentally, that is not a huge gap on the top wing - I reused some tape I had had on the Stirling so it has black paint on one edge!

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, with the other outer wing unit assembled and drying, I have made a start on the props, which were I presume made of laminated wood. When the Wingnut Wings 1/32 scale biplanes were in full swing I saw quite a few builds in mags where some really nice props were painted but I am not that artistic - more of a "painting by numbers" person really. The real thing would probably look a bit like this on a Bristol Fighter in the Imperial War Museum -

IWM Bristol Fighter

but the chances of me managing anything like that in 1/72 scale are vanishingly small. However, a few years ago I asked fellow forum member Heather Kay if she had any thoughts on painting teak on LNER coaches as she does that sort of thing for a living. She kindly referred me to a series of articles and I gather the suggested way top do it was to put a coat of an orangish paint on, and when dry put a streaky coat of a wood colour on and thinly and brush it out so the orange shows through in places, so I am going to have a go. This is my "orange", actually very old Railmatch LNER Teak - I finally managed to open the "child proof" jar with very hot water, a hammer, and a lot of cursing -

DSC06782-crop

It is actually somewhat "redder" in real life and should do as a base. I will paint on something a bit darker once it is well dry, and at least it will only be on the inner half of the blades. As I mentioned earlier sometimes blades were wrapped with grey painted canvas and that seems to be the case with the O/400. On some props the leading edge also had a brass strip inset into it, presumable to protect against stones but I won't be doing that. Airfix managed some decent detail on the metal boss.

 

Pete

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to start painting and rigging the wings.

DSC06784-crop

Once the big ailerons are on the top wing, it will be about 1cm greater in span that the Stirling so it was a big old bird, and the following V/1500 would be a scale 10cm bigger, though AFAIK no kit has yet been produced of the latter plane which had been scheduled to bomb Berlin but was apparently held back in anticipation of the armistice! It was actually the H-P Type V and the 1500 comes from the combined power of its 4 x 375HP R-R Eagle engines.

 

Incidentally - a word of warning for anybody thinking of building this kit. The outer wings had a fair bit of dihedral, probably to ensure ground clearance when they were folded back alongside the fuselage. The instructions on mine show this but say it is 14o which is almost certainly wrong. The actual angle on the illustration is in fact about 4o and that matches up with photos and drawings I have so it is likely that a "typo" has crept in!

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having to build this rather faster than I intended as the ruddy paint is close to running out - if I leave it too long it will probably dry up!. Anyway, here are the outer wings with the rigging as Airfix intended - all along the line of the span as it were,

DSC06786-crop

And here it is after I added some between the struts "chord wise", together with the top wing King Post and wires that helped support the considerable overhang. One of the strange and slightly irritating things shown up in the macro shot is the way the ruddy thread has twisted - being elastic it is almost impossible to straighten so I have given up trying. I may have also happened with the thinner version but was not as obvious - guess this will be a "three footer". Far from accurate but better than nothing.

DSC06790-crop

I have yet to add the big ailerons but I think I will leave those until the wings are joined up. In the meantime, whilst waiting for the above to dry I have started on the decs as they will perhaps be easier to get at now.

DSC06788-crop

As you can see I have gone for the late war "night" scheme where all the white was removed from the roundels and flashes. Airfix say there were fin flashes both inside and outside the rudders, but so far I have only done the ones on the outside. They also show the serial at the end of the fuselage but photos suggest it was often under the outer flashes which is where I have put it - D5429 was one of a batch of 50 built by "The Birmingham Carriage Co", part of an order for 300 issued in late 1917 after Gotha raids started on London, and official policy on night bombing was apparently changed, partly based on results from 5th Wing RNAS which showed both higher accuracy and lower casualties by night with their O/100's than daylight bombing by DH.4's. They provide the "lift here" markings but there should also be 3 vertical white lines so I have added them - apparently tests at Orfordness research station showed that they did not seriously compromise the camo as they were only visible for a few hundred feet. Finally I had put on the fuselage code, which Airfix provide for both box versions. I have found a pic of a plane from 207 Squadron RAF in August 1918 which had a "B" on it so it may be one of theirs - they were previously 7 Naval Squadron before the RAF was created.

 

Besides the dec for the I/P, Airfix have also included large wing walkway decs as shown which were not in the original kit. Getting them on the inboard edge of the upper surface of the lower wing would be easier before the wings go on, but they might be damaged by glue/filler etc so I will leave them off for now. That highlights one problem of the construction method Airfix have gone for. It is a lot easier to put the rigging on this way, but dealing with any gaps on the inner wing joints may be problematic - only time will tell! Of course there would be a small seam/gap in real life as that is the point where the wing folded so that might help slightly.

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're doing a great job on a challenging kit, Pete. Looks like you're not too far off.

 

Knowing you, you start another entry for this GB, even more complex than the last. I'll therefore look forward to your scratch-built Saro Princess with full interior and operating tip floats :)

 

Mike 

  • Haha 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
×
×
  • Create New...