On Heather's Workbench - Strike Hard, Strike Sure: RAF Bomber Command 1940

[Heather Kay]

On 29/03/2023 at 11:11, Lord Riot said:

what a brilliant project

Cheers! It’s all just part of my over-arching obsession, really. 
 

Not a lot happened during the week. Not a lot happened today, either.

 

 

 

I plugged the yawning gap on the port side of the nose with black styrene. I’ll trim it back when the glue has set. You’ll note a fine strip under the cockpit canopy. There was a runner both sides for the hood to slide back on. I also made up a Venturi for the starboard side. Missing in the kit, it was a standard feature in RAF Hampdens. It provided a forced air intake to drive various instruments.

 

That's it for the moment. I was supposed to be working on the wings and empennage. I guess I should crack on with them.

 

[Graham Boak]

Technical point.  The venturi sucks air out to provide a vacuum for the pressure-based instruments.  Agreed they should be on many aircraft of the period.  Aeroclub used to provide a small stock of such things.

[Heather Kay]

12 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Technical point.

Noted. Thanks Graham. Every day is a school day! At least I knew it wasn’t a Klaxon, which is something I’ve seen it referred to in some places!

 

I whizzed mine up from some Evergreen 1.6mm diameter rod. I based the size on the one on the side of the Airfix model. The rod was clamped in my Dremel and attacked with a file until it looked about the right shape. Then I drilled out the ends to open them up a bit, because why not. 

[Gondor44]

Nice find with the book Heather. Now found the website for them and bookmarked it for future use. I have the Scottish Nationals at the end of the month and a probable bonus as well so I will see what's available at the show before buying on-line.

 

Gondor

[Heather Kay]

18 hours ago, Gondor44 said:

Nice find with the book Heather.

An excellent resource it is, too. I haven’t listed my reference material for this project, but it is chiefly various books I’ve acquired since my teens, plus Warpaint guides and the internet. If I can I try to locate a drawing as well. I think, rather than attempt to model one actual aircraft from references, I’ll end up making a generally accurate model of a type with markings to suit.

 

Anyway, wings.

 

 

Oh. Hang on. I spent a bit of time trying to complete the front glazing and details to my satisfaction. It’s never going to win any prizes, and I’m actually a little disappointed, if I'm honest. This usually happens with me and clear parts. Soldiering on, I dug the Montex masks  out. I'm not a fan of the vinyl type, but I’ve used them a couple of times in the past and they’ve pretty much worked as advertised. So, why do you see yellow tape? Well, while checking photo references I was struck that the complex framework on the side windows, so delicately reproduced (snort) in the kit, was a complete fiction. At least, the side panels in the photos I have were simple single pane affairs. I believe they could be pushed out in an emergency, giving the navigator a way to exit the aircraft in a hurry. Perhaps the sash window framework was a later change. Anyway, I’ve decided to leave the moulded frames but not paint them. That way, if new evidence surfaces, I can change my mind and paint them in. 
 

While doing the masking, I realised I had stuck the Venturi in the wrong place. It came off fairly cleanly, and has been repositioned according the photos and not another model. I also found a spare gunsight bead pillar thing, leftovers from a Blenheim build, which has been attached to the top of the nose. Masking for the rear glazing is on hold while I continue to have a think about how it all fits together.

 

So, wings.

 

 

After some serious scraping in another vain attempt at thinning the trailing edges, here we are. The tailplane is also in the works for attention. The wheel wells are neatly dealt with by large plates that glue into the upper wing nacelles. These incorporate holes for the gear to fit into, and adds some panel work inside the bays. One must remember to glue the plates in before joining the wing halves. I did, don’t panic.

 

 

After tidying up. The control surfaces are moulded with prominent strakes. I’ve gently sanded them down a bit. There is a clear part for the landing light, but nothing inside for said light. Current thinking is I shall add a plate to the clear part, with silver blobs for the lamps, then stick the whole thing in the slot. 
 

 

Speaking of lights, clear bits are provided for the leading edge wing tips. Moulded on the tips is the trailing edge lamp location. No clear parts provided here. I’ve since hacked them out ready for some clear sprue to go in.

 

There has been some tentative dry fitting of the wings to the fuselage. There will be gaps here and there but, as I always say, I’ve seen much worse. I’m kind of running out of steam with this session. I think a further ponder on the gun mountings and rear glazing is in order.

 

 

 

[Dave Slowbuild]

2 hours ago, Heather Kay said:

stuck the Venturi in the wrong place

Chimes with me, seems to happen all the time.  I stick a part where I know it goes, only to notice shortly afterwards that it’s somewhere else in a photo; close by but not close enough….. it has to be moved   
 

Enjoying following your progress Heather, as always

[Heather Kay]

On 02/04/2023 at 18:57, Dave Slowbuild said:

Enjoying following your progress Heather, as always

 

Thanks Dave. Happily, for once, I hadn't gone the Full Monty and pinned the venturi as well as gluing it. I'm normally very much a belt and braces, plus extra string and safety pin sort of modeller with small vulnerable details like that!

 

The bench has been cleared in a vain attempt at making sure I do Day Job stuff. Meanwhile, I've been letting my mind wander over other builds in this mega project. After acquiring the Stirling book last week, and having pretty much devoured it since, I had a think about the Airfix kit and what I may need to do to make it what I want.

 

Let's start with the known issues:

• The turrets These are of the "homunculus holding a ring doughnut" school. A hunched figure and a ring that holds the machine guns so they can be posed. The glazing is  thick, and there's literally no internal detail. Potentially, this means all the turrets will need replacing. The mid-upper isn't required for this build, so I'll need to fill the hole and remove the raised section. I might be able to steal a nose turret from the Trumpeter Wellington I have (they all used the same nose turret), but that leaves the tail turret to think about.
• Engines That's in hand, as I've been sent another set of four Bristol Hercules, ex-Lancaster MkII. Now I have enough engines for the Stirling and the Lerwick - should I ever feel brave enough for the latter. There may be some work required to move the exhausts round to the 10 o'clock position, but how hard can that be?
• External detailing There's a lack of fine detailing, which could be corrected if I think the aftermarket Eduard sets are worth the risk.
• Cockpit Next to no detail, but the basics are there.

Is there a plan for conversion? Well, sure there is. The kit can be built as a late MkI or MkIII. The chief differences between the two are the mid-upper turret, and oil cooler intakes under the engine cowlings. I want to create a MkI Series I, of which there was only a handful that made it to No 7 Squadron in 1940, where they were used as trainers to acclimatise crews to their new charge. So, these are the most obvious things:

1. Delete mid-upper turret
2. Possible ventral "dustbin" turret
3. Possible beam machine gun positions
4. Fuselage window layout might need adjustment, and the kit might be a hybrid of MkI and MkIII layout
5. Tailwheels retract, so need all the gubbins there
6. Props have spinners
7. Short exhausts with no flame dampers
8. No chin pitot tubes
9. Cabin heater intakes in starboard wing leading edge
10. Low demarcation camouflage pattern

That ought to keep me occupied for a while!

 

 

[Heather Kay]

 

Hello again. Back to the Hampden for this long weekend. That means, of course, I did nothing yesterday, and precious little the day before!

 

 

The wingtip lights, shaped and waiting for polishing. These small ones are in the kit, the large ones are scrap clear styrene sprue. As is my wont I have drilled into them to represent the coloured bulb, followed by a drop of suitable acrylic colour. Well, it pleases me.

 

 

Slightly blurry, but the landing lights are installed. I used some black sheet styrene, cut to fit inside the back of the clear part. I carefully drilled out depressions to represent the lamp reflectors, followed by a spot of Molotow chrome. The black bit was then glued into the clear part, and the whole glued into the wing slot after a little fettling.

 

 

Four something-almost-Vickers-shaped guns are in the kit. Here, I’ve applied the Montex masks to the rear fuselage clear parts, as well as slotting the upper clamshell like wot the real one has. The guns have been glued to small rectangular section blocks. The lower position has had a strip applied across the open part, drilled to take a pin, said pin being underneath the pair of guns that are upside down here. The original plan was to fit the clear parts and mask the open areas with some scrap sponge foamy stuff, and glue the gun assemblies in after painting. It became obvious the lower pair wouldn’t easily slot through the opening, so I’ve decided to leave all the rear glazing off until painting is done. The lower guns are now glued in place in the transparency.

 

In photos of Hampdens, you will note a small T-shaped object atop each nacelle. I haven’t been able to find out what these objects are. Best guesses are breather pipes for the oil tanks, or indicators to show the wheels have been retracted properly. Either way, they aren’t in the kit (Airfix had them, of course), so I’ve got to make a pair. The jury's out whether they’ll be brass wire for strength, or cobbled from styrene rod. 
 

My for my next trick I hope to attach the engine cowlings and make good the joins.

[Martian]

Just spent a very enjoyable half hour catching up on this thread. I am loving what you are doing with the Hampden; so much so that I am tempted to dig out my Airfix Hampden to Hereford conversion that I have been working on ib fits and starts for about ten years now. Who know, you may inspire me to actually finish it.

 

Martian 👽

[Heather Kay]

1 minute ago, Martian said:

Who know, you may inspire me to actually finish it.

Why, thank you. I would very much like to see it finished. The poor old Hereford tends to get overlooked - including by me! 

[Heather Kay]

Engines.

 

 

This is Valom, and I’ve been fairly lucky with overall fit so far. The port engine, however, was a shocker. It was actually the wing mouldings that were off. Quite a bit of filing and sanding, trying desperately not to lose engraved detail, was required. I think it’ll look okay on the night. With the lights off. In another room.

 

With the engines attached, still sans little details at this stage, I gave the wingtip lights a bit of a buff. I don’t go overboard with them. As long as you can see what colour the "bulb" is, that’s good enough. The real thing had Perspex covers, I believe, and over time may well have turned a bit yellow and opaque. Well, that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it.

 

Speaking of sticking…

 

 

The tail got the fins and extensions fitted. They’re a bit vague, butt joins, and need some care to ensure things are square. I ought to think about how antenna wires are attached to the top of each fin. A small hole drilled into the leading edge should suffice, and that’s probably best done before the empennage is glued to the fuselage.

 

 

The wings have been glued to fuselage. There didn’t seem to be any real reason not to. I admit I wasn’t particularly looking forward to this, as there’s nothing about the attachment points. I found I needed a bit of fettling to get a reasonable fit, and I hope the ad hoc jig of tape will hold things while the cement does it’s job. There will, unfortunately, be filler and some careful sanding to make it look nice.

 

Still, it’s another step on the road to the paint shop. 

[Samuraiwarrior]

Oooh, coming along nicely now. Really starting to look like the Hampden we have come to love. 

Watching with interest and looking forward to the next instalment. 

Kevin 

[Heather Kay]

I have a problem. It happens around this stage of every build. It’s called "painting the model".

 

The problem is painting the model needs me to commit to setting up my extractor fan, compressor, airbrush and all the associated gubbins. It then gets in the way for as long as it takes to paint the model, meaning - not that I need any excuse, frankly - the Day Job gets more delayed because my work bench is occupied for painting the model.

 

 

 

The wing roots needed quite a bit of scraping and sanding to minimise a mild step. If it had been underneath I might just have left it. Being on top, it needed to dealt with. Small filling jobs have been done, and the tail attached. I have a 90 per cent complete Hampden. It just needs painting.

 

 

 

The last little bits for the engines, cooler intakes and exhausts, are fitted. No, you got the intakes round the wrong way the first time round.  I have elected to leave the oval DF loop off. The kit part is PE, and very flimsy. However, there’s a slot where the DF loop could be retracted (it’s just behind the pair of holes on the top of the fuselage, now filled and sanded). There are plenty of pictures showing the loop retracted, both on the ground and in the air, so I’m going with that. Or I could fit the teardrop fairing. No, retracted it is. A point of interest to talk about if anyone even notices!

 

So, I need to pop masking foam in various 'oles, and set up the gear to paint the model. 
 

It won’t be this week.

 

Meanwhile, I’ve been reading.

 

 

This is a fascinating and quite in-depth read, if the period it covers interests enough. It does for me, obviously. The upshot is it explains how and why the RAF was using effectively obsolete bombers until well into 1941, why equipment like the Fairey Battle and Boulton Paul Defiant even made it into service, and how plans for heavy bombers didn’t quite work out as intended. I will be feeding some of the story into this thread as it progresses, because it is pertinent to all the types I’m building for my 1940 collection.

 

 

 

[dogsbody]

Just to show what the retracted DF loop looked like:

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Gondor44]

Re the airbrushing gubbins and cluttering up of the bench, does the day job require painting in a similar way to the hobby? If so perhaps a protracted painting session would be in order to reduce the painting gubbins to clutter up the bench. I still use the good old hairy stick except for a few rattle cans for primer and a couple of other colours as the airy brush is way too labour intensive for my liking

 

Gondor

[Heather Kay]

24 minutes ago, Gondor44 said:

does the day job require painting in a similar way to the hobby?

It does. Unfortunately, I don’t have any projects near enough to the paint stage. In an ideal workshop I’d have a separate space for painting. As it is, I have a bench along the window side of our living room, plus storage, and no room for the equipment to be left ready to use.

[Gondor44]

7 minutes ago, Heather Kay said:

It does. Unfortunately, I don’t have any projects near enough to the paint stage. In an ideal workshop I’d have a separate space for painting. As it is, I have a bench along the window side of our living room, plus storage, and no room for the equipment to be left ready to use.

 Oh Poo

[Heather Kay]

Nothing got done this week, or this weekend. Well, I say "nothing". I’ve spent a while trawling references to choose a scheme for the Hampden.

 

Vacillation ensued between a plane in markings from the first half of 1940, and one nearer the end of the year, when markings and camouflage had settled into a recognisable pattern. I do find I’m drawn to the early stuff, because it’s pretty unusual to see models in that style. Then I thought there will be other models from the early period, so why not go the familiar later style route? Now, I don’t, as a general rule, model "celebrity" planes, but just this once I ended up choosing P1355 OL-W, No 83 Squadron, RAF Scampton, in September 1940. It is, of course, the plane in which Flt Sgt John Hannah won his VC.

 

The profile I have only shows the port side. I needed to see the starboard side to confirm the squadron and aircraft code layout. Many references tend to assume the format XX (roundel) X for both sides. The interweb coughed up another No 83 Squadron plane, which was shot down on the same sortie to bomb barges as Hannah's plane. Photos of both sides of the wreckage showed the pattern was OL-P on the port side, and P-OL starboard. It’s a reasonable assumption that P1355 followed the same layout.

 

Next, was to confirm the camouflage pattern. My reference said the plane was painted in the B Scheme. The only plan of that scheme on a twin-engined plane I had was on an Anson. Of course the Hampden is slightly different. More digging. This BM thread came up, from our very own @woody37. 
 

So, I’m going to unashamedly follow what Neil did. I know it’s not the done thing to copy a model, but frankly I couldn’t choose a better model to copy!

 

With that sorted out, back to the not-modelling for a bit. 

 

[dogsbody]

About all I have on Hampden camo. It's from the Warpaint booklet.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[georgeusa]

I find this thread absolutely fascinating and enjoyable.  It is a history lesson, training lesson, modeling lesson, administrative gov't crap lesson all wrapped into one big wonderful sandwich for the mind to digest.  Your build and modifications are a delight to view and very helpful and informative for when I finally attempt my Valom Hampden.  Now for my question that just popped up for some unexplained reason.  Now remember, I am but a poor, backwards, colonial, Texan semi-cowboy.  But what is the reasoning for having two camo schemes an A and a B?  Wouldn't just one work?  I'm sure there is some in depth, scintillating reason for having two schemes rather than just one, but for the life of me, I can't come up with a logical reason.  Any enlightenment for a dumb cowpoke? 

[Terry1954]

I've just spent a very pleasant half hour or so catching up on this excellent thread, as will be evidenced by the likes!

 

The back story is great Heather, and the overall subject matter a well chosen one. Lots of great aircraft in the pipeline.

 

The Hampden build is a special one for me, and it's great to see this one went to a very good home and is indeed being built by your very capable hands!

 

I will certainly follow this thread with much interest, especially that Valom Hampden 😉

 

Terry

[Zephyr91]

4 hours ago, georgeusa said:

But what is the reasoning for having two camo schemes an A and a B?  Wouldn't just one work?

Why would you want to make things easier ? 

 

Others will probably give better answers, but my quick answer is that it wasn't just for the "in-flight" case  that the disruptive effect was applied.  

 

Initially it was thought that the risk from air attack whilst aircraft were dispersed around the airfield was high.  It was thought that if they were all painted the same way then the regularity of the irregular pattern (if you see what I mean) might make the aircraft easier to spot from the air.  So by alternating  A  and B schemes when producing the aircraft this apparent risk could be reduced. 

 

As things settled down and risks became clearer, the benefits to ease of production by adopting only one of the schemes outweighed the perceived initial risks.  So a single scheme was usually adopted for each type.    

 

I hope that is understandable.  And it's a bit generic because I'm sure there were exceptions, so the advice as always is to check references.

 

I'm sure others can give more detail and references.

 

Hope that helps

 

cheers

 

Rob

[Heather Kay]

9 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

it's great to see this one went to a very good home

Thanks Terry. My bad for forgetting I bought it from you. 
 

12 hours ago, georgeusa said:

Any enlightenment for a dumb cowpoke? 

I think Rob's pretty much covered it, which pretty much matches what I understand about it. If you see what I mean!

 

Little progress, folks, but I have spent an hour or two poking my pooter to draw up the masks for the various markings. 

[Keeff]

An interesting read to catch up on your progress, or not much progress and your trials and tribulations of this build Heather. 

As mentioned, it's a history lesson, education and a build all rolled in one.

 

And as for that camo scheme conundrum .... 🙄

 

Keith 😁 

 

 

[Heather Kay]

 

This was the result of my pooter poking. This is a print, obviously, of the artwork. I tend to do a hard copy like this for a few of reasons. First, it proves my drawing is the right scale. Second, it lets me test the parts for size before I commit to the film cut. Finally, it lets me rescale the placed artwork when I bring it into the cutter software. For some obscure reason I’ve yet to figure out, importing an SVG places it at humongous size. Knowing how big it should be means it’s easy to rescale.

 

 

I decided it was time. I masked the various lights and plugged the various holes. I’ve set up the extractor and airbrush gear for a session over the next couple of days. Well, it is a bank holiday here in Blighty. As expected, I’ve had various bits of the Montex mask lift here and there. As this set came with the kit when I bought it I won’t be churlish and complain.

 

If I get a good session in tomorrow, I hope the basic camo colours will be done. Then I can work out how best to paint the markings. For some reason, my brain starts to overload if I attempt to mentally figure out the process. I get two steps in, then I have to reboot!