Matchbox Tempest II with enhancements

[Graham Boak]

They do however also do a satin, which would perhaps be more appropriate.

[TeeELL]

It has been quite a while since I posted a meaningful entry (are any of them meaningful?  Lol!).

Today I have applied the replacement transfers, I have to say that the Model Alliance quality control leaves something to be desired!  Staff at Hannants appear to have checked the Sky color letter prior to dispatch but this time the yellow band surrounding the fuselage cockade is off center!  I am going to live with it.

I am still pondering which varnish to use, but I need to get it done so I can get the model progressed - otherwise it won’t be ready for Scale Model World 2025.

[TeeELL]

I’ve been watching the build of a couple of Matchbox Tempest IIs by @Andrew using sets of my 3D components.  Andrew is planning on correcting the cockpit opening by grafting parts from Heller/SMER models, I’ve both SMER and have sourced a second Matchbox Tempest so I might look at creating a 3D part for the cockpit.

[perdu]

On 24/01/2025 at 12:45, TeeELL said:

It has been quite a while since I posted a meaningful entry (are any of them meaningful?  Lol!).

Today I have applied the replacement transfers, I have to say that the Model Alliance quality control leaves something to be desired!  Staff at Hannants appear to have checked the Sky color letter prior to dispatch but this time the yellow band surrounding the fuselage cockade is off center!  I am going to live with it.

I am still pondering which varnish to use, but I need to get it done so I can get the model progressed - otherwise it won’t be ready for Scale Model World 2025.

It will Tony, fully confident here

 

 

[TeeELL]

I’ve been busy building a PM Models AT-11 ‘KANSAN’ with the rear twin Browning turret so the Tempest has been set aside.  I have started to progress the Tempest build once more.  Yesterday I applied the top coat of varnish and today I am starting to add the U/C parts.  When I dry fitted the main U/C legs (with their steel reinforcement pins) I found that there was still some ‘wiggle’.  You will recall that I used jigs to drill the receiving holes at the correct angles, well it has occurred to me that those same jigs can be used to hold the steel reinforcement pins in the correct position before applying some cyno to hold them.  After removing the jig the U/C leg can be slid down the pin and secured with cyno or exopy.

After a thorough search I realised I had thrown the original jigs away so I am printing replacements.

[TeeELL]

UPDATE:  my grand idea fell flat on its face - the jig is designed to fit the upper wing halves so it is of no use when the lower wing half has been attached.

[Beard]

3 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

UPDATE:  my grand idea fell flat on its face - the jig is designed to fit the upper wing halves so it is of no use when the lower wing half has been attached.

Just like most of my grand ideas.

[TeeELL]

By putting the reinforcement pins into the holes they settled into the correct position and a tiny drop of cyno secured them.  By not having the legs attached the result was satisfactory and the legs slipped over the pins.

[TeeELL]

The Tempest is now sitting on its U/C.  Items that I still need to complete:

paint the exhaust plate on the side of the forward fuselage

paint and fit the exhausts

fit the tail wheel doors

fit the oxy bottle retainers behind the seat

trim, paint and fit the vac-form canopy

[TeeELL]

Unfortunately the sunshine we had over the past couple of days has vanished and gloom has returned.  As a consequence the photos are not the best as I was reliant on artificial light.

 

 

[Beard]

I think it looks rather splendid.

[TeeELL]

On 2/7/2025 at 4:00 PM, Beard said:

I think it looks rather splendid.

Thanks Beard, 

  your comment is much appreciated.

 

Elsewhere, I am being encouraged to go ahead with my planned ‘cockpit opening’ and surround modification (similar to that of the Airfix Tempest) as well as full replacement main U/C bays.  My concern remains that the number of modellers out there, with the Matchbox kit AND a desire to enhance it don’t really justify the time it will take?

[Listel]

Hi TeeELL,

 

The Matchbox kit remains a very good base that many of us might consider building. Any serious modeller will be delighted to enhance his model with the 3D parts you made so far, saving a lot of time to get a top result. The u/c bays and cockpit decking would be a nice addition to the set. However I have to confess that I'm totally ignorant of the time and work needed to achieve these parts... In my opinion the u/c bays are maybe more important or useful. The fuselage around the cockpit also but to a lesser extent as it can be tackled relatively easily in a classic way (cutting/filling/sanding to shape).

 

Cheers

[Johnson]

36 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

My concern remains that the number of modellers out there, with the Matchbox kit AND a desire to enhance it don’t really justify the time it will take?

 

I think you have shown that it can be made into a very good model. I've seen several complimentary comments here about it's accuracy. From what I've seen it seems easier in many ways than the KP Tempest I made recently.

[TeeELL]

I have finally hauled this build over the finish line.  The exhaust plates were created by painting clear transfer paper and the 3D printed exhausts added.  The canopy has been attached although it isn’t a particularly good fit as it is designed for the Airfix kit - I now have a second Matchbox kit, this one with the canopy, so I shall look at creating a vac-form copy to replace this one.

Apologies for the image quality but the sun is missing again today!

[Johnson]

43 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

Apologies for the image quality but the sun is missing again today!

 

Looks pretty good Tony. But we need some close ups for a proper appraisal .

 

RFI? (when the sun eventually returns).

[TeeELL]

1 hour ago, Johnson said:

Looks pretty good Tony. But we need some close ups for a proper appraisal .

 

RFI? (when the sun eventually returns).

I agree, the picture quality is a function of the lighting and my iPad.  Perhaps, once the sun decides to return, I’ll take some shots with a proper camera.

As an aside - I now have another Matchbox Tempest and will look at correcting the cockpit opening and designing it to accept after-market canopies.  I shall also review the work you’ve been doing to see what I can incorporate.

 

[TeeELL]

I was able to take some more photos of the Tempest yesterday.  Of course, close ups of a 1:72 model are going to reveal (to you and to me) many areas where I could have done ‘better’.  Anyway, here they are:

 

a couple of views of the main U/C bay showing the various addition components to the gear operating mechanism and door jack.

 

this shows the painted decal paper used for the heat shielding behind the exhausts although the 3D exhausts are not clear.


This is a view into the cockpit but also shows the rectangular shape of the exhasts

A view of the twin tread tail wheel -don’t you just hate ‘bits’ that find their way onto the paint?

the twin ident lamp - and my glaring mistake in assuming the join marked the aileron!  Still, it is underneath and I’ll ‘do better’ next time.  Looks like there are bits of masking tape still attached.

 

A couple of over views

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Johnson]

Good pics Tony.

 

I'm particularly impressed with your 3D grill and exhausts, good additions that make a difference. They would have been good for the KP kit, assuming they'd fit.

 

On 2/23/2025 at 9:15 AM, TeeELL said:

my glaring mistake in assuming the join marked the aileron!

 

Something I don't understand, You mentioned this earlier and I thought it looked OK. I'm obviously missing something (sounds like my school report), your aileron looks OK, matches the Bentley plan. Appears to show how good the Matchbox detail is and is better than the KP kit in that area (ailerons too wide). Or am I looking at the wrong thing, or not understanding the plan correctly?

 

 

Charlie

[TeeELL]

Charlie,

  I compared the depth of the aileron on the underside to that of the upper-side.  There is considerable difference and I confess that I’ve assumed the upper side to be correct.  I will have to revisit the drawings and model to determine which dimension is actually correct.  (I wonder if the depth of the flaps are a little too great?)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[Dave Swindell]

31 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

There is considerable difference and I confess that I’ve assumed the upper side to be correct

Both correct. Frise Ailerons

[Andrew]

Lovely finish, Tony. Well done!

[TeeELL]

11 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

Both correct. Frise Ailerons

That explains it of course!  Funny thing is, I was thinking about Frise ailerons this morning but didn’t connect the 2.

[TeeELL]

OK, is seems my worry about the ailerons on the kit are unfounded - Matchbox ‘dun good’.