AdrianMF Posted October 5 Posted October 5 Some very fine detailing there. The undercarriage looks amazing - shame it's underneath! Regards, Adrian 2
JamesP Posted October 6 Author Posted October 6 Once decalling was complete, I used oils to shade the grills, wing-fold and control surfaces. Underneath, the panel lines also got treated, as like many aircraft of its time, it was a dirty bird. Final details were the blade aerial and pitot. As mentioned the kit part, though missing in my kit, was swept and only applicable to early airframes. I made a new vertical blade aerial from the PE frame, the attachment point becoming the anchor for the blade. The white metal pitot had already snapped when I got the kit and would have been far too soft anyway. I filed a new one from 0.8mm brass. Then it was on to final assembly. The legs have a base part that slots into the gap between the wing halves. I'd dry-fitted it earlier in the build, but now, with paint on it was firmly wedged in. The undercarriage door has a lug on it that similarly slots into the fuselage with a fork in the leg base locking it in place. Again, a nice idea, but getting these two parts to cooperate in such a tight space wasn't going to happen, so I removed the lug and attached the door after the wheels, which partially covers them. The slightly wonky stores when added along with the nose gear, tail bump and hook. Here's a sneak peek before glamour shots. 😉 9 2
JamesP Posted October 7 Author Posted October 7 This is not a bad kit, it's the best kit Mike Eacock could make with the tools and resources he had available to him. Bad kits are the ones that are lazy and poorly thought out. You can feel when building them when someone didn't care about what they were doing. Here though is a summary of the build. This is not meant to an exhaustive list of corrections or inaccuracies just what I felt relevant to building the kit as intended. Central Fuselage Spine aerial (missing in my copy) is a swept blade, but these were only on early a/c. Most service machines had the narrow, straight blade. Later in service, three additional blade aerials appeared. Raised pips on either side of the spine were removed. Instead, some flush vents should be here. Drill 1.2mm holes angled back at 45degs Only two guns troughs as maintenance airframe used for reference. Added with 1.2mm drill inboard and further back. The PE airbrakes are a nice idea but the execution of the plastic parts needs to be much better to make this work, also very hard to bend without faceting. Adding blanking plates for the intakes would improve the look as you can just see light from from the tail. Rear Fuselage and tailplane Significantly shallower than the central fuselage. This has been noted in several other builds/reviews of this kit. Careful flexing of the lower central fuselage extension can mitigate. Tailplane and rear fuselage have no panel lines at all. Following Warpaint plans, the tailplane and the major ones demarking the exhausts were added. Large intake on lower port side missing. Arrestor hook The prototype and some (early?) service a/c had doors covering the arms of the arrestor hook with a fixed triangular fairing filling the gap between the arms. Other a/c (late?) had no door or triangular fairing. As a rule it seems if the extreme rear lower fuselage area was painted white, then the doors etc., were fitted. If the EDSG extended down, then no doors fitted. The colour includes the fairing on the bump stop. Check your references. Forward fuselage Like the rear shallower than the central fuselage, fixed by wedging the sides apart by 1.5mm Nose/fuselage fit is poor, the fuselage is too narrow - shims also help with fitting the PE instrument panel - and too square at the bottom. Nose looks too conical in profile, shorten slightly and curve to the tip. Cockpit Sliding the cockpit tub in is an unnecessary faff. Just trap it between the forward fuselage halves. Small curved fairing behind seat added. Canopy is very clear, but poor definition of framing. Note the canopy frame flares out along the sides to blend into the fuselage. The integrated fuselage area only partially works as it doesn't extend beyond the front edge of the windscreen. Blending acetate into the plastic fuselage is tricky. This works far better when both are styrene. Wings One insert is too thick and needs thinning. Port appears longer than starboard - I'm not sure my fussing about made much difference Plastic card wing fences would have been better as PE, as trapping them in the wing halves would require less adjustment. The main part is too deep, reduce the lower edge by 1mm. One of the flap actuator fairings under the port wing is missing. The outline of the flaps is wrong as it much simpler that the larger lower half. Wing tanks Inner ones are fine, but outer ones fit very poorly and will be replaced with armament. NOTE the Warpaint plans are terrible here - the inner tanks are longer than the outer ones, the wing pylons are also too long. The outer tank in the photo on the front cover matches the kit tanks/pylons perfectly. Refuelling probe Modelling Madness review points out that the probe is ~3mm too long, reducing it looks a lot better. UnderCarriage Detail of the undercarriage legs/door is excellent. The main doors are pinned in place by the legs, this is hard to get to work. Remove lugs from doors and add after the wheels are in place. Decals Not used, but a good selection of options provided, though none with the correct early service titles and rear serials. Codes Sqn markings are usable but roundels with integrated white leading edge should be replaced. Note, the underwing codes are too long, the character spacing should be half a line width so they don't overlap the undercarriage doors. 3 1
TheyJammedKenny! Posted October 7 Posted October 7 Those are beautiful results on a tough kit! You did well on this by taking your time and handling each challenge as it came, successfully reverse-engineering what the kit designer originally intended, but was unable to deliver due to design faults or tech limits. 1 1 1
CH-53D Posted October 8 Posted October 8 That really is lovely, well done! A hugely impressive result from that rather basic kit. 1 2
2996 Victor Posted October 8 Posted October 8 This is an absolute corker, James, superb! Cheers, Mark 1
AdrianMF Posted October 9 Posted October 9 Smashing result. One of my favourite jets, despite its poor service record. Regards, Adrian 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now