Dave Swindell Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Well, here we go on my first group build. Reading the other threads, it appears that a photo of the kit contents is de riguer to start things off, so here's what you get in the Flying Fish box. The resin is beautifully cast, with no flaws immediately visible, two small photo etch frets with aerials, windscreen wipers, U/C doors and wing fences, and the white square bottom left is a die cut vinyl mask for the cockpit windows on the clear resin nose. Missing from the photo is a brief instruction sheet. My original plan was to build two Two Six DC9's, one as a -30 straight out of the box, and one converted to a -15, but after spending ages working out what needed changing (there's a lot more to it than just shortening the fuselage) I found this kit on £b@y at the weekend for a reasonable price - Flying Fish stopped trading last year so the kit is no longer available and I wasn't expecting to find one so easily. Paid for it Sunday, posted Monday, arrived yesterday lunchtime, and started straight away! Here we have all the resin parts removed from their pour stubs. Wings, and tail fins removed with a fine razor saw, flap hinges by scoring with a scalpel, and the fuselage and engine stubs were ground out with a burr in a drill, working from the inside of the stub until the edge is wafer thin, this can then be trimmed off with a scalpel. The undercarriage units, which initially looked like very good single piece castings, were poorly formed on the inside surfaces. One of the main units split apart during cleaning up, the other two are fragile and misformed between the wheel pairs. These would have been much better if cast as separate wheels and legs as per the ones they have done for Kurt's Authentic Airliners kits. We'll come back to these later in the build. Here's a closer look at the fuselage joints after preparation. The nose has a stub section which fits into the moulded hollowed out forward end of the centre section. The aft section joins have been ground back slightly hollow - this is filled with 5 minute epoxy resin, scraped flush, and butt joined to the other half which has been similarly treated. Using panel lines and the lobe creases the two parts can be tweaked into alignment and allowed to cure. After about half an hour any surplus epoxy which has squeezed out of the joint is removed with a scalpel, then the joint is allowed to cure fully for a day. The engine halves are joined in a similar fashion. That's it for the first post, more soon when I start cleaning up the joints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Cool! Looking forward to watching this one! I don't suppose you have a list of the changes needed to convert the two-six DC-9 to a -15 by any chance? It's something I've been thinking of doing....! Cheers Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Black Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Be interesting to see these two moving along together - very much a "compare and contrast" exercise. Yes - only 15 minutes difference between them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richellis Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 keef PM me I have the conversion details! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 Cool! Looking forward to watching this one! I don't suppose you have a list of the changes needed to convert the two-six DC-9 to a -15 by any chance? It's something I've been thinking of doing....! Cheers Keef Hi Keef Keep watching this thread and my other build of the Two Six DC9 for general improvements to the kits, and comparisons between the two. A useful guide for anyone building a DC9/MD80/MD90 can be found here:- http://www.airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=396 The obvious difference between the -15 and the -30 is the fuselage length, reduce by 179 inches total, 114 inches forward of the wing, 65 aft (20.1mm & 11.5mm in 1:144 The wings were different as well, reduce span by 48in total (4.2mm from each wing tip), reduce the chord by 6% at root tapering to 0% at new tip, material is removed from the leading edge, remove/fill leading edge slats at same time. Reprofile tip and trailing edge at tip. Add wing leading edge fences at about 1/3 span Move the engines forward by 8 inches (1.5mm) Delete Aft overwing exit, modify fuselage side window reinforcing panels in this area. (A few series 10's had double exits over the wings, check your refs!) Tailplanes on all series 10's were hoizontal, all later versions had 3 degrees anhedral That's the major differences, shouldn't be too difficult for someone with a bit of conversion experience. I thought I'd take the easy option with the FF kit having built a couple of Kurt's Authentic Airliner kits which were cast by FF. Unfortunately I was wrong - off to do battle with the fuselage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Thanks Dave! I thought I'd read something about the span being different, that I will change, but a 6% reduction in chord in 1/144 is going it a bit for me (& anyway my ham fisted sanding down of the leading & trainling edges after gluing will probably take care of that!) Didn't know the short bodies lacked the l.e. slats though. The engine & fuselage differences are also new to me, so many thanks for the info, much appreciated. And I don't know why I keep forgetting about Airlinercafe - that's a great page! And I shall indeed keep watching both your builds! Cheers Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richellis Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 keef, its not as bad as it sounds. cant find the file on the compuetr at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 keef,its not as bad as it sounds. cant find the file on the compuetr at the moment! No worries Rich, the info from Dave is enough for me anyway thanks, so don't waste time looking - get on with all those builds you're doing! It'll be a while before I get around to doing mine anyway! Cheers keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 After sticking the 3 fuselage sections together it has become apparent that Flying fish think the DC9 should have been a supersonic airliner - the model has a distinct "area ruled" look to it in the region of the wing fairing! From the side this is most noticable on the bottom, but is also present to a lesser degree at the top View from above, most noticable just forward of the aft fuselage join. And again from the bottom - a closer look at the wing/fuselage fairing also shows this to be the correct shape for a DC9-40 or -50 series, extending below the level of the fuselage bottom and across the full width of the fuselage. The 2-6 kit has the correct fairings which are separate on each side with a small section of fuselage skin visible between them. That's the bad news, the good news is that with the area ruling nipped in section at this point, the bottom of the protruding fairing is actually level with where the fuselage bottom should be! 2 negatives make a positive of sorts - i'd much rather it was moulded correctly, but plastic card & milliput should hopefully rescue this. Here's a shot of the fuselage between 2 of Kurts Authentic Airliners kits currently in progress (CRJ700 top and EMB195 bottom). Both are 3 part castings by FF, both needed minimal cleaning up after removal of pouring stubs and gluing, fuselage section constant throughout over the parallel fuselage sections. The nose and tail of the DC9 appear to be good, i'ts just the centre section - I don't know whether I got a dodgy casting, but as FF are no longer trading, plus the fairing needs modifying anyway I'll have to fix it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 That's a bit of a surprise given the glowing reviews the FF kit got when it was released! As you say though, could be a duff moulding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev67 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I am glad I found this post as I am doing the 1/72 DC9-14, its given me some valuable information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hooded Claw Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Ah Mr Swindell I take it you are home from your travels again. Will we see you at Donington on the 8th? THC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenshb Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Not a duff mould I'm afraid - both my Srs 20 and Srs 40 had the same "area ruled" fuselage. I mentioned this on ARC discussion forums a while ago (probably a couple of years ago), and the FF people were at first denying that there was anything wrong. Then I showed them the pictures, and they were giving all sorts of explanations as to why this was not a problem and all that. A shame really, because aspects of the master is truly beautiful, only let down by some poor casting and shrinkage problems. Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Black Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I mentioned this on ARC discussion forums a while ago (probably a couple of years ago), and the FF people were at first denying that there was anything wrong. Then I showed them the pictures, and they were giving all sorts of explanations as to why this was not a problem and all that. That might explain why they are no longer trading - not the best attitude. If there are problems (which everyone has), then put them right - denying that they exist just hacks-off the customer, who is the person who pays the wages. (says Milo, who was a small businessperson in a previous life). (that's "small business", not "small person" - I am six foot in my socks ). (apologies for any disturbing images this may create - that's six foot fully-clothed, but with no shoes, not meaning to imply that I am wearing ONLY my socks). (of course, I am still six foot when not fully-clothed.... I think I'd better stop here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 I am glad I found this post as I am doing the 1/72 DC9-14, its given me some valuable information Kev - keep watching, there's more to come soon, hope to be cracking on with this one tomorrow Will we see you at Donington on the 8th?THC Ian - Not sure at the moment, mate, quite busy with the sailing at the moment. A shame really, because aspects of the master is truly beautiful, only let down by some poor casting and shrinkage problems.Jens Jens - 'tis a shame indeed, from what I can see it's only the fusealge centre section that's affected on this series of kits, the oter sparts and the stuff they've cast for Kurt is great. (of course, I am still six foot when not fully-clothed.... I think I'd better stop here).[/size] Please do Milo, the mind boggles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 Today I've been working on eliminating the fuselage centre section area ruling The upper section of the fuselage was "planked" with 20 thou microstrip stuck on with superglue This was then filed down to make the top section parallel sided. A keel of microstrip was also added and filed to give a flat bottom to the fuselage. Milliput was used to build up the fuselage section around the wing root fairing using the strip keel as a guide Milliput on, comparison with 2-6 kit root fairing - off to airliners.net to look for some photos of the fairings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev67 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Thats a lot of work involved, if I found this much problem with a kit I would of sold it on ebay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Nice recovery work there Dave, but I think I'm inclined to agree with Kev - I'd have given it up as a bad job! I'm still surprised that there was no mention of this in any of the reviews I read of the kit when it came out - which just re-inforces my belief that all reviews should be taken with a very big pinch of salt....!!! Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Black Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Doing well there, Dave - definitely file this one under "Labour of Love"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted July 27, 2010 Author Share Posted July 27, 2010 The reviews I read of the kit were all full of glowing praise for the kit, and if I'd spotted the problems before I'd started i might have put it back on ebay, but the whole point of joining in this group build was for a bit of motivation to get on and actually build and finish something, so to quote Magnus Magnusson - "I've started so I'll finish"! Last night I had a trawl throught Airliners.net looking at wing root fairings, the conclusion was that the 2-6 kit looks pretty accurate in this area for a series 10, 20 or 30, and the FF kit would have been good for a 40 or 50 if it weren't for the shrinkage in this area. So the 2-6 fairing was outlined in pencil then taped over with masking tape and cut out. Using the crease line and the wing TE as datums, the masking tape was transferred to the FF kit to give an outline to work to - note how much bigger this fairing is. Then it was out with the milliput to build up the basic fairing shape - sanding sticks and filler primer tomorrow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Tremendous work again Dave - very interesting thread this, I'm really enjoying watching this one come together! K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Superb work, a master at work. Just may have to get one of those 2-6 kits, looks great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebos Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 That's a great tip on solving that shrinkage issue. I'd have just tried filler and messed it up badly. Never have thought of planking it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted July 31, 2010 Author Share Posted July 31, 2010 That's a great tip on solving that shrinkage issue. I'd have just tried filler and messed it up badly. Never have thought of planking it out. I also build the occasional ship model - planks work on any curved surface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Black Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I also build the occasional ship model - planks work on any curved surface ... and also means that, in the unhappy event, the plane should float Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts