Brandon Wood Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 (edited) After relearning how to post photos, I figured I should put this skill to use. My plan is to not bog down and document my progress on the new Lukgraph SBU-1. Primary resources for the build will be an Erection & Maintenance Manual I acquired last year, photos and documents from the Vought archives now at UT-Dallas, and a few others I picked up at the National Archives. All of that was in preparation of scratch building either a 1/16 or more likely a 1/32 SBU-1, but with Lukgraph bringing one to the market, life got much easier. So, wish me luck, and if you have any questions along the way, fire away. I will do my best to answer. BW Edited March 18, 2017 by Brandon Wood Nanook, Tnarg, Model_Monkey and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnarg Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Please share those references as you find interesting items. This is a beautiful kit. Tnarg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmo.b Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Yep, I'm building it soon, are the inside of the flaps painted red like later USN dive bombers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 My review sample is sitting just to my right, and I hope to start looking at it shortly. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Wood Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 Ok, I will try and respond with what I have. Simmo.b, the inside of the flaps are not called out to be red in any reference that I have and I have not located any photo that clearly shows the color. The first application of red to the interior of flaps that I am aware of occurred with the SBD-1 in 1940. Tnarg, i will try and post responses and updates as I move forward. If you have any specific questions, please ask and I will try and answer. BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Wood Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 When building radial engine aircraft, I usually start with the engine. With big open cowls that draw a viewer's attention, this area has to be good. In 1/48, I almost without exception, replace kit engines with resin versions from Vector. These are some of the best, if not the best, aftermarket accessories on the market today and if you have not tried one, treat yourself. With careful painting, they can really turn out great. Here is their 1/48 P&W R-1830 slightly modified to represent a -90 used in the F4F-3A. I added the Curtiss electric prop control on the shaft, ignition wires and pushords. The engine included in the SBU kit is a R-1535 and while the crankcase is excellent, the individual cylinders are a bit soft and suffer from mold parting lines. I will try cleaning one or two up, apply paint and a wash to decide if they are salvageable. If not, I will try and marry cylinders from one of Vector's 1/32 engines with the Lukgraph crankcase. Model_Monkey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Boillot Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 The cylinders of the R-1535 were exactly the same as the R-985 (985/9*14=1535 ). The problem is Vector don't do a R-985 (and my own design for it for 3D printing is not finished yet ), but the cylinders for the R-1340 are almost the same (the main difference of displacement being linked to stroke, with an almost identical bore). The Vector cylinders will definitely look better than the kit's ones. Keep it coming. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Wood Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Ok, so I have been trying to reconcile the cockpit arrangement for the SBU. While the pilot's position is pretty easy to understand and the kit appears to be pretty close in most areas, I have had a difficult time with the radio-gunner's area. The Erection & Maintenance manual has three photos of the rear area along with multiple drawings/arrangement sheets that were not making sense at first. But as I continued to study them, I finally understood and accepted the obvious: the radio gear was behind the radio-gunner, not in front of him as on almost every other aircraft. While there were basic flight instruments and the RDF loop on the shelf in front of him, the transmitter, receiver, battery, etc…..were all located in the rear portion of the fuselage. This will require quite a bit of rearranging and some scratch building to accurately represent. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh The other issue was the fact that the SBU did not use a ring mount or track mount for the .30 cal gun in the rear. Instead, it used a post mount that will actually be pretty easy to replicate. This configuration appears to have replaced the WW1 era Scarff ring mount beginning in 1932 and can be seen on the Vought O3U and SU series and the Grumman FF-1 and SF-1. The post mount was replaced by the track system on the Great Lakes BG-1 and Curtiss SBC which then was replaced by the ring-seat configuration that is seen on the Vought SB2U and Douglas SBD aircraft. The first photo is a general arrangement drawing. While not as accurate as plans, they are useful and helps you understand where equipment is located. IMG_20170324_0002 by buno02100 The second is a more detailed plan view of station 4 which is the last section of the cockpit tube frame represented in the kit looking aft.IMG_20170324_0001 by buno02100 So, back to work. I followed what Jan did on his build and scratchbuilt the tube framing as I thought the resin pieces would be difficult to clean up and keep round. It will also allow me to more accurately represent the tubing according to the plans. BW Model_Monkey and Jan_G 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Wood Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 So, as I plan out the best way to correct and accurately represent the radio-gunner area, I have tried to keep pushing forward. The underside of the fuselage is going to require some TLC in order to address the gap but preserve the fabric detail on the rear portion. I would prefer that Lukgraph extend the pour stub out past the fuselage and allow the modeler to sand/cut back or review their current configuration. The cowl halves were pretty rough as well with the added bonus of pin holes and voids just under the surface that appeared with the first few swipes of a sanding pad. More pics to follow as soon as my laptop finishes updating...... Model_Monkey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Wood Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Here is the cowl ready for another coat of primer to spot flaws Of which I am sure there will be many, but that is what primer is for................ BW Model_Monkey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I'm just reviewing this kit now, and of course, none of this is really visible, so I can't judge it that way. It's the nature of the beast, however, which is unfortunate, but I'm sure you'll overcome every challenge, Brandon. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanKB Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 The kit does look a little agricultural, especially for a £100+ kit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 On 3/27/2017 at 11:35 AM, DeanKB said: The kit does look a little agricultural, especially for a £100+ kit? It actually looks fantastic out of the box, with a great many highly-detailed parts. I'm really impressed with it. But I haven't sanded the surface to check for air bubbles or pin holes, so I can't make judgements about that. My sample may not even have any. But like most resin kits, this one is not without its challenges, and is most definitely not for the inexperienced! Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Wood Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 All in all, I think it's a good kit, but not for the inexperienced or those that prefer shake and bake. Could some of the parts or their casting design be better, probably so. For me, the subject is one I have wanted to do for several years so it's worth a little extra effort. BW LSP_Kevin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out2gtcha Posted September 30, 2018 Share Posted September 30, 2018 This is really great stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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