Juggernut
-
Posts
4,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Juggernut
-
-
??
- nmayhew and esarmstrong
-
2
-
Tamiya provides a flap step that has the close flap represented. Look at the provided images and you'll see it.
-
I wonder if the guy forgot to lean the mixture after takeoff and consequently burned more gas than he should've?
-
-
the bulkhead has narrow cut out windows on each side behind the armor plate with the headrest "scallops"
That's the image I was searching for! Obviously, I didn't look in the right place. I'm glad someone posted it.
-
-
This thing is fugly.... Huge but fugly. When is it due for its maiden flight?
-
I can't find any photos to show the area in question but I do know the bulkhead is wrong on the Hasegawa kit for the F6F-3. I believe, as you suggest, there are cutouts in the bulkhead (if it is indeed a solid piece...which wouldn't be out of the question is this piece is supposed to be armor plating) for visual scanning albeit very limited.
-
Lower wings skinned? The undersides of the outer flaps on the rocket equipped -1D's were skinned with metal but I don't believe the fabric portions of the undersides of the outer wings received the same treatment. The area of the lower wing where the rockets were attached was metal covered anyway. The fabric portion of the outer wing isn't near the rocket exhaust so wouldn't require skinning with metal.
-
-
-
-
-
Anyone have any good closeup photos of rocket *RAILS* on wartime F4U-1Ds?? I'm noticing them on a fair number of aircraft, in place of the normal 5" stub launchers... Don't recall ever noticing them before.
I think that's a question for the resident expert, Dana Bell. It may be that Goodyear used the rails while Vought used stub launchers or something like that... Or, it could be something entirely different.... Dana probably can englighten us. All I know for sure is those Corsairs are from VMF-312 and not one of them appears to be 530, the seemingly only aircraft from VMF-312 ever to be rendered in decals in any scale.
-
Here's another photo that shows the skinning, etc on the wing underside..
Has anyone besides me noticed that the two aircraft flanking the one in the center are cannon armed? The one on the right appears to be an F4U-5 judging by the position of the intakes and the C series R-2800. John, do you know when the photo was taken and/or the source? Interesting to say the least.
-
-
Well, rather sheepishly, I must admit that I didn't do as thorough a job as I thought I did as the construction number for the step flap is listed on the flap drawings (10069 and 37769) and not on the higher level drawing which I examined. Add to that the fact that Dana Bell had already done this quite thoroughly and is included in his Aircraft Pictoral No. 8. complete with bureau number cross refererences. I should have known he'd be on top of something like this. Anyway, it turns out that the step flap was indeed introduced into the production line in the FG/F4U-1D production line at aircraft number 4425. Refer to Dana's aforementioned book to see what Bureau No. this corresponds to. I have his book but don't have access to it at the moment.
Now the remaining question is how do we determine which aircraft of F4U/FG-1D were post 4425 (insert Bureau No. here) from the extant photographs where that information is not readily discernable?
-
I did an examination of the Vought blueprints for a post on another modeling website and thought the folks here may like to know what I distilled from looking at them. The upcoming Tamiya kit will have the option of a step in the R/H inboard flap, one closed with a plate and one completely open through the flap. The wing erection drawing (VS-10000) for the F4U-1, F3A-1, FG-1 indicates that at revision O, Vought Engineering authorized the use of the flap p/n VS-37769 (with a step in it) somewhere between April and what looks like May of 1944 (but does not preclude the use of the old flap p/n VS-10069). The microfilm scan is not clear enough to read the exact date when this was authorized. Nor does the blueprint state which aircraft it was installed with. Note 13 on the blueprint says that Engineering will be informed when this change is made but the field of the note is blank with respect to any serial/construction number information. It is my belief (call it a hunch as I have no basis of fact for it) that the war ended before this flap made it to the production line and that it was primarily installed on post war F4U-4's and later. But for the sake of the argument....
Having said that and absent of any photographic evidence (or more definitive information), there is no way of knowing which aircraft (in construction at that date or thereafter) were fitted with this particular R/H inboard flap and which were not. Aircraft manufacturing experience leads me to the opinion that there was a stock of flaps prebuilt for installation on the production line and that would have to be used up prior to this specific flap being installed on the production line (unless the flap stock was pulled and modified but that takes a lot of time and most likely was not done given the exigant circumstances of war). However, if the aircraft was manufactured prior to said authorization (April-May 1944) it is doubtful it would have had such a flap installed from the factory. This also does not indicate that aircraft produced after this date will definitely have the step flap. Like I said, any stock of existing flaps (VS-10069) would have most likely been exhausted prior to this flap (VS-37769) being installed on the production line.
This does not preclude field replacements on older aircraft as it appears as though they were interchangeable. I should think any replacement flap with a step would have stuck out like a sore thumb on a combat aircraft given the fading and wear of the paint job on the airframe vs. the newer flap.Again, this is my opinion based on examining the actual Vought Corsair blueprints for the subject parts. If there's any errors, they're mine alone and I'm perfectly happy if more/better information is brought to the discussion as it makes us all the better for it.
-
-
I don't think he's done one on the -1D yet. I may be wrong on that (Lord knows I'm wrong on SO many things according to my wife).
Anthony, I was reading the -1 (which does not cover the -1D by name) structural repair manual last night and it states that the outer wing flap section was fabric covered, top and bottom. I also remember reading (someplace) that said when the rockets were added to the -1D, a metal skin was added to at least the underside so that the rocket exhaust wouldn't burn the otherwise fabric flap. Now whether that means the entire flap was skinned in metal has yet to be brought to light. The internal flap structure was metal and I haven't done enough research to say one way or the other that -1D outer wing flaps were all metal or just the bottom was skinned in metal.
- Anthony in NZ, LSP_K2 and David66
-
3
-
Reminds me of the black velvet Elvis art from the 1970's but maybe that's just the background, I don't know. It's much better than I could ever do but I don't think that's something I'd want in my home... just not appealing to my taste and it overpowers anything else in the room.
-
The punches from RP Toolz are a single leaf-type, with punches in 1/48, 1/35, 1/24 and 1/16 scales. They recommend using dried leaves to make scale leaves. In the US, you can order the separate punches from Victory Models - I don't see the four punch set on their website, though.
Those punches look exactly the same except for the color of the punch itself.... 30 Euros (~33) for a set of 4. That's not a bad price compared to what I paid. Dried leaves work great for leaf littler on the ground or Autumn leaves that haven't fallen off the trees yet but for green, growing leaves, I wouldn't use real leaves because as they dry out, they'll definitely change color.
http://rptoolz.unas.hu/en/spd/RP-LEFS/Leaf-maker-set#page_artdet_tabs
-
Their number 1 focus is on making a profit to continue to stay in business and remain solvent.
That's the goal of every business on the planet. Some achieve it, most do not.
Making x number of kits to offset a planned poor release makes literally no sense in the business world.
What's a "planned poor release"? I'm confused because no company in existence plans a poor release of any product. The market is what determines product success or failure and to a lesser extent, brand reputation and marketing (product, price, place and promotion) play a role in that as well. Making X number of any limited product (as is the case with a model kit) is determined way in advance of any product release and is based on a great many factors, not the least of which is production cost and and anticipated ROI. Every company hopes that its product will outperform its calculated expectations, some do, some do not.
-
Didn't Ken Walsh fly a dash 4 (white 13, I believe) from Okinawa at the end of the war in 1945?
Yes, the -4 did see limited action in WWII but the WWII -4 was the very early -4 with the rounded windscreen (like the earlier -1 series) and 6 x .50 caliber mg's in the wing. It was in squadron service but I don't know if it scored any kills or not. It was on hand for the invasion of Japan (should it have been required). To do this early version of the -4, Tamiya would need to make a new cockpit, retool the -1 fuselage a little bit, add a new R-2800 (C series engine) and tool a new cowl for the early -4's. Those are the obvious (to me) changes that would be required. There may be other changes that may be needed that I'm not aware of. Later -4's with the flat armored glass incorporated into the windscreen and the -4B cannons would need modifications to the windscreen (and possibly the glareshield part of the fuselage) and wing molds.
Tamiya Thunderbirds F-16 Kit: What Would You Build?
in LSP Discussion
Posted
Definitely a Nellis aggressor. Which one is anyone's guess, as long as it's the blue flanker scheme.