Jump to content

Wegener

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wegener

  • Rank
    LSP Junkie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Swindon, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

458 profile views
  1. Very nicely done. About the laminated prop, wouldn’t the shape of the blade cause the laminations to make a different pattern where they ‘outcrop’ (to use a geological term) on the sloping surface? If the laminations are perpendicular to the drive shaft axis, rather than parallel to it, I’d expect some curves on the blade faces as the surface crosses the laminations at an angle. From the side, they would be straight lines though. Does that make sense? I’m not saying it’s easy to do, quite the opposite, by the way!
  2. It implies a high level of detail being possible but not that manufacturers can or do provide it, particularly with older kits. The cost of tooling a large kit is obviously greater than for a small one so including all those possible details can price it out of the target market. Plus there are always some who are happy to take a less detailed kit and add to it, whether from aftermarket suppliers or scratch. Your stuff does look rather excellent though, so I’m sure it would go down well here.
  3. Wolf, I spent a while wondering if the FAA aircraft had Sutton harnesses (I’m planning a Corsair II from the Op Tungsten period) but read somewhere (here probably) of an account by a pilot with the BPF who specifically mentioned not having one in a Corsair he flew and from which he had to escape in a hurry. For now I’m opting for the US harness but happy to hear of any evidence either way for the non-BPF examples. I’m also interested in dimensions for the fuselage vents - the one in the FAA musem was too far from the barrier to reach. To be fair, that was probably the intention though!
  4. Airfix multipose sets can often be found (in the UK at least) pretty cheaply. Decently sculpted and there were seven sets as I recall, including an 8th Army set in shorts. The Japanese set may not be that useful to you but the two US sets (US Marines and US Army) were wearing high leg boots which could be modified to jungle boots. Hornet does a few sets of 1/32 heads to supplement the rest of the range, which is mostly 1/35. Roger does ship to the US but I’m sure there was a US distributor a few years ago, out in the Colorado area as I recall. You might also look at Reedoak for mechanic types.
  5. Looks excellent. As you described it as a G-14 but Barracuda calls it a G-6, what makes it a G-14? I believe (per Prien & Rodeike) they aren’t necessarily any different at all in appearance, particularly the early G-14s. I’d be happy if any of mine turned out like that.
  6. Rather helpfully for those who might wish to scratchbuild the valves, Taurus’s website has PDF instructions that show the open/closed configuration. Very laudable on their part as I’d have done them all the same (or at least as much so as I could manage).
  7. Although I have no personal experience, I have read articles in which they have been praised for the fact that they can be bent to compensate for alignment errors in undercarriage geometry. This seems to me a strange basis for regarding a malleable version of a necessarily rigid component as a good thing but I have read it several times. Personally I’d be a bit wary of a load-bearing part that could be bent that easily so the accounts of white metal parts being weaker than plastic ones aren’t a huge surprise to me.
  8. Some of those panels didn’t fit terribly well in the original from what I recall, so your gaps look within tolerances.
  9. I’m a late arrival to the thread but for those who find the Silhouette backing sheet too sticky, apparently there is a low tack version which might help. It’s reported to be especially useful if cutting thin styrene which might distort when removing it afterwards. I spotted it on the site of a well-known internet retailer whose name contains the letters A, z and n. Not ordered one yet but will do when I have enough in my basket to make it worthwhile. Just checked and it’s called the ‘light hold’ cutting mat if anyone is looking for one.
  10. I’d expect that jagged fragments of FlaK projectiles would potentially arrive from any direction and not necessarily follow a straight path, particularly after encountering airframe parts, so fragment damage could be different on upper and lower wing. Straight through holes can certainly result from hits by explosive smaller calibre rounds such as 2cm though. Looks good so far - apart from the nerve required, it looks like a lot of work.
  11. I looked at the circle cutter for a while but when the guide to allow concentric circles is added (at further expense but necessary for roundels) it came to about half the price of a Portrait 2. As the latter is much more flexible, I went that route in the end. I did have a play with one at a show and it worked but for me it was too pricey for something that only did one job, even though it did that job well. As to the original question, I use a set of orange-handled Xurons for cutting runners and a God Hand for removing parts. For really fragile parts I repeatedly make light passes with a scalpel using the part to guide the blade. I do this alternately from each side if possible. Enabled me to remove all the brake rods for a Miniart GAZ truck without damage.
  12. Are the Trumpeter bombs the correct size? Just exploring another option...
  13. Interesting film, thanks for the link Alain. Personally I can’t identify any colours or tell whether surfaces are painted or unpainted there though! I’m not sure what material the dimpled surface on the inside of the access hatch on the vertical stab is but it doesn’t display the maker’s stamps seen on aluminium sheets; however if it is alumnium, they could be on the other side of it....
  14. I don’t have any of them myself but there have certainly been several build threads on here that are worth looking up to help with your decision.
  15. Centaur and Cromwell were similar (indeed a number of Cromwells were built from Centaurs) but the defining difference was that Centaur had a Liberty engine (hence was the A27L) while Cromwell had a Meteor (so was the A27M). The ‘Cromwell VI’ has a Meteor deck and so looks like a Cromwell to me. It had the same 95mm as the Centaur IV but most Centaurs (and early Cromwells) had a 6pdr. There was a good series on the type by Dick Harley in a few recent Tankette magazines (the MAFVA journal) for those interested in learning more. Very much looking forward to the new releases although I imagine loads will be built with the hedgerow ‘prong’ which appears never to have been used operationally and features in only one photo I have seen.
×
×
  • Create New...