Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dpgsbody55 last won the day on November 27 2019

Dpgsbody55 had the most liked content!

About Dpgsbody55

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

713 profile views
  1. One fast build!! I like the chipping on the prop blades. Cheers, Michael
  2. Enjoying this build . You're making me think about getting my Tamiya kit out of the stash for my next build. It's decades since my last Mossie build too!! Cheers, Michael
  3. Looking very good. For all your struggles, this is proving that your efforts have been worth it. Cheers, Michael
  4. Oh crap. I was planning a trip at some stage in the future and that museum was high on my list of attractions. Seems everything is shutting down right now. I had a trip booked for England this year which obviously won't go ahead, and now I'm getting emails from the hotels saying they're closing down for the entire season. You have to wonder what shapes the world will be in after another year. Cheers, Michael
  5. I built the Kitty Hawk kit and loved it. The kit took me about two months to build and I did do some custom stuff to it, as well as added some Eduard etch enhancements. If you check the parts fit every time, and see how it will fit with the next stage, you shouldn't run into any problems. The only exception to that is the cannon shell feed which sits a little too high, for which I thinned out the top cowl. Also, be careful of the position of the instrument panel. It's very thick and can interfere with the fitment of the canopy. Lastly, you'll need some lead weight to keep it from being a tail sitter. Mine has quite a bit, but the stock plastic undercarriage legs are holding up well under the weight. Regarding the guns, P-39N's had wing guns, which were not fitted to P-39Q's. The Q model could have the underwing guns, but be aware that these were not often fitted on Russian planes. If you want to see my build, you can find it here: P-39 Airacobra, by Kitty Hawk I loved this kit, so much so, that I've bought another. But I'd suggest doing some research and check other P-39 builds too. Good luck and I look forward to seeing how yours turns out should you choose to present it here. Cheers, Michael
  6. I remember them well. Try the road into Lee Bay on the north Devon coast. A Ford CMax has trouble with that!! The Olds would widen that road two feet each side . Cheers, Michael
  7. That's part of what attracted me to this kit originally. That, and it's a razorback too which I prefer to the bubble top. Cheers, Michael
  8. More slow progress on this kit, but I think now that the most difficult bit is behind me. Plenty more to go, though. The cowling mounts on the engines came up for attention next. The front one went on easily enough, but the back one was a bit painful. It needed lots of filing at the attachment points to get it to fit, then I had to glue it in stages. After that, I could mount it to the supercharger ducting. The engine mounts on via the exhaust pipes at the bottom, and by the intake ducts at the top. Here it is at that point. After that, I connected up all the oil lines. There are three sets - engine to oil cooler, oil cooler to tank, tank to engine. I've also added wiring to the back of the engine through the bulkhead and the main connection to the engine, plus a throttle linkage. This took me quite a bit of time and I put it down after each wire to let it set so I didn't knock it out fitting the next one. Then, there's a brown tank on top, which I believe is water injection. These engines on the D model were OK to a maximum of 51inches manifold pressure dry, and 58 inches MAP with water injection. Here's the results. If you look at the picture above, in the exhaust pipe immediately behind the oil cooler outlet, you can see a shot pipe at right angles to the exhaust pipe that goes to the supercharger. This is the supercharger bypass, which is normally open. In these P-47's, pilots rarely used the supercharger below 7,000ft, as this is the height at which you can no longer reach maximum manifold pressure and decreases further at higher altitudes. The pilot's throttle quadrant has four levers, the extra one being the lever that operated this bypass. Operating it gradually closed the bypass, causing the supercharger to speed up as the pilot advanced that lever. The pilot would also open the intercooler gates and monitor supercharger speed and temperatures to stay within parameters. And here it is mounted in one half of the fuselage to give some idea of what I'm trying to build. In the picture below, you can see exactly how this bypass matches up with the exhaust outlet behind the oil cooler. So you should have three exhaust stains on you model; one on each side for the supercharger bypass behind the oil cooler, and another behind the supercharger outlet below and behind the intercooler vents on the side. Unless the pilot has left the intercooler vents set at trail, these would normally be shut to reduce drag at low altitude as it wasn't usual to operate the supercharger below 7,000ft unless in combat, and then very carefully for fear of damaging it. It's also not usual to have them open during take off and landing in case of go around, to keep the plane as clean as possible. These planes were not quick to accelerate on the ground, or pick up speed fully laden after take off, and the pilot's work load was quite high at that time, to be having the added complication of a supercharger running which could easily have caused excessively high manifold pressure, and the possibility of engine failure that could ensue. That's a pilot's worst nightmare, being low and slow with a sick engine!! That's it for the moment. Next up, I'll be hacking off the left side rear cowling, opening up another hatch in that side too, then I can splash some interior paint about and start on the cockpit. Cheers, Michael
  9. Good progress. It does indeed look like a nice kit. Cheers, Michael
  10. Looks great. Wish I'd seen that before I built my I-16!! Cheers, Michael
  11. Dpgsbody55


    Where did you get that idea?? None of these cars were the work of one single man. Peter Wilks was the project Chief on P6 with Gordon Bashford doing much of the suspension and body design. Spen King's biggest involvement was to insist on the engine bay being made as wide as possible to ensure that the car could take a gas turbine engine. Alas Peter Wilks had left the company in 1971, forced out by ill health, and was dead long before SD1 was released. He had very little to do with SD1, or P10 as it was originally envisaged. Range Rover was largely designed on Gordon Bashford's kitchen table in 1966, by Bashford and Spen King. Only after that did the rest of the design team get involved. And Range Rover suffered by being released too soon on the insistence of Lord Stokes, the British Leyland chairman, as he wanted a new car launched every year in June in time for his birthday. After that, BL did no development on it for eight years as it was one of the few products making money, so it's profits were syphoned off to support the loss making crap. SD1 was a largely British Leyland design. As I said, Rover as a company ceased to exist on 1st January 1972, being wholly absorbed into BL and part of the Rover/Triumph division, then shortly after, Specialist Design division of Jaguar/Rover/Triumph. IE; Rover was just a badge. The Leyland masters decided that SD1 would be a much cheaper car to build and a saw it's competition as the Ford Granada etc. Spen King had been made chief engineer of the Specialist Division, but much of his time was diverted to cars like the Dolomite. There was a lot of input from Triumph designers into SD1, but the car's real issues were the cheap components supplied to BL, and it's unbelievably poor build quality caused by a dis-spirited work force who were moved about from one factory to another, building cars they were not trained for, and not used to. However, the basic engineering of the SD1 was sound, with the possible exception of the Triumph designed 6 cylinder engine, and the car could have been so much better than it was, but for mismanagement and dodgy build and component suppliers. Cheers, Michael
  12. The tooling was sold to WNW Michael
  13. Dpgsbody55


    I mostly agree re Vauxhall since the GM takeover back in 1925. However, Rover was a great car company for much of it's history. Alas, it was forced into take over by BMC's takeover of their body suppliers who threatened their supply, and within a year wound up as part of British Leyland. Although BL called themselves by different names in later years, it was still the same company, run by mugs. Rover had been a very dynamic company in the post war years, driven by engineering integrity rarely equalled by other manufacturers, and yet profitable too. Which other company could have given us Land Rover, Range Rover, the jet propelled cars of the 50's and early 60's, and the brilliant P6 2000/3500 range?? These are Rovers. BL wound up the company as at 1st January 1972, and anything designed and released after, is not. So that city rover thing is just an abhorance and should not be referred to as a Rover. Just like the LEYLAND SD1. Cheers, Michael
  14. Nice build. I agree with the others here on your choice and execution of the camo. Cheers, Michael
  15. That's a lovely Thunderbolt. I prefer Razorbacks to bubble top jobs. I'm presently restarting a 2016 build, so you've provided me with some welcome inspiration. Cheers, Michael
  • Create New...