Jump to content

Dpgsbody55

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Dpgsbody55

  1. Great work, Chuck. It's a pity so much of it is covered up. At least we have to photos in this build to admire and inspire. I was going to suggest that the Airfix Typhoon might provide some ideas for the wiring, but that idea is probably redundant now. Looking forward to more progress on this. Cheers, Michael
  2. Wonderful pictures. I think I'd forget to eat or drink in there. For a week . Thanks for posting, Michael
  3. There's some nice looking models there. Thanks for posting. Also, a good idea for a future group build. Cheers, Michael
  4. That's an incredible build of the old Revell hurricane model. I built one myself in 2001 and scratch built the cockpit around the old Eduard kit (which I think is no longer available) and the seat/rear armour piece. I thought it was pretty good until I saw this just now. No photo's either as I wasn't part of any forum at the time. I still have the model, so one day I'll take a picture and post it. Cheers, Michael PS. Been away, so I'm catching up.
  5. Love it!! I remember that noise as they used to fly over my house in Bristol when I was 5. Filton was only five miles away, so they'd come over using climb power, making that howl. Cheers, Michael
  6. Wouldn't mind seeing that done in 1/32. Cheers, Michael
  7. Best Trumpy kit I've built is their MiG-3. A very nice build with good parts fit. I'm not in agreement with others here about their 1/24 Hurricanes. Mostly it's good, but the engine is rubbish. It's 1/32nd scale and inaccurate. You may as well glue the cowlings in place and leave it unpainted, which for me defeats the purpose of building such a large scale plane. I have one in my stash which I'll try to kitbash with the Airfix Hurricane engine one day, but for my money, the Airfix kit is at least as good if you're happy with a MkI. Cheers, Michael
  8. I'll be very interested to follow the builds here. Hopefully, it will be more than Spitfires and 109s, not that I've got anything against either of those. I'm not sure if I will be participating as it depends on how long it takes to finish my Thunderbolt. We'll see. Cheers, Michael
  9. Nice choice. One small thing. Just be aware that with early Spitfires built by Supermarine, their idea of standard RAF sky type S was a little more blue than most others. Cheers, Michael
  10. Having built two of these kits and three of those engines, I'll be following this with great interest. Cheers, Michael
  11. Being the same age as Chuck, I kind of understand this view point. But the fanaticism of the Nazis or Japanese ruling classes didn't necessarily reflect the attitudes of the masses, especially in the later stages of WW2 when the reality of what these fanatics were about. Many German and Japanese did what they could to aid the Allies. I can also understand those who just want to build models from, say, the US Marines or RAF etc. My father served with the Royal Engineers during WW2, one of those who fought their way across Europe. Very late in the war, the order went out from Allied Headquarters that any SS soldiers captured were to be summarily executed. One day, Dad cornered one in a barn and made him surrender. Turned out he was a terrified 16 year old kid. Dad took the SS armband off him and told him to go home. I still have that armband. It doesn't matter what nationalilty you are, as individuals we all share the same concerns and problems of daily life, then and now. Most soldiers, sailors and aviators were just doing their duty and protecting their homeland later on, same as anyone on the allied side. But from a modelling perspective, you're missing out big time. There were some wonderful planes built by both the Japanese, and even more so, the Germans. Many are really quite colourful too, especially against USAAF olive drab/neutral gray or late war USN overall dark blue. How about a Dornier DO-335?? Just about no combat history, but a fascinating plane. Or a ME-163 rocket?? Killed more of it's own people than it did allied flyers. Then there's the ME-262, which was so advanced it took the Allies almost ten years to match it. And no model collection is complete without a 109 or 190. Go on.... Try one . Cheers, Michael
  12. One fast build!! I like the chipping on the prop blades. Cheers, Michael
  13. 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
  14. Looking very good. For all your struggles, this is proving that your efforts have been worth it. Cheers, Michael
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Good progress. It does indeed look like a nice kit. Cheers, Michael
  21. Looks great. Wish I'd seen that before I built my I-16!! Cheers, Michael
  22. Dpgsbody55

    WNW

    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
  23. The tooling was sold to WNW Michael
×
×
  • Create New...