Jump to content

b757captain

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by b757captain

  1. Without going into shape details or discrepancies because I'm not an expert on the A-26/B-26 but one thing immediately struck my eye. The engines are 7 cylinders per row aka R-2600 - I am pretty sure the Invader had R-2800s, 9 cylinders per row. I'll still get one, fix all the problems and maybe even buy replacement engines. Good, bad or otherwise it's probably the only Invader we'll ever see in 1/32. Cheers, Mark
  2. Thanks Dude! I couldn't resist on the scheme since the 2-seater only has one actual scheme. Gotta get creative!
  3. Thanks! Mottling was done by hand using MM RLM 75 thinned to about 30/70 and really low air pressure to minimize the overspray/spatter. Oh, and a pair of magnifying specs and a few stiff drinks!
  4. Thanks Michael! My opinion - the detail is far better with the ZM kit and assembly is very straightforward. A very pleasant build! Thanks Kev! Thanks Mozart!
  5. Thanks Gazz! The base is 76, mottling with 75.
  6. Thanks Brian! Thanks Ray! Thanks Mike! It was not the easiest, but easier to freehand then a multi-color mask job. Just tedious.
  7. Hi gents, Recently finished the ZM Do-335 A12 2-seater. I gotta say, after having built the HK 335 that the ZM beats it hands-down! The detail differences in what can be seen - and what can't be seen - is night and day. Built straight from the box except for the ZM-supplied PE instrument panels. The fit and finish is superb though a thorough read of the instruction manual is a must! The only problem I can see (and ZM might supply this) is a lack of weight to hold the nose down. I planned to keep the front engine cowled up so a strategic deletion of some of the engine and gun bay parts left plenty of space for weight. It is a bit wobbly on the gear so I probably should have splurged on metal gear. Other than that a very pleasant build. For markings I decided that the one and only scheme just didn't do it for me, so I opted for a what-if Luft 46 motif. Assuming that had the airplane reached extended active service it would have been utilized as a day/night interdiction fighter bomber, trainer and jack-of-all-trades, I wnent with a night bomber scheme and a mix of decals, national markings from ZM and aircraft number from the spares box. Weathering was kept light, just a wash to dirty things up a little. On to the pics: Thanks for looking! Mark
  8. From an esthetic perspective, I could do better with an etch-a-sketch. From an engineering perspective, I wonder about the rumored frameless monocoque chassis. Although techincally unibody vehicles could be considered semi-monocoque they have never been able to get away from having front and rear subframes - the chassis simply cannot support the loads without emulating a pretzel. Maybe Tesla found a way but I have my doubts. If this is the case and the chassis is fully monocoque I wonder how it will pass crash tests. Or be repairable after a crash. From a usability perspective lets see how it actually does when tasked with actual truck chores (I don't consider a tug-of-war to be an actual truck duty ). Hook a loaded stock trailer behind it and see how it does up a hill (of course the base models from the big 3 these days probably wouldn't do very well either but at least they still offer drivetrain options that make them traditional trucks). I did tons of research a few years ago on electric power (for my sailboat) and finally determined that the only way it was feasible was by using a fuel cell. No matter what chemistry the batteries used they just can't store the energy that a fuel tank does. I'll leave the rest of the electric/ICE debate to the 1000's of websites out there but for me - it's a nope! Cheers, Mark
  9. My first flight instructor was retired USAF - remarkable career, P-51s at the tail end of WWII, Edwards test pilot including XB-70, two tours in Vietnam, finished up testing the F-15. He told me that back in the mid 50s he had a chance to buy surplus P-51s for $1500. His wife wouldn't let him. Bummer . . .
  10. I've got the second one you pictured, without the air tank. It runs more often (though will build pressure and shut off) and it's so quiet you can barely hear it cycle on over the sound of air passing though the airbrush. Just my .02c worth
  11. Way back in the olden times I was based in El Paso. NASA had a facility there, mostly repairing and reworking T-38s for NASA but the airport was also a favorite storage site for lots of NASA airplanes. For a while the backup 747 shuttle carrier was there, and also one of the WB-57s. I got a nice up-close look at it one day - unfortunately in the pre-digital camera days and I lost the photos years ago. Fast forward to 2011. Taxiing out for takeoff from Kandahar, sitting in line behind a couple of C-17s and my FO points to an airplane in a revetment and asks "what kind of airplane is that?" It's one of the WB-57s!. It operated from Kandahar for a few months but I only got to see it take off once: can't tell from the pics but while it was in Afghanistan the NASA logos were removed. Cheers, Mark
  12. Thanks Ray! I figured someone had to take one for the team and finish the beast Thanks Paul!
  13. My best guess - and only a guess! - is that the unpainted or semi-painted wheel wells might correlate to the exterior finish from the factory. The early examples would have been painted in OD upper/neutral gray lower, or British camo and the factory would have taken the time for corrosion control, including the wheel wells. I don't remember the exact timeframe but at some time (probably mid-1944) as the factories really started cranking out aircraft the order came for the aircraft exterior finish to remain NMF. This order might have had two reasons - one, high command decided camoflage was no longer needed, or two (my guess) the aircraft loss rate was high enough that replacement airframes were needed ASAP, thus skip as much of the painting as possible. They also might have figured that the average airframe had an in-theatre lifespan shorter than the rate of corrosion growth, so why bother. As always, the only way to be sure is photographic evidence as some airframes might have had the wheel wells painted after living long enough to go through a heavy check. I would be curious to know if data is available for the average lifespan of various aircraft types during different phases of the war - obviously early war would have a high loss rate vs. late war, but other loss causes such as accidents, etc., would have to be figured in. I'll bet the average allied airframe didn't last much longer than 2 months or so once in theatre.
  14. Two Bearcats in formation - sweet!
  15. Thanks Jack! That's what I read also. Now to find a 1/32 oil drum.
  16. This is a function of vector graphics, aka CAD drawing. A regular printer (I'm going from memory here so be kind to me) converts the page to raster graphics - left to right, top to bottom, but CAD or vector graphics has a (for printing) a 2D start point, vector and distance. When a printer (plotter, cutter, etc.) that prints vector graphics starts the file it prints the first line drawn in the base program, then subsequent lines in the order they were added to the original file. It gets a little more complicated when multiple files are merged or items are imported into the base file. I think that's why you are seeing the cutter jump to random points during the print cycle. When I was cutting with my laser cutter and printing plans on my plotter (old r/c business) I imported my CAD files to CorelDraw and created layers to help speed the printing process. In Corel I could re-assign and re-order the individual parts to prevent the (seemingly) random printing process. I learned later how to do it directly from the CAD program so I could eliminate the additional work in Corel. Try looking at your file to see if it has been layered. If not maybe experiment with that to see if it changes things. Mark
×
×
  • Create New...