Derek B

It was just the decals, gutted, they'll be on their way back tomorrow.

Hi Al,  as has been said, primer wouldn't throw an assembly out of tolerance as assemblies
(and detail parts) have tolerance zones ( +/- ) so that some variance is engineered into the
process and is acceptable.  I can't speak to WWII era processes but painted parts I inspected
at Boeing were almost always under .002" (.5 mm).  Aluminum parts were always anodized first.
Alodining can accomplish the same goal and can be hand brushed or submerged. Anodizing
must be submerged in salt water while other chemicals are added to the salt water tank and
electrodes are inserted to create the reaction. Alodining is thinner and less expensive.
Anodizing penetrates deeper and also hardens the surface and imparts a resistance to static
electricity.   So the answer to your question is no it wouldn't cause a tolerance problem.

In the context of WWII airplane construction, Zinc Chromate is not simply a "paint" to color or cover the underlying aluminum. It is applied as a form of Cathodic Protection where the Zinc Chromate is the sacrificial anodic metal to prevent corrosion of the underlying aluminum. 
 
As such, Zinc Chromate would have to be allied to all surfaces prior to assembly - including the edges of drilled holes, for example. 
 
HTH,
D
 
 

Alodining is done in some instances on factory parts but by-and-large, it's an after treatment to preserve the aluminum being treated.  Alodine is a  chemical that creates that nice yellow/bronze shade when applied to pure aluminum (2024 Alclad has pure aluminum sprayed on both sides of the alloy so it corrodes instead of the base alloy).  Alodine doesn't react the same to all aluminum alloys.  I used alodine when installing antenna on aircraft to prevent skin corrosion should the fillet seal around the periphery of the antenna base be compromised; sometimes it came out looking great, other times not. There can be no paint between the antenna base plate and the surface of the aircraft skin due to the electrical bonding requirement (ground plane).  In manufacturing, anodizing is the preferred method of treating aluminum castings and such.  Anodizing imparts a layer of corrosion to the aluminum parts turning them grey in color.  The anodized surface is usually about 0.10-inch deep whereas an alodined surface is only a few thousands of an inch deep...anodizing is much hardier.
 
On our Gulfstreams, when we were installing satellite phones, we had to match drill the doubling plates and aircraft skin for the antenna, alodine the doubler and the holes in the aircraft skin.  Then we were required to shoot the rivets with wet primer and boy doesn't that make a mess if you use too much primer on the rivet going in.  Those were our installation instructions from Gulfstream Engineering.
 
Paint (including primer) adds a lot of weight and with some puddle jumper aircraft, that can be detrimental to the aircraft's performance so they do not paint interiors where they do not need to.

Having worked in an aircraft assembly plant, I can state that no, the paint on the parts is not an issue with respect to tolerances.  We just put the parts in the jig, drill the holes where they need to be drilled and shoot the rivets.  In some instances, we are required to touch up the rivets with primer (not necessarily with zinc chromate because it's environmentally unfriendly and unhealthy).  Zinc chromate primered parts are fast going the way of the do-do for those reasons. 
 
Where tolerances come into play is where multiple parts are assembled on top of each other (such as cyclic and collective sticks/control rods) and the final product is out of tolerance because all the component parts were at or near their maximum tolerances when manufactured.  If this happens (and it does), the entire assembly is either scrapped or disassembled and reassembled with component parts that are closer to zero.  Any assemblies that require very tight tolerances are usually marked as flight critical parts and require special assembly and inspection processes.

Thanks Mark
Lots of people have done lots of research on the British Phantom, I am just trying to piece it all together to make this as accurate as I can in this scale.

Not much to report during the week as life has been filled with family chores and work etc.
Getting this area tidied up

Little bit of tidying up and panel line work, but just worked on this as a side project through the week

For reference use only (found on Britmodeller, LSP and from the internet sources):
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
HTH
 
Derek

For reference use only (found on Britmodeller, LSP and from the internet sources):
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
HTH
 
Derek

Looking good Anthony. The intake 'hump' is largely an illusion caused by the fact that they are slightly enlarged compared to the J79 powered aircraft. this is accentuated from ground level due to the way the 'shoulder' of the intake waists into the fuselage - if you see the intakes in direct (or even slightly above) side profile, no 'hump' is evident, however, when seen from below, or any other oblique angles, then it is evident (something I checked out when I worked on them and afterwards) - it is yet another a subtlety of Spey engined Phantoms


 

 
Derek

Wish i could post the videos i have directly here but I’d need to host them somewhere. Family is well, apartment in shambles, 3 kilometers away. My 8 year old daughter is deeply traumatized at what happened. Streets are paved in glass. 4000 injured and 100+ dead without taking into account the number of missing people. A whole fire brigade first responders got vaporized when things blew up. I am not going to go into why and what possibly could have been the cause but from what i can say we know is there was 2750 tons of nitrate stored for disposal  and shipping outbound the port and (or possibly not) ammo inbound not very far from each other. Official ammo inbound shipment or off the record this i dont want to delve into. You can see in some of the videos what i would personally understand to be some sort of ammunition cooking off. The estimate of the blast ranges between the equivalent of 1.5 to 3 megaton like a small nuke. 
 
thank you everyone for your thoughts and prayers
Karim

Yep, terrible stuff. Looks like several countries have already stepped up to offer assistance.

Just seen some videos on the Guardian website. 
It appears that a raging fire set off something combustable (on one of the videos you can actually see electric 'sparks' in the fire cloud -much like a transformer station shorting out just before the explosion.)
It is also clear that the shockwave following the explosion was massive, knocking people off their feet who were approximately a mile away (somebody filming from a roof top is knocked off his feet about 2-3 seconds after the blast occurs, and just as you see the shockwave (visible in a dust cloud) hits him/her.
Now they are saying approx. 2750 tons of ammonium nitrate was stored in the building that exploded, resulting in some nasty gasses being present.
Keeping all those unfortunate souls into my thoughts.

Keep the people of Beirut in your thoughts.    From the videos that have come out, it looks like a good portion of the city has been absolutely devastated by a massive explosion.  
 
Someone in the local government compared it to Hiroshima and looking at the videos, I’d say he’s probably not far off the mark.  

It may be worth mentioning that the recent Airfix FG1 Phantom kit was LIDAR scanned and may be worth getting as a reference.
While it has been criticised for lacking some important detail, from a shapes point of view, I haven't seen anything glaringly
wrong from any of the dozen or so builds I've looked at.
 
I keep hoping they have the missing details in a separate file somewhere that they'll incorporate in a 1/48th version.

I've gone back three times now looking this build over. Matchbox did do a fine job on this mold. Your efforts certainly are nothing short of brilliant Kirby.  Well done Sir!

For reference use only (found on Britmodeller, LSP and from the internet sources):
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
HTH
 
Derek

Very very impressive Kirby, well done (it does also show that matchbox got it pretty well right with the overall shape of the model).
 
Regards
 
Derek

Or, even better, 1/24 

Thanks Tony. BTW, I love the RF-4C as well (I have started the Revell kit - as a RF-4C - but wish to complete it as an HAF RF-4E, but cannot find suitable markings for it at present; I have the 1/32 Extra decal Alconbury ''Starize' set to exchange for HAF markings if anyone has any?).
 
Cheers
 
Derek

OK - so first off - I'm going to move this out of the Group Build as there's no way she'll be complete before the end of the year.
 
But, on a more positive note - some progress there is...
 
It's taking a while to get relevant kit into the new work area - but have been able to make a start on the kit supplied 'spar' - modifying it to fit with the new wing formers.
 
This has to be done before I finalise the ribs for laser cutting.
 
So - ribs:
 

 
Spar - with intitial mark-up for material to be removed - a start having been made at the front with a course sanding bar, and at the rear - which needs most of the upper section cutting down to almost the lower line at the rear to accomodate the lower wing trailing edge:
 

 

 

 

 
I'll dig out my belt sander and shape the rear tomorrow - then adjust the rib drawings to match.
 
Hopefully on a roll now I have the space/tools.
 
Iain
 
 

OK - here's where I'm at at present with wing root shape - please note THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS - please do not take as anything definitive at this stage!!!
 
What I've done is used the Airfoil Plotter tool to create a 22% Davis B-24 type airfoil. The Davis B-24 is a listed airfoil - and the percentage vertical stretch was played with until I got a 22% Thickness/Chord ratio (about 135% of the default airfoil).
 
This was then overlaid on the photo I posted earlier of the wing root shape as moulded in the kit.
 
Great care was taken to ensure the wing root was square with/perpendicular to the camera - which was mounted on a tripod at a reasonable distance away (too close and you'll get distortion).
 
So - kit:
 

 
I dropped this image into Photoshop - and then copied the Davis B-24 airfoil plot in as a new layer.
 
This was scaled to match the chord length of the kit wing.
 
Shape was closer to kit than a similar exercise that was done in another B-24 thread recently - and the depth of the airfoil plot and the moulded wing was almost identical.
 
Area that was most out was the rear half of the upper wing - but I was starting to see where the kit wing and the 'correct' airfoil diverged - and what people were seeing in photos.
 
Then - looking at photos another penny dropped - the trailing edge in the kit is too high on the fuselage.
 
So - rotate the airfoil clockwise a few degrees to match photos (nothing empirical at this stage) and I get the following - NOT DEFINITIVE AT THIS STAGE!!
 

 
As you can hopefully see - things match pretty well on the first 1/3 over the top of the wing, and just over half of the underside.
 
The BiG bonus is I think the top front cowl sections won't need removing - the leading edge cure will be close enough on a scale model I believe.
 
Now - how to fix the rear of the wing?
 
If we can get it to more closely match the airfoil overlay then, I believe, we'll end up with a better looking model.
 
So - probably at the weekend, I'm going to remove the front/rear strengthening webs from the wing (leaving those that run root to tip) and make up some formers in 80 thou styrene. The one for the root will be easy - but I'll need to make subsequent ones along the wing shorter in length - and with a corresponding reduction in chord/thickness ratio.
 

 
There is sufficient 'meat' in the wing skin to facilitate bending IMHO - there may be some adjustment needed to the rear of the lower wing sections to match up with the upper surface after imparting the new shape.
 
Of course the kit supplied wing spar will need modding - but this should be simple if I can get the rest to work!
 
There is another issue as well - I think the wing is too thick towards the tip - again, I think this will be a fairly straightforward fix with some bending and sanding.
 
More when there's more - I have to finish painting a Spitfire...
 
Iain
 
 

Hi all,
 
I've been chomping at the bit to get my hands on the new kit from HobbyBoss - and have splurged out for two of the beasts; one to do an RAF Coastal Command Liberator Mk.VI (which will be the subject of this thread) and the second to convert to a Privateer.
 
The Coastal Command bird will be my entry into the Multi-Engine Group Build starting Jan 1st - and I'll move this thread over when the time comes.
 
In the interim, with all the interest (and controversy) around this new release, and in parallel with writing up the review for LSP,  I thought making a start on some of my planned fixes would be in order, and not debar it from entry in the Group Build.
 
Some place-holder images for now...
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
And that wing cross section that's caused so much comment - as said elsewhere I have a plan, which I think will work and, tomorrow, I'll post a comparison of the kit cross section with a 22% Davis B-24 type airfoil - watch this space!
 

 
I'm hoping this thread will be like the one where I built/corrected the Revell He219 - with the LSP community chipping in with thoughts/ideas/reference material.
 
All input appreciated - but no hyperbole please - keep everything constructive eh?
 
Have fun!
 
Iain
 
 

Filling holes and seams in the OV-10.  I'm trying some spray insulation to fill in the holes.  These holes contain the screws that attach the main components together.  The spray insulation will make the operation reversible in case I want to disassemble the airplane later.  
 
In an effort to keep the weight down I'm going to use primer (Rustoleum 2X) on the underside of the airplane and Primer-Filler on the upper side.  I'll see if I can get rid of the alligator skin on the visible top-side surfaces.
 

 
 
The bomb rack and practice bombs have taken me a lot longer than I'd like, but they're going to look nice.  I painted the bombs Vallejo 71.111 USAF Light Blue.  Maybe they could be slightly bluer, but close enough.  
 
The original rocket pod weighs 8.5 grams.  The filled and repainted one weighs 9.5 grams.  The bomb rack/bombs weighs 35 grams.  The original external fuel tank weighs 36.5 grams.  So if you leave the tank off and replace two of the rocket pods with bomb racks/bombs, then the net weight gain is only 16.5 grams, which I'll call flyable.
 

 
 
The lack of markings on the euro-one painted, Sembach-based OV-10s is astounding.  Here are the decals for two complete airplanes.  No ejection seat markings, no rescue markings, no aircraft data plate, no "no step"s, nada, zilch.  I don't know how they got away with it.  If you've just built an F-4 and are suffering from decal burnout, this is the plane for you!
 
 

Filling in unwanted seams with Vallejo putty and sanding off injection marks.  I removed the servo arms from the servos and made new servo covers that cover up the whole servo well.  The control horns were removed with the help of some Bob Smith Un-Cure, then a new covers were installed.  All covers made from 1mm styrene sheet.  I can get this wing looking pretty good, but there is still an "alligator skin" texture to deal with.  I'd rather not slather on thick coats of primer or sandable latex, but it may come to that - that would make the airplane a non-flyer.