Jump to content

Radub

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    4,667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Radub last won the day on January 15

Radub had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About Radub

  • Birthday 12/17/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Cork, Ireland

Recent Profile Visitors

5,372 profile views
  1. I see that on another forum there is a discussion about the photos I posted above. The usual arguments were thrown in, such as "bad restoration" and "a groundgcrew will never allow..." in order to dismiss the photos of "Black 6" as invalid arguments. That discussion contains many photos of wartime aircraft that shows that the flanges were "snug" and that there is no way there is any "gap" between the flange and the fuselage. But... The fact is that the gap between the flange and the fuselge IS NOT a huge chasm. As I mentioned above, it varies between 7 mm and 10 mm. That IS NOT a huge gap. Take a metric ruler. Look at what 7 mm and 10 mm looks like. From a distance, that is almost unnoticeable. Those wartime photos only serve to prove that the space between flange and fin/fuselage will not show in photos taken from a distance. Here are two photos of the same subject taken from up-close and from a distance. And for comparison purposes here is a photo from the front. Compare to the photo from the first post. As you can see, you do not need to step that far back for that gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage to almost disappear. But the gap is there. It has to be there otherwise the flange would rub against the fin/fuselage causing some kind of marks on the fuselage. Why do such rub marks and scratches never show up in wartime photos? Because the parts did not touch. In scale 1/32, a flange standing our by about 0.25 to 0.35 mm from the surface should be enough to simulate this. HTH Radu
  2. Wanna bet that someone is going to defend all the stupid things in this artwork? Those master level "experts"! Radu
  3. Lancaster flying in day time with American pilots and escorted by P-40's? Cue outrage from the "experts" in three, two, one, go! Note that this is by the same Jason Wong who created the box art with the PLA tanks in San Francisco or Jersey City. They are doing it on purpose to drive traffic and comments. Trolling for viral content. Don't take the bait, keep moving. Radu
  4. Latest announcement from Border: https://www.facebook.com/100063663186491/posts/507423371389765/?flite=scwspnss Radu
  5. The only possible way to replicate the position of the flange in relation to the fuselage is to represent it as a raised item, standing "proud" from the surface. Such a flange standing proud from the fuselage on a model is not a fault, it is intentional. Another deep misunderstanding about the tail of the Bf 109 is about the "asymetry". The fin is asymetrical but the rudder is asymetrical too. The asymetry of the rudder was completely ignored in many models and scale drawings. Such an asymetrical rudder on a model is not a fault, it is intentional. Have a look at this photo. The rudder is in the "neutral" position, before I took this photo I engaged the lock that secures the rudder pedals and the control stick. Look also at the position of the counterweight at the top of the rudder in relation to the fin and you can see that the rudder is in the "neutral" position. However, despite the "neutral" position the rudder is noticeably canted to the right. That is because the asymetrical aspect of the tail encompasses both the fin and the rudder. I must repeat that any model or scale drawing containing these features is not "faulty". HTH Radu
  6. There is a "split" in the leading edge because the top and bottom halves of the tail plane were held together by what can be best described as a "piano hinge". I guess that the idea was that by simply pulling the long rod that held the two halves of the hinge together it was easy to separate the top and bottom of the tail planes for servicing or repair. The tail fin leading edge has a similar "hinge", but in this case the leading edge is sealed with doped fabric. Radu
  7. It is hard to replicate the gap on a model. The only thing that can work is to make the flange stand out from the fuselage. Radu
  8. That is correct. The aircraft needed to be trimmed as the ammunition and fuel was expended and the centre of gravity shifted slightly. The fact that the flange was at a distance from the fuselage was missed on many models in the past. Some models actually represent the edge of that flange as an engraved line on the fuselage. In reality the flange was at some distance from the fuselage. HTH Radu
  9. Here are some photos of the "flange" at the root of the tail plane. This is "Black 6" in Cosford. The tail plane is movable, so the flange is set at a certain distance from the fin/fuselage in order to provide unimpeded movement. The distance between the flange and the airframe varies between 7 mm and 10 mm in places. Hopefully these photos will be useful. Radu
  10. The clear panel does not have the raised instrument "markers" and that gives you flat faces for the decals. By the way, the resin panel is not suitable for an F-4. The F did not have the larger "artificial horizon" instrument (the compass was there), all four instruments on the "blind flying" panel were the same size. HTH Radu
  11. I measured the Revell Mustang tail wheel again and I got precisely 9.73 mm with my digital calipers. The ZM and Revel wheels are the same diameter. Anyone with the kits can measure this, this is not "opinion" or "arguing". Radu
  12. For all it's worth, I just measured the ZM tailwheel and the Revell tailwheel and I get the same diameter, respectively 9.7 mm. Radu
  13. Hi Andy, There is no need for a separate bulkhead for the "long tail undercarriage". The "notch" just in front of the hole you drilled is where the "pin" at the top of the tail undercarriage strut is meant to fit. HTH, Radu
  14. I do not have a clear explanation, but I was told that it may have something to do with the radio frequency. Technically that may be an answer because there is a corelation between frequency and the length of the antenna wire. This may help explaining it better. To quote Google: "The length of the antenna is inversely proportional to the frequency and directly proportional to the wavelength. The higher the frequency and the shorter the wavelength, the shorter the antenna can be made". An antenna on a mast is longer than an antenna connected to the fuselage. However, I must stress that I do not have any hard evidence that was the reason why some antennas are on a mast and some are not. HTH Radu
  15. I just had a phone conversation about the above post. What is the difference between the two types of Erla canopies? Here is the initial type of canopy. This used the same canopy emergency jettison mechanism used on the "box-type" canopies. Please have a look at this photo: The two short tubes inside the curved frame contain compressed springs, the top end of each spring attached to the frame and the bottom end of each spring attached to the fuselage. The frame is held in place by two pins at the bottom. The pins are linked to a scissor mechanism contained underneath the horizontal device at the bottom of the frame. The device at the botom of the frame also contains a hole for the canopy hinge pin at the right and the hole for the canopy closing latch on the left. When the canopy jettison lever located under the windscreen on the left side of the cockpit is pulled, the two pins of the "scissor" mechamism are retracted and the springs push the frame away from the fuselage, which takes away with it the canopy itself. This is basically the same principle used on the box-type canopy and even earlier on the Bf 109 E with the curved top canopy. This type of canopy can be identified in photos by the cutout at the left rear bottom edge of the canopy, as shown in these photos: The final version of the Erla canopy had a much simpler mechanism consisting of one single bar, as shown in this photo: The bar contained a hole for the hinge pin on the right and a hole for the canopy locking pin on the left. This bar is attached to the cockpit will with a latch. When the canopy jettison toggle and cable (no longer a "lever") under the windscreen on the left side of the cockpit was pulled, this released the latch that secured the bar to the cockpit shelf and the whole thing was pulled by the airflow. One can identify this kind of canopy by the bubble/bump at the left rear bottom edge of the canopy, as shown in these photos. I hope this helps identify the type of canopy used on your subject of choice. Check the photos and look for the "cut" or the "bubble" on the left side of the canopy. Radu
×
×
  • Create New...