Jump to content

Radub

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    4,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Radub

  1. The datum line of the spar runs through the center of the spar, rather than the bottom or the top of the spar. In any case, Arthur's drawings have the correct angles. Radu
  2. According to data provided by Arthur Bentley and his drawings, the datum line of the spar is at 2.80 degrees to the horizontal. HTH Radu
  3. The dihedral on the top of the wing is actually 0.85 degrees. The "level" difference between the highest points of the outer and middle sections of the wing is 0.53 mm (or 0.02086614 inches) in scale 1/32. Because of the wing geometry, the wing angles change depending on the viewing direction. HTH Radu
  4. I don't think that any "difference" needed to be made. over the last few days I had some conversations with a few people about this press release from Revell and the general gist was that "Revell should have used better photos that showed the dihedral." Why? The model is the same, no matter what angle it is viewed from. One can equally say that these photos created a visual "trap" that tripped some people in their haste to issue a "hot take" and those kinds of personal choices made by others can't be blamed on anyone else. Radu
  5. There is no "horrible angle". To me the Hurricane looks great from any angle. Radu
  6. You do not need to worry about the correct configuration for the Mk.II. Everything is accounted for. As explained by Revell in their press release and by me in my posts, you are looking at test shots. Radu
  7. The model shown by Revell is built correctly. Due to the breakdown of parts it is impossible to build the model with "zero dihedral". Even if there was some way to build it with "zero dihedral" by accident or incompetence, there would be gaps in all kinds of places. How can one make angles in parts disappear without repercussions? As I explained already, what you see in the photos from Revell is an optical artifact caused by the camera angle. I have the model in hand now, I can replicate that "look" just by turning it in my hand. There is nothing wrong with the Revell model, it is all geometry and optics. Radu
  8. The Hurricane wing is a complex design that combines a horizontal middle section to which are attached outer sections that feature a dihedral as well as swept-back leading edge and swept-forward trailing edges, all of which have an aerofoil cross section that causes the wing to change from "fat" at the front to "thin" at the back. This means that by simply changing the angle of the camera, the wing will look differently. In any case, as I explained earlier in the thread, the model wing has the correct dihedral. The "flat wing" that you see in these photos is a visual artefact caused by the above-mentioned combination of the wing's many angles and the viewing angle of the camera. Here are some photos of the assembled test shot that I have in my possession. I also added a ruler to indicate the "horizontal". The propeller was removed for clarity. Please keep in mind that this is an even earlier test shot than that shown by Revell, so the final product will be different in some places. Also, this test shot was assembled in haste (test shot, not a competition model) so please ignore any assembly issues, glue blobs, uncleaned attachment points, etc that you may see. Just to give you an idea of how fickle camera vieweing angles are, have a look at the change in the angle of the wing top and bottom that happens if the camera is moved up and down just a couple of centimetres - this is caused by the fact that the wing not only has a dihedral but it also has a swept-back leading edge. It is subtle, but I am sure that you can see it. In any case, please be assured that the kit wing has the correct dihedral. I really hope this helps. Radu
  9. This is an assembled early test shot. The model has the correct dihedral. The photo from behind is taken from below (you can see a lot of the belly and tail planes) so the view of the wings is from an angle that does not show the dihedral in the best way. In fact, it is quite difficult to see the dihedral when looking at the Hurricane from behind due to the wing geometry - see the photo below. Radu
  10. Agreed! That should have happened the second when the discussion was made about me rather than the Bf 109. Radu
  11. This is an OUTRIGHT LIE!!! This thread was always about the real aicraft and I tried really hard NOT to mention the ZM kit. I only mentioned the ZM kit in the end, after YOU brought up some outrageously huge dimensions on which YOU then you porceeded to create a scaffolding of outrage. This is what YOU said "on the ZM kit, the flange sits around 25 mm in scale proud of the fin, which is clearly excessive; I at least have never seen any actual airframes, or photographs, documenting a 25 mm gap." For those who are late to this discussion, this is what I am talking about: Only after you posted your erroneous statements about the ZM kit and your made-up dimenions I showed photos of what the model looks like in reality without any statements about it being right or wrong. These are just facts, read the thread. Others, especially YOU, made a big fuss about the ZM kit so please stop blaming me for other people's actions or your actions. I continue to insist (and please read this carefully!) that the photos of the real aicraft posted in this thread speak for themselves. Radu
  12. There is another discussion on another forum where a self-appointed expert keeps telling everyone quite agresively that we MUST NOT take Luftwaffe drawings as gospel and that we need to find the "additional correspondence" and the actual drawings used in the factory which are full of "red pencil corrections" made locally. I will not go there, not my fight. Secondly, I never claimed anywhere that I am some kind of "expert" on the Bf 109 (or anything else for that matter) so please stop trying to "expose" me. I am a modeller, I work with what I got. And what I got is knowledge about injection-moulded plastc tooling. I can tell you (without attempting to put into question your intellect or knowledge) that it is not technically possible to represent a 1.5 mm item in real life in scale 1/32. Even if we were to add the 0.75 mm for the metal, a total of 2.25, in scale 1/32 that is 0.07 mm (medium thickness of human hair) which is not a thing that can be achieved with any injection-molded plastic tool. Any item has to be at least 0.1 mm to be visible under a magnifier, but preferrably more than that to be seen with the naked eye. For example the finest rivet that you can see on the best models are around 0.15 mm - it is possible to make smaller but it is hard to achieve consistency. Panel lines are around 0.15 for the finest but usually 0.2 mm wide. Any item standing "proud" from a surface (such as an overallping panel, has to be at least 0.15 mm to show up, but preferrably more than that to look "right" - most raised surface panels are at 0.2 to 0.3 mm to convince the eye. A 0.3 mm flange on a bf 109 is not beyond the expected industry standards. All models are about compromise. Every model has to exagerate any detail that is visible or eliminate any detail that is too small. Models are not "academic papers", they are "entertainment", just illusions of reality in small scale. Anyway, I stand by the many photographs shown in this thread. People can make up their own minds. Radu
  13. "Facts" will aways win over "opinion". Read the thread. Radu
  14. Not "defending". Explaining. I am sure that the majority of reasonable people understand it by now. Radu
  15. Pvanroy, As the text in your document clearly explains, the figures shown indicate "tolerance" not "clearance". The text for the ailerons reads: "spalt darf ± 2 mm über zeichn. gemaßes Mäß sein", which means "Gap may deviate ± 2 mm from drawing within reason". This literally means that the allowable deviaton from the drawings is plus/minus the indicated amount in the chart. Of note is the ± sign, which means plus/minus. If those figures were to indicate "clearance" (the distance between parts), the ± sign would mean that the part could go "plus" as well as "minus" from the surface, which in the case of the flange could LITERALLY also put the flange UNDER the skin of the aircraft. The points I richly illustrated in this thread still stand. I refer again to the many photos of the real aicraft, including the superb photo posted in the thread by RBrown showing the gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage on the relatively pristine Bf 109 perserved in the Treloar Centre in Caberra, which is neither "damaged" nor "restored". Even from that distance the gap is clearly visible. Radu
  16. This may be something to do with Google Photos. I reloaded the photos. Hopefully it works now. Radu
  17. Here are some photos that I took this morning. I invite all of you who have to kit to do the same things that I am going to show in the next photos. So, let us start. This is the distance between the top edges of the flanges. As you can see on the calliper screen, the distance is 4.30 mm. This is the width of the fin. As you can see on the calliper screen, the width is 3.70 mm. So, simple calculation, 4.30-3.70=0.6 mm. Divide by two and that means that the width of each flange is 0.3 mm. What is 0.3 mm? 0.3 mm is the width of a regular business card. In this photo I used the calliper to measure the thickness of a business card. Now, I placed the business card on the fin, on top of the flange. You can see that the flange is actually slightly thinner than the card in this particular spot. Note that this is the widest spot on the flange, it is slightly thinner at the back. Here is a photo of the tailplane attached to the fuselage. Those of you who remember the photos of the flyable aircraft posted earlier in this thread may be able to spot the similarity. Some of you will say "Wait a minute, that is not what we were shown in the photos posted elsewhere." There are two things going on there: Thing 1: Let us remember that when the first complaints about the flange were posted on the internet, they came from people who did not know that the flange was supposed to stand proud of the fin/fuselage. To them any "step" was a "problem", a noticeable "step" was a noticeable "problem". But here is the crux of the issue: a "step" is not a "problem", it is a "feature". I think that that very many photos of the flyable aircraft I posted in this thread demonstrated clearly that the flange does indeed stand at quite a distance from the fin/fuselage. Thing 2: I can replicate the "problem" with lighting and angle. From this angle the lighting creates a shadow that exaggerates the joint line and makes the flange look huge. This is the part turned around. It changed again. here is the part photographed from above, which really shows the true thickness of the material. Here is a photo from the back: So, that is it, a 0.3 mm (less in some places) flange in scale 1/32. In real life that is 0.3 x 32 = 9.6 mm. That is just shy of 10 mm. Take a metric ruler. Look at 10 mm. Then look at the photos of the flange on the flyable aircraft shown in this thread. You make up your own minds. I hope this helps. Radu
  18. This thread has always been from the very beginning about the real aircraft. The photos, the very many photos, speak for themselves. If this was about a model, then it is about ALL models. This thread was not intended to defend any particular model or, indeed, to condemn any other particular models. Yes, there is no coincidence that this thread was started after the launch of the ZM kit but only in the sense that few people actually understood what was going on in that area, including "experts." Some "experts" still can't seem to be able to understand photos. I hope that my explanations reached enough sane people. As all of you can see I never mentioned even once that this thread was meant to excuse or praise the ZM kit. Others did that. I see that some bizarre dimensions have been thrown into this discussion as some kind of "damning evidence". I do not know what is worse, making up random numbers or falling for it. I am not going to get into that discussion (how do I find any means to answer such strange statements ?) but anyone can take a caliper, measure the kit (any kit) parts and get the correct numbers. Enough hysteria was generated by one particular kit and, as shown above, not based on much reality. Radu
  19. What is this “25 mm” that you are you talking about? Can you please explain? Radu
  20. These are the fasteners. I have many manuals for many versions of the Bf 109 and I cannot find any reference for any specific distance between the flange and fin/fuselage, no number is specified anywhere, it is as if they could not care less. Actually there is no mention of any "flange adjustment" in any manual. Here are the relevant pages from the manual. Here are the component parts from the G parts list: Here is a list of what those numbers mean. The fasteners are items 48/49. Here are the components from the F list. Of note is the profile image that explains the "piano hinge" detail I mentioned earlier in this thread. Here is a list what those numbers mean. I looked at all the documentation I have, and I have a lot, and I cannot find any reference to the distance between the flange and the fin/fuselage. Pvanroy said he had it, so I am looking forward to it. Radu
  21. Can you please post here a scan of that document? I am sure that others would like to see it too. There are plenty of photos (more than "Black 6") that I posted here showing that the distance is MORE, MUCH MORE, than 1.75 mm. Martin, as I said ot you in private as well, you do not need to obsess over "Black 6". You have a terrible fixation with this "damage". OK, let us ignore it. Please explain the other photos I posted showing the same distance between the flange and the fuselage. The photos are just above. Would you like me to post them again? Would you like me to enlarge these photos and put arrows indicating where to look? As for my "affiliation with ZM", there is no need to make this personal. That is a cheap low blow. First of all I am not ashamed of my "affiliation with ZM". Secondly, do you think that saying that is placing some kind of "fog of doubt" over my posts and it changes the reality? The photos (all photos, not just the ones you pick) I posted in this thread show a truth that goes beyond anything to do with me. People can see the photos and can read yor posts. Guess who comes out worse? Radu Later edit: For all it's worth, here are a couple of photos of "Black 6" when it was still flyable, i.e. before the "damage". Note the gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage. To me this "damage" narrative is just a "rodeo clown", something intentionally thrown in to distract and divert attention. Let us stay focused on the subject, which is the flange on the Bf 109. Apparently that overlapping panel under the tailplane was "damaged" when the plane was flyable. "Black 6" was repainted in this photo. This may not be the clearest photo, but the dark shadow on the left of the fin shows that there is a distance between the flange and the fin/fuselage. Spinning propeller indicates that this was still the "flyable" aircraft, i.e. before the "damage". And. saving the best for last, here is a photo of "Black 6" in flight, i.e. before the "damage". Note that gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage. Let us keep in mind that the Bf 109 is circa 9 metres in length. For argument's sake let us say that the photographer was 1 metre away from the nose of the aircraft (but obviously more...) so, let us say that altogether the tailplane is about 10 metres away from the camera. What kind of distance do you think should be there between the flange and the fin/fuselage in order to show up THAT evidently in a photo taken from at least 10 metres away? Need more? I can keep looking. Anyone can look too. You all have Google Images. There is a word for when someone tries to convince you that what you see with your own eyes is not true and you should only believe their words. I am showing images, they only have words. Believe your eyes.
  22. Please look at the photos I showed in my previous post. You can clearly see that there is ABSOLUTELY no change to the tail plane of “Black 6” between the time when it was flying and when it was placed in a museum. There are other museum or flying Bf 109 and Bouchons that show similar features, which I showed earlier in this thread. I showed plenty of evidence in this thread, including other aircraft. You want more? Here is the Air Venture flyable Bouchon. Look at that gap when viewed from the back: Now look at the same tail from the side. The gap is barely visible. THAT is why you cannot see the gap in the photos from the side. Here is the Biuchon of the Aircraft Restoration Company. Look at the gap between the flange and fin/fuselage. Here is one more. See the gap? Here is one I posted earlier in this thread, but here it is again: I can keep going. Keep fighting me and I will come back with more of the same. All of the images above are consistent and show the same thing. They look exactly like “Black 6” ( before and after the accident). I only used photos of “Black 6” because I have many photos of it and it is a beautifully-preserved aircraft, but I can find other photos. You could find them too if only you wanted to find them - these were found on Google Images and it did not take me that long. “There ain’t no man more blind than he who does not want to see.” You mentioned the “damage” to “Black 6”. OK, let us talk about that. The damage suffered by “Black 6” is very well documented. There are many photos on the internet that show how extensive was the damage. It was flattened. The restorers worked really hard to bring the plane back to flyable condition and they did everything exactly as it was supposed to be. Considering what the plane looked like after the accident and how it looks now, it is nothing short of a miracle of engineering. I do not believe that the restorers invested all that skill and effort to get everything restored to perfection and then they had a sudden fit of stunning incompetence just when it came to the tailplane flanges. Radu
  23. Man, this was a weird week! Here is a photo of Flyable "Black 6" from the front: Compare to the "Black 6" as a museum exhibit: Here is a photo of flyable "Black 6" from the back. Compare to the "Black 6" as a museum exhibit: Now, to me they look the same, so the argument of "bad restoration" is kind of moot (as well as being a very tired trope). However, in order o illustrate how elusive this concept of a "gap" between the flange and the fin/fuselage is, here is a photo of the same area taken from one side, on the same day and with the same light. As you can see, the gap that is clearly visible only when viewed straight from the front or the back (see photos above) is virtually indistinguishable from the side. For that reason, the "gap" is not usually visible in many photos. Anyway, I hope this explains it better and I can finally get some peace. I got some strangely aggressive correspondence about this. Radu
  24. This "adjustable flange" thing is not my statement. It is completely new to me too. That "caveat" was introduced by somebody else on another forum. The tailplane of the Bf 109, a thing that no one cared about until one week ago, is now the latest "Lizzo's flute", everyone who was oblivious to it until earlier today is suddenly an "expert." I suspect he added that into the discussion just in case it turns out that there was actually a gap between the flange and the fin and when people challenge him with "but you said there is no gap" he can reply "it was adjustable, I am still right". Radu
  25. Here are some photos of a Finnish Bf 109: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/Mersujuhla2003/ Of note are the following photos: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/Mersujuhla2003/HPIM1990.JPG http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/Mersujuhla2003/HPIM1996.JPG More photos of this aircraft here: https://www.lentoposti.fi/uutiset/juhlavuoden_messerschmitt_nayttely_avautuu Note this photo: Here is one photo of another Finnish Bf 109 taken from this link: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/167271/167271.htm Note the gap: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/167271/271mo-33.jpg This one is restored. Note the gap: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/611943/POF064.jpg This one was flyable. Note the gap: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/151591/151591-rudder.left.jpg Anyway, to make a very long and very boring story even longer and even more boring, as was mentioned elsewhere, the flanges were adjustable, respectively the distance between the flange and the fuselage could be adjusted. So... Radu
×
×
  • Create New...