Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About titan

  • Rank
    LSP Junkie

Recent Profile Visitors

244 profile views
  1. On wingtips: The wingtip is way too thick. Honestly this was more noticeable to me than the airfoil cross-section issue. As I've been trying to work a fix for the airfoil I'm finding that forcing the wingtips into a narrower shape may be next to impossible due to the way the wings are molded and internal stresses in the plastic; even after stripping out all the internal ribbing. At this point my solution is to slice the wingtips off and 3D print new ones. Alternatively you could do some very careful thinning of both the leading and trailing edges though I fear that in order to get the wingtips thin enough you would need to remove so much material that you would alter the shape of the wing in plan view. Also the kit wingtips have both -J and -D navigation lights molded on. Personally I'm fine with this. I find it much easier to remove the light for the version I don't need then to scratchbuild a light for the version I do need that isn't there. I just the wish the instructions mentioned that the modeler needs to do that. For a B-24H or later delete the lights on the tops and bottoms of the wingtips and just leave the ones on the outer edges.
  2. On props: Props diameter is too small by about 5 scale inches. Thats about 2mm per blade. Doesn't sound like much but it means the props are undersize by about 5%. Prop boss diameter is also undersize by 1mm. This is actually quite a bit more noticeable when comparing to pictures of the real thing. Prop blade shape is off from the hub to about the middle of the blade. The blade is flared much too widely near the hub. The maximum blade width should be at a point near the middle of the blade. In fact, the width of the kit blades at the middle point is dead on right. It's just that the segment between the middle and the Hub is mishappen and too wide. The blades could be filed to shape or hopefully Quickboost will produce some better blades. Prop hub dimensions generally seemed okay other than the boss. The outer halves of the blades also seem good for shape other than the issue of the entire blade being too short overall.
  3. 11' 7" diameter Hamilton standard. Early blades were thinner than later blades. The change was somewhere in the D production line if I recall correctly.
  4. I don't think it's quite as bad as it's being made out to be. I think some of the hyperbole is a bit... ridiculous.
  5. It's part of an Electronic warfare system called Carpet. A few B-24s in each group were fitted with it to disrupt German flak radars. Unfortunately the flak could still get lucky and Miss Lace was actually shot down by flak as the last combat loss of the 461st BG. Carpet had three fishhook antennas in clear domes near the front of the plane and an additional antenna towards the rear. More on Carpet and other countermeasures here: http://www.cdvandt.org/rcm_vs_wurzburg.htm
  6. The secret is that I've made every mistake possible. After making all the mistakes the only possible course of action left is to finally get it right. Usually. I do use a variety of plug-ins. I honestly can't remember them all but here are a few: Curviloft by LibFredo - great for generating complex curved surfaces as long as you can define their boundaries Curvizard - good for joining, smoothing, exploding curved lines BezierSpline - Great for creating splines that you can then smooth out with Curvizard Mirror - Makes a mirror image of your selected line, face, part, or model. Absolutely invaluable RoundCorner - Makes round corners, chamfers, and bevels along any edge ToolsOnSurface - Allows you to draw on curved surfaces tt_solid_inspector2 - Makes sure that your part is actually solid. Mandatory if you're trying to create a printable object. I've got a few others in there but those are the main ones I've been using. When modeling for modeling I create the part at 100x final size. Sketchup doesn't like to create high-facet small circles so if I try to make a 50mm circle with 360 facets it will throw an error. If I make a 5,000mm circle with 360 facets it handles that no problem. Weirdly, I can then scale it back down to 50mm also with no problem. For most circles I try to do 360 facets. For large circles or clear parts like the turret I'll got to 720 facets. For small holes I'll do 120 or even less. 48 facets is plenty smooth for a 1mm hole. I'll maybe try to post up a circle tutorial soon. There are some extra gotcha's you can run into if you're not careful. Hope that helps though.
  7. Started in on the instrument panel for fun. First step was to scan the kit part. This is fairly imprecise but it does help me with matching the outline contours. This in turn will make installation into the HB cockpit easier. And started adding instruments. There are actually two types of Privateer instrument panels, an early type for the first 274 aircraft, and a late type for all subsequent airframes. Below is the start of the late type. I've still got a lot of buttons, lights, etc to add but progress is good. The Ginter book has been an invaluable reference. Also, a thousand thanks to Peter from Airscale for his insight on the correct diameters for instrument faces. Most instruments came in a few standard sizes but until today I had no idea what they were.
  8. Another note, that plane had the earlier Martin A-3C dorsal turret. The A-3C had a symmetrical lower-profile dome. The one in the kit is a not-so-great representation of an A-3D where the profile rises towards the rear of the turret.
  9. The big thing you'll need is the Ford nose. It's a different shape than the nose on the J though very subtly. More prominent is the s-shaped panel line/junction between the nose and the rest of the fuselage. The rear frame of the bombardiers window is also slanted aft instead of at a 90 degree vertical angle as on the J. Additionally the waist guns are probably enclosed with a glass window rather than the doors on the J. There are a few other differences though they are mostly minor. Consolidated Mess is a great reference book for additional differences. The author is actually the originator of this topic. Beware if you get the Kindle edition of the book you maybe only able to read it on a desktop computer as the text is very small and there's no magnification function built-in. That makes it somewhat difficult to read on a portable device. That's no slight against the actual book or the author, just a Kindle peculiarity.
  10. Bingo. And working on it. For what it's worth a turret interior would probably cost less than $1 for materials. Same for the exterior. The actual cost is in time to design, print, package, and ship the stuff. But still, working on it. Plan in order is: ERCO spherical Martin A3C dorsal Martin A3D dorsal Emerson A15 nose MPC A6B MPC A6
  11. NEGATIVE! The turret sides are NOT bulged. The effect in the photo above is due to the perspective and extreme close-up. If you look at the turret from the top down the gun ports are perfectly tangential to the sides of the turret. They do NOT bulge outward. I'll see about posting an overhead photo later but this is actually NOT one of the many errors on the nose turret. I'll add also as a general note, this does illustrate the danger in jumping to a conclusion without having the part in hand. By the above photo alone I'd have said HB botched that area immensely. Having the parts in hand I can say that's not the case though they did botch most of the rest of the turret. More on that in a minute.
  12. Yes, the end goal is a marketable conversion. Maybe with a wing correction. I've been distracted of late with holiday planning but I have the Hobbyboss kit in hand and amhoping to jump back in on the 3d design over the next few days.
  13. It is indeed external only. Still annoying and somewhat baffling but not insurmountable.
  14. So on the top turret, the kit part does indeed have a rise toward the rear as in the A3D. That said, in my opinion the rise is not quite enough and it's easy to miss it with the geometry of the gun cutouts. I think they were going for the A3D but didn't get the high hat high enough. Just my opinion after eyeball-only inspection. Out of curiosity, do you or anyone else here have access to good engineering drawings of the A3C and A3D profiles? I've started CAD for an A3C replacement part but I'm not sure I got the curvature totally correct. And I've got less on the A3D. I plan to work 3D printed, non-vac, replacement for the Emerson turret as well. If you don't mind vac, John at Tigger Models has you covered for all the B-24J clear parts.
  • Create New...