Hubert Boillot Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I agree with Mike on all the points he made ... I am working out a tweaks list as I progress on working out different conversion sets. My first priority is the Harvard, with its different canopy, IPs, rear deck behind the canopy, seats, long exhaust with the heating pipe, antennas placement, etc... Then I will have an early AT-6 set, and a "Fighting T-6 Gs" set ... On the general tweaks list, the shape of the LG wells and doors does not match the Paul Matt's drawings (my accuracy reference having compared multiple sets of drawings), being too wide at the LG trunk attachment point, and the resulting angle being different (is that what you are referring to Henry ?) . The wheels are also too small. They were 27" diameter, which makes them 21,4 mm dia in 1/32n when the kit's are 20 mm. I'll work out new ones with and without thread pattern. I can also add the framing structure inside the cockpit which is simplified compared to the original. It's minor, and a reflexion of the choice that was made to have the wing roots with the fuselage halves... On the real aircraft, the center wing was a one piece affair, to which the fuselage frame was bolted in 4 points. As a side note, this is also why the fuel gauges were on the "floor" of the front cockpit (the top of the center wing - and tanks -in fact) where they were gathering all kind of dust and grime, making checking the fuel levels a doubly "interesting" exercise. But the frame has an influence on reproducing the swivelling mount of the rear seat found on early marks of the T-6 and the Harvards IIs ... The fin was offset to port by 1.45 ° to help counter the engine torque. It is not represented on the kit, but I guess a fix can be worked out by sanding the fin leading edge and section to shape (I have not checked yet whether the plastic is thick enough to do so without inside reinforcement with plastic sheet). There could be some more added ... but as I said earlier, 1) it is good to have a 1/32 kit of the T-6, and 2) the basis to produce a good replica is there, with some minor corrections, or more corrections for the rivet-counters who will want greater accuracy. Hubert. Ed Fuquay and Sharkmouth 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBlueHenry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 OK well if the fin doesnt have offset the maybe best to leave it like that as such a small angle difference and trying to modify it will cause more harm than good. and its one of the least noticeable things on a T-6 The part where I was referring to the join is on the upper surface of the centre section, with the wheel cover sticking forward. (not the Udercarriage cover wich is below the wing. im talking about the upper fairing over the weel. will post pic soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Models Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 OK? So you refer to the leading edge area of this part? If that is what you are speaking of? Then yeah it does look a bit pointed. After mine dried I just rounded it off a bit. Make sure you get the two gear well interior detail parts in correctly or you will not be able to install the center section top parts. I removed all of the locating pins on mine and that made it much easier. Kevin mentioned a problem with the center section trailing edge? I am missing something, I don't see it in his photos and had no problem on mine. However you can mess that edge up if you are not careful removing it from the sprue. I almost did and it was a bit janky along that edge but a swipe of a sanding stick fixed it. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 Kevin mentioned a problem with the center section trailing edge? I am missing something, I don't see it in his photos and had no problem on mine. Mike, the trailing edges on mine are both short-shot, though the photos make it a little indistinct against the white background. I'll try to take some clearer photos as we move along. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBlueHenry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Hi - firstly,OK means okey or "allright", sorry might be a South African term? I had been wondering but since it was stated - yes the sticky out part of the wheel cover does looka bit sharp, the part the in green circle. but that i would have to verify when i start looking at my kit which should arrive in a week or two. The parts I had been referring to are the joining "groove" or whatever you want to call that circled in blue and red. The part of the join in blue looks semi acceptable. the area circled in red I am pretty sure is wrong. At this point on the real aircraft the wheel cover has joined flush and there is no angle. bit difficult to explain but it does change the view of that area of the centre section. Compare this to the monogram kit for instance and you may see what i mean in more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBlueHenry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Another little area to have a look at arethe wingtip nav lights. There would have been a few variations of these on different versions. whichever version you are doing - you may need to modify these. I know I need to. these are not correct for what we used in South Africa. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 We probably need to sort out your Photobucket issue all the same. Mike, it just occurred to me that you're probably using IE 11. If you switch to a real web browser (such as Firefox or Chrome), you'll find it all works as it should. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkmouth Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hey, that my photo! If you look at the trailing edges of the center section, you can see the short shot issue. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Models Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I know what OK means. It is a term used here in the US for a very long time same as Okee Dokie! You may be right on this but seems a non issue to most. If it really bothers any of you a swipe of a bit of putty should soften the line. I am not going to bother with it on mine. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Boillot Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Nothing to do with the T-6...but history OK is indeed of American origin. IIRC, it dates back to the Army after-battle reports in the Secession War. OK was in fact 0K, an abbreviation for 0 (zero) Killed. It stuck as some sort of good news, which it obviously was .... Hubert Lee White and Out2gtcha 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconspit Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 ...i'm also unshure if i get me one..., but this looks very good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out2gtcha Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 OK is indeed of American origin. IIRC, it dates back to the Army after-battle reports in the Secession War. OK was in fact 0K, an abbreviation for 0 (zero) Killed. It stuck as some sort of good news, which it obviously was .... You learn neat stuff all the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Ron Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I just opened my kit and to my disappointment it too has the short shot issue on the trailing edge of the upper inner wing as shown in this picture on the left side although mine is a bit worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peterpools Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How disappointing. It's one thing for the inaccuracies but poorly molded parts is another and for what the kit costs, it just shouldn't be. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stetzenko Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The more i read about this kit the more disappointing it is considering the cost. This could have been a huge home run for them. A lttle bit more of preproduction test fitting etc and we would have had a winner on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now