Kagemusha Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Is the mg ammo bin the box in between the mg's? - if it is could you not just make it a wee bit shorter? Might have been what they did on the original. Very nice work. monthebiff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthebiff Posted January 29, 2018 Author Share Posted January 29, 2018 Is the mg ammo bin the box in between the mg's? - if it is could you not just make it a wee bit shorter? Might have been what they did on the original. Very nice work. Yes it is, had a very small amount of time this evening and the only way to get everything to fit here will be to shorten the bin and also take a little of the width off it, a shame to destroy some of the detail but its the only way to get it all to fit and who will see eveything down in the depths with a coat of RLM 66? Regards. Andy mozart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel460 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Hey Andy, I'm thinking the side walls are the problem with the fit. Everything you are putting in is "scale" but the side walls of the 110 were basically the outer skin and some inner frame work. With the Dragon kit you get the extra wall thickness on both sides plus the space in between the two "walls". This may or may not be the answer, but I don't think cutting down the bins would solve it.... Edited January 30, 2018 by Daniel460 monthebiff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel460 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Andy, Look at Johns build, he has them in. Looks like his MG's are a little farther forward? Dan monthebiff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor John Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Yes Dan as I have said in previous posts to Andy - set up with this style bin and armour at the back of the canopy sill you will have the weapons pointing out either side of the MG 81Z opening (my display model is wrong) We have photographic evidence - i.e Henson example of late style 'tower' ammo bin and armour at back of sill and gun openings either side of MG 81Zs and we have a photo of early style F armour plate inside the sill line with weapons thus further forward due to armour further forward and thus sticking out of canopy further forward and with a completely different bracket system. Both versions were 'in-play' at the same time and can be found on FuG 220 b radar machines but I can only find the late (Hendon) style set up on machines with the latter FuG 220c so obviously the 'late style' became the standard set up from the advent of the FuG 220 c to the end I would hypothesise Edited January 30, 2018 by Pastor John Gazzas, Shawn M and monthebiff 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthebiff Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 Hey Andy, I'm thinking the side walls are the problem with the fit. Everything you are putting in is "scale" but the side walls of the 110 were basically the outer skin and some inner frame work. With the Dragon kit you get the extra wall thickness on both sides plus the space in between the two "walls". This may or may not be the answer, but I don't think cutting down the bins would solve it.... Andy, Look at Johns build, he has them in. Looks like his MG's are a little farther forward? Dan Hi Dan, Thanks for your comments on this one and I would definately agree with your thoughts regarding the side walls, I have had a look and think I can squeeze a bit from the side walls which will definately help. Studying John's pictures and comparing with what I have done I think I have the base of the guns pretty well in the same place.which once again makes me agree with your thoughts regarding the side walls causing things to be off, its a shame John didnt build his show model with the same late set up though as I am pretty sure he will have run into these fit issue;s as well. Regards. Andy Regards. Andy Daniel460 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthebiff Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 Yes Dan as I have said in previous posts to Andy - set up with this style bin and armour at the back of the canopy sill you will have the weapons pointing out either side of the MG 81Z opening (my display model is wrong) We have photographic evidence - i.e Henson example of late style 'tower' ammo bin and armour at back of sill and gun openings either side of MG 81Zs and we have a photo of early style F armour plate inside the sill line with weapons thus further forward due to armour further forward and thus sticking out of canopy further forward and with a completely different bracket system. Both versions were 'in-play' at the same time and can be found on FuG 220 b radar machines but I can only find the late (Hendon) style set up on machines with the latter FuG 220c so obviously the 'late style' became the standard set up from the advent of the FuG 220 c to the end I would hypothesise. Agree entirely with you regarding the pictures of the Hendon example John, I am pretty happy with the positioning of the barrel exit holes on my canopy but it is very, very tight for space in there with the guns tilted towards the rear bulkhead and I'm pretty sure you would have run into the same issue I am having. Such a shame we dont have any really good photograhic evidence of the lower mounts of this set up with the guns in place as well as the co2 bottle tray position as it would answer a lot of questions. Its looking like I need to squeeze some width from the side panels such as removing and refitting the starboard brass panel and thinning the lower cable trunking on the port. I can squeeze the ammo bin back slightly and hopefully all will be well. Any other idea;s or advice would be greatly welcomed. Regards. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheetah11 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Hi Andy If you do some adjusting on some of the parts, make sure you dry fit it before cementing it. This kit fit like a Lego build and any adjusting compromises another part. I shortened the floor and put a piece of 1mm plastic card underneath to strengthen the joint. When it came to fitting the bottom, it interfered with the fit. The kit fits that closely. Nick Kagemusha, monthebiff, mozart and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozart Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Hi Andy If you do some adjusting on some of the parts, make sure you dry fit it before cementing it. This kit fit like a Lego build and any adjusting compromises another part. I shortened the floor and put a piece of 1mm plastic card underneath to strengthen the joint. When it came to fitting the bottom, it interfered with the fit. The kit fits that closely. Nick That is very well put Nick, it's what I was attempting to say regarding the half a dozen or so bits that make up the engine nacelles. On a purely pragmatic basis, much as I strive to make my models as accurate as possible, if those guns aren't going to look well from the "top line" because they are compromised due to the lack of space way down in the depths of the pit, then the pit area will be "amended as necessary"!!!! Max monthebiff and Cheetah11 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalize Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Been reading through this build. Excellent stuff. Love these super detailed builds. monthebiff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor John Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) Hi Andy, Not sure why there is a width issue as the weapons on my display build don't fowl on anything at the sides and I have not done anything to the side walls. My holes in the 'early position' inside the curve of the frame are in the same line as putting the holes either side of the gun opening so width issues should not exist otherwise I would have encountered them myself and I didn't. I think the starting point is the holes and work backwards. Assuming the original drawing of the late set up in the G-4 upward firing cannon Flugzug is spot on then you know the bottom of the weapons are attached to the brackets where the floor meets the armour plate. In the drawing the weapons CO 2 bottle cradle is horizontal and attached to the the MG FFs forward attachment eyebolts. Possible test - It seems to me that the thing to do it leave one side off - tape the canopy to the remaining side - place a weapon in so its muzzle is out of hole and butt is where floor meets armoured plate and then measure the straight line between the weapons eyebolt and the armoured plate. If the Co 2 cradle can not go straight then the armour plate needs to go a fraction backwards or the tray needs adjusted. Obviously my designs are based on photographic evidence available - not being sensitive, just saying - I was never going to be allowed inside the cockpit with a camera and tape measure and so there is good chance my measurements here and there are as off as anybodies but not by much - the kits sill is a known fixed measure - you can see in the photo the approx depth of the tower style ammo bin and you can see that the armour plate starts where bin ends and so if my measurements are wrong I think we are only talking fractions that have tricked the eye so to speak. I do not know Andy if you have located your armoured wall far back enough? Please check and then maybe if possible do the test I have suggested. Hope that helps Edited January 31, 2018 by Pastor John Shawn M, Out2gtcha, Uncarina and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthebiff Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 Hi Andy If you do some adjusting on some of the parts, make sure you dry fit it before cementing it. This kit fit like a Lego build and any adjusting compromises another part. I shortened the floor and put a piece of 1mm plastic card underneath to strengthen the joint. When it came to fitting the bottom, it interfered with the fit. The kit fits that closely. Nick I've noticed the fit is pretty tight on this kit Nick, no plans to go hacking things about to drastically at all though. Regards. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthebiff Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 That is very well put Nick, it's what I was attempting to say regarding the half a dozen or so bits that make up the engine nacelles. On a purely pragmatic basis, much as I strive to make my models as accurate as possible, if those guns aren't going to look well from the "top line" because they are compromised due to the lack of space way down in the depths of the pit, then the pit area will be "amended as necessary"!!!! Max Quite right Max, sometimes needs must on a build if we want to get it to completion and if its done with care then nobody will know! Regards. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthebiff Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) So I have now got to the bottom of the SM gun installtion fit issue's and it is down to a couple of things in my mind and worth documenting for those who are planning this build. I am now happy with the fit inside the closed fuselage and after remedial work this is where I am now. To get to this point I first removed the MG 81 ammo bin I had previously glued in place, next I removed the lower etched panel PE37 from the starboard cockpit side wall I had fitted earlier as I noticed I had fitted this diferently to Johns show model as you can see below. Initially I fiitted on to the lip but it needs fitting below the lip. I did this originally as it fitted nicely in this position when mated with the cockpit floor. To get this part to fit below the lip you need to remove around 1.5mm to get a good fit,I aslo made sure when I re fitted PE37 it was close against the side wall to give me as much room as possible. Before and after I then fitted the cockpit tub into the fuselage , fixed the starboard MG and checked alignment with the canopy and fixed its position with a dab of cyno to the pin just protruding from the cockpit floor. I then reoved everything from the fuselage and re-glued the MG 81 bin back into place followed by re closing the fuselage and fixing the port gun into place and now the guns fit nicely without fouling anything. Now need to get the co2 tray and associated plumbing in place which should be interesting but much happier now I have overcome this initial problem. Regards. Andy Edited June 29, 2018 by monthebiff Bill Cross, Greg W, Trak-Tor and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunnus Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Great going on the SM guns. Imagine the position you have to been to fire those things... it'd have been prudent to wait until the bomber had dropped its load or else! monthebiff 1 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