brahman104 Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 9 hours ago, tomprobert said: No - windscreens and forward windows remained unchanged throughout production. The earlier 'sharkfin' tailed models had a third side window fitted and the really early ones had no upper windows, but the windscreen itself was unaltered. The only exception was the later models, when some were fitted with the small 'ice windows' as part of the windscreen. Both Sentimental Journey and Memphis Belle would have had identical cockpit glass arrangements. Thanks for chipping in here Tom! Yes, that's right. I have a good drawing of the window dimensions which I will incorporate into the 3D drawing at some stage. A lot more groundwork to do yet though! Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahman104 Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 3 hours ago, misha71 said: wow. i will follow with great interest. Thanks Misha! Glad to have you on for the journey. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbolt Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 A man with a 3D printer, technical drawings, and a pure love for the aircraft, is a very capable man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn M Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 great thread, following along for sure brahman104 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkis Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 "Thanks Clark! When are you going to plunge into one on here? " Ha! Got me, Craig! In due time, in due time... Your work here is making me consider the HK '17 - I originally thought the nose job was going to be too intense, but you are making it look fun! Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fencer-1 Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 (edited) On 6/6/2019 at 8:54 PM, brahman104 said: Thanks mate. Yes I'm trying to explain my thought processes along the way about where I will make concessions and why. At the end of the day, it's not the definitive approach, only my approach G'day Don, thanks for your interest. I hope it does, and of course there is always many more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. Thunderbolt 1988 is planning a different take than I, and I look forward to seeing his progress as much as my own. Great suggestion about the #4 bulkhead. I did line it up just for a look, but the result hasn't changed too much. See below.. Very interesting thought though, I do welcome your comments and suggestions as go progress! Cheers Thanks Clark! When are you going to plunge into one on here? Hi Kent! Very honoured to have such as talented modeller as yourself following on. I'll definitely be doing my best to give her the nose job she's been needing for too long! G'day D.B. Very happy to hear that! The B-17 has got to be my all time favourite, so I do want to do her justice. I'm looking forward to this evolution indeed! The story continues...... Just a quick one for tonight. As I've said I thought the nose cone piece may also be a little off, but here's the evidence for you to ponder..... I feel like Terry (TKB) may have picked this up a while ago, but the offending shape is around the lower side profiles - somewhat ironic that I've said the kit is overly fat for most of it; that it would actually be a case of it being too skinny!!!!! Not a huge update, but I'm slowly piecing together the profiles of each bulkhead to start the 3D build. Tomorrow I'm going to investigate the nose profile when viewed from above. The general theme I'm getting so far is that HK kept the same cross section from aft forward until the #3 bulkhead, which explains the apparent "fatness." I'm tipping the result will be the same.... Thanks for your interest so far! Feel free to comment and I welcome any discussion that may arise! Cheers, Craig The full fuselage height at STA.1 is 53" in real scale, so it is 42 mm in 1/32. Full height at STA.3 is 83.66" that give us 66,4 mm in scale. All shape of STA.3 bulkhead formed by perfect circle with the radius of 43.66"(69,3 mm scale diameter or width), exept top flattened section. The flattening is located in the sector + 43.75/-43.75 degrees from the vertical axis. The cross-sections between bulkheads STA.4 and STA.5 are perfect circles with the radius of 45" or 71,4 mm diameter (or width we can assess) in scale. Edited June 8, 2019 by Fencer-1 D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahman104 Posted June 9, 2019 Author Share Posted June 9, 2019 7 hours ago, Fencer-1 said: The full fuselage height at STA.1 is 53" in real scale, so it is 42 mm in 1/32. Full height at STA.3 is 83.66" that give us 66,4 mm in scale. All shape of STA.3 bulkhead formed by perfect circle with the radius of 43.66"(69,3 mm scale diameter or width), exept top flattened section. The flattening is located in the sector + 43.75/-43.75 degrees from the vertical axis. The cross-sections between bulkheads STA.4 and STA.5 are perfect circles with the radius of 45" or 71,4 mm diameter (or width we can assess) in scale. G'day mate, thanks for joining in the discussion and I appreciate the input. You are absolutely correct with your scaled dimensions, and if I was going to build a 100% dimensionally accurate B-17 this is exactly the measurements I would be looking to use. You may have missed my previous post when I mentioned that the point of this build is to refine the look of the front end in total, and creating a wholistic outcome which can be blended/ grafted onto the existing kit at STA #4. To do that I have to make some concessions to absolute scale accuracy - if I was to do that I would have to build the entire thing from scratch! If you have a look at my picture below, you'll see the properly scaled drawing in yellow versus what I will be working with (in red) to line up with the kit's STA 4 dimensions. Proportionally, that means all bulkheads and dimensions will also increase. This may come out to bite me in the end, but I think it's the simplest way to go to achieve "the look." You are absolutely correct again, and see below for the comparison between the true scale F model nose and what mine will be. Once again, slightly bigger, but bigger in proportion. I feel if I was to use the real dimensions here it would result in the overall look being off. Thank you for your comments though! I always appreciate questions and suggestions. Cheers, Craig airscale, D.B. Andrus and sandokan 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahman104 Posted June 9, 2019 Author Share Posted June 9, 2019 On 6/8/2019 at 3:55 AM, clarkis said: "Thanks Clark! When are you going to plunge into one on here? " Ha! Got me, Craig! In due time, in due time... Your work here is making me consider the HK '17 - I originally thought the nose job was going to be too intense, but you are making it look fun! Clark I hope you do Clark! Yes I am enjoying the challenge here to make things look right; but it is a lot of work and much much more to do yet. This still maybe too much for most to consider, but I never do things the easy way! Cheers, Craig clarkis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrish Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 Wow! That's all I have! brahman104 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahman104 Posted June 9, 2019 Author Share Posted June 9, 2019 (edited) Continuing on with this merry little experiment. Having ascertained adjusted sizes of the #1,2 and 3 bulkheads, I needed to establish the shape of the horizontal centreline as it runs through them. Unfortunately, the only way I can really do this is to cut along the kit's centreline in order to accurately establish the starting point. When I was working out what I had to modify for the C model, it became apparent that I couldn't just cut the fuselage away forward of the wing, but throwing away everything forawrd of the #4 meant that I was cutting into the leading edge, which is something I didn't really want to complicate matters with. My idea was to cut as close to the leading edge as possible, until I was above the wing, then cut back to the #4 to ensure a good datum. I am hoping that the fuselage doesn't change in cross section between these two points....... The first cuts for comparative purposes are labelled #1 on the kit, after that I will cut back to the #2 line so I can start fresh on the cockpit. Most of us have remarked that Monogram got the shape right with their effort, so I thought it'd be fun to compare the two profiles for interest's sake.... And once removed.... While I have very good side view layout drawings, trying to find a reliable horizontal profile is problematic. Here's the best I've found so far, but as I have mentioned already, this actually doesn't line up when you place all the scaled bulkheads together! I traced the profiles onto paper, then traced them in Rhino for scaling. The cut lines are at 39.5mm and 26mm forward of each kit's respective STA #4. Anyway, after I scaled the monogram line up to 32nd, I referenced all lines to the #1 bulkhead for comparison.... Note: the Factory drawing only runs to STA #3, not where I have cut the physical kits..... Red is the Boeing factory drawing Blue is the HK profile Green is the Monogram Well if we all weren't confused before surely we are now! Check them out against my created profile linking the scaled bulkheads (sorry, shown here in red too, but closely following the factory drawing)..... Between #3 and #4 is not actually straight, only shown here for comparative purposes...... STA #4 width is a guess at the moment, hence the question mark...... From here I need to establish the actual width of STA #4 on the kit, and extend the profiles out to it. What will make this difficult is that from here the cut line will go over the top of the wing and not actually on the centreline. This is where is get tricky! Still not sure how to do it yet.... Cheers, Craig Edited June 9, 2019 by brahman104 kkarlsen, LSP_Kevin and sandokan 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkarlsen Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 (edited) Wow, this is just great stuff Graig... I will pull out my Monogram B-17 from the stash immediately and follow along... Keep it coming! Cheers: Kent Edited June 9, 2019 by kkarlsen brahman104 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fencer-1 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 13 hours ago, brahman104 said: This may come out to bite me in the end, but I think it's the simplest way to go to achieve "the look." Yes, yes! You are absolutely right. The overall shape is more important, then some true dimensions. I just found them to give some "direction" to my own mind, as I am also "lucky" owner of this kit and thinking now about my own correction. There were some kind of reflections, thinking of the topic. I'll try to draw some Rhino files to see. kkarlsen, brahman104 and Thunderbolt 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B. Andrus Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Fencer-1 said: Yes, yes! You are absolutely right. The overall shape is more important, then some true dimensions. I just found them to give some "direction" to my own mind, as I am also "lucky" owner of this kit and thinking now about my own correction. There were some kind of reflections, thinking of the topic. I'll try to draw some Rhino files to see. Fencer Are thinking about marketing a correction for the B-17 nose similar to your 109 products? Cheers, D.B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbolt Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 8 hours ago, D.B. Andrus said: Fencer Are thinking about marketing a correction for the B-17 nose similar to your 109 products? Cheers, D.B. That would be fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKB Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 Craig. You are a glutton for punishment! Yet it is a interesting, enjoyable punishemnt, isn't ? You love it and so do we! You put a whole lot of time, effort and trial and error getting your C "#4 forward" looking right and it's great to see it being applied and massaged on the E/F. Everyone who wants to get that B-17 "face" looking right are getting a good idea of what's wrong, where the error originates and what the options are --- thanks to you. There's a hell of a lot more to it then general perception of "flatten the upper portion of Blk#3." Glad you gave Monogram credit for getting "#4 forward" the closest to being correct. May not be 100% exact, but when you look at her nose, it looks like a B-17 nose from every angle. Obviously back in 1975 they did "their homework." I have to wonder how, 44 years later, "gross errors" are missed or ignored by kit designers. Terry brahman104 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