Which Tiger Moth kit? Part 11

[mozart 13,294]

Part 11 - THE MISSING BITS!!!

 

It occurred to me that if this thread is destined to be saved for reference purposes and be of use to ernest modellers, it would be useful to include information on areas that all three kit manufacturers have omitted, all situated above and forward of the front cockpit.

 

Fuel line and cranks:

 

The pictures say it all really.  The sedimentary sump underneath the fuel tank needs work on all the kits; it's an anonymous bump.  As can be seen there's a fuel and drain **** (the software won't allow me to type that oh so naughty word, but it's on the picture!!) exiting towards the port side which needs to be scratch built.  The pipe runs down the front of the forward cabane strut and into the top nose cowling.

 

 

 

Related to this, and shown in the above photos, is the crank mechanism which regulates fuel supply to the engine, clearly shown in the pictures I hope.

 

Slat control wires:

 

On the starboard side a wire runs up the aft cabane strut after exiting the fuselage:

 

 

The cable is attached to the slat control lever which is only in the rear cockpit:

 

 

At the top of the cabane strut it runs across the rear of the fuel tank thence through the wings via a pulley system to the slats on the forward edge:

 

Our Moths are fitted with the "green bag" which enables the pilot in the front cockpit to see via the bags' position whether the slats are deployed or not, I don't know if these were standard features on wartime Tigers.

 

This is a busy area; fuel line and cranks, slat wires not to mention two sets of "X" rigging.  It's very easy to miss these features but they add so much to the look of the model when added.  This is "work in progress" on my Silver Wings kit as an example:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by mozart

[MARU5137 16,111]

Max,

I agree that those missing parts be included and 

you've done a fantastic  job saving a lot 

of Modellers  from headscratching and pulling their hair out *if none are follicular challenged *.

Perfect job from you collating all the information  and photographs. 

All in a neat pile .

   

 

Your hard work, research  and painstakingly written articles *plus photos* are really appreciated. 

Thank You.

Bravo. 

[geedubelyer 1,430]

Brilliant references Max. Those will come in extremely handy. 

Many thanks. 

 

Cheers

[Uncarina 6,119]

Thank you Max! This is simply one of the very best kit to kit to aircraft comparisons I have ever seen. 

 

Sincerely,  Tom

[mozart 13,294]

Thank you my friends, pleased to know my travails have been of use though as I mentioned previously I thoroughly enjoyed doing it. I see ICM are bringing out the Canadian version later this year, a very astute move from an astute company! I can't say that I know a great deal about the Canadian Tiger Moth, but here are a few selected photographs of the one at Hamilton Ontario when I was there in 2014:

 

 

 

No leading edge slats so no wire fitted.

 

This must be the front starboard inter-plane strut because the item in front of it are the tubes from the pitot head.

 

 

Clear shot of the tail "shield".

 

Talking of "shields", the fairing for the rudder cables is more sophisticated than the standard fitting.

 

 

Fuel line and cranks!

 

I have more should anybody need any further detail.

Edited February 4 by mozart

[jeroen_R90S 269]

I have no direct interest in the Tiger Moth, but still thanks -very informative and a good read

[seiran01 4,758]

Bloody well done!!!

Now I just need someone to make decals or masks for RNZAF moths

[Alain Gadbois 2,312]

Thanks for the photos max!

Good of ICM to make the Canadian version as a separate kit, as there are so many small but important differences I think there will be few common parts found in the new boxing.

Some differences apart from those you mentioned: tail wheel, instrument panels, engine cowls hinged at the top.

And something common to both version that one of your pictures here shows very clearly: the gap between tail planes and elevators is covered with a strip of fabric.

 

Alain

[mozart 13,294]

The Canadian version looks “beefed” up a bit to my eyes Alain, differences made to suit the local conditions much like the Australian version. Yes, there is fabric covering “the gap” between planes and control surfaces on our Tiger Moths too.  How many modellers would think it wrong to run a line of putty along them? 

[quang 2,595]

Hello Mothmen,

Here’s at long last a quick comparative study of the 3 kit panels against the real thing.

 

I took as a reference the upper hinge of each panel. At least they have the same length .

 

Apart from the obviously oversized Revell, the other two are within the limits of usefulness. Don’t trust the rear side of the panels because those 2D shapes are often misleading in depicting compound curves.

Furthermore to be really free of distortion, photos of the reference aircraft should have been taken at a distance with a long tele-lens. This is why close-up photos found on internet are more often than not misleading.

 

HTH

Cheers,

Quang

[MARU5137 16,111]

Thanks Quang.

[mozart 13,294]

Crackin’ job Quang. The aft end of that panel is difficult to assess in 2D because of the curve on it where it clears the oil tank cover, but a very useful exercise you’ve done there nonetheless. I should offer my apologies for not having had the foresight to take my long lens with me that day! 

[quang 2,595]

 

5 hours ago, mozart said:

I should offer my apologies for not having had the foresight to take my long lens with me that day! 

The long lens wouldn’t be of any help in this case, Max.
To use a long lens, you’d have to put some distance between the camera and the subject, something most impractical in the cramped confines of a hangar. The best would be to do it outdoors.

 

My quick study above is one of the reasons I cannot trust drawings. Having dabbled in technical drafting during my studies, I learned that 2D drawings cannot accurately convey the intricacies of a complex curve. I’d rather check the accuracy of a model by comparing it with photographs. Perspective does make a difference.

 

Of course, there’s the modern technique of 3D plotting but that’s another story. 

 

Cheers,

Quang

[mozart 13,294]

Yes I was being slightly ironic in my long-lens apology Quang  but you're absolutely right about not trusting drawings.

[quang 2,595]

16 minutes ago, mozart said:

I was being slightly ironic

Slightly?