Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

CLICK HERE to see posts in last 24 hours

Welcome to Mainly Military modelling. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Trumpeter 1:48 A3 Skywarrior; Notes on a theme.
Topic Started: Jul 20 2013, 11:39 AM (11,518 Views)
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
Not really a WiP as such - I don't expect to make this a blow-by-blow account of a build, in fact I hadn't expected to write an account at all.

However, a couple of little issues came up in early assembly which I hadn't read in any of the online reviews I've seen thus far so I thought that if and when probs came up, I'd jot them down here to help anyone else. If you're looking for a review of the kit, or a summary of accuracy, then you're not going to find those things in this thread. As far as possible this will be a straight-from-the-box build, correcting things I personally think need sorting on the way.

Neither will I be going in for any gratuitous Trumpeter-bashing. I like Trumpeter, personally I think they've got the patience of saints to cope with some of the lurid comments aimed their way. Whilst I had no intentions of finding fault with the kit in those terms, I'm hoping some of the things I highlight here might prepare a builder better for their own build.

No potted history of the Whale here:- there's plenty of places you can find all that. No photographs of the box or sprues - again, I'd just be repeating info available elsewhere. So, of fools and angels, I rushed into the build.

It only occurred to me on clipping the parts from the sprues, that whilst I've owned a good number of Trumpeter Aircraft kits, bought them, sold them off, bought them again, sold them off again, this will be the very first Trumpeter Aircraft I've actually built. I think I've owned a good thirty. This is the first one I've committed a build to.


Cockpit assembly is the first item in the instruction sheet.

Posted Image

Fit of parts is perfectly good. Ease of identifying the bits on the sprues is fine, but the interior painting instructions are both spartan and open to question. 'Black' is specified for the console panels - so far so good - but Trumpeter specify 'white' for the rest of the crew compartment. Which (to me) sounds distinctly unlikely. I've gone for the standard US Navy interior grey for those areas instead and will accept the approbrium if I've second-guessed Trumpy incorrectly. One item mounted on the rear bulkhead of the crew compartment immediately above the hatch is an unidentified box to which several PE parts - straps - are attached. It would have been helpful to the prospective builder if Trumpeter had identified this item. I'd previously guessed it was an inflatable emergency liferaft. Got it wrong, Dad.... It's a fold-down seat for a fourth occupant of the compartment, hence the straps.

As identified elsewhere, the seats are moulded as a standard, whilst the headrest for the pilot is very significantly different to those occupied by the other two crew members. In the case of my kit, I've performed the necessary surgery and later photos will show the corrected detail.

The cockpit mounts to an assembly which forms the crew access tunnel, which itself will be joined with the bomb-bay.

Posted Image

In this particular case, I'm pretty sure that area is white, as is the bomb-bay interior. The cockpit area was sprayed with Tamiya grey primer and the tunnel and bomb-bay with Halfords primer white. Fit of parts is good, whilst tight and because this interior begins to form an assembly in its own right, you need to keep dry-fitting it into the fuselage to ensure you're not developing unseen drift problems in angle and location.

The bomb-bay forms a large and strong box with restrained and sharp detail.

Posted Image

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7308/8734798...9c23e2864_n.jpg

The link there to a photo of that area of the real beastie shows a Whale with the refuelling equipment in location, and is not wholly representative of a bomber, but important detail can be seen here which really prompted my write-up.

Whilst in the Trumpeter kit the interior detail is well-realised, the Vee-strutting you see in the real thing, which is universal to the variants of the Skywarrior which were built as bombers, is entirely missing from the Trumpeter kit. It's not the end of the world, and I can work thru' that, as you'll read later.

There are some good references for the Skywarrior around the internet, but I'd recommend 'Naval Fighters Number Forty-Five Douglas Skywarrior' Pt's one and two....

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Douglas-A3D-Skyw...=item3f24f55daf

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Douglas-A-3-Skyw...=item19de906df5

.....but if you can find this one....

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DOUGLAS-A-3-SKYW...=item5651067f2f

....at a sensible price (that one isn't...!!...) then it's highly recommended.

Comparing the photos of the bomb bay interior with the first mentioned publication, those pictures depict the bomb-bay set up for a central store. It also shows the bay interior in a darker colour however, I'm inclined to assume that was the bay colour for earlier A3s which would have been delivered in the Midnite Blue colour scheme. Other photos of the weapon bay invariably show it to be white. In the link I've provided for the tanker-configured airframe, the darker ceiling you see there is not part of the airframe, it's part of the refuelling equipment structure.

Couple of problems here:-

During assembly, the instructions have the modeller glue a plastic rod around two inches long into a lower edge. In a subsequent step, an airframe bracket needs to be assembled into the structure's side, and is conflicted by that same rod. Build the bracket into place first, then place the rod in.

The fwd bulkhead of the Weapon bay comprises a crew access opening and features actuators which set the bomb-bay door open angle. In Trumpeter's kit, whilst the parts are ok for me, the location of the actuators does not help the modeller appreciate the angle which the parts need to assume to give the correct bomb-door seating. A template on the instruction sheet would have been helpful in this case. As it happens, I glued them in to give an angle which will ultimately be a bit too wide. They've since been removed and consigned to a safe place. Best leave them safe on the sprue until you're close to completion - they'll do nothing but interfere with further construction and will be just as likely to break and go missing if added at this early stage.

Posted Image

It's rare I build a model with a bomb-bay open, but wanted to on this occasion, so I won't be in a position to see how the kit assembles for a modeller who wishes to close this area off. Invariably that's not easy, had something of a nightmare with the Airfix Canberra trying to build it with the doors closed...

To come back to the weapon bay interior, I'm guessing that the airframe interior here needed to be mechanically configured for specific styles of store - the photos hint that the mountings and brackets are moveable and changeable as to the size and number of types of ordnance carried. Trying to put myself in Trumpeter's shoes they could have tried to provide the necessary extras but the complications involved would have put the price of this kit up very considerably. I bought this one for sixty quid, and considering that Hasegawa have recently invited buyers to part with fifty quid for one issue of their 1:72 Grumman Avenger, I'd say you've got good value for money in this boxful. Whether Trumpeter should have provided more is essentially academic. They didn't. The modeller either accepts that or goes into a session of petulant foot-stomping. Either way, the parts won't magically appear spontaneously.

Ultimately, the patient modeller will be likely to see a bomb-bay interior update kit from one of the aftermarket sources which will help out. We'll see in the fullness of time.

Hence - as per practically all keen modellers of 1:48 Naval Cold War subjects - I have a large spares box comprising model railway diorama accessories.

Posted Image

This Kibri crane was bought as one of a batch from Ebay some years ago. I bought it specifically for spares in terms of gantries and brackets etc.

Part of the crane support will be used to build a representation of the proper bomb bay structure. It's my intent to arm the model here with three Mk.25 Air Dropped mines which will be scratchbuilt. Thus only the sides will be visible - release brackets and sway braces etc will be concealed so I won't be adding anything as a representation for them - they'll never be seen.

Evergreen strip plastic sets give v-section girders which frequent many model shops and one length of around half-inch\one centimetre width should suffice if you want to enhance the bomb-bay interior in the same way. I give no assurance they're exactly right - I doubt the crane parts above will be 'exactly' right, but at least they improve the appearance.

Tha'ssall for now. Enjoy the sunshine...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark M
Member Avatar
Hawk T1
Dave this is a very interesting read, thanks for posting
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olde Farte
Member Avatar
Lt. Derek 'Smurfy' Reeve
Thanks for this Dave, it will be a big help when I eventually build mine. Did you know that SAC have a metal U/C which has been corrected and refined.

See here. http://scaleaircraftconversions.com/moreinfo.cfm?KIT=431
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
Olde Farte
Jul 20 2013, 01:02 PM
Thanks for this Dave, it will be a big help when I eventually build mine. Did you know that SAC have a metal U/C which has been corrected and refined.

See here. http://scaleaircraftconversions.com/moreinfo.cfm?KIT=431

Thanks for that - but I've already started putting the kit parts into their respective U\C bays - it's one of those undercarriage assemblies where the whole thing is one mutual build. You can't add the undercarriage after the bays are complete and I can't remove what's already done without damaging the bays unfortunately.

However, at the end of this thread I may list a section of links helpful to the prospective builder and I'll add that one too. By the time I finish this one there'll doubtless be a more comprehensive selection of extras and references to link to this kit.

Thanks once again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark M
Member Avatar
Hawk T1
dave when your done ill pin this as a unltimate guide :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
Thanks for that Mark.

A wee bit of progress and some points which don't really need photos.

As with all larger size aviation kits, this model has its fair share of two-part assemblies which complete a single feature of the airframe, whether it be fin, rudder, aileron, speed-brake etc. This is one of the largest aircraft kits I've built for some time. The Skywarrior is longer than a Lancaster and if you aren't building the kit with fin folded, it's also fairly tall. You're essentially looking at a completed kit which will be just short of the size of the Airfix 1:24 Harrier.

I usually progress this throughout a build as routine so's individual assemblies can be completed with final painting added some time prior to the rest of the main assembly being completed.

With regard to some of the flying surfaces, elevator, rudder etc, the hinge location tolerance is very tight indeed, in fact a tadge less than no room for error. A tiny smidgin of shaving needs to be taken out of the hinge recesses and a little off the proud hinge stubs themselves to loosen the fit slightly.

As these joins are, if you try to force the fit, those close tolerances will force a distortion in the trailing edge of these parts. The plastic in this kit is semi-soft and even if you think you've done a reasonable job in ensuring the parts are straight, hot weather could still compel a marginal distortion of the parts. A little additional slack introduced here will be a must.

Mating faces of upper and lower halves of the elevators will need to be dressed slightly - the join is less than as positive as it ought to be. As per the rest of the kit, sprue gates where they link to the model are moulded partially across mating edges and joins, and this obviates a tiny bit extra work on these areas than would normally be traditional.

A look at the Photo-etch parts elsewhere shows on careless first sight that plate coverings for the bomb doors are duplicated. I'd originally guessed that they'd made a boo-boo in an initial issue of the fret and simply added a replacement. However, a closer inspection reveals that one of the frets comprises bomb door plates which feature a tapered aperture opening at one end. Exactly where they would fit around the reel fairing for the tanker version.

Plastic bomb door mould sprue is identified in this kit as 'LB'. It's not too far a stretch of the imagination to see that a future tanker version is definitely in preparation, and I'd not lose too much of a stake in betting the bomb door sprue in that future version will be identified as 'LK'. There are also a couple of unexplained location holes in some of the bomb-bay bulkheads. Below the etch brass Tanker door plates are sixteen intricate and sharp triangular lattice pieces, a little more than half an inch long. They're identified on my instruction sheet as unused for the bomber version of this kit. I could be wrong but I'm going to suggest they will eventually assemble to become the conical flight refuelling nozzle.

They could of course represent a series of aerials for a version I've never spent much time looking at, or structural parts for a future bomb-bay fitting, but again, we'll see in the fullness of time. Other unused parts, for example on one of the transparency sprues also give other hints. There are two large circular portholes unused, which would be exactly the right size for the fuselage side camera apertures for the RA-3B version (which will need a new fuselage).

Having said all that, I was convinced that some features Trumpeter introduced in their 1:32 Swordfish were to facilitate a floatplane version release - and several years on we would still be waiting for that as-yet unannounced version. Just because Trumpeter have introduced the potential for other versions of the Whale will not necessarily mean the version you're waiting for will be just round the corner....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
OK. Bit of progress and there's a developing 'thing' with this model which is more a sentiment than a problem.

Bomb-bay interior has been given a wash - a mix of isopropanol (Tamiya thinners...) and Windsor and Newton Peat Brown drawing ink. A generous wash dries matt and gives a fairly pleasing discoloured dusty hue. When dry this was drybrushed with matt white. The superdetailer could spend a couple of months in this area adding pipes and conduits and other thingummyjigs but my personal rule for the kit was as straight from the box as I was willing to tolerate.

Posted Image

The second photo shows the gantry I looked out last week laid in place in the interior. Naturally there's more to come there, but whilst it stands out a wee bit too proud, it does at least represent the interior a little better.

Posted Image

Cockpit.

Here's a good example of the emerging 'thing' about this kit.

Posted Image

Those who don't like being patronised, look away now.

When I started modelling, television was steam powered, the First World war was a twinkle in the Kaiser's eye and model aircraft cockpit interiors were represented as a roughly-helmet shaped globe on a featureless area under the transparent canopy. Since then, I have become ever more amazed at the level of detail a kit company is prepared to donate to a model.

The cockpit we have here is quite superb.

In terms of a kit first appearing in 1978.

In terms of a present-day kit of this particular subject costing £60.

But not in terms of the state-of-the-art.

Posted Image

In a different world, maybe one day Monogram would have got round to this kit. A comparison between the cockpit interiors of their 1980 F-4 Phantom in 1:48, or their 1987 F-8 Crusader in the same scale - and their corresponding Hasegawa compatriots would demonstrate that Monogram had a knack of imparting real three-dimensional presence into their interiors, whilst their Hasegawa associates are sharp, technically accomplished, but lack that kind of life - of spark - that Monogram revelled in.

Same with this kit. The real cockpit interior is a lot more lived-in than Trumpeter's Ikea interpretation. The side walls and rear bulkheads would be padded. The canopy moulding is superb, clear and sharp, but entirely featureless within. The Whale featured a fairly heavy internal framing for the cockpit roof between the transparent frames. There is a prominent hatch which whether on deck or on land, appeared to have been invariably opened when the aircraft was parked up between flights. The modeller who would wish to open this up is given a tricky task which really could have been made easier with a bit of advance thought.

The Pilot's seat and rear-facing seat were in linear tandem - Trumpeter's rear-facing seat is offset to port around 1mm and if the modeller wishes to re-locate that seat correctly, then it will be placed 1mm over the hatch which leads to the crew access tunnel.

Now, before that begins to sound like an anti-Trumpeter whine - it's not. I've more observations to point out, but 'aren't-Trumpeter-rubbish,-aren't-I-a-clever-clogs' isn't where I'm going with this.

Normally with after-market, my first preference is for additional parts to give options for what isn't already in the box. I wouldn't normally replace what I'm already happy with.

Knowing what I see in this cockpit interior, if I knew in advance what would be needed to bring it up to a good detail standard, I'd personally wait for a replacement cockpit from one of the usual sources. I rarely replace a cockpit because from my own observation, AM parts frequently seem to be an identical twin of the parts you're replacing. Not here. This kit could do with a replacement cockpit.

The side panels are photo-etched, but with very little detail relief. The detail is barely a couple of microns thick and will vanish under even a coat of spray paint. The pilot's seat, even with the headrest removed is the wrong style, strictly-speaking, although to be fair, could be worked up to the correct appearance. However, there should be boxing-in panels at lower front. There are is no provision for rudder pedals and the area they'd be is an open void.

(Yes - more problems to come but I will come to the point, honestly...)

A decal is provided for the instrument panel but the details don't match the locations of the dials moulded into the panel itself. I'm of the opinion it was designed to apply to the rear of the transparent moulding of the instrument panel (if it wasn't, there would have been no logical reason to mould this panel in transparent form?)

I cut the decal into three separate parts to try to align the dials in a better manner - a little slapdash - a more patient effort would reap rewards.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I don't think I've carried out this 'behind-the-instrument-panel' dial seating since I built the Airfix 1:24 Harrier in 1974, so you'll have to forgive a wee bit of off-register drift, but I don't think it looks too bad.

But.

Now. Other than the seats in place, and the pilot's spectacle control grips, this is the cockpit in its entirety. No knobs for the radar operator's area. No throttle levers or undercarriage actuators. The real cockpit area features prominent white ID around each dial and control. I can't do much more than a wee bit of dry-brushing to add depth to this area, but I can't help feeling that Eduard could do enormous justice to this area with some pre-painted etch.

Here's my developing thoughts on the model:-

It feels unloved. Abandoned by Trumpeter at a late stage. The kit isn't incomplete, just lacks a real finishing pride. A few silly mistakes which are easily rectified. Missing detail which would hardly tax a modeller of even moderate talent. But a lack of process which would otherwise have turned a fine kit into a masterpiece. More examples of that I'll cover in coming additions here but if I didn't write down what are effectively my conclusions here, what I write would easily be interpreted as self-important moaning. And that's absolutely not my intent. I'll cover more of the 'ancient modeller' pondering later too - it will be relevant, but I just want to keep to the kit at these stages.

For example. Some of the developing reviews I've read in recent days say of one particular area or other, phrases which are effectively ...'That's wrong, this is wrong, that doesn't look right, the other bit doesn't look like that in real life'... ...but entirely without any credible sign of how the modeller might redress the inaccuracies - if indeed there are any. So far, I've come up with what seems to be around four broad cockpit interior painting standards even for the earlier airframes. Upon the large number of conversions and specialist airframes, there is an even greater scope for anomaly and difference. I have no intentions of promising I somehow know what's going on. I'll just interpret what I see and deduce to the best of my observations and go on that.

And due to many, many anomalies and differences, contradictions and confusions I see in online and published references, I suspect Trumpeter were equally bewildered, and have ultimately given the best they could at the time - albeit with those aforementioned silly mistakes.

It's understandable. One thing you need to appreciate about the Whale is that there are essentially two variants, and two alone. You get airframes built as 'A Bomber'. If the Skywarrior you are building wasn't built as 'A Bomber' then it was built as 'A Version'.

'The Versions' differed in internal structure, in layout, in essential purpose and nature. Externally they're undeniably a Skywarrior but the importance is you have to understand that well in advance if you wish to make anything other than a bomber from this kit. My initial instinct was to build a reconnaissance version - but the conversion would have been beyond the scope of the work I wanted to put in on this occasion. I hadn't appreciated the fundamental difference between a bomber-origin built airframe from a Version airframe. There are tremendous complications and variants which flow from those two airframe differences, but that fundamental first difference needs to be borne in mind. Trumpeter seem to have mixed important aspects of all of those factors into a single 'everyman' kit.

As I've said earlier - the kit in front of me cost only sixty pounds. No matter what I've said about it in shortcomings thus far, it's still excellent value for money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

This is great, all the info none of the bollocks you get else where. Thankyou for taking the time to do this :cool
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mosquito
Member Avatar
Kit reviewer
This is a great thread and WIP mate. :cool
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
First - a slight correction. In the details with regard to the cockpit above, I failed to make note that the kit cockpit is made complete with the addition of the equipment mounted to the box the rear-facing crew member operates. This is the scope for the rear-defence cannon. I'm building an airframe with the ECM tail (the duck-butt, was one of its most popular nicknames..) and so hence it's not fitted here. As mentioned earlier, this isn't really a review of the kit. Anything I'm not using (like the nose radar) will get no consideration, however those parts will be discussed a little on.

I've also become aware of an individual who will be intent on moulding a resincast insert for the builder to build the kit with bomb doors closed, and I'll add that at the info at the conclusion.

The kit comprises two assemblies to build engines which can be mounted with cowling panels open for display. They are provided within two identical sprues.

Posted Image

Posted Image

The fit of parts is exemplary and I can't see any room for complaint for the general buyer of this kit. The fairing in the centre of the jet exhaust opening is a little too far aft here and it should be assembled around four millimetres further forward for best visual effect. A superdetailer will wish to add piping and sharper fittings and may *may* wish to add more detail, but...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Have a look at the real thing.

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/whale-rescues/...ds-project.html

The cowling inners are busy with internal ribbing and other detail which Trumpeter has omitted entirely. It's prominent, and a builder of a kit with the engines on show for display will not be content to let that pass by.

I'm not a serious builder of aircraft in any scale any more. My interests are elsewhere, so I'm looking at this as no more than a curious onlooker. In forty-odd years I don't think I've wanted to display more than two aircraft powerplants on a single model, and certainly not in the past quarter century. That's me. I can only speak for myself. With that in mind, I've noticed that - in particular with regard to kits from the east - the provision of aircraft powerplants to give display potential seems to be becoming commonplace. Not quite obligatory, or even the norm, but it's frequent now.

My guess, and guess only, is that around one in ten people will build the kit with even one engine on display. The kit makes provision for open or closed configuration. However, the configuration for the bomb doors within the kit is open-only. Therefore, let's say at least sixty percent of builders of this kit will build with the bomb-bay open?

In my opinion, to correct the shortcomings the kit has I've mentioned earlier, I would have economised and omitted the engines from the kit, and have provided a superior cockpit and bomb-bay tooling. Whilst there would still be people wishing to detail the model with powerplants on open display, the kind of modeller who would do that would normally seek after-market sources in any case, and I have a feeling those parts the kit already comprises will not be adequate to those exacting expectations.

Further justification for that:-

When the real airframe was at rest, it was almost invariable to have the lower crew access and canopy access hatch open. (That canopy hatch was also locked open for launch to facilitate quick escape during the catapault launch. Locked in a post-launch routine subsequent to take-off...). The bomb-bay doors in the bomber versions were frequently open. Not always, but I'd incline on the basis of observation to say 'usually'.

None of the usual references for the Whale comprised a photograph with one, let alone two, engine cowlings open in a manner which suggested routine flightline configuration. I had to look carefully online to locate the link I've added earlier, and in fact (sadly) it was easier to find online articles and links to the use of A3 Skywarriors in an alleged 9\11 conspiracy plot variation.

(Irritated wasn't the word....)

However, conveniently the cowlings seem to have been painted to hinge line where colour demarcation is concerned. Final painting of the jetpipes will be closer to final assembly after I've painted the cowlings.

Neither to this moment have I found a photograph of a Whale with open Radome. I'm looking. Doubtless I'll find one, but not yet.

The radome interior....

Posted Image

....is as featureless as the interiors of the engine cowlings. There would have been structural ribbing and probably blocks for interlocks etc. Again, the superdetailer will have to add all that.

And with everything open, whilst the superdetailer has had a fantastic year of absorbing work, and doubtless a memorable and photogenic work, that model will not necessarily represent the general in-service look that 90% of the buyers of this model will be intent on seeing. I don't begrudge those superdetailers their opportunity, however, I would suspect they'd agree they'd have preferred to see the additional corrections I've gone thru' in priority to the 'nice-to-have' extras of the radar and engines, that the likelihood is they'd source via external means anyway.

As mentioned in reviews elsewhere, while the radar can be displayed, Trumpeter make no concession to how you might mount the radome on hinges (presuming, even that it was hinged. I'm only working on the basis that a hinged radome seems more or less obligatory in terms for such an airframe?) So, again, I just think it was a superfluous addition.

When I bought this model my initial intent was to build an all-black RA-3B, but shelved the idea when I discovered that it went very considerably beyond my straight-from-the-box decision. I cast around for an airframe I wished to build and found the exact right one. I managed - unintentionally - to settle on an airframe which had the ECM tail and a conical early radome, hence that's why I'm using the kit nose. I'll get to the resincast tail when eventually the fuselage goes together.

Thanks for the comments thus far gents. Much appreciated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
Managed to find a general in-service pic of one engine cowling open - scroll down this page...

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.ca/

Posted Image

Tyres and wheels are separate, and rubber-effect castings provide the tyres.
The mainwheel tyres feature a noticeable annular mould seam which vanishes fairly quickly given treatment with some wet'n'dry, and 'worrying' the entire tyre body will remove the shiny pvc look of the parts. The nose tyre still has a seam but is scarcely notable. However, the look of that part is still improved by giving it a once over rubdown.

As mentioned earlier, I'm not fond of the notion that the undercarriage parts must be assembled within the progressing build. They'll poke proud of the main assembly, will interfere with construction and are a worry for pre-completion breakage. That said, the nose bay assembly is rigid, comprises good detail and assembles positively.

Posted Image

Posted Image

That may look a little under-weathered but all photos I've seen establish some very clean undercarriage bays in service. That weathering I've already imparted is - frankly - excessive. That cleanliness and attention to airframe maintentance standards extends to the whole airframe thru' just about the aircraft's entire career, with the arguable exception of some land-based airframes later in its life. I'll go into a possible reason for that later. However, subtle shading seems to be more the rule with the Whale, rather than discoloured patching.

Posted Image

The mainwheel bay assembly is a sequential left\right build which attaches to the visible interior bulkhead. As per some reviews elsewhere on this kit, the port & stbd bays were not separated in the real in-service airframe by any gap distance (two scale feet'ish as seen here). The entire bay was an empty opening divided by a single central plate, so the bays as seen here are a bit shallow due to the unnecessary provision for two separate bays.

In my opinion, that's academic - they're the right shape and I don't see any benefit the builder will gain from trying to establish the correct internal dimension just for the sake of it. Beyond that, some of the other online builds are consistently reporting problems cramming all internal assemblies together when the two halves of the fuselage are finally joined. I wouldn't recommend any further potential for complicating that fit unnecessarily.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


As can be seen, and as will be seen upon a glance at the instruction sheet, the mainwheel bay assembly breaks down into subassemblies which join to the main bay structure. Some - *some* - parts are well-moulded, well realised and distinct. However, their layout on the sprue will lead the modeller to a false identification of parts in that sequence in a couple of cases. Stick to the instruction sheet part sequence very strictly and identify and remove only the parts to be used, and ensure you remove only the sprue gate stubs. Some parts here carry lugs which will assemble into recesses, and those lugs aren't necessarily well-defined. You'll pare them away without a moment's thought if you're not absolutely aware of the assembly here.

Check the instructions. Check again. Dry fit. Check again. Dry fit again. Again, tolerance of fit of parts here is very tight, and opening out any holes to make the fit more user-friendly is recommended. Check again. Dry fit again. Phone a friend. Call the Samaritans. Get a Councillor. Seek legal advice. Check again. Take a vow of silence. Become a Buddhist and achieve enlightenment. :empire

And only then, apply glue.

The main undercarriage leg, which hasn't been attached as yet, seats into a keyed recess in an upper load-bearing cylinder, the same diameter as the leg. In kit form, this upper member is built from two parts - upper and lower. The upper moulding comprises the hinge around which the leg extends down and outwards, and so that hinge bar is set at a fixed angle around the side of the load-bearing member. (I know. Clear as mud. And that's the best I can do. A consideration of the photos here in comparison with the instruction sheet will assist where my narrative can't keep up...). There is also a three-part assembly strut, the lower hook of which attaches to this upper leg assembly.

That two-part assembly for the upper part of the leg comprises a rectangular recess - when assembled - which a locating lug at the tip of the 'hook' fits into. Whilst the actual fit is ok, the recess isn't very well picked out, and neither does the instruction sheet make clear how this hooked part and the upper leg join together. Hopefully the photos here will help.

Unfortunately there's not a helpful angle at which the final assembly can be photographed at to show clearly. Hence you'll have to do part of this work yourself at the dry-fit stage.

The load-bearing cylinder which will accept the main undercarriage leg attaches within the landing gear bay by means of attachment at the ends of the hinge pins. One end into an angled structural bulkhead which divides the bay quarter way along its length, and the other into the bulkhead which forms the forward limit of the undercarriage bay immediately aft of the bomb-bay. The three-part assembly which forms a hockey-stick hook provides a third bond, but again, the actual area joined is small. Believe me, in literal terms, I just can't explain that in a manner which gives better clarity. Sorry.

This means that the main weight, and sit of the model will be dependent on the security of these tiny attachment points within each landing gear bay. The remotest drift or angular displacement at this stage carries huge implications for your finished model. The undercarriage is narrow-track and the sit of the aircraft is relatively low. It means even a tenth of a millimetre inaccuracy in build will generously donate your model a list to one side or the other by a good centimetre or so in terms of wingtip height. It also means that due to those limited attachments, any scale hard landings your completed model may suffer in its life could well prove to be more of a problem than just minor repairs.

And if you have accidentally removed locating stubs, as highlighted earlier, that makes the task even more complex.

In the search for good scale accuracy here, Trumpeter have built a fairly major potential for difficulty in completing the model successfully. These attachment points should ideally have been presented twinned on a single wide lower plate, the moulded angle already decided within a stronger rigid moulding that would preclude problems. To the modeller who looks upon the undercarriage interior appearance and strict accuracy as critical, this is more of a problem, and your route to solving the problem is as per my suggestion paragraph above. Due diligence and discipline. And prayer.

If you would wish to retain the appearance as is, but would be content with some compromises to protect the build integrity of the kit, and provide for protection against future display model damage, my suggestion is this-

The two part load-bearing cylinders comprise keyed recesses which will accept the respective undercarriage legs. Drill through that cylinder lengthwise in its entirety and insert long metal pins through both, the tops of which rests against the undercarriage bay structure. Those metal pins will now accept the weight of the model. Don't glue as yet.

Remove the keyed lug from the top of each main undercarriage leg and drill through lengthwise maybe a good centimetre. During final assembly and 'sit' development, you can adjust the undercarriage legs along the metal pins until the angle is correct and the wings are level. Copper or brass pins ideally would also give you a little 'bend' potential, if needed.

I'll add photos to that effect as I go along. Additions to the bomb-bay will be the next job.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Olde Farte
Member Avatar
Lt. Derek 'Smurfy' Reeve
This is a great review and build, when it's finished can it be pinned somewhere please to save me printing it out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I most certainly will be pinning it for future reference.

When someone takes the time to do something like this it won't be lost among other posts :cool
Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
To be accurate, it isn't really a bomb-bay. It's a large opening in the kit representing the airframe structure, but there are no concessions to weapon carriage of any kind in the kit. What would qualify it as a bomb-bay is the physical equipment to mount the ordnance within this opening. That will be down to you if you want it, via aftermarket options if and when they come, or by scratchbuilding.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I had some money burning a hole in the pocket and I'd intended to look at picking up an Airfix Lancaster Mk. II but they'd all sold out when I got to the model shop, so among other things, I picked up the correct size 'V' girder mouldings from the accessories rotunda in the shop. So I've replaced the bits of model crane I'd already installed in favour of these parts which have a more satisfactory look.

The... well.... 'raft' - sounds right? - was fabricated from some 'L' section evergreen strip with a wee bit of 'I' beam and some cross-member load bearers. Distance between the outmost facing parts of the 'L' sections was 30mm. Some offcuts of metal staples for a bit of additional representation and that gives me as much as I need to give some form of decent structure within the bay to add my intended ordnance to.

Aerograph 5 - mentioned earlier and will be later - 'Douglas A-3 Skywarrior' by Rene Francillon & Ed Heinemann gives some reasonable detail on the area, but not as much as you'd imagine or want. Whilst the illustrations are clear and detailed, they're small, no bigger than twice the size of a postage stamp really, but it's enough.

Mounted lengthwise between those beams athwart* the bomb-bay interior (*it's a NAVAL aircraft after all. Of course it's going to be 'athwart'.... mutter, mutter, grumble....) were mounted Aero 7A bomb ejector racks.

Of course they were. You knew that already. I was just testing.

Anyway. In the meantime before anyone links me to the several websites dedicated entirely to the appearance and engineering construction of early Skywarrior bomb-bays, (which are evading me just at this moment...) the info I've come across thus far is good enough for my needs right now.

As can be seen, the fuselage halves have now been joined.

Posted Image

That's an advance step I can now rewind several tens of hours from.

The main undercarriage bays, as previously highlighted, are paired on a bulkhead which mounts immediately aft of the aft bomb-bay bulkhead. Indents on the inner fuselage mouldings helpfully seat the relevant parts.

You would think....

Other builds around the net, as I've been reading them, have uncovered consistently that the fuselage is a tricky* (*insert expletive of choice) assembly once all interior parts and assemblies are lined up for the join.

From my perspective, they're quite right. And therefore, there's something in the kit which isn't necessarily quite right. Something - all told - is in the way. Empirical trial and error narrowed it down to the bulkhead the main undercarriage bays are mounted on. Everything in, minus that assembly, the fit is tight, but not insurmountable. Once the main undercarriage set is in, then the model just will not come together. Fit this single assembly in place minus everything else, and the fit is still not satisfactory, and you can feel through the soft'ish plastic that it is the bulkhead, and not the bays which are the obstacle..

Place the relevant bomb-bay bulkhead and undercarriage bay bulkhead together and the mystery deepens. In fuselage width, there's no issue. They're the same width. They're identical other than the undercarriage bay bulkhead is necessarily taller - which isn't the issue blocking the fit.

My hunch, hunch only, is that the moulding internal 'assists' for the bulkhead are blocking it. Throughout this kit, the moulding dimension tolerances are very, very tight. If from the join between the nose undercarriage bay, cockpit interior, crew entry tunnel & bomb-bay are anything other than true in standards applicable to the brain-surgery discipline, the whole interior will be just that smidge too long to allow the final bulkhead to seat in place. In my opinion, this is where the problem lies and it was a step too far for Trumpeter. A better solution would have been to have the aft bulkhead of the weapon bay double as that specific part, and the forward face of the main undercarriage bays - and the aft face of it bearing the joins for those undercarriage bays.

I cut down the undercarriage bay bulkheads and treated both side bays as separate inserts.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Treated thus, the fit is extremely good and the fuselage can assemble with a relatively straightforward sequence. If with a little agricultural force.

Posted Image

:whistle Aaarrrrrr (Naval, see?....) But. You knew there was a 'but' coming, let's face facts....

Once you separate the two main bays, even if you've managed to set the undercarriage angle as previously discussed with the accuracy assistance of NASA's Hubble Telescope, you've now undone that established undercarriage alignment, and are back to flipping a coin.

I would say 'sorry' but I think I've helpfully established that would be something of a crass untruth. As can be seen earlier from the photo of the bomb-bay interior where the fuselage has been assembled, the main undercarriage heads poking proud are mis-aligned. I'm certain Trumpeter's CAD drawings showed a flawless and logical, simplistic build. As mentioned several times already, I'm of the opinion their very tight fit tolerances are working against them in this kit. They needed to introduce a little slack. A little reasonable idiot factor.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DLG Dave
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
It's got wings....

Those wings are going to take this particular part of the essay in every which way. In diametrically opposite considerations. So if you think I'm going off on a tangent - you're correct. But all roads will still lead to Rome.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I'm building the kit with wings in the folded position. Having assembled the inner and outer wings now, the next step for me is to add the wing fold parts. Now implanted solidly in aspect is this kit's tight tolerances. Once I've added the wing fold details it's unlikely I'll be able to demonstrate the fit of the parts as per wings extended once they're in place. Thus I took the chance now.

I've added these photographs mainly to give an illustration to the modeller who wishes to build the kit with wings extended. The fit is fairly good and I took pains to ensure the parts were pressed together unglued but without artificial assists to help the join. Models of carrier aircraft which comprise folded wings can be difficult to build with extended wings. I'm told the Airfix Sea Vixen is very definitely an exception to the rule.

Trumpeter's Skywarrior features wings which are essentially produced to build a kit with wings folded. Extended wings are going to be more difficult. Laid lightly together there are bare, marginal hints (and no more than that) of mismatches which will be visible subsequent to final painting. If you're indifferent to the configuration, good advice would be 'if in doubt, don't'. If you don't specifically need a Skywarrior with extended wings, then build them folded. If they absolutely have to be built extended, then don't use the assembly sequence of the instruction sheet. Build the upper wing halves together horizontally, keeping a strict eye on the form of the wing plane at the joins. Same with the lower wings. And once you're confident of that join, then bring the whole uppers and lowers together. Alternatively, you can trust Trumpeter's parts - photo-etched plates which will support the wings in the folding gap opening, Whilst I could be being unfair, if it was my inclination with my own model, I don't think I'd want to trust them, and would go for my earlier suggestion.

Early Whale bombers had a slightly different configuration wing from the later airframes.

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.co.uk/2010/...skywarrior.html

That link is a good start, but hopefully the list of links I'll add at the end of the article will sequence things better for the builder.

If you're building an earlier Whale, hopefully that will help, but the Skywarrior I'm building has the later wing as per the kit enclosure. Trumpeter have produced the later configuration wing but (going on other reviews) have produced a wing of a chord of the earlier airframes. Just going from memory, that difference in chord is of around five inches in addition in the later airframes. There is also a missing camber, which would be visible in the slats, and there are other issues there too.

Where to start? That sounds terminal....

If I'm right. IF I'm right. I haven't taken a ruler to this model. I'm not going to.

Five inches? let's call it six just for the sake of it. In terms, around an eighth of an inch across the model wing inner chord. I'm not going to be unfair, in terms, that's significant.

Here's the tangent. You'll have to follow....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Full Build Reviews · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3