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: |
| Trumpeter 1:48 A3 Skywarrior; Notes on a theme. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 20 2013, 11:39 AM (11,519 Views) | |
| DLG Dave | Aug 6 2013, 08:13 PM Post #16 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/a...les.php?id=1926 Are Trumpeter going to produce a 1:48 Douglas B-66 Destroyer? Personally speaking, although I have no interest in the Destroyer, I think they will. I understand the question, but the A-3 has very little to do with the B-66, or EB-66, or whichever incarnation. They were both developed by Douglas in essentially the same frame of historical era. Both for roughly the same task - to deliver a nuclear bomb. They share lineage and configuration and a very close, albeit noticeably different superficial appearance. But even though I'm confident Trumpeter will produce such a kit, it won't be from any parts I've been fondling here. Why am I so confident? I'm not starting a rumour, I'm just going on what I know, and on ... well .... 'clues'.... Pertaining to the link above, Collect-Aire also produced a resincast Skywarrior in 1:48. I owned one once. It was a nice kit and I sold it off within ten days of learning Trumpeter's intentions to produce the A3, and as luck would have it, I ended up richer on the deal. Chasing some of the links I'll add later, you'll find some claims with regard to the Collect-Aire kit, and this Trumpeter kit. That the Trumpeter fuselage fits 'like a glove' over the resincast fuselage of the resincast Collect-Aire kit. Join the dots and make of that as you will, but I have no intentions of second-guessing the writer who would make that comment. Why on earth would I, and why on earth would such a claim be made unless it had a basis in accuracy? Major kit companies have been - 'adopting' - reference and original work made by other companies for years. The Esci 1:72 Quad & 25pdr gun features uncanny similarities to the Tamiya kit twice it's size. The driver of the tractor not only has precisely the same pose and parts breakdown, but the expression on his face is identical. As is the beret on his head. Airfix produced a 1/72 Puma helicopter in the early 1970's. Since then, there have been many, many dozens of kits of that subject in it's exact half-scale from various sources. 1:144. One of those available kits is a remarkable, exact half-scale tribute to the Airfix 1:72 kit. To cut a long story short, Trumpeter, for perfectly understandable and logical historical and geographical reasons have a sound following of aviation subjects which were involved in the conflict in Vietnam. The EB-66 was involved in Vietnam. Collect-Aire produced a resincast kit of it. And that's as far as I need to go on that route. Now. Having once owned the Collect-Aire kit of the Whale, I even yet never took a rule to it, to check it's accuracy. However, let's say a specialist kit comprises features which owe more to dedication than profit? Let's say the CA kits are largely dimensionally accurate. Let's say a kit which might cover a CA kit 'like a glove' is marginally oversize? Let's say 'marginally oversize' might be represented by - say - three scale inches across the whole length of a kit? If - as I speculate, the wing chord of this kit is six scale inches inadequate - but the kit itself is maybe three scale inches oversize - then where do you draw that line? It's only a hypothetical, drawn from bare speculation without the remotest genuine or sincere measurement - and I'll reiterate, that I have no intentions of investigating - but can you 'correct' parts of a wing which attach to a fuselage which already might be inaccurate? If the refuelling probe was three scale inches short but the fuselage two scale inches too long, do you correct both or ignore both? Or just ignore one? The wing comprises slats - so the leading edge of the wing varies in forward dimension already. An additional complication? That's just food for thought. I have no intentions of second-guessing anyone who has spent their own money on this kit, will be building it in their own time with their own passions in place. But whilst I'm aware that there are anomalies in accuracy throughout this kit, giving them a black-and-white repair in terms ,I suspect will open a larger can of worms than the most demanding modeller would wish to encounter. In raw terms. Increasing the chord of the wing and adding the camber should not prove too difficult to the modeller who will be building with wings extended. Use the slats and fix them into the recesses (whilst taking into account the slat actuator openings), increase the chord of the wing using the slats in combination with filler whilst angling them down to produce the camber. Develop your replacement slats using thick, resilient foil (e.g. disposeable baking tray foil or pie-dish foil) wrapped around the new leading edge and use the kit actuators to glue within. That increasing-chord task will be made very considerably more complex if you wish to fold the wings. Your choice as they say.... (I'm also very aware that was extremely easy for me to type out. I have no doubt that actually doing the work will prove a different matter...) As-is within this kit, the slats are well-shaped and defined. However, they fit into stepped recesses. When Hasegawa produced their series of 1:72 Whales they rightly, in my opinion, took approbrium for evading any responsibility for featuring extended slats. Fujimi were adding adding 1:72 extended slats on their family of A-4 Skyhawks ten years earlier than the Hasegawa Skywarrior. Hasegawa, rightly, had an obligation to add this feature to their kit. The Skywarrior - the real airframe - featured slats which ended in a sharp trailing edge which matched against a contoured airfoil - they didn't retract into 'recesses' and it really is noticeable. The stepped areas need to be filled for best effect (not exactly a labour of Hercules) and that explains the filled areas of the wings in the photos I've added above. http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/a-3.pdf |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 6 2013, 08:39 PM Post #17 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
As I've indicated earlier, the fuselage halves have now been joined. It was a bit of a squeeze, but it's sorted now. I'd recommend adding the forward radar bulkhead which will carry the strength of a join which otherwise would only be adopted by the thin forward fuselage half edges. ![]() ![]() In this view, the replacement pilot's headrest can be seen. Bomb-sight, Radar-officer's seat needs to be displaced inboard so the seat correctly aligns behind the relevant equipment. Whilst a well-defined coaming forward of the instrument panel is available to the modeller, don't add it yet. Since the model has not stood on its undercarriage, the triangular gap between the instrument panel and the forward apex where the chisel forward edge of the windscreens meet is an ideal additional gap to add weight if the model tail-sits. ![]() The right-hand section of the instrument panel - for the bomber versions - as has been related elsewhere, is entirely redundant. Mine will be remaining in place, however, if you wish to remove it, there's essentially nothing to take its place other than (dark grey?) internal padding and insulation. Earlier in sequence, a dry-fit of the fuselage halves is quite disappointing, in particular where the rear lower fuselage is concerned. That area needs a couple of inserts and naturally a dry-fit won't take them into account. ![]() ![]() Those inserts are for the recesses for the tail-bumper-wheel and for the arrester hook. Whilst the relevant fit for each insert is very tight, the resultant fit for the fuselage is absolutely superb, and these inserts support the lower rear fit of the fuselage very well indeed. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 15 2013, 08:51 AM Post #18 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
The photo-etched details for the wing fold were added, alongside a handful of plastic parts to resemble the fold mechanism. Once again, there's additional work the superdetailer could add here which is fairly easily accessed from the available resources. I added a wash of isoprop\peat ink mix as earlier but again the resultant is still a bit too heavy.![]() ![]() The look is certainly busy enough for me. Whilst Trumpeter identify separate PE inserts for the join creating a wing fully extended, instruction sheet images erroneously add those structural pieces even for a folded wing configuration. Odd mistake but there you have it. Another curious mistake is the identification of a bar mounted at the lower section of the inboard wing fold mechanism. The instruction sheet identifies the part as 'F4' where in fact the relevant parts can be found on sprue 'C', parts 3 & 12. I assembled the slat actuator rails in place with the slats still on the sprue. The rear face of each slat features raised location areas to assist the fit. Those rails need to be identified carefully and assembled as per the instruction sheet. I discovered more or less simultaneously that the inner faces of each slat is painted white (via photographs and one online review) for the colour scheme I'm building (a standard grey\white airframe). It could be different for all-blue airframes, which have seem to have a slightly different slat configuration, and research by others suggests all-blue airframes featured coroguard grey on the upper surfaces of their slats. ![]() A couple of times I've made mention of the weathering I've conducted too heavily. Other than fairly specific unique airframes, by and large the carrierborne airframes look very clean indeed. Long ago I spent a brief period on the USS Saratoga on an exchange and their elderly Skywarrior looked as if it had just emerged from a comprehensive overhaul. That seems to be almost universal for these aircraft. They seemed to join an Aircraft Carrier having just emerged from a deep overhaul, remained looking so throughout a deployment, and returned to their respective home bases looking as if they'd just emerged from a deep overhaul. Early in its service life, the Skywarrior was a controversial subject. Its size, coupled with the early doctrines for the squadron aircrew, plus a couple of other issues told a dark story. Losses for the early period were heavy, and the universal traditional black humour of the serviceman gave a barbed nickname to the Skywarrior on behalf of its designation - A3D. 'All Three Dead'. Crewing doctrines changed and the maintenance procedures were tightened up very considerably, with a corresponding improvement in the type's service safety record. Other deck aircraft would normally have an escape method assisted by messrs. Martin-Baker among others. The Skywarrior escape method was the traditional bailout (hence the upper hatch remaining locked open for launch) and if the airframe ditched inverted with crew onboard, successful survival was very unlikely indeed. It was in fact for this reason the Skywarrior's deck service came to an end after pressure was placed on the US Navy by families of yet another lost aircrew. Therefore, in service, the Skywarrior warranted, and was in receipt of maintenance and care over and above the established stringent standards. Even aircraft in service for Vietnam may have looked a little tired or jaded, but rarely weathered or tatty. I won't be building a factory-fresh model, but cleanliness and good paintwork looks to be the rule for this aircraft. Inner wings were assembled to the model subsequent to sanding down the joins between the nosecone and fuselage, and ECM tail, and fuselage. The wing fit is tight and effective but the upper surface of the wings at the join stands just a wee bit high in comparison with the adjaecent centre fuselage level. Take some material from the bottom of the wing locating tab until the upper wing level matches the fuselage height. Surface detail all over is exceptionally fine and well realised. Apparently some panels have either an inappropriate location or appearance but this will be in keeping with the earlier observation that Trumpeter were probably a bit perplexed by the wide variations in airframe configuration. There are a couple of intakes or outlets to be filled and once I'm certain of which - relevant to the airframe I'm building - then I'll add specifics at that time. ![]() However, conversely, the version bomber the kit represents - i.e. the earlier bomber variant - there should be rows of rectangular recesses - maybe 'slots' would be a better word to use - on the rear fuselage aft of the star-and-bar national marking. These recesses are in vertical rows on either side of the airframe and are the mounting points for the RATO gear which was attached to assist takeoffs for heavily loaded missions. Whilst Steel Beach (linked shortly) are issuing a set of RATO bottles to fit to the fuselage, if the airframe you would be building needs these recesses and you don't wish to add the RATO gear, then you've three choices. (i) Represent them with black decal pieces. (ii) Cut them into the model. (For any after-market concerns looking in - a PE template would be ideal to assist with that) (iii) Ignore them. The airframe I'm building had these recesses covered over so I only need to give a hint of their outlines thru' the paint. In all honesty, this was an omission that Trumpeter should rightly take stick for. There are some interesting details and images here on that subject:- http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.co.uk/searc...&max-results=13 The specific airframe which is the subject of the Trumpeter kit is here:- http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4047/4499766...754f59f6f_z.jpg ...showing that the rows of RATO coupling recesses should be depicted for this aircraft as provided. The model nosecone features a small blip on the extreme forward face. It appears on the real airframe and should be retained. ![]() Being this part was designed to reveal the inner radar assembly for the kit, the fit isn't as secure as it should be. The forward bulkhead for the radar is too wide in any case and will need to have shavings taken from the sides to ensure the forward fuselage fits properly. Once that's done the sides of the radome are around a quarter of a millimetre too wide and the mismatch is noticeable. Steel Beach accessories sell a series of conversion sets for this kit, one of which being a trio of parts to create a KA-3B*. http://www.steel-beach.com/ka-3b-conversion.html (* Research shows the natural-born pedant can have a field day with the specific designation 'KA-3B' for some of these airframes. I'm not a natural-born pedant, however. If you did want to go down that route, it's academic only, the external appearance is identical...) As earlier indicated, I managed to settle on an airframe which had both the early nosecone and the ECM tail. The conversion kit tail butt-joins to the rear fuselage. The pouring face of the resin part is flat, featureless and glossy which will need to be roughened for a secure epoxy glue join. Once that was done, I mixed a very generous blob of five-minute araldite and placed that blob around an inch into the rear fuselage. Then quickly added the ECM tail using superglue with sprayed-on accelerator. Then I immediately upended the fuselage for the assembly to sit on the tail, whence the blob of epoxy glue settled downwards, forming an additional resin plug within the fuselage, securely bonding with the rough surface of the conversion part. Leaving this for twenty-four hours, that aftermost assembly was then sanded down, and the join proved trouble-free. A superglue-only join will likely prove brittle and troublesome.
|
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 18 2013, 08:51 AM Post #19 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
If the reader has been looking at reviews and comments elsewhere, you'll be aware there are a couple of parts and controversies I've not yet covered. I will get to the main bones of contention with regard to some parts later, but there's no point discussing them until the time I come to fit the relevant bits.![]() While the main central airframe has been progressing, the ancillary fittings have been assembled and more or less completed as single units. Here are the outer wings, engine pods, airbrakes etc. Any with any issues which need highlighting or problems which need addressing will be noted down at the time of final assembly. ![]() Apart from a little polishing and addressing of areas which need a bit more attention, the main airframe assembly is essentially complete and will soon be primed with Halfords white primer. Fin has been joined for some days and the join is reasonably secure and accurate but will need due diligence in the fitting stage. Join the fin only after all the main work sanding down the resin parts if you are using them has been completed. The fin join may be secure but there's no point subjecting it to unnecessary leverage any earlier than needed. The kit provides facility to fold the fin in its hangar folded state. Folded fins on the real aircraft whether on deck or on land do not appear to be infrequent but it's not by any means invariable. This choice will be drawn to individual aesthetic and I wanted the fin up on this occasion. Separate inserts for the fin base and its adjaecent fuselage coupling are provided, but the fuselage insert doesn't necessarily follow its real-life equivalent too closely. PE parts and plastic parts provide the actuators and security for the folded fin but personally I see a more-than-acceptable propensity for join failure here - additional steel pins to hold the fin in place would be advisable if you're going down that route. As-is, it would look an absolute swine to effect a repair after a join breakage. ![]() Discussed earlier, there are some openings around the forward fuselage which need filling. The kit depicts four scoop inlets grouped in twos either side of the forward section of the nosewheel bay. The airframe I'm building features only the outermost two inlets and the inner two have been filled. ![]() Because that essentially settles the matter for my own airframe I've not investigated in any particular depth the reason for the other two inlets. However, I spent a few moments looking around internet photos to see what variations I could find. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6463150...d6403b46d_o.jpg http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6463714...bba01be7c_o.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Skywarrior.jpg The two inner inlets do indeed feature on some airframes - in fact, in one case at least, a central third inlet ahead of the nosewheel bay - however, in no case did I find an airframe which featured all four of these inlets. Another case of Trumpeter giving us an 'everyman' airframe. Filling these inlets has doubtless proven much easier than cutting them into place where relevant. There are also two similar intakes on the upper section of the nose behind the radar cone which do not necessarily feature on all airframes. They do on the one I have selected but further reference is recommended. ![]() There's also a rectangular recess on either side of the fuselage at roughly mid-height, around the level of the crew. I did at one point look up what that was but I forget - I didn't bother retaining the knowledge because it's not relevant to the specific airframe I'm building, however, it is relevant to some versions. Recess has been filled, but as before, further reference is recommended. As can also be seen, I've now fitted the rear section of the IFR probe. However, the specific aircraft the kit features on its decal sheet was not fitted with the probe at the time of its kit livery period, and the modeller may wish to consider removing the raised support plating depicted under that section. Diligent research by others suggests Trumpeter used this photograph for the main reference for their decal choice. http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4047/4499766...754f59f6f_z.jpg ![]() A beacon transparency is provided for the upper fuselage but research shows that not all airframes carry it. The link above of the original VAH 9 aircraft suggests the kit should not be fitted with it if you're using kit decal scheme. I don't know if 'my' airframe carried it during the period I'm depicting. It did later in its life but I'm erring on the side of caution. If I discover subsequently 'my' airframe was fitted with it, I can add it at a later date. Therefore the slight recess in the upper fuselage for the beacon transparency has been filled. ![]() The aircraft I'm building was at that time serving with VAH-11 Checkertails based at NAS Sanford in Florida, in between deployments to USS Roosevelt. This particular aircraft was in use for hurricane seeding trials during Project Stormfury in late August 1963, deployed to Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico. (Poignantly, essentially exactly fifty years ago at time of writing). It features on page 78 of the publication mentioned earlier, 'Naval Fighters No. 46. ''Fleet Whales'' Part 2'. Being the close proximity of the unit to the Caribbean, and being scant months on from the Cuban Missile crisis, it's not unreasonable to surmise these crews were required to give special consideration to minelaying duties and for that reason I'm fitting the model with three 2000lb Mk. 25 mines. A WWII mine finally withdrawn from service in 1970. Ploughing through an aviation collection in miniature I also like to introduce as wide a choice of ordnance carried by my models for variety. Thus far I've never depicted mines in carriage so this was the perfect opportunity. I used a gunpack from one of the Hasegawa weapons sets to form the main casing with a couple of hatch covers from a 1:350 warship fret to depict the bolted-on covers on the forward face of the weapon. Circular recesses for fuses etc drilled into the side and I'll be casting three off in resin. This weapon carried a pack which comprised the lanyard-operated deployment parachute but it's difficult to find good images of those equipment packs. The weapon casings were large steel drums filled with stable explosive (albeit I'm depicting an inert practice load). The inert practice rounds were recoverable and naturally previously used casings would feature some fair weathering and scoring. However, those equipment packs (the instinct would be to call it a 'tail' - but it isn't really in terms....) would be once-only used and would be packed as new until use. Therefore they'd be fairly clean. They seem to take the form of 12 inch deep trays fitted to the end of the Mine casing. By the look of what I've seen, they're cold-pressed metal plating with corner rubbing strakes to protect the pack from impacts within the bomb-bay. However, I drew a blank on how to depict them until a small piece of epiphany fell on my head. I formed the boxes from staples broken from the strip. Staple size 26\6 (as per the packing - they certainly aren't 26mm across, more like 13mm..) and the internal detail will be formed from the lower parts of three 1:48 Phoenix missiles. I've no idea if that will be correct, but it will serve - that detail will hardly be visible once the ordnance is in place in the bomb-bay. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 21 2013, 09:15 AM Post #20 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() So. Now we're at the 'Great White Whale' stage. A small inlet hole needs to be drilled in the forward fin below the fold for this version, and the fuel dump vane has been attached to the port side below the fin. For some reason it seems two of these vanes have been provisioned for this kit, one only is needed. For earlier airframes a tiny triangular dump point is fitted on the lower surface of the port horizontal stabilizer, and is largely painted red. Details such as that have been only brought to my attention by discussions of this model and the Skywarrior itself elsewhere. I would have remained entirely ignorant of them had they been painted dayglo emerald green and had a large flashing arrowed sign saying 'LOOK!!!' pointing them out. When I come to the end of this project, I'll do my best to credit all the detail points others have unwittingly contributed to this article. Little details like this triangle. could have been provided on the etch frets - large parts of those frets are simply an expanse of bare brass. Better a'forethought would have made better use. The fuel dump vane as is should really have a small raised fence close to the tip running around the body of the frame in line-of-flight. If you wanted to add that, refer to photos of the original and:- Cut the outboard tip of the vane off and glue in a thin section of plastic card to act as the fence. Glue back the outboard tip you've removed. When the join is secure, gently reduce the plasticard fence until the proper shape is achieved. The rear underside of the inner wing ahead of the flaps needs some triangular flap actuator parts attached. They feature join tabs which stand a bit too proud for a good fit so reduce these tabs by half their length for best result. The upperwing spoilers comprise two parts which the instruction sheet only makes mention of in a non-pictorial manner. As per previous joins, the tolerances here make a direct join to their respective recesses in the wing very tight, once again, you'll need to shave tiny slivers from the tabs and from within the recesses to prevent distortion of this part. Whilst occasionally - only very occasionally - these spoilers can be seen extended whilst the airframe is at rest, it's very rare. The rear separate sections of the engine pylons attach to the flaps and a tiny pointed section of these triangular wedges extends beyond the trailing edge of the flap. From this point, the model will now be brought together after painting and decal application, and I think we're looking at another week to ten days. I need to deliberately slow the process because - maybe some others round here suffer the same phenomenon - you get to a stage where you assure yourself ...'I could get it finished TONIGHT!!'... at which point you gratuitously ruin the completed model. Not this time...!.... |
![]() |
|
| tc2324 | Aug 21 2013, 02:24 PM Post #21 |
|
LCDR Tony `Banana's` Clay
|
Dave, an amazing `blog` for this kit. Looking forward to the next instalment. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 22 2013, 12:32 PM Post #22 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() Main undercarriage and nosewheel have been added. The nose undercarriage leg didn't suffer a catastrophe during construction however, it shows signs of having been stressed by the construction process. The nosewheel assembly was a bit of a squeeze to fit it into the 'Y' yoke and that didn't help the already slightly damaged parts. The main undercarriage was fitted by plopping the model onto a jig at eye level and adding tiny spots of superglue and five-minute epoxy until a satisfactory compromise was achieved. As previously discussed, and as highlighted in a photo a little later on, I didn't manage to get a properly levelled and symmetrical posture for the upper undercarriage and therefore only a compromise was available to me. Once I got to a point I thought that no further improvement was achievable I locked off any further play in the join by smothering it with five-min. araldite. ![]() Looking for all the world like a Soviet SU-24 from this angle, you'll see that the main undercarriage is splayed, where the original features wheels which sit vertically. Unfortunately not an option for me at this stage now. See here:- http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=a3+sky...electedIndex=47 This whole assembly has a tilt to port of around 3.5 mm which is arguably just about detectable, but once the final model has been 'busied' with folded wings, bomb-doors open, the baffled plate ahead of the bomb doors fitted and the airbrakes deployed, then the disparity should be optically reduced. Should the modeller opt to build the model 'clean' and with wings extended then if this problem appears, any problems with the undercarriage will be exaggerated, more obvious. Either way, at no point will the model weigh with sufficient force to give a flat-bottomed bulge to the tyres. As mentioned frequently elsewhere, the mainwheel hubs for the version Trumpeter supplied are for later Skywarrior fits. The hubs for the earlier era, including the one I selected had flush hubs, entirely without the additional braking pads as per Trumpeter's parts, the parts I used. In my case, it's not the kind of thing I really worry about, and the choice is yours. Whilst after-market parts are already available in some cases, and in preparation elsewhere in others, the Trumpeter parts could be subject to modification by sawing off the offending braking pads and reducing the hub to only the top surface of the removed section. As I say, in my case, it's not the kind of thing I worry about. ![]() ![]() The fuel dump vane mentioned in the preceding entry can also be seen clearly here. With the tailplanes added, the model sits quite happily on its undercarriage without any form of weighting added to the nose. Whilst I still have to add airbrakes, the tailhook and the fairing for the tail bumper wheel, there is still plenty of weight to add forward of the main undercarriage so I don't envisage needing to worry about it. I'll still leave the cockpit 'v' coaming open to a late stage so if I'm proven wrong, I'll still have the option to correct that impression. I've given the model its first coat of humbrol US Navy grey (yes - brush painted, airbrush now retired....) and slight pre-shading from the aforementioned wash of thinned W&N drawing ink. ![]() Mines are half-way thru' painting and weathering. ![]() Inert practice ordnance in these cases were orange overall with white striping, or white overall with orange striping. As per the photo at top of this particular entry, I made a mistake on my bomb-bay addition - the side 'L' brackets which carry the bomb-bearing cross-members should extend the whole length of the bay. Just laying the mines in place however fills the bomb bay quite satisfactorily, and little beyond them can be seen. |
![]() |
|
| Mark M | Aug 23 2013, 09:32 AM Post #23 |
|
Hawk T1
|
i am in awe of this please continue |
![]() |
|
| Mosquito | Aug 23 2013, 11:19 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Kit reviewer
|
This is a labour of love. You're labouring, I'm loving it! :lol: This is stunning mate. Makes me want to have a go at a big project, but I always get bored when I can't see clear results of work and an end seems far away. :unsure: |
![]() |
|
| Olde Farte | Aug 23 2013, 12:34 PM Post #25 |
|
Lt. Derek 'Smurfy' Reeve
|
Great progress and a joy to read, thanks. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 25 2013, 02:04 PM Post #26 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() To represent the taped-over\plated-over recesses for the RATO Gear attachment points I patched white paint in the relevant pattern in location. When the second coating of topcoat grey was added, they blend in quite well to represent the general in-service appearance of this modification. Here those paler patches can be seen very marginally, in front of the recesses for the airbrake hinges. ![]() Tailhook and tail bumper cover has been added. Tailhook is a fairly unimaginative length of plastic which could be improved on. It's ok for my purposes, but a more accurate AM item is in preparation. The tail bumper is occasionally seen deployed - almost invariably featuring on airframes which have been preserved. In service, the retraction sequence was dependent on undercarriage actuation and a couple of other reasons and would normally be retracted. Trumpeter didn't really prepare the modeller for a retracted configuration and the recess is a little shallow for the yoke bearing the bumper wheel. The wheel itself as Trumpeter have given is far too big. The real wheel was little more than a roller covered with a hard rubber cylinder. I substituted the Trumpeter part with a piece of 2.5mm'ish sprue dimpled at both ends painted black. Being the abuse this bumper wheel would have had to put up with for such a limited amount of rubber I'd suspect they were replaced with some frequency, hence a clean black colour would be justified on this occasion. If the modeller did wish to display their model with the tail bumper extended, the assembly also comprises a nicely achieved etched baffle plate to mount on the reverse side of the door assembly, as per the main undercarriage doors and bomb-bay doors. I'll discuss the upper tail disparity now - there's no really logical point at which to discuss it so I'll add it here. The Trumpeter three-view displays the finished model featuring the tail included with the fin-tip extension. It's just a silly mistake and the kit should be built with the standard tail which features on the same sprue. Being that the correct vertical tail is included in the kit, and that the instruction sheet shows the correct tail being added at assembly, it's hardly worth getting worked up about. ![]() ![]() Engine pods built around the engines are nearly complete. Just need a wee bit of paint touch-up and cleaning. This is one of the few areas you can legitimately add a bit of weathering to the Skywarrior. The airframe I'm building features some oil & grease smudging here and a bit of a battered appearance. If you follow the keyed recesses inside the forward engine intake shells for the interior bullet and support, the intake shell itself mounts incorrectly to the associated cowling mouldings. Although it looks like a good circle, it's a slight eccentric oval and will place correctly in one orientation only, and Trumpeter don't provide keying for that fit. Also, having fitted the engine in its entire length, fitting the intake shell assembly to the engine pod is a very tight fit indeed, and you'll likely need to take around 1mm at least from the rear of the bullet\support piece to get a good fit. Without the central bullet in place, mark up where the intake cone fits properly and then paint the relevant painting demarcations. Then fit the interior bullet\support piece as I've depicted on the forward face photograph. The middle - albeit offset - support leg points directly downwards for both engine pod assemblies. You'll need to slightly modify the keyed lugs on those support legs but if you build as per Trumpeter's provision, your central bullet\support assembly will assume the wrong angle. If you get that fit wrong (as I did) the rear face of the intake shell will not present a smooth fit to the rest of the engine cowling assembly. Further recommendations, which I'll back-edit also to the relevant section. If you're not opening the engine pods for engine display, then build only the rearmost assembly of the engine - the tailpipe, which carries lugs to fit into recesses in the rear of the cowling mouldings, to assume the correct outer extent of the exhaust here. Leave out the entire rest of the engine parts other than the forward compressor face and its associated circular frame, which you should add to the rear of the intake bullet\support piece. There shouldn't be any issues with the fit of these parts at that point. At the time of the in-service appearance of the airframe I'm building (exactly fifty years ago today, at time of writing... I've looked it up....!...) the intake lip was distinctly not red. I'm not absolutely certain what colour it was, but it certainly wasn't red. (You'll see the photo shortly). Being the aircraft was on a hurricane-seeding trial, it's logically just possible these parts were painted orange or yellow for some reason. Possibly even a grey, but for some reason I've convinced myself it was clean new aluminium. Explaining why I've chosen that here. The later form of intake warning chevron featured here and I cut some 1\72 F-8 Crusader intake warning markings to suit. They're more or less the right finesse but I got the positioning wrong here and so they'll need replacing before the model is finished. One of the benefits of modelling here in modular form... ![]() Here's the airframe I'm building. A photograph of the page since as far as I know, direct scans are a bit naughty and I don't think Mark would welcome an Email from the publishers of this book. Not only are the intake lips a non-standard colour, but if you look carefully at the anti-glare panel marking specifically on the radome, you'll see it doesn't match the limit of the anti-glare on the fuselage. Neither is the airframe grey on the radome the same tone as that of the rest of the fuselage. This airframe - 142662 - which was one of the final Skywarriors to retire, was also one of the final Bomber variant airframes built. I doubt it was built with the original bomber cone-shaped radome. A cursory glance around photos of Skywarriors of this period also shows that exchange between airframes of different radomes was fairly commonplace (perhaps explaining why specific aircraft identity markings didn't often feature on radomes?). Just wild guesswork and nothing more, but I'm guessing this airframe was chosen for the Project Stormfury trials at this time because it had recently suffered some form of forward damage (serious birdstrike?) in the immediate preceding weeks and was not in a current operational state to rejoin routine Squadron operations at that time. In engineering standards terms I've highlighted much earlier, I doubt the proper intake warning colours would have remained omitted for very long and I also doubt that the radome here would have remained fitted on that airframe for very long, so my guess is that this particular airframe was in this particular visual state for a fairly brief period. Thereby it probably never carried air-dropped mines in this configuration, but there you go. Very many thanks for all the encouraging comments so far gents. Hope all this proves useful in some way. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 25 2013, 02:22 PM Post #27 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() If you compare this view of the kit with the photo of the original airframe ![]() whilst it could be an optical illusion on my part, I would say by the look of the level of the IFR piping that it's mounted too high on the fuselage, by maybe as much as around three or four millimetres. I'm not taking a ruler to it, and I'm not changing anything now, but by the look of it, the nose markings will adopt the wrong position in relation to that horizontal pipe. This is really relevant only to builders who are building their kit with the IFR equipment in place - the kit colour scheme doesn't require it. That's just food for thought, if it's important to you, you may wish to investigate further. Last night I started preparing decals for the final livery. I'd already elected to add (ancient) microscale black checks to a white decal background rather than negotiate a white stripe already applied to a fuselage. **&5:-@@ing lucky I did too. ![]() The black check decal varnish is barely substantial enough to support the check design and easily breaks apart whence separated from the backing sheet. Deep intensive care and attention recommended if taking this course. Also if you're building any aircraft from VAH-11 note that one airframe at least featured a fairly unique form of black check design. Have a close look here:- http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/images/images/vah11.jpg More to say on the kit decals, but I'll come to that when I come to that. Enjoy the Bank Holiday. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 28 2013, 09:00 AM Post #28 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() Not really a great deal of painting left on the model now. This afternoon will see the slat seating given a second coating of red paint and hopefully I'll be able to progress the radome this evening. Elsewhere the canopy framing is awaiting its final coating of grey paint. That will leave the larger part of decal application to this weekend. ![]() Some useful sections of the VAH-11 livery can be found on this excellent Superscale sheet - 48-1013. That particular sheet is a relatively recent reprint of a decal sheet which previously had been available in 1\72 & 1\144. More on that when I come to use some of the kit decals, and I'll add photos of those at that time. The 2000lb Mines have now been added to the bomb-bay and it can be seen just how tight a squeeze it must have been for the deck crews to arm these airframes. A dangerously optimistic claim it may be, but is this Trumpeter Skywarrior the first to be given a representative loading....?!.... ![]() From the Heinemann book as detailed earlier, one section of the publication is devoted to internal layout and panel detail. ![]() I'll back-edit the relevant section where I discuss the cockpit, but if you have this publication then you may wish to consider photographically reducing the images to provide for the cockpit consoles. They'd be considerably superior to Trumpeter's essentially useless PE parts. |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Aug 29 2013, 08:09 AM Post #29 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() A small number of decals have already been used. Mainly the instrument panel, some undercarriage markings and a couple of star-and-bars. I show the kit decal enclosures for academic reasons since I won't be using a fair part of them (naturally) since the large expanse of them provide for multiple coding options. The main fin aircraft registration number for my specific airframe won't come from this sheet. The relevant marking by that era was in straight vertical numbering rather than the italicised appearance the Trumpeter kit provides for - and being that Trumpeter were providing for the kit scheme specifically, there is no imperative in expecting them to provide for options outside of that scope. I make mention of it since any modeller who will be building their respective kits in alternative spares-box sought schemes might be momentarily mesmerised by Trumpeters' thorough approach and not realise they'll find themselves less equipped than they had at first thought. And to reiterate, that's not Trumpeter's fault. As per the original airframe, there's a refreshing dearth of stencil markings (I spent two unrewarding evenings just getting the stencils on to the Airfix Sea Vixen - even then one specific decal design which even under a magnifying glass appeared to be little more than a black dot in a multitude of locations was dispensed with and I in fact used a pentel pen simply to apply a black dot in the relevant locations...). The decals are very fine and thin. When I applied the 'NAVY' titles to the airbrakes, even using Revell decal softener, the designs stuck fast very quickly indeed. In one case I couldn't budge it so much as a gnat's toenail distance but luckily I'd got it down in just about the correct location in any case. Therefore be aware that when you come to decal application, take extra care in ensuring you're going to be able to have the best degree of manipulation of any decal in play at any one time. Those thin decals won't take much effort to damage. If you're going to be using these sheets to assemble a multiple sequence of numbers for registration or coding, then it might be worth getting them down on a separate sheet of transparent decal first so's you're not subjecting the kit to too much handling, thence getting the final decal down in just one go. Much as I might like to, in my case VAH-11 in this period did not seem to use the upper starboard wing individual aircraft code which the sheet provides for. It did occasionally, but from what I see in reference, it's less common than more, whether on shore-based aircraft or deck-based which is the reverse of what I see with other contemporary squadron aircraft. Therefore I'm leaving it off, and it's fairly academic anyway, with the wing folded, it won't be seen by anyone other than someone doggedly attempting to look at the upper surface of the starboard wing. Whilst the completeness of the slanted decal designs is generous and welcome, later incarnations of Skywarrior markings imparted a white outline in frequent examples. In rarer examples, a fine black outline exterior to the main outline of the character itself might feature. Aftermarket decal concerns might wish to ponder that one, and they also may wish to ponder a set of decals and\or a painting mask for the upper fuselage\wing walkway design which often featured on Skywarriors in a set pattern. Of course, it's still possible those features may appear yet on later issues of this kit in differing variants. However, as yet I'm not aware of any publicity indications from Trumpeter detailing a follow-up Skywarrior kit to this issue. As I said very much earlier, whilst you can be confident Trumpeter have other variants in mind, they may not appear any time soon... |
![]() |
|
| DLG Dave | Sep 1 2013, 06:56 AM Post #30 |
|
Lt Dave 'Wraith' Carter
|
![]() Just a teaser. Here's the state of play as of eight this morning. Still quite a bit of tidying up of the decals and just a tiny bit of painting left. Then final assembly. So there's still a comforting scope for a major screw-up just yet. :ph43r: |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Full Build Reviews · Next Topic » |













































7:26 PM Jul 11