HubertB

You have a lot of different resins used for 3D-printing. Some are said to be « ABS-like », although they are most likely not ABS. CERTAINLY NOT polystyrene anyway. You must use CA or epoxy to assemble them. Hubert

Now that is THE great news of the decade, as far as I am concerned ! Hubert

Chris, The ones I mentioned yo can buy with some confidence (the assembly of the engine / cowling area of the Kingfisher is still better suited for an octopus though) As for the F-86 D or K; as Scott mentionned, it's the only game in town, so if you want it badly ... but brace yourself for some annoying issues. Hubert

Very sad news. RIP old friend. Hubert

Zimi just bought the molds off, and are progressively releasing the line … Although not released the first, the P-39 was KH’s first kit design and it shows, in many areas … The first released, the T-6, had a few issues of its own as well, although not all of them as visible as the P-39. Things got better as they expanded the range. Although not outstanding, many later releases were good, like the T-28, the Kingfisher, the F5-E, the OV-10 or the Mirage 2000 … Hubert

To be fair, even though GBs are labelled as « LSM competitions », I never took them as anything more than an opportunity to model with my buddies along a theme, a bit like an extended club meeting … And there was no promise of any gain in the last two GBs, but the finalisation of the previous two ones never took place either … From hearsay (because I am not - and will never be - on FB), it seems our friend Ernie is very busy on FB, but not for modelling issues … So be it … Everyone is entitled his « days off » from LSM, and there is no reason why we should expect anything else from our moderators … Hubert

Hubert

I love your progress, Rob, even with the hiccups, which I’m sure you’ll overcome. The kit is challenging, but most likely, given MFH’s reputation, it has been designed to be doable … After my own hiccup with my compressor blowing a connecting hose, I have resumed the painting of my Cutlass. I have chosen a NMF finish of VA-83, with a blue and white chevron on the fuselage, and blue wing tips and fins’ leading edges. It is a lot of masking, and re-masking, so nothing secret, but nothing spectacular to show, yet … Soon, though … Hubert

🌭 Hubert

Yes. The famous parallax has hit again … 😂 Hubert

Are you sure about the angle of the landing gear, Carl ? I thought it was more slanted forward … Hubert

Yep, looks like it 👍 Hubert

Ok. I did some fact-checking followed by some forensic introspection. To summarize : regarding what seems like a fabric cover of the removed perspex panes of the canopy, I WAS WRONG, and what I stated pure BS. This is an interesting illustration of the frailty of human testimonies. When skimming though the pages of the Naval Fighters book I saw two pages headlined « Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk prototype ». Then, the next page, pics of a Seahawk with the cover on the canopy. I just needed a brain fart to connect the two in my memory and assume it was also pics of the prototype, not repeated elsewhere. When in fact they were headlined as pics of the landplane version (of a production aircraft). Sorry for the wrong statement I proferred. Then I managed to find a pic of a postwar lineup of Seahawks, some with the said « cover ». Which proves it was not unique. As for what this cover was, I could not find specific comments, but I would tend to line up with the hypothesis of Martin and Carl, that it was a protective cover, probably only when the aircraft as on the ground. As for your pics, Martin, sorry, I am probably dumb - this has just been proven 😂 - but I cannot see the canvas you are referring to, at least in so far I am expecting a dark-colored one. Can you enlighten me more ? Hubert

You may be right, Martin, and me wrong. I have not reread the book in full, just skimmed through it yesterday looking for the references on the canopy, and stumbled on the pics you had posted. I may have misinterpreted the caption. Lemme check again, just for the sake of accuracy. Hubert

According to photos on the Naval Fighters book, this seems like a one-off trial on a pre-series aircraft, Carl. Hubert

Granted I should have done that earlier. Sorry. But then, it would have been like a tennis match with just aces. So much more boooooooooring 🥱 than a lively exchange 😉 Hubert

And also repeated in the text left of the captioned picture … Call me Dr Watson, Rob 😂 Hubert

Hubert

Martin, You know me enough now to know when I make conjectures - which I then state as such - or when I relay information and knowledge gained from others’ expertise. And when I do not know about a subject, I just either say so, or just simply shut up. I’ll post the relevant scan of the « Naval Fighters » book when I have more time. Hubert

Martin, it was standard, and approved, and even recommended, by the Navy, practice to take off with the canopy open. Just, besides the « old » tradition of flying open cockpit biplanes - which endured for some time -, because pilots wanted to be able to escape quickly an aircraft that had missed its take-off - or experienced a power failure in this critical moment - and chosen to play watercraft rather than aircraft. And they did not trust that much the capacity of a latched canopy to be jettisoned easily in case of an inadvertent ditching. The practice endured until the early jets; the last being able to fly with an open canopy was the F9F-8T, the famous Twogar. At take-off and landing speeds of these propeller aircrafts, an open canopy did not create that extra drag. Just like the windscreen of a convertible protects its occupants from the relative wind. And without significant turbulences for close to one meter after the windscreen, or more when you add some special aerodynamic devices behind them, like « anti-turbulence nets ». I can testify having run a Porsche Boxster with an open top at 230 kph without any special buffeting (but with some significant noise ). The bubble canopy was only possible after the Brits found a way of forming thick perspex, and that was during WWII (around 1943 IIRC). Before that, you had to have a framed structure with panels, like on the SC-1, whereas the SC-2 could benefit from the technological advance. But the SC-2 canopy had a slightly different profile and plan view than the SC-1, simply because it was possible when the SC-2 was developed. Plus it was certainly « cleaner » from an aerodynamic standpoint than one with protruding frames and rivets. As for the SC-1 canopy, the issue, it was found, was some significant turbulences and buffeting, created by aerodynamic interactions. It was also found that removing the rear panels solved the issue, and this was an easy field implementation. Really, I insist, nothing to do with maintenance of the life-raft, which had, on the SC-1 as any other aircraft, to be extracted from its location for this operation. Hubert

Sorry to read that. The Portuguese administration is generally efficient with good, fairly integrated, systems, but, unfortunately, when things go sideways, it’s nearly impossible to get any answer from them. I have had this happen more than once. It’s then about finding the right connections, which is completely the opposite of the integrated systems efficiency principle … Hubert

I assure you that the rear canopy windows were removed for aerodynamic reasons, because of some vibrations and turbulences, Martin. Not to access the raft, when the canopy would have been jettisoned anyway if the raft was needed. Hubert

You have two different compound surfaces, furthermore in an airstream influenced by the big propeller wash. My guess is that the junction of the canopy to fuselage was creating boundary layer turbulences, which were actually removed by the slight depression the missing windows was creating … Aerodynamics are sometimes strange, like when seemingly drag-inducing protuberances actually improve the airflow and reduce the drag … Hubert

Beware that Peddinghaus’ decals accuracy is sometimes … dubious. For instance, I was at a time interested in their sheet for « YIPEE » the famous 5000th P-38. Then I saw the decal sheet, compared to the pic of the real one … and decided to pass, with no regrets. The « Yipee » name, so prominent, was not even close to the original on the decal sheet, using some VERY distant, standard, font … Hubert

The rear glazing of the canopy was removed to reduce aerodynamic turbulences. Simple and effective … and not a big issue at times when pilots were still used to keep canopies open. Hubert