Jump to content

Welcome to Large Scale Modeller: The home of the large scale military model builder. 


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HubertB

  1. HubertB

    New Years Modelling Resolutions

    Waiting for the,one without a passenge door ... a DC-3 in short ... then the funds to afford it, with VAT in Europe ... Hubert
  2. HubertB

    B-24 Liberator Lead Ship aka Judas Goat.

    I still remember Shep Paine’s build of the venerable Monogram kit, in the painting shop receiving its polka dots formation ship scheme, on the cover of Scale Models ... Hubert
  3. HubertB

    1/18 P51C Mustang "Lopes Hope 3rd"

    Eeeeeezy Peeeeeezy .... as they say Hubert
  4. HubertB

    Barker's Camel B6313 - 1:32 scale

    Looking mighty good, Mike Hubert
  5. HubertB

    HB Models B-24 Hints, Tweaks, Tips

    Ron, I read your comment about the WB engines not being to scale as a confirmation that they might rather be R-1535 ... The main difference with the R-1830 lies in the size of the crankcase IIRC ... But at least they fit into the cowlings without too much hassle and look better than the kit’s engines. Congrats for having found a cost-effective solution for improving the engines. Now for another question : I have read a comment on LSP that the props were actually too small in diameter... Hubert
  6. Looks like a lovely kit. And with a consistent scale with my favorite aircrafts’ one on top of it ... Hubert
  7. HubertB

    T minus six days...

    I had never realised that liking Vegemite was a condition to settle down under Hubert
  8. Well, seller duly registered. He has some very good prices ... (note to self : you need to build more kits, not buy more kits ) Hubert
  9. HubertB

    Short Sunderland MkII

    To complement Cees' offer, I have a box containing two complete Beaufighters (which was offered as an option in the LSM Christmas raffle, but was not chosen by Wouter), which I will most likely never build. Let me know if they are of any use for your project. They are yours in this case. Hubert
  10. HubertB

    New Years Modelling Resolutions

    Ah ! New Year’s resolutions ! I have to finish the couple of Gee Bees I started in 2017 ... but then I also need to finish the Cutlass I started in 2016, the scratchbuilt Sikorsky S-39 I started in 2017, the Gulfhawk from 2013, the Husky from 2015 ... And then, there is this civilian Swordfish, or this « Bumble Bee » Lysander I want to build ... By the way, what day are we today ? Ah yes, the « World Day of Procrastination » ! Ok, I’ll sort out my resolutions later, then Hubert
  11. Not that I will ever use them, as the Gotha is not on my « To buy » list, but since you asked... I like the lighter right ones better because of the denser, closer-grained wood, but the darker, left ones have a better color, closer to what you would expect from the 1:1 real ones .. Hubert
  12. HubertB

    1/18 P51C Mustang "Lopes Hope 3rd"

    A-MA-ZING ... ’nuff said ... Hubert
  13. HubertB

    Short Sunderland MkII

    When I see other people complaining about the size of some 1/32 quads with « Where do you put one ? » questions, I believe they should see your shelves/display area/attic with all the few big kits you have built already ... And I thought you said the 1/32 B-29 was pretty impractical to manipulate. Glad you chose a Sunderland then Anyway, I will follow this one with GREAT interest Hubert
  14. HubertB

    Back in the saddle with the Kitty Hawk F-5F

    Told you RLM 02, Dunkelgrau and Hellgrau were no good for a modern jet, Ernie ... Hubert
  15. Congrats to Ernie. Can’t promise anything about the hard time though ... Hubert
  16. Funny how the regional culture influences preferences... Mine started in the late 60s’ and early 70’s when the 917s were in front of the 512s in Le Mans and other races. I have always been a Porsche guy since... So, no, not a Corvette forme, but a 911 anytime, over and over any Lambo or Ferrari ... Hubert
  17. HubertB

    HB Models B-24 Hints, Tweaks, Tips

    Having (copiously) contributed to the thread creep of 1to1scale’s building thread with various comments, and in order not to loose the general information there, I thought it would be good to at least post the link to this thread here, so that the data would not be forgotten ... Hubert
  18. HubertB

    I must be crazy, B-24J on the bench.

    Very good point, Ernie. I am probably among the first to be guilty as charged of feeding this thread’s creep ... Hubert
  19. HubertB

    I must be crazy, B-24J on the bench.

    The next question is: are the cowlings’ outside dimensions accurate, or are they too small as well ? Hubert
  20. HubertB

    I must be crazy, B-24J on the bench.

    I thought Williams « Twin Wasps » were actually R-1535 « Twin Wasp Jr » rather than R-1830 Twin Wasp, but I may be wrong on this one. The only noticeable difference in this scale is the diameter (1121 mm vs 1220 mm in 1/1, so roughly 3mm in 1/32) which is actually not so much on the cylinders (the 1/16 of an inch difference in bore and stroke is equal to 0.05 mm in 1/32) as on the crankcase diameter. Anyway, great idea to go for these « venerable » Wiliams engines. Hubert
  21. HubertB

    CSM Nieuport 17 (Late)

    Looking good Bill Hubert
  22. Now, THAT is a comparison I can visualise Hubert
  23. HubertB

    I must be crazy, B-24J on the bench.

    To make a long story short : the wing in the kit has almost the right thickness (should be 22% of the chord - the chord is the « depth » of the wing from front to rear - i.e., at the root - where the wing meets the fuselage - so that is 22% of 133.35 mm = 29.4 mm ) but the kit’s wing profile is too symmetrical between the top and the bottom wing. The original Davis airfoil was more rounded on the top wing and flatter on the bottom wing. Plus, a key feature of a wing on any aircraft is the incidence. The incidence is the angle between the aircraft’s datum line (the « mid » line of the fuselage when the aircraft is flying horizontally, and the line that goes from the middle of the leading edge curve to the trailing edge. On the picture I inserted, this line is shown clearly. Any wing is set at a certain incidence, which contributes to the lift - and drag - generated by the wing. On the B-24, this incidence angle is 3.26°, which makes the trailing edge be positioned lower than the middle point of the leading edge. The impact is that the bottom wing seems to be almost flat, when the top of the wing seems to slope sharply from the point of maximum thickness to the trailing edge. On the kit, the wing seems set at less than 1° incidence, which makes it appear too « flat ». Thus the trailing edge is too high relative to the top of the fuselage. With the wrong profile, this contributes to spoil to appearance of the wing. Check Iain’s pics on LSP. They show the overlay between the kit’s wing and the correct Davis airfoil, positioned at the correct incidence, and the corrections Iain is attempting to modify both the profile and the incidence. HTH Hubert
  24. HubertB

    I must be crazy, B-24J on the bench.

    See my previous post about the correct wing profile, in this thread. The wrong profile issue of the kit is compounded by the too small incidence (the drawing in my previous post has the right incidence, i.e. 3.26°), which is apparently slightly less than 1° on the kit. Iain on LSP is using the same data and internet site as I showed in my posts to determine the right profile. He seems to be getting there changing the wing to a more correct profile and incidence. Most likely, as I mentioned, he will have to correct the angle of the nacelles to bring them back in the slipstream, and may ending having an issue with the MLG legs angle as well. Nothing that can't be corrected when you have had the guts to correct the wing to start with ... Hubert
  25. HubertB

    Soo.... What did you just get???

    ... And, talking about power, the consumption budget of a (smallish) nuclear power plant Hubert