HubertB

I had never realised that liking Vegemite was a condition to settle down under Hubert

Well, seller duly registered. He has some very good prices ... (note to self : you need to build more kits, not buy more kits ) Hubert

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

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

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

A-MA-ZING ... ’nuff said ... Hubert

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

Told you RLM 02, Dunkelgrau and Hellgrau were no good for a modern jet, Ernie ... Hubert

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

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

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

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

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

Looking good Bill Hubert

Now, THAT is a comparison I can visualise Hubert

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

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

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

Hi guys, I have an urge to start the venerable Matchbox Lysander, with some advanced detailing, and finish it in the famous target towing « bumble bee » scheme. Those who have, or have seen, the kit, will remember its somewhat « agricultural » level of detailing. The frame in particular looks way overscale, besides being wrong in some areas, like the wing structure girder. Here is where I am looking for help. The fuselage tubular structure was square tubes for the front, and round tubes for the rear. But the question is : what were the dimensions of the section of these tubes ? I cannot find any reference with these indications, which must however exist somewhere. If any of our Canadian friends have access to the CWH Lizzie, or other survivors, or any of our UK friends to the Shuttleworth or Hendon museum survivors, or to documents with these data, any help would be greatly appreciated. Hubert

Exactly, Martinn. I much prefer Miss Mc Gillis to Tom Cruise Hubert

... And this is the very reason why I bought my Sea Fury without the folding wings (that and the fact that an aircraft is always more beautiful with its wings spread, IMHO) Hubert

Ditto ! Hubert

I have run out of superlatives so long ago with your builds, that I try to leave time between my comments (not « likes », mind you ) , but it goes without saying that I LOVE each and any of your updates, Peter ! Hubert

Apparently, HPH seem to have decided to go IM with this one, Peter (most likely short run à la Special Hobby, at least that is my speculation based on the « czech connection » pf HPH) Hubert

Welcome on LSM ! Gotta say that keeping unfinished kits for 30+ years is what you British must call « fortitude » Hubert