Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Builds Short Sunderland Mklll 1.72 scale with Eduard PE maintenance platform

Those code letters look totally wrong. I've never seen letters like that on a British or Commonwealth a/c.
 
Here's a picture of an RNZAF Sunderland, taken in the 1960s in Fiji (just popped up on FB, coincidentally). Quite pristine - but then it wasn't bobbing around the foetid waters of Pembroke Dock! The inspection platforms are in use.

1600800817300.png
 
large tail numbers made by dry transfer letra set, the roundall is from the kit decals. 201 Sqn RAF Coastal command.
This build is unbelievably slow, I'm spending a lot of spare time elsewhere, but I'll keep the slow progress updates coming.
View attachment 506483

yep I know - you'd normally have done 4 or 5 in the time this has taken!

Looks ace though. Great choice for a build
 
I've just been thinking - IIRC there used to be some lining tapes marketed back in the 70's especially for this purpose. Never used the stuff myself, but the maker was someone like Mekpak I think.
CNN
‘Gridding tape’ possibly (numerous manufacturers). Mekpak was liquid poly cement containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone, very effective but probably banned worldwide now.
 
Mekpak was liquid poly cement containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Not MEK, according to several sites that I happened across when I was looking for (what turned out to be) Plastikard Microstrip. Others had also made the same understandable but incorrect assumption.
 
Last edited:
That's wrong too. Roundel is way too large, as is the fin flash. The code letters are better and appear to conform to the formula of stroke width in relation to size. I can't remember the precise letter width/height/stroke ratio but they corresponded with a/c size. ISTR the stroke widths were between 1 and 8" depending on letter size. 1" on smaller kites etc.

However, there are examples of truly bonk lettering done at unit level, when kites got swapped about. A good example of this is the coding on the preserved Defiant at Hendon. Dreadful... but accurate in that it was taken from a photo.

The other stumbling block is squadron code to the fore, roundel, followed by individual a/c code aft most. Technically that's the correct format. The reality is that often it was mirrored on the starboard fuse.

The roundels should always be in exactly the same position each side of the fuse. Clearly, some codes looked gash when applied in this format - usable space being a limiting factor. Generally, the squadron code is placed fwd of the roundel.

Coastal Command codes were dove/slate/msg/whatever was available grey and post office red. Black was a post war thing as far as I know.

Worth a read...

Rafweb
 
Last edited:

NSP

LE
Could it be to throw the prop wash over the tail control surfaces, perhaps reducing the drag that would come from a twin rudder design?
The "Iron Annie" was a single-fin design.

So was the Sunderland...
 
The "Iron Annie" is a single-fin design.

So is the Sunderland...
Yes, that's why the prop wash from the angled engines would strike the fin. In a twin-finned multi-engined aircraft, the fins would be behind the non-angled engines, e.g. Me 110, Do 17, Lancaster, etc.

Pushing air at the control surfaces may maximise manoeuvrability - though may also ruin your day if an engine fails as the unbalanced aircraft will try to fly in circles (more so than just the reduced/lack of thrust on one side of the aircraft).

Really just contemplating the consequences of doing a quick bodge by not straightening up the engines on the swept wing. Some pros, some cons.
 
Not MEK, according to several sites that I happened across when I was looking for (what turned out to be) Plastikard Microstrip. Others had also made the same understandable but incorrect assumption.
There are rumblings in the modelling community about the formula for MEK-PAK changing and no longer being as effective, Though I last used it on plastic kits the mid 70s. The next time I came across it was as ‘butanone’, which was used extensively on Gazelle rotor blades as a solvent to stick the LE tape on (the smell was unmistakable). Rumours abounded as to the health effects, but as solvents go, it was the dogs...
Available widely at about a tenner a litre and allegedly ‘safe‘ now.

*aside* ahhh... slater’s micro strip...
 

LARD

LE
There are rumblings in the modelling community about the formula for MEK-PAK changing and no longer being as effective, Though I last used it on plastic kits the mid 70s. The next time I came across it was as ‘butanone’, which was used extensively on Gazelle rotor blades as a solvent to stick the LE tape on (the smell was unmistakable). Rumours abounded as to the health effects, but as solvents go, it was the dogs...
Available widely at about a tenner a litre and allegedly ‘safe‘ now.

*aside* ahhh... slater’s micro strip...

Just ordered some assorted microstrip stuff from Hannants… useful!
 
the main wing with the roundall. The engines in white primer.
wing main decals.png

this may be an old Airfix kit, but the decals are modern and very good, the conform the the surface texture really well.
wing main decal detail.png

the floats on the outer ends of the main plane, come in typical longitudinal split.
floats a.png

pressure from spring tweezers to close the gap.
floats bpng.png

fuselage and wings left to dry for 12 hours or so.
fusilage and decals.png
 

Bodenplatte

War Hero
Yes, that's why the prop wash from the angled engines would strike the fin. In a twin-finned multi-engined aircraft, the fins would be behind the non-angled engines, e.g. Me 110, Do 17, Lancaster, etc.

Pushing air at the control surfaces may maximise manoeuvrability - though may also ruin your day if an engine fails as the unbalanced aircraft will try to fly in circles (more so than just the reduced/lack of thrust on one side of the aircraft).

Really just contemplating the consequences of doing a quick bodge by not straightening up the engines on the swept wing. Some pros, some cons.
[/QUOTE

Having become an internet expert on the subject in the last 48 hours, I'd say that the outward splay on Sunderland and Ju52 engines was nothing to do with directing propblast over control surfaces.
The slight rearward sweep on Sunderland wings has already been explained upthread. The reason for Ju52 having outward pointing engines was, apparently, to improve handling characteristics in the event of a No1 or No3 engine failure.
 
Bit late to mention this but the portholes on the Airfix Sunderland are about twice the size they should be. Italeri kit gets them right but somehow doesn't look as good as the Airfix old rendition.
 

Latest Threads

Top