Phil marchese

Just more food for thought for what to serve as leftovers from an XB-15.

Chuck I have some Grumman handouts & PR material form when I supported the E-2C program ast the Navy inventory Control Point Contracting Division. This was 78-81 and I don,t recall the D in the fleet when I moved to a Joint Command. Is you Fez a replacement for the saucer shaped radar? If so then I m not knowledgeable. If you can boundry your timeframe that might help get replies. Also the two independent 'all' construction of your questions is problematic. Are you asking if the upper Fez was always paired with a certain lower radar? If some C/D were configured w/o these; or were the

Boeing General Arrangement is in one of the Kenzy Detail & Scale vols on the B-17. There is also a 1/144 scale kit I believe but I haven t given much attention. I ve got an extra Airfix Boeing 314 Clipper an series 1 Mosquito sttashed for the 6thAF C-105 (?). I might have posted here or on HS. a while back. If useful I ll repost. Meanwhile refer to Vol I & II of the B-17 Detail & Scale for the OEM GA Drw'g. Dan Hagedorn covers her in his Above the Canel. There is also a Wings/Airpower coverstory circa the 80 with lots of pictures I might have indexed with my project notes. TB

Next we can look at how NT met the requirement for enclosed waists in USSTAF; When the L-CO finally enclosed waist; How the various B-24 contractts reacted to AAF single acceptance policy: What became of the B-24K-NT program planned in April 1943; What is the significance of the G-16-NT & J-2-NT ; What became of the B-24M-NT; Why there was a clear detacable waist hatch w/o gun mounts; When and why search cababilty was incresing inthe B-24 population by. Sept 1944; What became of the programed 100 OCAD nose kits for local overseas installation; And how can the C series be the produ

I m not experienced with home. Prited decals yet it seems sacrificing a portion of what you have to produce more might be an option someone can assist in. Guessing.

The factual data we can assume you poccess is the source of supply , month quanty and employment in aircraft by serial number of every Martin A-3D segregated by dome type supplied to all USN & AAF. Contracts calling for GFE delivery of this model turret including spares from Introduction of the D to the advent of the B-24L. Short of that you fall short of the standard of research you profess.

Yes the picture demonstrates what I pointed out to Al Blue an a select others that the high dome A-3D was introduced early in the Privateer production in mid 1944 . I also concluded that the high dome and the A-3D designation were not in a one to one relationship. I did this using the AAF monthly armament updates and three years or collaborating photographic evidence before discussing it with Mr. Blue privately in early 2007. So yes Al Blue got this wrong in 1975 but he and I figured out why in 2007. f also igured out the connection to the 2x4 production and the 2x4 back when you had conc

If you go to the latter part of the C-109 String there is a good example of a NWA B-24D cheeck gun mod used only port side. This window is very common onD-1 thru. D-20 from San Diego that did not get routed thru. Fort Worth.

The navigator with his drift site and astrodome have been relocated aft the flight deck. This location gets more and more common in B-24 also as. War progressed. The dis-similarities in the angles and station locations in the lower nose of the H and the L based C-109 are in evidence. The lozenge nose marking with RCN was common in CBI ATC Wing and carried over to post war MAC...Think AMC may. Still use it. Sometimes "last three" but this period usually 4 digitts. The square nav compartment window is factory at. This point. The H by comparison is bedazzled in ETO. Modification not restric

Oh my natural metal finish. Ok here we go. Because of the aerodynamic design a/c have areas where vortex blowback will occur. You may be aware from some curvy cars. For metal finishes people will prime with gloss black. Or flat white and many other options. This maybe why you got no responses. No joking... best adviice is put the superfort on the shelf and get a 1/4 scale P-47D of moderate price to build in NMF first. It will give you room to get a feel for the 72 nd 29. Just one opinion to break the ice.

The 5 sortie grouping arrangement is very similar to the bit o lace presentation and size appears close too. RW26 is on the money. I ve done. Positve and negative approches using the allternate method on OD finishes. I think on NMF rolling against the house in terms of clean touch ups vs trace of film. Good luck either way you go.

I ve read the traditional methods for aircraft design and skinning. I. Have also built architecural paper models using inner scribe lines as well as trial and error for many curved sections of plastic cars and planes. I have not however taught myself CAD. I m wondering iif we have a resident expert and enough scratch builders to make this a good topic. In my mind recreating an aircraft part from styrene is more hobby oriented* and a happier healthier modification method the CA someone else's resin mega bucks part to a kit. Anyone make this use of CAD simple to follow? * self-satisfacti

No the point fitting an H nose as a proxey for an L was not at all lost. Its just not good advice in my opinion. Nor is construction using putty for structure. The turret mount ring can be adjusted with a simple strip of plastic to form a lip for the lowest wrap of sheet styrene after tracing the curvature on paper or CAD. Backing a strip to that top inner edge allows adding the next wrap panel. And so on. The top panel can use a pie slice method with allowance to shape into smooth curved panel. Plastic not putty except for final buffing is the rule of this type modeling.

Thanks for permission to revive this post. Phil

Back to top per request

The H-FO nose has little in common with the C-109 nose. The upper nose is an entirely different fabrication forward sta 0.0 and relative to the H series the lower nose on these late J series differs significantly and again the L which differs again. Fact. The important visual feature not mentioned is the retention of the full size plex waist hatch inserts. See ref provided earlier.

I posted a full delineation of the developement of the Ford S curve on this forum several years ago that is presented in progressive development. A search on the B-24 Ford S curve should resurface the post. I checked it last week and it was available. Period.

A reminder...the use of caps as a manner of emphasis is not acceptable here.

Well this poster for one is well researched and collaborated with researchers far more experienced than yourself. Based upon your released drawing you clearly and emphatically demonstrated not the least basic knowleedge og the B-24H and its transitionally steps during the Ford J into the L series. The sample profile was a mess. Like most if not all of the nose turreted kits your drawing was as ficticious composite and the very point of the regimented Ford manufacturing processes as reflected in a fairly uniform paint scheme, you also misrepressented. Anyone with two good pictures of an undam

In the context of the question. Your reply of six (6) type hoods as far different inference depending on the scope of inclusion. Simple question: did your six (6) hoods go beyond Wwii era ; and include dual seat plane? (Opening premise wrong on contemporary warhawk pic you ap'rly. Have not seen.)

The C-109 modification program was based on Ford manufactured B-24J & L components. I did A recent post on the subject which you can find by search tool. The a/c were assembled by Ford and Douglas as bombers and sent to commerical modifiers in Birmingham and possibly by NorthWest Airlines St Paul. The lower Ford nose glazing remained. The upper nose was faired over in metal. See separate "radio button" below index at www.b24bestweb.com. The CBI Wing used nose markings and some examples have nicknames.

Yes Betty,s Dream was escort to the party.

Not sure how Revell instructs the installation of the topturret in your issue. It was never designed to trap. In the turret opening but rather the rings were to trap on cams inside the fus. Walls below the turret. A further improvement is to cut the clear ring lip ~ mm above to separate the dome. Cement the clear ring to the turret base and trap this on the cams. The pinions, guns and can be added late in assembly. The base of the now separate dome can be sanded to reduce the hight but must still clear the pinions.

The kit has a snap up locking trap in the wing which works well and aligns the doors flush and the wells properly. So the mains should be built per instructions. The nose wheel has a slight snap mold in the counterbalance yet the male/female doors were a Revell invention to keep the wheel from retracting. If you. Omits all nose wheel parts substitute a straight bi-sect score in a single sheet to cover the wheel well. The pitots rais up and behind the the navigator's windows. The port cheek is a through a port in a window fore the nav window reacihing the nose framing. Straboard gun is in

Jennings. In your six types are you including dual seat, TP/TF and post war versions? Can you enumerate the six types? That would be useful to the topic.