Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Rob de Bie

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rob de Bie

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

8,374 profile views
  1. Rob de Bie

    F-84F 230 gallon inboard tanks

    I'm working on a 1/48 F-84F model with all the stores that the RNLAF used. I've done the two types of 450 gallon inbaord pylon tanks, but I still need the smaller 230 gallon inboard pylon tanks. Monogram provides 230 gallon *outboard* pylon tanks, but they appear to be different. I cannot find drawings or dimensions of the inboard tanks, so I did a photo analysis. Never mind the Moire pattern.. I calculated a tank length of 46.37 percent of the fuselage length, making 112 mm. The Monogram 230 gallon outboard tanks are 108 mm, so a 4 mm section is missing. Further analysis showed that the missing length should added to the conical section at the rear, that is too 'blunt' and should more pointed. It looks like combining the front 3/4 of the 230 gallon outboard tank with the conical tail section (with fins) of the 450 gallon inboard tanks will do the trick. From another photo I concluded the fin span is the same for the 230 gallon and 450 gallon tanks. Before I cut up the plastic, I wanted to check here whether someone knows more about this subject! Rob
  2. I'm planning to do a restoration of a couple of these toy cars from the seventies. They are also known as 'Stock Car Smash Up' (UK) and 'Crazy Racers' (Europe). I don't expect to ever find the original stickers, so I want to do custom decals based on the originals. I can recreate them from photos, but I do not know the sizes of the sheets / markings. Does anyone here happen to have a sheet to measure ? Incomplete is fine too. Here are the two sheets: Thanks in advance! Rob
  3. Rob de Bie

    Buying basic modelling stuff in Hungary

    I think the only lacquer-based modeling paint in Europe is Mr Paint, produced in the northern neighbour Slovakia. You can order it straight from the manufacturer. It's the best paint I've ever used! Rob
  4. Rob de Bie

    Any interest in Scalecraft drawings?

    The silence was deafening, so I decided to give the drawings away during a club meeting. I found new owners for all drawings, everybody was happy. Rob
  5. I have a small collection of large drawings published by Scalecraft from Whittier CA. They are: Bf 109G/K Fw 190F-8 Fw 190D-9 Me 262 (2 sheets + camouflage sheet) Ta 152H-0 Ta 154 (3 sheets) The scale is 1 to 25. I think they were published in the late eighties. Is there any interest in this kind of drawings? I found most references to Scalekraft in RC forums. They're nice enough to put on the wall; some edges have yellowed though. Rob
  6. Wow, what a fantastic hi-res photo. Can I ask where you found it?? I went all out to analyze it 🙂 The '3' comes up a bit short on the 4.5 blocks length, but that could be the result of the rudder being deflected towards the camera. The '8' and '2' conform pretty well to the 6 x 4.5 grid. However all corner cut-offs deviate from the standard because the are only half a stroke wide. On the '3', the corners on the left are 45 instead of 30 degrees, and the cut-out in the middle of the right side is a weird angle of roughly 36 degrees. My best explanation is that these numbers were done with masking tape instead of templates, and the work was done quickly, the angles being judged by eye. I think that I will put my 'rounded corners' theory to bed now 🙂 But the work did give me a few new insights, I'm happy with that. Thanks for all comments and contributions! Rob
  7. C it will be! I received a high-res version of the photo of U-2A 66696, as shown in the first posting. The photo was not a first-generation print, but still it showed clearly 45 degree corners. I think some sort of overexpose (notice the color of the tail itself) also made the stroke appear a bit thinner than in the print above. The conclusion is that the lettering is based on a 7x6 grid with 45 degree corners. How Lockheed arrived at that type of lettering is the remaining question. Maybe there was no Tech Order 1-1-4 or equivalent at that point? Rob
  8. Following the comments above about the U-2A serial number, I next tried a '45 degree' style lettering, but on a 7 by 6 square grid. USAF TO 1-1-4 lettering (left) has a 6 x 4 grid. It (C) doesn't look bad either, but the picture is too pixelated / grainy to be 100% sure. Rob
  9. In the same lines I mention that I made the same mistake. The rounded numbers are new insight. Yep, this one clearly has 45 degree corners. It seems I stand corrected, but I'll look for more good photos to be sure. However, I did notice the title of your file: "wilders_is_een_klootzak.jpg". For the ARC audience: Geert Wilders is a right-wing politician in the Netherlands, 'klootzak' means bastard. Compliments for your knowledge of Dutch politics, but is this kind of political statement really necessary? Is it even allowed here? I'm getting a very strange taste in my mouth again about your way of communicating. I think I am done. Rob
  10. Regarding the "earth-shattering discovery", are you always this cynical in your comments? Adding a smilie does not cover up the cynicism. I'm sharing my analysis with other modelers, and ask for their comments. I'm not claiming earth-shattering discoveries. Not every one is a decal designer like you who has seen it all before. You're right that the U-2A's "US AIR FORCE" does not conform with the TO1-1-4 prescribed lettering, but you can easily see that it was the basis. If you have proof that the early U-2A serial numbers "definitely do not have rounded corners", please share them with us. I cannot see anything else than rounded corners in the close-up of 66696. Rob
  11. A few days ago I saw a few interesting USAF films on Critical Past. It included a short view of the tail section of an A-1E, and I noted that the serial number 35007 was different from the US Navy font, that we call Longbeach nowadays. From lower resolution photos I had earlier concluded it was Longbeach, and I had designed my own custom decals accordingly, years ago. Caracal also used Longbeach in their recent A-1E / AD-5 sheet. It looked like the actual lettering had the same height-width ratio (6 to 4.5), stroke width and basic design, but the 30 degree cut-offs at the corners were absent. Instead I saw round corners. I decided to try to draw it on the same grid that is used for the US Navy font. I used half the stroke width for the radius. Shown here is the number 3 of both designs. I pasted both Longbeach and my own fonts on the photo, and saw that my 'new' font was very close, and a lot better than the US Navy font. After 'solving' the A-1E serial numbe case, I remember the early USAF bare-metal U-2As. I was always puzzled by the Navy style serial numbers - why would Lockheed do the 'U.S. AIR FORCE' markings in the correct USAF-prescribed font, but use the Navy font for the serial number? Having seen the case of the A-1E lettering, I considered that it may not have been 'Longbeach' but again something drawn on a grid. First I tried the A-1E-style lettering, with a height-to-width ratio of 6 to 4.5 and a radius of half the stroke width. Next I designed another version, with a height-to-width ratio of 6 to 5 and a radius equal to the stroke width. Both are shown here with the number 6 as an example. I overlaid the photo with these two fonts, and concluded that the second version (B) was closest. It's still not a 100% match though, maybe the stroke should be thinner. And then I thought of yet another case. This photo of an H-43B in the earliest paint scheme (likely the delivery scheme) also shows markings with irregular lettering. It looks a bit more like the Navy font, in being a bit more square with a thinner stroke. The U-2 lettering had a stroke that looked too fat compared to the photo above. Therefore I tried a 7 by 5 grid, with radii of half a grid square. That looked quite good. I took the best photo I found and tried to remove the perspective from the section with the 'U.S. Air Force' text. The width-height ratio is a bit of a guess actually. The 7 by 5 font agrees quite nicely I think. The three examples probably have in common that the markings were applied at the factory (or civilian overhaul facility) and not by the Air Force itself. I found it interesting to find that most of the 'irregular' markings could be drawn systematically on a grid, similar to the way USAF and Navy lettering is designed. But I was also surprised by the number of variations, in terms of the grids and the ratio between radius and stroke. Comments are welcome! Rob
  12. Rob de Bie

    Can anyone measure the bombs in the Monogram 1/48 F-84F?

    I think you're right! I made a mental note to always double check when M117s are reported 🙂 Rob
  13. Rob de Bie

    Can anyone measure the bombs in the Monogram 1/48 F-84F?

    Ha! I built that kit as a youngster, my only 1/48 kit I think. And found the bombs in my spares box. I don't recognise them as M65s, the Monogram depiction is 10x better. Diameter is 10% too small, the bomb body looks too long, but overall length is 3 mm short. Scalemates says the kit was reissued by Italeri: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/944145-esci-4027-fiat-g-91-r-1-r-3-gina Rob
  14. Rob de Bie

    How to do a 'stores configuration study model' ?

    Black maybe looks like a WW2 recognition model. Silver was also one of my ideas, and it would give a bit of an old-fashioned look, which would suit this model. Decisions decisions... By the way, I plan to overpaint the canopy too, if that matters. Rob
  15. Rob de Bie

    How to do a 'stores configuration study model' ?

    Yes, all attention should go to the weapons load, that's what the model will be used for. They will be painted in their real colors. Gray sounds like the most neutral color indeed. Rob