Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Rob de Bie

Members
  • Content Count

    688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rob de Bie

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

9,183 profile views
  1. If you're not afraid of vacform canopies, you have two options: Squadron 9526 Bell P39 Falcon VAX32 set USAAF WW2 (P51 Mustang /A36 Apache, P51B Mustang, P39 Airacobra, P35, P47B Razorback Thunderbolt, P47D Bubbletop Thunderbolt, P36 Hawk, P40B Tomahawk, P40E Warhawk) The canopies are identical, Squadron sourced them from Falcon, but sold them individually. Both are available on Ebay: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=squadron+p-39+canopy+1%2F48&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=squadron+p-39+canopy https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Falcon+USAAF+WW2+1%2F48&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=Falcon+USAAF+WW2 Rob
  2. I don't know whether the Navy font that we know now was used in the late forties, but generally it looks like the 60 degree Navy font to me. I agree the stroke looks a bit thinner, I see two options: - the white fuselage , especially in full sunshine like your second photo, makes the stroke of the black lettering look a tiny bit smaller. I only know the Dutch word for this (overstralen), and it's so obscure that I cannot find a translation. It means that the strong light from the white surrounding the black eats away a bit of the black lettering. Note the difference between your first and second photos - the later has a lot more 'overstralen'. I'm sure there's an English word for it. - just maybe the painter used a different grid compared to the official one, that is 6 x 4.5 blocks with 1 grid block stroke. If he used say 8 x 6 with a 1 stroke, you would get a 'thinner' font. I played around with these effects on my Lockheed U-2 (https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/u2.htm) and Douglas A-1E (https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/a1e.htm) pages. Rob
  3. One of his photos shows a near-perfect side view, maybe that helps too. I'll wait for Mark's reply before I show more. He also shot quite a few good cockpit photos. Your contributions on this forum about East-European aviation are very much appreciated, so I enjoy helping you here 🙂 Rob
  4. I've got a set of 200+ QF-4 photos by Mark Nankivil, that he shot in 2003. This was his best shot of the 'bump'. I will shoot him an e-mail whether I can forward his photos to you. Rob
  5. Thanks for checking! I've taken screen shots from the Nova documentary to show them. AFAIK they were tried once before on a experimental F-106. It's a pity nothing was published on this unique feature. Rob
  6. Oh! I have to ask: did you also see details of the 'vortex flaps' on the leading edge? That's one system of which have never seen any details. It's probably not very exciting, but I would like to know how these flaps were actuated - hydraulic actuators, rotary actuators, siccors, etc. I'm very slowly 'building' a Chinese die-cast X-32, hence the question. Rob
  7. Maybe this photo set gives you an idea? http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/hans-hermann_buhling/c-160_cargo_bay/ Both RAL colors that you mention are not in my 'RAL K7 Classic' fandeck. Rob
  8. Dutch, ChernayaAkula and Hajo: thanks for the compliments! Here's the most recent one I built, a faux-metal deskmodel for Craig Kaston, my number one source of information of the AQM-34 website. Rob
  9. Another very happy modeler here! Just a few months ago I bought the Black Dog 1/72 BQM-34A, but it was a huge disappointment. Here's my list of errors: overall length should be 275.71" = 97.3 mm. I measured 80.9 + 10.5 = 91.4 mm, 5.9 mm too short, or 94% of the real length the fuselage is too fat in the middle, giving it a pregnant look. It's also too fat behind the wing. Ryan drawings show 28.12" max width, 9.9 mm in 1/72, the model is 12.3 mm the nacelle is too short the wings and tailplanes have 'root ribs' embossed on the fuselage, to which the flying surfaces are to be butt-jointed. This makes for weak connections, difficult sanding, and missing gaps. The Italeri method with recessed pockets is so much better and realistic the wings and tailplanes all have a completely unrealistic wedge-shaped wing profile, flat on the top and bottom sides. The unique drooped-leading edge profile of the main wing is absent the tailplanes attach to the main parachute cone, that is ejected during recovery, instead of the rear fuselage the tailplane endplates are of a type that I have never seen the panel line that separates the radome from the fuselage is placed too far forward, making the radome far too small most panel lines on the rear fuselage are missing the electronics hatch on the rear left fuselage is positioned too far forward the spine starts too far aft the inlet shape looks strange there's a concave area behind the exhaust that does not exist the cart is of a type that I've never seen The new PlusModel Firebee looks good on the sprues. On the built-up models the vertical tail keeps attracting my attention, it looks like the sweep angle is too small. Both the LSM and Belcher first-generation Firebees (Q-2A / KDA) have problems, so I'm very happy that PlusModel gives these a go. I hope they do the air force version too, that has a smaller nacelle and no bullet in the inlet. I've been playing with the Italeri 1/72 BQM-34 for ages, modifying them into various AQM-34 versions, like the AQM-34M below. If you want to know more about the AQM-34, check out my website: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/aqm34.htm Rob
  10. I recently read something new about vacform kits in the recent book 'Frog Penguin plastic scale model kits 1936-1950' by Peter van Lune. On page 192 it shows the 'Wimco Hollows', vacformed kits from 1956. The founders of Frog Penguin, austed by Lines Brothers, started Jetex and Wimco, all in the UK. The kits were 1/144 scale, and Canberra B8, Javelin and Valiant are confirmed. This really puts the claims of Gordon Stevens of being the first to bed! Rob
  11. I looked again at the photos, and to my surprise there is no steel reinforcement (rebar) visible before the concrete is poured. The pouring casings are already mostly installed, but no rebar. Yet in the one photo where the shelter's exhaust is missing, I see lots of rebar sticking out vertically. I'm confused 😗 Rob
  12. I just found a really nice set of construction photos of the TAB-Vs at Soesterberg: https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/foto-s/?q=shelterbouw&fq%5B%5D=search_s_mediatype:%22Foto%27s%22&mode=gallery&view=horizontal Maybe the details are useful for anyone building one in scale. Rob
  13. To get that Alps running: try to find an old XP computer with a on-board LPT1 printer port. Otherwise it becomes rather complicated, with virtual machines etc. Rob
  14. For a friend I 'redrew' an old ScaleMaster sheet in vector graphics, so it could be printed in white. I can send the vector file (for free) so you can have it printed by a custom printer. Her'es a list of those: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/decals.htm#custom Rob
  15. Here's the master in progress, about 3/4 done, with a first layer of paint to check for paint defects. I hade run a needle through the small rectangular fasteners, that's why they are so apparent. The chaff 'exhaust' was achieved by about half an hour worth of scraping with a small scalpel blade. The shape I saw in photos emerged slowly but surely. Comments are welcome! Rob
×
×
  • Create New...