|
I just get my hands dirty.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
I either do that, or if whatever I am working on is too small and fiddly to just sit nicely on a tray I blu-tac it to a coffee stirrer and then use a clothes peg to stick it to a bit of spare cardboard or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Lots of pics incoming! After 4 months I finally finished Trumpeter's PLA Navy Type 002 carrier Shandong, with Trumpeter's detail-up set with extra PE, brass radar, antennae etc, and a bit of scratch-building.         I managed to get it finished just in time for our model club's model show, which was a great success after having had to cancel it for the last 2 years cos of Covid - the other scottish clubs, IPMS UK SIGs and traders in attendance were all pretty happy with it too. We got onto the local news the night before and ended up with masses of regular, non-grognardy members of the public, families etc coming along and a fair bit of interest from folk wanting to join our club too. I did some judging in our competition for the first time, which was a new challenge - and honestly wasn't connected to me winning trophies in two of the classes as I excused myself from judging in those ones.  Here's some pics from my club's stand        And some random pics from the show, RAF Bomber Command SIG, Lightning SIG & Buccaneer SIG (both run & represented by Trevor Snowden who used to work for Airfix back in the day and was the designer of their 1/48 Lightning and Bucc kits, hence he's built hundreds of the things).       If anyone's interested, I can post some close-up shots from the competition tables as the standard was really high, and some incredible 1/700 ship models too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Congrats on your trophies and thanks for all the pics. I haven't been to a show in quite a few years now.. definitely not since Covid, really should try to hit Modelzona this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
 Also TIL that the Jaguar could mount the AIM-9 overwing 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Congratulations. One day I'll actually go to a hobby show. In theory. I'm sure it'll be cool, for certain very relative values of cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
That hobby show looks awesome and so does that PLA aircraft carrier. You military modelers build some pretty impressive stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I just get my hands dirty. I used to do that but I got tired of having overspray all over my hands making a mess everywhere. Much easier to strip the glove and wash with hand soap if I need to answer the door or cook dinner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Considering the amount of cancer warnings all over the various modeling paints I use there's no way I'm going to let that stuff get on my hands or in my lungs if I can help it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:
And of course the EE Lightning could mount fuel tanks overwing, and they fitted Nimrods with AIM-9s during the falklands war for self-defence. I've spoken to an ex-Nimrod pilot and he said the were suprisingly nimble aircraft for their size.   Here's the rest of my picdump from the weekend. Ships! These were all built by the same dude.                    The competition was judged in a classification system, so instead of 1st, 2nd, 3rd place, each model was judged on its own merits rather than against the others and judged to be gold, silver or bronze quality (essentially they start at gold, if you find a few issues with it knock it down to silver, if you find a bunch of problems it goes to bronze). Then a subsequent round of judging establishes the best in class from all the gold winners. I didn't get pics of all the entries or all the classes, and I'm annoyed that I missed the dioramas! 1/72 aircraft            1/48            Helicopters           1/72 (and some 1/35) armour       Ships       Class winners        Overall best in show winner!  Hopefully I'll have a phone with a better camera for next year!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:And of course the EE Lightning could mount fuel tanks overwing, and they fitted Nimrods with AIM-9s during the falklands war for self-defence. I've spoken to an ex-Nimrod pilot and he said the were suprisingly nimble aircraft for their size. British aerospace design is always so... Quirky? Kooky? Whimsical? gently caress, the Lightning has two engines stacked instead of being next to each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:British aerospace design is always so... Quirky? Kooky? Whimsical? I always get an ominous sense of dread looking at the front of a Victor, like it's some sort of biomechanical creature screeching at you. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:British aerospace design is always so... Quirky? Kooky? Whimsical? If you wanna bend your brain, you should look at what the nimrod was developed from. And the V series bombers. Biggest mistake ever. Best mistake ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
I like that judging system, especially the preliminary markdown phase versus head-to-head competition. I know there's stuff I can't see over photos, but I honestly can't tell the difference between some of the gold and bronze models.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:If you wanna bend your brain, you should look at what the nimrod was developed from. Oh, I'm aware of those. I don't care about the performance, I'll always love the Vulcan. There's just something about British planes, man - Nimrod, Vulcan, Lancaster, Wellington, Vampire, Harrier... It's a fuckin' design language that hits some part of my brain just right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:I always get an ominous sense of dread looking at the front of a Victor, like it's some sort of biomechanical creature screeching at you. Someone's watched too many weird mecha animes, but I can't tell if it was you or the chief designer of that plane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:Oh, I'm aware of those. I don't care about the performance, I'll always love the Vulcan. There's just something about British planes, man - Nimrod, Vulcan, Lancaster, Wellington, Vampire, Harrier... It's a fuckin' design language that hits some part of my brain just right. Fairy Ganet. I'll remind you, somehow, it's a twin engine plane. :-) And... Yeah, the british do planes right. I should post a model photo. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" Seriously, where did his butt go?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
Darth Brooks posted:"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" The back fell off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Fairy Ganet. I'll remind you, somehow, it's a twin engine plane. :-) And... Yeah, the british do planes right. Hi Tekkadan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
Darth Brooks posted:"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" *Emerging from the depths in my diving suit* Me: Butts haunted Survey Team: What? Me: Butts haunted *cocks harpoon gun*
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 05:08
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:And of course the EE Lightning could mount fuel tanks overwing, and they fitted Nimrods with AIM-9s during the falklands war for self-defence. I've spoken to an ex-Nimrod pilot and he said the were suprisingly nimble aircraft for their size.  Big planes like the Nimrod are interesting because their aerodynamic characteristics are really specific to the altitudes they are intended to operate at. Apparently if you get to the right height a 737 will out-dogfight most fighters with ease, it's just not a thing that modern fighters are designed to do much anymore, and definitely not at that altitude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 11:08
|
|
|
That sounds like bullshit because I'm pretty sure no civilian aircraft is designed to pull 8+ gs while fighter jets, even modern stealthy ones, are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 11:12
|
|
|
Apparently their wings won't actually let them turn that hard up at 41k feet, whereas the 737's are more suited for that thickness of air. Sure the fighter can just open up and go fast where the 737 can't, but that's not the same thing as maneuverability. Plus the 737 pilot probably won't be wearing a g-suit either. I ain't a pilot though so this is all second hand info and could be pure bullshit from people wanting to mess with internet nerds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
Darth Brooks posted:"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" These were monitors, a class of ship designed for one single purpose - carrying a disproportionately large gun, often taken straight off a battleship. They were slow and had basically no armour, and some were designed so the gun was fixed aiming to port or starboard so they could only fire in one direction. The Nelson-class battleships (HMS Nelson & Rodney) had a similarly unbalanced design and had allegedly quite poor handling as a result, but Rodney helped sink the Bismarck so...  
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 12:21
|
|
|
tidal wave emulator posted:These were monitors, a class of ship designed for one single purpose - carrying a disproportionately large gun, often taken straight off a battleship. They were slow and had basically no armour, and some were designed so the gun was fixed aiming to port or starboard so they could only fire in one direction. I'm still waiting for Nelson in 1/350 loving hurry up Trumpeter  The Nelson class were designed that way to allow them to be armed with 9x 16" guns and be sufficiently armoured while staying within the displacement limits of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Having all the guns together cut down the required size of the armoured citadel, but even then they had to fit it with small, underpowered engines. They were the ships Britain got to build as a trade off for allowing Japan and the US to save their brand new Nagato and Colorado class battleships from scrapping. The Roberts-class monitor was designed solely to carry one of the numerous spare BL 15-inch Mark I twin turrets sitting around, as stably as possible, as close in shore as possible, for no other purpose than shore bombardment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:That sounds like bullshit because I'm pretty sure no civilian aircraft is designed to pull 8+ gs while fighter jets, even modern stealthy ones, are. Arquinsiel posted:Apparently their wings won't actually let them turn that hard up at 41k feet, whereas the 737's are more suited for that thickness of air. Sure the fighter can just open up and go fast where the 737 can't, but that's not the same thing as maneuverability. Plus the 737 pilot probably won't be wearing a g-suit either. I ain't a pilot though so this is all second hand info and could be pure bullshit from people wanting to mess with internet nerds. We can do the math on this, but I think this is the wrong thread for it. That said, a nearly empty 767 or 757 can do some freaky rate of climb. I will note, that ~at alittude~ loaded airliners are not far from stall speed. Not quite death corner like a U2, but they don't have a lot of lift to spare. I think that claim is BS. In the case of the nimrod, it's flying at low altitude hunting subs, so it's flying "fast" and in dense air. I'm pretty sure it'll have a good rate of turn. What thread should this go in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
The Nelson class always remind me of the Imperial Star Destroyers. All the guns up front but nothing behind so retreating is never an option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:We can do the math on this, but I think this is the wrong thread for it. That said, a nearly empty 767 or 757 can do some freaky rate of climb. I'd be shocked beyond description if there's a thread regular who isn't at least sort of interested in this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
Not my thing, but I certainly don't mind it having it here. The thread goes in fits and starts anyway, nice to keep it alive even if the info is not 100% about modeling. Keep it up I say!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Talking about technical minutiae of aircraft? In the scale modeling thread?? Oh noes! Ok, lets do this. We're gonna use a 737.. neo? max? I'll get the answer for that when I look up the easiest bunch of numbers to play with. Rate of turn, is going to be calculated by the lowest speed we can be flying, and still generate the maximum airframe load. Airliners are "Normal" category aircraft. They are not supposed to exceed 2.5g in normal operation, but are, from what I can find, actually rated for 3.8g. Lets give the Boing the benefit of the doubt here. The clean stall speed of a 737 is 128 knots. (According to airliners.net) To get 3.8g worth of lift, we'll need to be flying at roughly double stall speed. (Available lift goes up to the square of speed) That works out to 16.6 degrees per second. (2.77 rpm!) Now, this is instantaneous, and not sustained. And with a turn radius of about 1400'. Instantaneous rate of turn for a roughly any modern fighter is more than 22 deg per second. Using a F-15 as our example.. . It's clean stall speed is something like 120knots. Which already says it makes more lift per unit airspeed than the 737. The F-15 also has a greater than 1:1 twr, so it can ignore the whole "fly the airframe" bit quite a bit. "How tight you can turn" is one factor. Roll rate matters too. Airliners aren't going to do much more than 20deg/second roll rate. The F15 is somewhere north of 200deg/s At higher altitudes, airliners are flying real near their Mach limit, and real near their stall. While a fighter can go faster to make more lift, the airliner can not. Performance will go to the fighter at higher altitudes. There might be a sweet spot of a thousand feet or two, that the airliner might be able to make it's 3.8g of lift, and the fighter might ALSO be able to do the same 3.8g? At least until the jet got it's engines spooled up and could use excess thrust to make up the difference. ---------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I don't think a 737 could give any modern fighter a run for their money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Oh noes! Ok, lets do this. We're gonna use a 737.. neo? max? I'll get the answer for that when I look up the easiest bunch of numbers to play with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Darth Brooks posted:The Nelson class always remind me of the Imperial Star Destroyers. All the guns up front but nothing behind so retreating is never an option. The Nelsons didn't even need to take fire to take damage: the shock of firing their main guns ahead was enough to tear up the wood cladding of the deck from the muzzle blast, and it took a couple of modifications to the bridge to protect the crew therein from being badly concussed when the guns fired in a rearward arc. Some years ago, I spoke with a Canadian veteran whose infantry regiment received fire support from what turned out to be a Nelson a week or two after D-Day. The results were suitably apocalyptic... at least for the copse of trees and the German infantry company dug in inside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Remember that britain wasn't the only nation that toyed all forward guns. France also did it. However, instead for 3x triples, they went for 2x quads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
JuffoWup posted:Remember that britain wasn't the only nation that toyed all forward guns. France also did it. However, instead for 3x triples, they went for 2x quads. Did the French quad mounts have the same reliability issues as the King George V class? It took the British a couple of years worth of mechanical and instructional modifications to really get those working well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Did the French quad mounts have the same reliability issues as the King George V class? It took the British a couple of years worth of mechanical and instructional modifications to really get those working well. I'm unsure. I only know it existed because of them being in wows and just knowing they weren't napkin drawings. At least in the dunkerque class, if memory serves, the quads were treated like a pair of twins joined together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Fearless posted:The Nelsons didn't even need to take fire to take damage: the shock of firing their main guns ahead was enough to tear up the wood cladding of the deck from the muzzle blast, and it took a couple of modifications to the bridge to protect the crew therein from being badly concussed when the guns fired in a rearward arc. I've heard anecdotes from Vietnam about army units calling in artillery strikes from what turned out to be an Iowa class. It's apparently a fairly remarkable amount of boom. Anyone on the receiving end very briefly has an extremely bad day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Any good resources on ship painting and detailing, since we're on the subject? I've got a couple and realized I have no idea where to go after I finish basecoating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:Any good resources on ship painting and detailing, since we're on the subject? I've got a couple and realized I have no idea where to go after I finish basecoating. For colour references, Sovereign Hobbies have some very well researched (possibly the best) information on a lot of Royal Navy and US Navy ship colour schemes (also Italian and German). They point to their own range of enamel paints but those are matched to the named paints used during the war so you can go off and find equivalents. If you don't like enamels, Lifecolour do a good range of ship colours in acrylic too. For IJN subjects, Tamiya and Mr Color both have all of the main Japanese arsenal greys covered (Kure, Sasebo, Maizuru). Most kits of those subjects will likely have been made by Tamiya, Fujimi, Pit Road or Aoshima and so will use those paint manufacturers' references in their paint guides anyway. Modelwarships (in particular their forum) is probably the place to go for grognardy conversations about ship kits, available upgrades, the correct shade of paint on the fo'c'sle of a specific british destroyer on a Sunday afternoon in late 1942 etc. Britmodeller too. When it comes to detailing though, it's really a case of how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? You can easily find yourself spending (and I do, frequently) more on aftermarket photoetch upgrade sets than the base kit itself costs. Some kits (such as Trumpeter) will come with a basic bit of photoetch for radars or cranes etc, but you can buy aftermarket that will give you railings, replacement weapons, every piece of imaginable deck gubbins up to and including rebuilding the entire superstructure in folded metal. Brass gun barrels are a good upgrade for chunky plastic kit ones. Some companies do wooden decks that will save you having to paint the kit ones yourself to approximate wood. White Ensign / Tom's Modelworks (both brands are owned by the same company) do a huge range of PE sets for ships, and they're based in the US so that might be more convenient for you than ordering from China/Japan. Gold Medal Models in the US do a lot of generic sets for ships, rather than designing them for specific manufacturers' kits. Flyhawk are probably the Rolls Royce of aftermarket photoetch, and hands down the best manufacturer of 1/700 ship kits at the moment. This is their Trumpeter 1/700 USS Saratoga upgrade set I got recently   There are other Chinese aftermarket manufacturers, like Infini, Pontos, Artist Hobby and Rainbow Model. This is the quite frankly ridiculous set I got for Fujimi's 1/700 IJN Ise  I don't know where you're based, but Starling Models is the best source in the UK for ship detailing bits. However, ships are such a niche part of the modelling hobby that you're usually better off figuring out what you need and ordering it from China on ebay. None of this stuff is strictly necessary though. You can improve the look of a ship tenfold just by fitting some generic photoetch handrails to it, and loads of places sell frets of rails. The first ship kit I added aftermarket to I just used some generic rails and I'm still really happy with how it turned out 
tidal wave emulator fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Sep 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Nerobro posted:Conclusion: I don't think a 737 could give any modern fighter a run for their money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 01:05
|
|