Jump to content

Nick Filippone

IPMS/USA Member
  • Posts

    890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Everything posted by Nick Filippone

  1. Cruising the Internet, I googled thr F3F-2's of VF-6. The most useful, if confusing, info came from a site for decal for this aircraft. It has 6-F-10 with a B of A # 0988. Could this be a spare or a later production aircraft assigned as a replacement for the inevitable attrition due to accidents? Another source indicates aircraft 6-F-7 was B of A # 0985. In our sequence, but the apparent last delivered with a relatively early code. Your gonna need a photo! Nick Filippone
  2. Short of a clear photo of this exact aircraft, this will be a little difficult to identify precisely. According to Swanborough and Bowers "United States Navy Aircraft since 1911, the Bureau of Aeronautics numbers assigned to Grumman F3F-2 production were 0967 to 1047. (The Profile Publications on the F3F -#92- by Lt. Cdr. Benton Reams, U.S.N. confirms this.) So your number is somewhere in this sequence. Now, the Profile has a photo (on page 9) in black and white of the second production F3F-2 before delivery to VF-6 on CV-6 U.S.S. Enterprise on 29 Nov., 1937. Not surprisingly, it is B of A # 0968. The aircraft codes are "6-F-1." Now, according to the Swanborough and Bowers book, the Navy used the F3F-2 to equip VF-6 on the Enterprise and Marine squadrons VMF-1 and VMF-2. Further, according to Harleyford's "United States Navy and Marine Corps Fighters 1918-1962," by Paul R. Matt, VF-6 received their aircraft first, in December of 1937. It was not until June, 1938, that the Marine Corps started to receive their aircraft. It goes on to say: "In fact, apart from the first eighteen (my italics) to bring VF-6 up to a full complement, practically all the F3F-2's went to the Marines. So, if the first 18 went to VF-6, and the second production aircraft ( B of A # 0968) was marked "6-F-1, " can we conclude that "6-F-13" was B of A # 0980? Unfortunately, this assumes the first production F3F-2 was not delivered to VF-6 at all, which would contradict Matt. Likewise, it assumes that the subsequently delivered aircraft would have been marked in order of B of A number. All we can safely say-probably- is that it falls in between B of A # 0967 and 0985 inclusive- possibly toward the end of the sequence. Good luck. Nick Filippone I.P.M.S. # 969
  3. It has to be the idea of some marketing dolt who clearly does not build models him or herself but who thinks the kit will sell better with "realistic" "rubber" tyres. Trumpeter was doing this for the longest time with their large scale kits, but appear to have seen the light with their beautiful 1/32 scale Crusader and molded the tyres in plastic. Vinyl tyres are harder to paint and worse, getting rid of the parting seam is much more difficult than on tyres done in plastic! Nick Filippone
  4. Get the Xuron photo-etched cutters. They work great and are so sharp, you can actually trim tiny burrs off the parts instead of sanding-less work and less collateral damage. Nick Filippone
  5. According to John W. Burn's " Plastic Aircraft Kits of the Twentieth Century" there was only one Taylor aircraft kitted. This was the Taylorcraft L-2 Grasshopper, in 1/72 scale, by a company called O'neill. No other Taylor or Taylorcraft products are listed. I might add that the Card Modelling hobby has a much more extensive variety of obscure types and you could consider exploring this option. Regards, Nick Filippone
  6. Fred, According to John Burn's " Plastic Aircraft Kits of the 20th Century" the JAS-39 was released in 1/72 scale by Heller (and re-released by Airfix), by Tamiya in 1/72 scale, and by Top Gun-whoever they are- also in 1/72 scale. Revell also released a 1/72 scale kit as well as a 1/144 scale kit. The only listing for Ace/Korea is a 1/32 scale kit, also re-released by Revell. This may be a misprint. There is no mention of a 1/72 scale Ace release in this book. While this book is quite extensive, it is not always complete. Given the immensity of the task, it must be forgiven. Regards, Nick Filippone
  7. Go to E-bay. There are two there now with bids of $45. and $ 20. respectively. Now, they will end up going for rather more, but $1250. is ridiculous. The last time I bid for one on e-bay ( I thought I had lost mine in the last move, but gratefully, I found it), it went for c.$100. You do not need all the accessories, unless you are a toy collector. All you need is the vacforming device itself. The sheets of plastic can be cut from card stock and do not need all the little holes in the edges to work- the teeth in the edges of the clamping device will hold the plastic securely enough. I have never been able to understand why someone has not brought this device out again as a hobby tool, although I suspect it may have something to do with liability issues as the heating pan does get hot enough to burn one's self. I guess also that the market for it as a hobby tool for adults might be too small. For making small parts, it is very convenient and rather more consistent than heat and smash. Micro-mark sells a vacuforming device that permits larger parts -as much as 12" long to be made. It is based on heating plastic in an oven and using a strong source of suction such as a shop vac. It also works well, but for small parts it is unwieldy. Good luck. Nick Filippone
  8. "Pinning" or glueing the model to a base works well, but bear in mind that during movement, the lateral and fore and aft forces at work on the model will now be borne entirely by the landing gear and their attachments to the model. These sheer forces can rip an airframe off the landing gear as one of our members discovered when he arrived at a National. This was in spite of the fact that he had carefully packed the model and drove. It is for this reason that when I transport models on bases, I try to position them on towels placed (but not fixed) flat on the bottom of boxes, attaching the bases loosely with tape to the towels. I thus try to permit some movement of the entire base/aircraft as a unit with the inevitable g-forces. I might add that if you are planning to use this technique to transport models by carrying them on an airliner, do not use towels. They are opaque and the TSA will almost certainly and understandably ask you to unpack the box and shake out the towel. It is for this reason that I travel with small,clear boxes and use layers of clear cellophane to pad the bottom. For the same reason-airport security- I have gotten away from thick wooden bases and have started using 1/4" clear plexiglass for bases. I have them made to size and shape at a local window maker. They cost $3.-$5. for a piece big enough to accomodate a 1/72 scale single engine aircraft. They are lighter than wood, and lack the opaque thickness that may arouse the suspicions of Airport Security. Nick Filippone
  9. Actually, "oncotic pressure" is the term to describe the pressure which brings about the diffusion between different concentrations of colloid or between a solute (colloid) and the fluid in which it is dissolved- Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary. A better term to describe the force that governs the flow of paint around the wheel rim would be "capillary attraction" - the force that attracts the particles of a fluid into and along the caliber of a tube- Dorland's. I have also used this technique with success, but unless there is a fairly distinct ridge of plastic molded between the wheel and the tyre, almost always the demarcation line will be wobbly and sloppy looking. One of my fellow club members taught me the following trick for dealing with this uneven line. It is especially useful on WWI and between the wars aircraft where frequently, especially in small scales, there is no such sharp barrier to the flow of paint. After painting the tyre and wheel as carefully as possible, he takes an automatic pencil, sands the tip to a beveled edge,and runs the tip around the interface of wheel and tyre. This creates a sharp neat line that blends well with the tyre colour. Nick Filippone
  10. There is an additional reference to the Stearman- Hammond in the 1938 Jane's, including a different photo and specifications. Nick Filippone
  11. Googling the code, indeed. Very sneaky. Indeed, in the book by Alexander Roca entitled "Crusader, The Story of the Shelton Flying Wing," there are two nice pictures of this aircraft. One carries the U.S. code NC15525 and has the name(the Pilot's or owner's?)- R.P. Bowman over the cockpit. In the other, the configuration is a little different in that there is no intake over the cockpit. Rather, there is simply a fairing in front of the engine that begins behind the cabin. Also, the shape of the vertical stabilizers and rudders are different. The only discernible marking is what appears to be "NS 73" on the vertical tail.The aircraft was originally ordered by the U.S. commerce Dept. It was the winner of the government's affordable aircraft contest of 1935.The story of how one found it's way to Holland would be interesting. Fokker did produce an aircraft of rather similar configuration after the war called the F-25 Promotor. Although it it a rather more attractive, it is so similar that one might wonder if it influenced Anthony Fokker in its design. John W. Burns "Plastic Aircraft Kits of the Twentieth Century" does not list a kit of this aircraft. "Aircraft Yearbook 3-View Drawings- 1903-1945" has a simple 3-view. Regards, Nick Filippone
  12. I tried to reply to this once, but it did not post. I guess I am still on the learning curve with the new format. I believe this is a post-WWII Anthony Fokker project. I believe I have info on this in a privately published book on the "Cruader" which also covered just about every twin-boom aircraft built. When I get home from work, I will check. Nick Filippone
  13. It is Dutch registry, but that does not necessarily mean it was built in Holland. Having said that, I think it is a post-WWII civil project by Anthony Fokker. I will consult my Fokker references when I get home. Nick Filippone
×
×
  • Create New...