|
Post by Bruce on Aug 27, 2020 8:41:30 GMT 12
yes, it is still legal to do so so long as the equipment meets spec and the pilot is appropriately qualified.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 25, 2020 12:48:49 GMT 12
wondering how many RNZAF Harvards had the stow-able rear canopy I have heard all the IIA's had that rear seat configuration, till their IIA* upgrade in the 1950's, but I would be interested in someone confirming this. As well as NZ1099, another that was in that configuration was NZ1082, the CAF one that's now no longer seen. NZ1099 was one I used to work on when I was at Gulf Aeronautics. As far as Canopy structure goes, all the IIAs had that provision - you can tell by the shape of the side windows on the rear canopy section. Mk IIs had a vertical frame in the middle, whereas the roll over type had the roughly triangular panel. Most seem to have been fixed in place with a couple of metal tabs to the rear fuselage coaming. The bottom corner where they pivoted over is a solid alloy casting. On aircraft with the flipover secion, there is an arm on this casting which links up with a rod underneath the canopy rail, which links it to the sliding entry section, and flips the rear section over as it slides forward. when the rear section was fixed in place, the arm section of the casting was sawn off (sometimes quite roughly). This is why the flipover sections arent very common - reconverting back to that config will require new canopy frame corner castings to reinstate the mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 24, 2020 16:54:41 GMT 12
I think one of the SPANZ Viewmasters (CAW I think...) was a prewar DC-3 with Wright engines, but re-engined with Pratts for commonality. C47s would have become DC-3s at the time of civilianisation. They would have been modified to bring them up to standard with a Civilian type certificate, otherwise they could not have been used for airline passenger service. The "Department" was pretty picky about that at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 21, 2020 8:45:31 GMT 12
Just a reminder that "chipping in" on a change.org petition DOES NOT support the actual cause - it goes into the App's coffers for "promotion" and not a "fighting fund" for the cause. Lots of people found that out with the Soundsair petition!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 12, 2020 16:36:33 GMT 12
It does sound like (at least officially...) proper precautions were taken in New zealand, unlike the very sad situation in the USA with the "radium Girls".
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 4, 2020 9:15:58 GMT 12
Interesting, thanks Bruce. Fast even with the weight of a third person? I don't think the Max all up weight limitation was changed very much, so the extra person came at the expense of some baggage. (not that MAUW limitations were observed by all Cub pilots over the years!). Standard and pregnant Cubs would operate at similar weights.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 3, 2020 21:13:16 GMT 12
Some great flying there. I wonder who the pilot was. Can you actually fit two people into the back of a Super Cub? Although the interior shots are definitely Cessna (it has a back window!) Some PA18 Super Cubs, like BFV were modified to become "Pregnant Cubs" which could seat 2 (very good friends...) in the back seat. The cabin side longerons were bent outwards to create a little bit more room. Front seat remained a single though. Oddly, despite the extra cross section, they were slightly faster than standard PA18s. Must be "Area Rule" at work!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 11, 2020 19:58:31 GMT 12
Sheesh that's a terrible piece of writing!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 8, 2020 15:15:28 GMT 12
I think the best of breed was the 1976 172M Skyhawk II, as it had the original light airframe, an improved wing with the drooped leading edge and lots of other nice improvements, but still had the O-320-E2D engine, before the terrible "blue streak" Lightweight O-320H2AD came in 1977 with the 172N. Most of these "H" engines have been replaced with better O-320s or 180Hp O-360s. 1970 - 1975 Models had issues with poor grade aluminium skinning, which meant corrosion was always an issue (Cessna did not corrosion proof their structures in this period unless by customer request). later 172s tended to be a bit heavier, as avionics fit changed. A well maintained, tidy 172M is a joy to fly.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 7, 2020 10:15:43 GMT 12
I guess the most infamous C172 incident in NZ would be its use as a bomber during the 1981 Rugby War...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 26, 2020 21:15:03 GMT 12
OK, trying Flickr... The Porterfield 35W: This was a scratchbuilt 1/72 resin project (I had even measured the aircraft in the Ashburton Aviation Museum to get the drawings accurate!) but I needed to get the proper radial engine, the very obvious tube framing in the cockpit and the fiddly little landing gear made accurately - difficult when it is such a small aircraft! I drew the bits in CAD (Fusion 360) and had them printed by Shapeways.I also made a blank block to match the cockpit frame, that I used as a pattern to vacform the cockpit glazing. Just after sending the engine it was pointed Out I had modelled the 7 Cylinder Warner Scarab, rather than the 5 Cylinder Scarab Junior! as a result I ended up with both engines. I was very pleased with the detail obatianble in the "fine detail" plastic, so would use the technique again. scarabs by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr Portfield detail by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr IMG_1642 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr Airco DH-9: The next 3D print model job was my Airco DH-9. I had a vacform kit that I had never got around to building as it was so poor, but I discovered that the DH-9 used identical wings and tail section to the DH-4, which I could get as an Airfix kit. I used the Vacform kit and the drawings it came with to model a new fuselage in CAD. I split the fuselage into 4 separate components, but because the 3D print was so capable, a lot of detail could be included in it, including the upper wing centre section. The parts came out incredibly well and fitted the donor Airfix kit perfectly, and I am really pleased with the results! Cad model: DH9 Fuselage 8 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr DH9 Fuselage 9 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr DH9 Engine by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr DH9 Cockpit by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr DH9 Turtledeck by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr Printed parts: IMG_2046 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr IMG_2047 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr Finished model: IMG_2093 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr IMG_2092 by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr B757: My latest CAD model is a 1/72 Boeing 757-2K2. This is a complex build of over 30 individual parts, including undercarriage legs intended to be made in 3D Cast Brass. This will however be extremely expensive to get printed, so my current idea is to get one set of parts done and make resin casts of them and sell them as kits. I think there would be a market for a decent sized 757, especially as I have also modelled an alternative forward fuselage to make a standard Pax -200. I also think I will model winglets so that people could make the latest variants such as Thompson Airlines and DHL use. Each kit will still be expensive, approx $350 NZ but it might allow me to recover some costs. I just need the capital to start it! I might look at this in the next few months... B757 complete by Bruce Cooke, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 25, 2020 22:53:33 GMT 12
I've been using 3D printed sections on several model in my collection - I used the technique for the engine, undercarriage and cockpit framing of my scratch-built resin Porterfield 35W, and I've made a fuselage to convert the 1/72 Airfix DH-4 into a DH-9, which worked very well. I've just finished the CAD model for a 1/72 Boeing 757-2K2 but the cost to get it printed is over $1000 so I'm not in a position to do that just yet! I use the Shapeways.com printing service as they have a "fine detail plastic" method which is incredibly good. Home Filament printers just arent good enough for the small scales I'm using. I'd post some photos but I'm not paying photobucket's ransom...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 25, 2020 9:26:11 GMT 12
Hi Errol. I believe the target drone is a Northrop Radioplane BTT RP-71. It was used by the RAN in the 1950's. Might be one that Marilyn Munroe Built - she worked for Radioplane and appeared in a propaganda photo shoot about them, which lead Hollywood stardom.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 16, 2020 21:14:17 GMT 12
Pretty certain all of ours were Wright powered.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 7, 2020 20:19:18 GMT 12
Having looked at the conversion kit needed to make a 1/72 Model C130J-30, theres about $110 worth of resin fuselage plugs if that gives you an indication of how much longer it is!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 29, 2020 21:38:08 GMT 12
Excellent! Confirmation that it finished its RNZAF service in Silver overall is just what I needed in order to start my model! I would assume it would have C - Type Roundels and fin flash by that stage so its pretty safe to make an educated impression of its colour scheme from that. Silver is not particularly exciting, but the Staggerwing looks good regardless!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 29, 2020 18:44:38 GMT 12
I'd love the colour scheme info too - a 1/72 Staggerwing is waiting in my model stash to join my RNZAF aircraft collection! The only photo I've ever seen of it definitely in military service is a poor photo in "Aircraft of the Royal NZ Air Force" (Duxbury / Ewing / McPherson) page 52, where the aircraft is in the civilian Red / Silver but the Serial NZ573 is clearly visible on the fin. The problem is, the angle of the photo completely hides whether it had roundels at that point in time. I guess this was an interim scheme and with two major rebuilds during RNZAF service it wouldnt have kept that scheme. I suspect it was silver at one stage - camo would be Dark Earth, Dark Green with Yellow undersurfaces as that was how most of the impressed aircraft were repainted. Photos seem to be extremely rare, something I have come across many times when modelling impressed "lighties". My theory is film was expensive and difficult to obtain during wartime, and people couldnt be bothered "wasting" it photographing common light aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 20, 2020 14:55:34 GMT 12
These photos were taken on the 26th of October 1944 when the aircraft was new and had suffered a wire strike just five days into its RNZAF service. These come from the accident report. Bevan and I agree that this is clearly bare metal, not painted, doped or lacquered. Bevan has inspected the paint on the aircraft as it is now too and he is certain that there is nothing under the white coat of paint, not even a primer, and certainly no evidence of silver dope or paint, only the painted roundels and yellow bands. I was referring to the 1950s silver and yellow scheme being painted - the 1940s would almost certainly be bare metal as you suggest. In the finishing schedules the 1950s silver paint would generally be referred to as "Aluminium" as that was the pigment used, and its not a pure silver colour. Certainly paint stripping 1057 back in the 1990s, the silver on that was definitely an aluminium pigmented paint. Of course, during its life as an NAC instructional airframe it would have been completely stripped and repainted, probably several times - one of the earlier photos in the thread seems to show that...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 20, 2020 11:47:59 GMT 12
NZ1044 was bare metal when it arrived here in 1943, but camouflaged by April 1945. It was then bare metal again in the 1950's. What did they use to strip the paint with back in the late 1940's or early 1950's? The 1950s Silver finish isnt actually bare metal, its Silver dope or Lacquer. Not sure what would have been used for paint stripping, probably MEK or similar since it wasnt the modern 2 pot paint.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 1, 2020 15:05:39 GMT 12
when they say "20mm Scale" what does that mean? whats that in REAL scales?
|
|