Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Ambitious of you all. Trying to finish more than one;-)

I am taking the hobby "cave" apart during the weekend. Have to take up the floor and in with a new as the hole house has sagged.

Because of that I'll be happy if I can finish one;-)

Posted

Now THAT is more like it! Always had a soft spot for the Tudor - there was a long article on the history of them in my first ever copy of Aeroplane Monthly (in about 1975! :clif: )

Posted

The starting point:

airliner_gb_3.jpg

airliner_gb_4.jpg

And as if I haven't given myself too much to do, it turns out that this one also meets the criteria of not being too started.

airliner_gb_5.jpg

airliner_gb_6.jpg

I may regain sanity and finish it later though. Stay tuned...

Posted

Very nice model Jessica. I like these old aircraft very much. I did some drawings of it some months ago for a friend here in Brazil that is building one in the BSAA colors.

Cheers,

Marcos.

Posted

Nice Jessica! If time permits I may do a vac or resin kit for my 2nd build.

  • Like 1
  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)

Now I return to the Tudor to demonstrate my method of sanding out the vac parts. First I sprayed the sheet in overall grey (I used Tamiya RLM 75 because that was what was in the can I picked up). Once it was dry, I scored around the parts and snapped them from their backing sheet. This took about 2 minutes.

airliner_gb_31.jpg

Note the white below the grey. This must go.

airliner_gb_32.jpg

And 15 minutes later, it's gone.

airliner_gb_33.jpg

Pay particular attention to the tip of the fin and its trailing edge, These have to be very sharp. It's very hard to tell because the flash washed out the difference between the sanded and unsanded plastic.

airliner_gb_34.jpg

Cut out the tailwheel well and add tabs of plastic card.

airliner_gb_35.jpg

Lastly, I glued everything together. This is the result of about a half hour's modelling. The right fuselage side turned out to be slightly larger than the left, something hardly uncommon in the world of vacufrom kits. Once I get to the sanding and filling I'll even that difference out.

airliner_gb_36.jpg

Edited by Jessica
Posted

Nice! Interesting that you sprayed the entire fuselage grey, I can see it will help when it comes to seamwork later (not sure if that's your intent). I've only tried the "black-marker-around-outline" trick.

Posted

how-to in one easy lesson - take note and do, the shy-of-vacs amongst us :)

nice work jessica

Posted

Very tasty. I've a soft sport for the Tudor and the Ashton too. Real shame that there isn't a 72nd kit, although I've had plans to scratch one using parts of the Frog Shackleton.

Posted (edited)

It's a North American brand called Bondo Glazing and Spot Putty. It's very similar to Squadron's Green Stuff except it's red and about 1/8th the price for an equivalent amount. Not to mention that the tube is 4 times the size of a Green Stuff tube. 3M's Acryl putty is similar.

Edited by Jessica
Posted

The primer reveals where I still have to do more work with the filler.

Not bad at all though Jessica, considering how much you've had to do so far.

Cliff

Posted

at least your getting to the end of the filling and sanding filling and sanding part...nice going

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

This is really coming together now Jessica, looks almost ready to fly

Edited by Graeme H
Posted

. A nice airplane spoiled by being about 10 years too late for its time.

And the fact that it was a death trap.....

Posted

And the fact that it was a death trap.....

How so? Only 3 passenger Tudors crashed, and the worst of those was due to overloading, not any fault of the aircraft. The other two are more mysterious, but one could quite reasonably have been controlled flight into terrain.

Posted (edited)

How so? Only 3 passenger Tudors crashed, and the worst of those was due to overloading, not any fault of the aircraft. The other two are more mysterious, but one could quite reasonably have been controlled flight into terrain.

You are right of course about the 'death trap' thing and I was being a bit over facetious, but it was an astoundingly mediocre design being cancelled by BOAC before delivery due to falling well short of performance expectations and handling quality. It looks like there were seven losses out of 38 airframes with one being, as you say, due to CFIT.

Going back to the death trap thing, perhaps the worst travesty was the loss of the one with the designer on board, Chadwick, due to cross connecting of the aileron controls - a design feature which shouldn't have been even possible let alone the quality lapses by the engineers who did it during maintenance.

That doesn't of course detract from your excellent model.

Now, how about discussing a real engineers aeroplane the DH121 Trident - a proper triumph of complexity over economy. So fixable yet so thirsty! BEA did it again to Lockheeds many years later with the dreadful L1011, ensuring that only a few got built. We lived in fear of it on a nightshift during my days in engineering.

Edited by viscount806x
Posted (edited)

... but it was an astoundingly mediocre design...

I think that many if not most post-war British designs suffered from this flaw, due to exceedingly poor specifications and egregious interference from the Air Ministry. How an industry which was able to produce such masterpieces as the Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster was hobbled by bureaucrats is one of the most sordid tales of postwar history.

Edited by Jessica
×
×
  • Create New...