Best kept secrets of modelling

Amen to that! I started out sneaking kits into the house when it was my mom griping about my spending money. Later, after I'd been married awhile I found it necessary to sharpen my skills again. Wow, what a feeling when the wife moved out. I could just walk right in the door with a kit! I guess it was easier for me to sneak kits in than it was for her to sneak men. ;Þ

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Loading thread data ...

build for yourself and don't feel that you have to compete with the images you see in the modeling mags. It is your hobby first.

Craig

Reply to
crw59

Funny, I was just thinking about my "best kept secret" and wondering about submitting an article on it to somebody...

Here it is: I do not follow the kit instructions. I build a lot of

1/72 WWII fighters (including old kits where the subject can't be found in a new one). The instructions always say (or imply with pictures now-a-days) to glue the wing upper surfaces to the (usually) single "lower surface" and let this dry. Then attach the wing assembly to the fuselage. This leads to errors in the dihedral and major gaps at the wing root. The solution is to attach the wing "tops" to the fuselage FIRST. Make that wing root joint one of the first things you glue. (Yes, it require patience and some skill, but it's not that hard). Align them so the there is no gap, and let the "fuselage and wing tops" assembly cure good and solid.

Then, attach this entire structure to the single "wing bottom" part. Now the "bad fit" (if there is any, and I just completed an old Heller kit and a new Italeri kit where the fit was bad) has been "moved" to the area where the forward wing section mates with the lower nose. This is much easier to fill or trim than the wing root. No filling is required at the wing root-- even with an old, old kit!

Also, the dihedral will be CORRECT!

Try it.

Reply to
dancho

I suspect a lot of us fall into that category - often times intentionally, as you no doubt are suggesting.

That is an interesting out of the box solution (bad pun intended). I can honestly say that never occured to me. Let's get into the "attaching" part - I'm guessing you attach both halves to the fuselage at the same time and flip the whole thing upside down to support the fuselage and set the dihedral??? That does sound like a pretty simple approach.

I wonder if any manufacturer ever considered designing a kit this way, with a connecting spar running under the cockpit joining the two upper wing pieces? I don't recall seeing that approach before - Bill, Al, Tom, Timer, anybody... Bueller?

I think I'll give your method a shot - probably on an upcoming build over the holidays.

Cool idea!

WmB

Reply to
WmB

There have indeed been kits with functional wing spars but they're usually designed to have a completed wing slid over them on each side.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

WmB wrote: (snip)

Actually, I attach each wing top seperately. With the fuselage sitting on it's belly, the wing will need support to dry at the correct angle. So I pile stuff under the "wing top" to support it until it dries.

Here's a step-by-step explanation. First, I set the fuselage down (belly side down) and then set the "wing top" next to it. The next step is to shove "stuff" (paint brush handles, folded post-it notes, razor blades, whatever) under the wing until it is in the position it needs to be in-- with the wing aligned properly with the fuselage. Now "wick" some liquid cement into the joint (I use Micro Weld-- seems to give me more time to work) and do any final adjustments to the whole setup.

Allow to dry. (Remember when kit instuctions said that?)

Repeat for the other side.

Now you have a strong assembly that will actually spread the fuselage slightly to allow for proper dihedral, when the "wing bottom" is attached. I've been experimenting with this approach for a while and I would never go back to the old method. Of course, you need to tailor the technique to your particular project.

Super glue can be used, too, but that's an "advanced" skill that's beyond the scope of this course.;)

Good luck!

Reply to
dancho

Some Accurate Miniatures kits and the Tamiya 1/48 P-47's have a spar.

Reply to
rwsmithjr

IIRC the huge Monogram B-36 uses a true wing spar through the fuselage.

Our MAI Payen Pa.22 doesn't have much in the way of allignment pins and the like. I have built a couple of these and other kits where a stronger wing to fuselage join is needed. I usually use brass rod, especially if it is concealed beneath the floorboards or isn't visible after the fuselage is closed up.

Another option for larger models is a stiff sheet metal such as brass used in the same way.

The one that I have trouble with is when an aircraft has a lot of glass where the wing attaches such as the Cessna O-1 and Westland Lysander.

Tom

Reply to
maiesm72

Lego blocks make great jigs for holdng a model while cement, paint or putty dries. Also great to hold the parts while applying rigging.

No one has mentioned the single most important "secret" of scale modelng. If you model naked be aware of the potential damage that a dropped X-Acto knife with a #11 blade can do.

Let's say that you only do it once, or so I have been told. :-)

Tom

Reply to
maiesm72

Who needs to drop a knife to do some great damage? Probably the best tip I've got is to keep those band-aids close at hand! I've almost come to the conclusion that its not a true model unless you've really put some blood into it! OK, so in some cases a phone with 911 on speed dial might be better! :-)

Bob

Reply to
Bob Bush

True - but the wings are seperate assemblies. I was thinking along the lines of where a lot of smaller monoplanes have a single piece for the lower wing and two seperate upper halves, has anyone reversed that; a single upper wing piece (joined by a spar concealed by the fuselage) with two seperate lowers attached after the single upper is mated to the fuselage.

Of course single wing pieces (upper or lower) are not practical for big bombers where there are size constraints (press size, box size, etc.). Planes with provisions for folding wings might put you a back to scratch too. It's all a trade off somewhere I suppose.

Speaking of fuselage lines, has anyone ever seen a kit with a horizontal seamline along the side of the fuselage instead of the traditional vertical centerline (viewed nose to tail)? Not that I'm advocating that approach. I'm not really sure what you'd gain as opposed to what you'd lose and the technical difficulties you'd encounter; Just curious if a manufacturer ever went off the map with that approach.

As a matter of fact, what is the strangest feature incorporated in a kit that you've seen or built. For me, it's those damned rubber tank tracks! As a kid I wondered why they just didn't shoot the blasted things in freaking styrene.

WmB

Reply to
WmB

And wouldn't you know it, I passed on the Tamiya P-47 kit the other day in HL. Of course if I had bought it last week, it would have been another six months (optimistically) before I would have discovered the upper wing sections were mated. ;-)

WmB

Reply to
WmB

Monogram did a 1:48 F-104 G Starfighter split horisontally

" WmB" skrev i en meddelelse news:zks5f.16978$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Reply to
VAS FLSFRH

If you've got a round handle on your X-acto, glue a piece of anything to it so that it can't roll.

--- Tontoni

Reply to
Stephen Tontoni

Monogram 1/48 F-100 and it was a PITA to clean that joint up.

Reply to
rwsmithjr

Dynavector Sea Vixen Classic Airframes Sea Hawk - front fuselage; rear part standard vertical

*time is an enemy*
Reply to
Ingo Degenhardt

and your fresh, hot cup of coffee will suicide up to 15 feet to hit your lap.

Reply to
e

don't forget the revell he 219. love that cheesy little kit.

Reply to
e

Hasey F-18.... Not too bad though.

Reply to
Moi

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.