Research

[stona]

:rolling: Well, it was too difficult for you mate!

I missed the answer in the book(s). Since you have found it, the very least you could do is tell me where to find it.

I spent some considerable time going through the JaPo books, the Smith and Creek books, the two Crandall volumes and the latter part of Rodeicke's tome, looking for an answer on your behalf, and now you are giving smart arsed replies to a perfectly reasonable request.

Not good.

[spanner570]

Steve, please don't take it to heart. Roll with it.

The majority of members know you from old and you are always there to advise and help. Quietly and with no fuss. Just a fountain of modest knowledge. No one knows better than me!
Keep it that way and ignore negative 'Things'

Such below the belt, snide comments are not worth getting worked up about.
For future reference just log in who made them.

Unfortunately, those sort of posts are getting all the more common on S.M. This saddens me, as up until fairly recently this used to be a friendly and easy going forum with a complete absence of prima donna's. Not any more I'm afraid.

Onwards and upwards!

[Guest]

A little word on general arrangement drawings. While they are, indeed, primary sources, they're not always to be trusted. Famously, many GA of the B-29 released to the press, and still used by some today, were deliberately altered from the originals, apparently as a security measure.

And then you get ones that have plain mistakes in them. I have (pictures of) original Caterpillar drawings for the D6A armoured bulldozer, and at first sight, they’re excellent — they’re works drawings, after all. But then I noticed that there’s a major mistake in one of them: the hydraulics cylinders for the dozer blade sit against the side of the bonnet, and the driver’s cab is wider than the bonnet, both of which are represented just fine. But in the rear view, the cylinders have been drawn against the cab side walls instead of partially “behind” them … I’m guessing a draughtsman lost track of what was what, exactly, and nobody noticed.

[vizenz]

Of course some people will build OOB with the markings provided by the manufacturer and that is absolutely fine. Many of the schemes featured in kit instructins and decals are already meticulously researched for you. Be aware that some are not!

Since the German tanks of the 1939 Polish campaign are my special area of interest and have been researching them for many years, I unfortunately have to say that I have not yet come across a single kit that offers historically correct markings for this campaign!

..but so far one question eludes me;

the Fw190D-11 (& perhaps -13) nose cannon ammo storage - is it the same set up as the Ta152 - ie wrapped around the cannon or is it above where cowling guns used to be?

For those interested the ammo box on top of the vacated cowling bay - as depicted by IBG -is correct.

That's right for the D-13, but the D-11 did not have a nose cannon
You can find a corresponding contemporary drawing from the Baureihenübersicht in: Peter Rodeike, "Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug", page 405, text p.406, Entwicklungsübersicht from November 28, 1944 p.407

[stona]

That's right for the D-13, but the D-11 did not have a nose cannon
You can find a corresponding contemporary drawing from the Baureihenübersicht in: Peter Rodeike, "Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug", page 405, text p.406, Entwicklungsübersicht from November 28, 1944 p.407

I did find those, with the position for the relevant parts for the D12/R11 and D13/R11, but they are small and lack detail.

For those interested:



The D-12 was to have an MK 108 and the D-13 an MK 151 'Motorkanone'

German production plans had slipped into the realms of fantasy by the time this was published.

[vizenz]

I did find those, with the position for the relevant parts for the D12/R11 and D13/R11, but they are small and lack detail.

:thumb2: This is exactly the overview I meant. The graphics show where the ammunition containers are installed in relation to the weapons.

[Guest]

That’s not me upsetting everyone again, is it? :smiling4:


Have a wonderful evening!

[Ian M]

And that my friend was that.

[PaulinKendal]

Why is he still here? This is precisely the sort of behaviour that should get him turfed out, surely?

[Tim Marlow]

Why is he still here? This is precisely the sort of behaviour that should get him turfed out, surely?

That’s one for the mods, not us. He may well have been warned for all we know Paul. Responding like that to a three month old post is slightly unhinged in my opinion….

[PaulinKendal]

I must admit I thought this:

And that my friend was that.

... was him getting his marching orders. Hey ho.

[Ian M]

That’s one for the mods, not us. He may well have been warned for all we know Paul. Responding like that to a three month old post is slightly unhinged in my opinion….

Well I gave him a chance and he blew it.

[Ian M]

Well its not often I have had to ban a member so i will ask John to check I have done it proper but he should now be banned.
I can understand you lads 110% I hoped that my comment would have stopped comments without having to close the thread.
Could I just ask that in the future if there is a problem with a member just drop the mods a message. Lowering yourselves to their level is not the solution, and just gives me even more work

[Tim Marlow]

Well its not often I have had to ban a member so i will ask John to check I have done it proper but he should now be banned.
I can understand you lads 110% I hoped that my comment would have stopped comments without having to close the thread.
Could I just ask that in the future if there is a problem with a member just drop the mods a message. Lowering yourselves to their level is not the solution, and just gives me even more work

Sorry Ian, my fault entirely. He just got under my skin on a bad RA day. I apologise to you and anyone else I upset with my clumsy attempt at humour.

[Guest]

I like (laughing) 'you tube' where so many of our cousins across the atlantic give themselves titles like 'Sniper Story' or 'Deep Intelligence' and then cut together undocumented details/clips of what is happening (in this case Ukraine) in a war zone/conflict... And then proceed to tell the viewer that this happened or that happened, when in fact it did not...When did the Ukrainians obtain M50 'Ontos???? Or we can have the latest guff! of 'The Russians and Chinese on exercises together'.... 'Where they were intercepted off the Alaskan coastline'.... cut to a Russian Bear and an obviously marked Ukrainian Mig (in peactime), then cut to F-16's being filmed from a Russian 'Bear'? and on and on the presenter drones.... Or how about the crud being put out about the B-58 'Hustler' - it becomes embarrassing just watching it.... But they want us to believe it is true...
So many 'authors' today spend far too much time surfing the internet for snippets and cutting and pasting, when in fact if they took the time to actually visit the area they are talking about (Oh! they cannot because they could get shot or dropped of a building) and then looking at the actual vehicle/plane they may just gather some usefull information....
And the mainstream media are as much to blame with their 'factual' documentaries, which turn out to be on the most part inaccurate. Current examples are to be seen today where a lot of back-peddaling is taking place around current news events over the last weekend and the week before which have turend out to be anything but what they were screaming about....
I do my research using a clear photograph or three of the same subject. Failing that I will look at and compare various images of the same subject and from those build a representation of the vehicle (WW1/WW2) with my current build being based on one vehicle but with a photo later found of another of the same kind. And as Scottie pointed out a good walkaround set of images, or even better someone that is actually working on or has access to the real vehicle (M109 Doher).

This after all is a MODELLING FORUM and not a dating society or magic circle gathering, we are here to make models, discuss the mistakes in a produced kit, rubbish it if that is required, but in the end we build models as a hobby. And if we find incorrect 'facts' in a publication be it paper or media that we know to be wrong, then write to the author/producer and correct them.

If you are seriously researching a model to the point of infinate accuracy and you know of the subject residing in a collection/museum and really want to slide under its belly to check if the drain plugs are in or not, then contact the owner/museum/collection outline what you want, and more than likely you will get a favourable response. Unfortunately for ship modellers this may not be the case and you will have to work with what you have or can obtain, and when I look at your model with my ignorant eyes, I will see a model, and will judge it as such but I will not be counting the rivets around the funnel, but a visit to the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich could develop your research even more.
Right Ian, bag packed, hat on and suitcase at the ready for the boot out the door....