G
Was it a Sturmovik?
Revell 1/32 H145M LUH KSK
- Thread starter Jim R
- Start date
Hi all
Jakko - the fit is poor but I think it is as good as possible.
Pete - thanks. So good to have you back posting and modelling.
Peter - you're right. If the fit was better it would be a cracking kit. Thanks for the heads up warning on the base - see update :thumb2:
Richard - your advice to dry fit over and over was very sound, thanks.
Ian - hopefully the worst is over :rolling:
Si - definitely a kit where patience is needed.
John - no fit issues with tanks, hah b****y hah
No tracks though!
Jim
Jakko - the fit is poor but I think it is as good as possible.
Pete - thanks. So good to have you back posting and modelling.
Peter - you're right. If the fit was better it would be a cracking kit. Thanks for the heads up warning on the base - see update :thumb2:
Richard - your advice to dry fit over and over was very sound, thanks.
Ian - hopefully the worst is over :rolling:
Si - definitely a kit where patience is needed.
John - no fit issues with tanks, hah b****y hah
No tracks though!Jim
A bit of progress.
Peter warned me about the base plate. Now when fitting the two fuselage halves I concentrated on getting the best fit on top. The underneath joins were a bit iffy which made the base fit poorly. I glued thin strips of styrene to the base edge to fill the gaps.
Instructions said I needed 30g of weight up near the front. That was quite a lot. I wrapped 30g of lead fishing weights in gaffer tape and stuck it in place with a hot glue gun.
I then fitted the base plate. A bit rough but it will improve with a bit of sanding and filling and it is underneath. I fear I'll sand off some of the rivet detail so, as suggested in the magazine article, I have ordered some Archer rivet decals. Not used them before so I'll see how they work out.
Starting to look like a helicopter :smiling:
Now a question which I hope someone can help with. Instructions 32 and 33 show alternative builds for the rotor arm centre. I can't figure out why they give the choice and which one to use. Apart from using 50A and 50B in place of 50 they appear the same. I wouldn't have the rotors able to spin anyway - for strength I'll just glue it solid.
Thanks for your continued support and banter.
Jim
Peter warned me about the base plate. Now when fitting the two fuselage halves I concentrated on getting the best fit on top. The underneath joins were a bit iffy which made the base fit poorly. I glued thin strips of styrene to the base edge to fill the gaps.
Instructions said I needed 30g of weight up near the front. That was quite a lot. I wrapped 30g of lead fishing weights in gaffer tape and stuck it in place with a hot glue gun.
I then fitted the base plate. A bit rough but it will improve with a bit of sanding and filling and it is underneath. I fear I'll sand off some of the rivet detail so, as suggested in the magazine article, I have ordered some Archer rivet decals. Not used them before so I'll see how they work out.
Starting to look like a helicopter :smiling:
Now a question which I hope someone can help with. Instructions 32 and 33 show alternative builds for the rotor arm centre. I can't figure out why they give the choice and which one to use. Apart from using 50A and 50B in place of 50 they appear the same. I wouldn't have the rotors able to spin anyway - for strength I'll just glue it solid.
Thanks for your continued support and banter.
Jim
G
Can't help with the instructions Jim, but this really is another one of your textbook ultra clean and tidy builds. Lovely work.
The alternative rotor fittings are so that you can lift off the rotor for storage if you use 50b - takes up less room that way. I had to take quite a lot off to get part 50b to fit, it was clashing with some of the gubbins on top of the fuselage.
Pete
Pete
Hi Jim, the fuselage looks great and neat. Peter's eplanation is right. Part 50B is deep so that when 50A the longer rod is inserted the rotors won't be wobbly. If you don't have space constraints then part 50 will do the job however it all depends on how part 51 is attached to the engine deck.
32 means you fix and paint in situ unless you glue part 50 to 51 and then only attach/glue rotor assembly at the end. 33 means you have the option to slot and remove the rotors at will.
Cheers,
Richard
32 means you fix and paint in situ unless you glue part 50 to 51 and then only attach/glue rotor assembly at the end. 33 means you have the option to slot and remove the rotors at will.
Cheers,
Richard
Hi all
Peter - thanks. I am a bit OCD about tidiness in general. I straighten pictures, keep the car clean and organise my socks in colour groups. I drive the wife to distraction :tongue-out3:
Peter and Richard - thanks for that. I can see it now but before I just couldn't see what the difference was :thumb2: I think I'll go with 33 - I can always glue it later if I want.
Jim
Peter - thanks. I am a bit OCD about tidiness in general. I straighten pictures, keep the car clean and organise my socks in colour groups. I drive the wife to distraction :tongue-out3:
Peter and Richard - thanks for that. I can see it now but before I just couldn't see what the difference was :thumb2: I think I'll go with 33 - I can always glue it later if I want.
Jim
G
Well battled Jim its looking really good.
G
Peter I'm beginning to wonder if Jim uses normal glue, I can never see a mark anywhere.
Looks as clean as ever Jim.
Steve's the Archer expert Jim, sure he'd be able to enlighten you .
Looks as clean as ever Jim.
Steve's the Archer expert Jim, sure he'd be able to enlighten you .
Hi all
Mick - thanks. Still battles to be fought :thinking:
John - cheers. I do use glue, honest! Steve will certainly be my go to guy for Archer advice :thumb2:
I have spent the day messing around. First off I looked at the way the rotors were mounted. Thanks to Peter and Richard I realised that there was a way to have the rotor removable. I thought that would be useful for painting as well as future storage. In 33 part 50A is a poorly moulded plastic pin. For strength I replaced it with a brass tube - still to be shortened. I'll epoxy it to the rotor mount and its a nice snug fit into the base.
The engine has a blanking plate in it which stops you seeing inside. Part 49A. Revell want a section cut out to allow space for the rotor base/mount to fit.
Seemed daft to me so I made a new blanking piece to fit slightly further forward so now it doesn't foul the rotor base.
There is a circular intake on each side at the front of the engine. Mostly all you can see is a dark hole.
This is Revell's instruction for altering and fitting them :confounded:
Lord alone knows what that is all about! I shall simply mount the intakes onto the blanking piece, slap on some paint and hey-ho its done. It should look the part at least. I shall take a razor saw to those horn like bits that the intakes were meant to fix to as the get in the way of my blanking plate.
Just messing around :tongue-out:
Jim
Mick - thanks. Still battles to be fought :thinking:
John - cheers. I do use glue, honest! Steve will certainly be my go to guy for Archer advice :thumb2:
I have spent the day messing around. First off I looked at the way the rotors were mounted. Thanks to Peter and Richard I realised that there was a way to have the rotor removable. I thought that would be useful for painting as well as future storage. In 33 part 50A is a poorly moulded plastic pin. For strength I replaced it with a brass tube - still to be shortened. I'll epoxy it to the rotor mount and its a nice snug fit into the base.
The engine has a blanking plate in it which stops you seeing inside. Part 49A. Revell want a section cut out to allow space for the rotor base/mount to fit.
Seemed daft to me so I made a new blanking piece to fit slightly further forward so now it doesn't foul the rotor base.
There is a circular intake on each side at the front of the engine. Mostly all you can see is a dark hole.
This is Revell's instruction for altering and fitting them :confounded:
Lord alone knows what that is all about! I shall simply mount the intakes onto the blanking piece, slap on some paint and hey-ho its done. It should look the part at least. I shall take a razor saw to those horn like bits that the intakes were meant to fix to as the get in the way of my blanking plate.
Just messing around :tongue-out:
Jim
G
Not surprise you thought that " Lord alone knows what that is all about! "
Look extremely confusing to me, more than most destructions do Jim .
Look extremely confusing to me, more than most destructions do Jim .
Hi all
A bit more progress - actually quite a good few days :smiling:
Base plate filled and sanded a few times. Filling using Mr S 500 and Perfect Plastic Putty.
The sanding sanded off some of the rivet detail. I replaced the missing decals with Archer decal rivets. First time I've used them and they seem to work well. They are tiny resin bumps on a clear decal film. We'll see what they look like under paint.
Remember this - the front intakes.
The reason Revell tell you to chop bits off is that both parts are for the same side :confounded: Anyway I hacked bits off and fitted them to my blank under the engine cover. They don't really show and matt black will cover a multitude of sins!!
The brass rod shortened and glued into the rotor bit. That then slides nicely into the hole in the engine cover. Makes the rotors removable :thumb2:
Thanks for your support and help - appreciate it :smiling:
Jim
A bit more progress - actually quite a good few days :smiling:
Base plate filled and sanded a few times. Filling using Mr S 500 and Perfect Plastic Putty.
The sanding sanded off some of the rivet detail. I replaced the missing decals with Archer decal rivets. First time I've used them and they seem to work well. They are tiny resin bumps on a clear decal film. We'll see what they look like under paint.
Remember this - the front intakes.
The reason Revell tell you to chop bits off is that both parts are for the same side :confounded: Anyway I hacked bits off and fitted them to my blank under the engine cover. They don't really show and matt black will cover a multitude of sins!!
The brass rod shortened and glued into the rotor bit. That then slides nicely into the hole in the engine cover. Makes the rotors removable :thumb2:
Thanks for your support and help - appreciate it :smiling:
Jim
G
Very neat build Jim
Hi Jim - not sure where you have stuck parts 60 but the destructions were telling you to fix them to the end of the curved horn thingies
There is a triangle on part 60 that mates with the triangular hole on the end of the horn - or at least it would on one but not on the other after you have to cut it off
So parts 60 should have been at the rear on an angle with the dome facing outwards
There is a triangle on part 60 that mates with the triangular hole on the end of the horn - or at least it would on one but not on the other after you have to cut it off
So parts 60 should have been at the rear on an angle with the dome facing outwards
Hi all
John - thanks. Maybe neat but snail's pace slow.
Simon - cheers. I have sort of cobbled it together. Virtually not seen.
The front piece for the engine cover just did not fit - now there's a surprise :confounded:
However by cutting off the lip, which was supposed to locate the part, and a bit of sanding and it went together fine.
Gave the underside a mist of primer to see how the filling had turned out. Not too bad and it is underneath :tongue-out3:
Those Archer rivets are very effective.
Progress is slow but steady. Thanks for watching :thumb2:
Jim
John - thanks. Maybe neat but snail's pace slow.
Simon - cheers. I have sort of cobbled it together. Virtually not seen.
The front piece for the engine cover just did not fit - now there's a surprise :confounded:
However by cutting off the lip, which was supposed to locate the part, and a bit of sanding and it went together fine.
Gave the underside a mist of primer to see how the filling had turned out. Not too bad and it is underneath :tongue-out3:
Those Archer rivets are very effective.
Progress is slow but steady. Thanks for watching :thumb2:
Jim
G
Very unusual to see a modern kit that requires so much good old modelling skills to put together. I wonder what the generations raised on kits of the last few years would make of this one 
Hi all
Jakko - I was surprised. I would have thought that it was me but Peter found similar issues when he built the kit.
One of the problems is that to get the fit ok in one place you kinda make the fit worse somewhere else. The front windscreen is a case in point. It is big and curved and my bodging the fuselage halves meant it really didn't fit. I fitted 1mm strips of styrene on the sides and top of the frame. I also remade the tip of the 'nose' With a load of sanding and dry fitting it is now reasonable. Gaps are small and they may fill with the glue although I may still have to fill some areas.
This original kit is 2005 but the new sprues for this model are 2017. The tail assembly is new parts and fits like a dream :thumb2: :smiling: :thumb2:
Feeling a lot happier. Revell are back on my Christmas card list - maybe!
Jim
Jakko - I was surprised. I would have thought that it was me but Peter found similar issues when he built the kit.
One of the problems is that to get the fit ok in one place you kinda make the fit worse somewhere else. The front windscreen is a case in point. It is big and curved and my bodging the fuselage halves meant it really didn't fit. I fitted 1mm strips of styrene on the sides and top of the frame. I also remade the tip of the 'nose' With a load of sanding and dry fitting it is now reasonable. Gaps are small and they may fill with the glue although I may still have to fill some areas.
This original kit is 2005 but the new sprues for this model are 2017. The tail assembly is new parts and fits like a dream :thumb2: :smiling: :thumb2:
Feeling a lot happier. Revell are back on my Christmas card list - maybe!
Jim
I did indeed Jim, and it's interesting that we had problems in such similar areas, so it seems like the moulds at fault rather than the process. It sounds unkind I know, but I'm rather glad you had trouble with it, so I know it wasn't just my incompetence!
Pete
Hi Peter
The article in the magazine did not mention any fit issues and so without your earlier build I would definitely have thought the problems were down to me.
Jim
The article in the magazine did not mention any fit issues and so without your earlier build I would definitely have thought the problems were down to me.
Jim
Legal Notice
scalemodelling.co.uk is a privately operated online discussion forum. All content posted by members reflects their own views and opinions and does not necessarily represent those of the forum owners or administrators. While reasonable efforts are made to moderate content, no responsibility is accepted for user-generated material. By using this site, you agree to comply with UK law and the forum rules.