Yes, I know it takes a bit of believing, but I suppose it's restoration on the cheap.

Even when it was in one piece, it was in ropey condition. have a look at these pictures of the painted wreck:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat/2510042107/in/photostream/

They need to do a full restoration and put it under cover, but I guess a few planks and some glue will fix it!

In my younger days when learning for my profession I´ve been told: "Cheap is always more costly than correct."
And there´s still good ole John Ruskin (1819-1900):

"There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper,
and the people who consider price alone are that person's lawful prey.
It is unwise to pay too much, but it is also unwise to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little
money, that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything because the thing you
bought is incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot... It can't be done. If
you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that you will
have enough to pay for something better."

Still correct after 150 years...

Hi John,

3'6" will do fine but I have tried comparing the measurements on screen of you model and the drawing in Green's book - Ok it is not accurate to more than 6 inches but your fuselage looks like about 44 inches, which makes the fuselage, inner and outer wings and engines about 6 inches short. I don't have a problem with that but the fuselage sides are almost a straight taper back to the tail (see picture) and you have a definite increase in taper after the rear of the wing. If possible (and yes I am being a pain) you need to slim the forward fuselage just a little to remove that, and increase the inner and outer wings just a little and the engine diameter as well to correct the span - if not feasible don't bother as it still looks good. Let's face it, anything you can do will be infinitely better that my pathetic efforts, and much appreciated.

You did not mention whether or not you have "cranked" the outer wings yet like the Stuka? I also notice that the under-wing engine nacelles go all the way back to the flaps, unlike the top ones. Tricky beggar isn't it! I realise it is going to take quite a while yet but looking good so far. I mentioned before a definite ridge down the join lines at the top and bottom of the fuselage but I guess that will be impossible to model?

Pete

hello Peter.

I've slimmed the model down a bit more. It's now 3' 3" wide, which is a tad wider than a Spit. I did find a pilot in cockpit view, which gives a good idea of proportions.



And if someone fancies doing a cockpit, here is what the panel looks like.





The tail has not been slimmed so you can see the difference.

The skin is a first draft. So, when the model is finished it will be refined. You can readily see that with the nose area.

Nice picci of the panel.Might be able to get a CAD plan off it by scaling it.The BFP I already have and known instruments will help as they are all generic British equipment.Jut got to finish my K4 panel,Fw190,P51,P40,Me109,Ju87,CAC 15 and CAC Boomerang.

Hi John,

That looks a lot better. My last post was a mess for which I apologise. Taking measurements off the screen is never going to be accurate within say 6". Now you have slimmed down the forward fuselage, the only minor point is that the engine nacelles/cowlings may be a bit small, which makes the fuselage look proportionately too wide. Measurements from the drawing in Green suggest an engine cowling diameter of around 5' which is probably about right as the Bristol Pegasus XVIII had a diameter of 55.3" apparently. Also the cowling was straight - no taper to the front.

Yes, I know I am a pain but hope that helps.

Its looking good but I know there is a lot more work to do so thanks for your efforts - I am getting quite excited.

Cheers

Pete

OK Peter, 55" is 4'7" and my models is 3'10", so I will have to enlarge the engines by 9"!

Hi John,

Entirely up to you but that confirms my thoughts that your original fuselage was almost as wide as the nacelles. Guess there was the thickness of the cowling and a bit of clearance to allow for so could I suggest 4'10" if you have not already done it. If you have then don't bother. I think an extra foot would certainly do it, with no taper if that is possible? Judging by the drawing the fuselage reduces from 3' at the wing trailing edge to just under 2' at the front of the tailplane.

Sorry to be a pain,

Pete

OK, here we have enlarged engines and slim fuselage, with tail fitted to the new profile.

I hope this will do?