Blohm & Voss BV 138
Yorumlar
1 4 August 2015, 02:06
Kelly WellingtonIt's part of my collection of 'Battle of the Atlantic Adversaries'....Coastal Command aircraft and the USAAF and US Navy aircraft confronting the naval forces of the Axis.
6 February 2016, 21:51
Kelly WellingtonSo...Yesterday I did major assembly. The booms are now attached to the wings, the wings are attached to the wingroots on the fuselage and the horizontal stabilizer is attached across to the two booms at the tails. There are modest gaps at the wingroot, the port side of where the HS meets the port boom, and in the very tail end of the port boom itself. None of the gaps concern me and I'll be attempting to 'gloss over' them with Zap-a-Gap. Once zapped and painted, I'm hoping for 'unnoticeable'. Floats are together and in the process of painting. I am foregoing the whole 'minehunter' circlet rigging, but I've got to start in on the trolley, which seems a must for me in terms of storage.
9 February 2016, 22:15
Kelly WellingtonI know it has the reputation as the 'Holzschuh', the flying clog, but I think it was semi-officially known as the 'Seedrache'...that I can see. It looks reasonably dragonish. 'Menacing' is how I'd typify it, but I doubt that it was particularly menancing to anybody, welcomed by stranded airmen in the drink, and rather an easy target. This is the rig to which the Dornier Do-24 lost out with the Wehrmacht. Scaled out at this point, the Seedrache is about the same size as the Catalina. I should compare.
9 February 2016, 22:43
Kelly WellingtonI did the comparison on the Military Factory system and they come out quite comparable. The Cat is marginally better in range, speed, and ceiling, while significantly better armed and capable of carrying more bomb/cargo weight. And, from what I understand the Cat was not of the 'quick and nimble' persuasion.
10 February 2016, 02:01
Kelly WellingtonWell, Zap-a-Gap was a fail. It curdled the paint around the opening I was attempting to fill and didn't fill. I wiped it clean, backed off an let it dry out. Then, I reapproached the problem with Testors Clear Parts Cement. That was just the ticket. I'll have to do some touch up painting, but when wouldn't I?
12 February 2016, 00:48
Kelly WellingtonWorking on the doodads and deelibobs. Bottom side first. The wing floats are ready to be glued. There are two intakes per engine housing and the parts designers decided to make each intake a two piece assembly with teeny circlets and small sloped pieces. I have to but a second coat on the canopy frame. And, building the trolley is a pain.
17 February 2016, 05:37
Kelly WellingtonHrumph...The clear canopy fit is really, really bad on the leading edge. I tried doing some shaping of the canopy, but I was unsatisfied with the result. I had one millimeter gaps on either side of the lower front extension of the canopy. I probably should have stopped and cut some styrene strips to build up the fuselage where the canopy was supposed to join. Instead, I tried to fill with clear cement. It looks goobered, but the dark colors, uneven regular skin, and overpainting has minimized the goobering.
20 February 2016, 17:16
Thomas BischoffI use Micro Kristal Klear to fill the gaps - easy to work with and transparent when dry.
20 February 2016, 21:52
Kelly WellingtonWell....This was a nice kit, except for the fit around the front of the clear canopy and the fuselage bridge behind the nose turret....gaping space that I don't think would be present in the real thing.
30 March 2016, 02:20
Kelly WellingtonThanks, mates...I think it goes a long way toward living up to its 'Seedrache' name. I, of course, took liberties with the deep yellow touches.
I'm pleased with the collection as it stands, but I need to tackle some of the early war aircraft, like the Anson, the Stranraer, the Swordfish, and the Gladiator.
31 March 2016, 03:33
Kelly WellingtonHey... I checked the easy sources and found this on the Seedrache: "Three piston engines were used. The central engine was mounted above the wing, driving a four-blade propeller, while the wing engines were lower, with three-blade propellers." (wiki) But...there is no rationale given for why the difference in the propeller blades. Does anybody here know why?
5 April 2016, 17:13
Choppa NuttaMy guess 🙂
is....
That the central 4 bladed prop has a smaller diameter...
the middle engine is pylon mounted and the taller the mount is the stronger and thus heavier it needs to be.
A four bladed propeller with a smaller radius could absorb the same power of a 3 bladed prop could with a larger radius.
4 blades are less efficient than 3 hence the outer two engines have 3 bladed props because there is enough room.
I reckon they went with a 4 bladed prop because the designers wanted to use it's smaller diameter to keep the engine pylon as short as possible to reduce weight and drag.... 🙂
What are the prop diameters ?
I'm gonna guess a 15% /20% difference in size 🙂
5 April 2016, 20:22
Kelly WellingtonI'd say maybe 10% difference, but distinctly a shorter radius. Between clearing the cabin and fitting between the other two sets of props, plus the challenge of the pylon, it seems that another shorter blade allows the central engine to generate similar thrust to the other two engines with the triple blade props.
7 April 2016, 20:56
Mike GrantI remember that kit from my teenage years (quite some time ago...). Looks great Kelly, really nice work 👍
7 April 2016, 21:55
