Latest Project: Matchbox 1/32 Bf-109E-3

[Eric Mc]

I would say that, after 1/72, the next best populated scale is almost undoubtedly 1/48.

The hobby has moved on in leaps and bounds over the past 20 years. There are so many new manufacturers involved making both full kits and accessories that it is almost overwhelming.

The boost has come from the advent of new manufactures from behind the old Iron Curtain China and South Korea.

[Shar2]

1/48th has long been my scale of choice, although I did dabble in larger, I really wasn't up to the task of making them to my satisfaction at the time. Now I stick to 1/350th scale ships.

[dr_gn]

GJB said:

Built literally 100's of plastic kits in my early teens. Vast majority were WW2 military aircraft and lots of Luftwaffe because I liked the unusual and sometimes menacing camouflage schemes. I'm now in my mid 50's and started thinking about having another crack at these but obviously now have the funds to do a better job.

Great to see threads like this that provide inspiration and great reading matter. Like the larger scale models and would probably start with 1:32 or 1:48 scale and try to stick with one scale for consistency amongst the collection. If I went for a collection made up of WW2 Luftwaffe aircraft which scale has the greatest range of these aircraft and are there any particular manufacturers you'd recommend?

Only slightly off topic.

By the way those machine guns for £7.00 look amazing. Didn't even know such `add-ons` even existed.

1/32 is a bit big for me too - the requirement for detailing is a bit much for my time/skill, but, it was free so I can't complain.

I'm ordering a couple of Eduard Detail kits (really for the Hasegawa Bf109, but I'll adapt them). If you like the guns, how about these belts for only $10 :



With the detail kits and those belts, the cockpit will look great even it I mess the painting up.

[Nick_F]

1/48 was always my favourite for aircraft. I used to have a fantastic series of leaflets showcasing Verlinden dioramas built around the Monogram 1/48 US four-engined bombers: there was a B17, B24 and B29.

It was 30 years ago, but they must be online somewhere.

My bad, Sheperd Paine, not Verlinden.

Read 'em and weep...

Edited by Nick_F on Monday 22 February 13:20

[dr_gn]

Some of my detail kits arrived at the weekend:

Eduard Cockpit set for Hasegawa models (I'll adapt it to fit)



Master Model MG-17 and MG-FF brass turned/drilled guns. These things are works of art. The longer barrels with the cooling jackets fit above the engine, the two stubs fit in the wings. Each background square is 5mmx5mm:



There is no comparison with the clunky originals, although I'll have to either make or adapt the existing breeches to suit the new brass items:



Still waiting for the external details etch kit, harness and possibly a canopy. I'll also get some lead wire and replace all the moulded in wiring and pipework with individual pieces.

[dr_gn]

And to go with the photo-etch stuff, a photo-etch bending tool!





I thought they looked useful, but there was no way I was going to blow £50 on one, so I milled one on the lathe out of some scrap aluminium. Only took a few hours, toal cost £0.00. Works great.

[72twink]

Nice etch folding tool Dr-Gn, as I haven't got a mill I bought one, and as a user can I make a sugesstion, often to get a 90 degree fold you need to go fractionally beyond 90 degs to allow for the "spring" of the etch, your "claws" have quite a square thick edge and that might hinder the over bending. If you've got any more scrap maybe a second go with thinner claws might be worth a try - I'm guessing the bites out of the edge were done after the bevelling so you can't go back and just add more bevel.

[dr_gn]

72twink said:

Nice etch folding tool Dr-Gn, as I haven't got a mill I bought one, and as a user can I make a sugesstion, often to get a 90 degree fold you need to go fractionally beyond 90 degs to allow for the "spring" of the etch, your "claws" have quite a square thick edge and that might hinder the over bending. If you've got any more scrap maybe a second go with thinner claws might be worth a try - I'm guessing the bites out of the edge were done after the bevelling so you can't go back and just add more bevel.

Thanks for the comments. It was just a bit of a milling experiment really, I just made the fingers random widths and lengths to see which ones got used the most. You're right though, they do indeed have a bit of thickness to them (1mm to be precise). I didn't want to go much thinner, because the smaller finger widths would probably then be too weak. I'm using it for the first bit of photo-etch I've ever seriously done, a couple of Eduard frets for the '109. It is very thin stuff, and bends to 90 dergrees without springing back. If it was much thicker, the tool might not work.

I could always remove some material from the entire footprint by sanding on a bed plate, or just chamfer the top edges with a file. Once I find out which bits I use the most, on the next version I might just taper the fingers of one side down to a couple of hundred microns (ie no horizontal 'land'), and/or make it out of tool steel. That way it will never bend, but will be much harder to mill.

One things for sure - judging by the interest from Britmodeller members, there is defiitely a market for a cheap but functional tool of this type. If only I had that CNC mill...

[72twink]

I've just had a measure of my Etch-Mate, the fingers are concave radiused to a .5mm tip thickness, maybe as you say a swipe of a file on the tips to thin them should you run into difficulties with thicker etch.

[dr_gn]

72twink said:

I've just had a measure of my Etch-Mate, the fingers are concave radiused to a .5mm tip thickness, maybe as you say a swipe of a file on the tips to thin them should you run into difficulties with thicker etch.

That's interesting info - thanks a lot. I've been figuring out how to make them quicker in the lathe this morning, so on the next one I might try to shallow taper to 0.5mm, then concave radius back to the full thickness. I'll prove it in Al, then might do a 'final' one in tool steel.

Do you clamp the etch by tightening the knob, or just press it with finger pressure?

Cheers,

[dr_gn]

So far so good with the new bending tool. These are some cockpit parts:





One hundred percent sucess rate up to now, although I suspect this is more due to the quality of Mr. Eduard's etchings than my bending tool! Whatever, it's certainly done a good job considering this is my first attempt at photo-etch.

Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 21st March 22:25

[Eric Mc]

Looks the biz.

I think you should set up a small production line for PH modellers

[Evangelion]

Well I'd buy one!

[dr_gn]

Thanks, If anyone really wants one I could make some simple lathe tooling (to make the milling process quicker) and make a batch, wouldn't cost too much, but then again there would be no guarantees!

If there are any specific finger widths people use a lot, just let me know and I could incorporate them into the design.

[DieselGriff]

I would certainly have one as well. Good work.

[72twink]

I've always used the knob to tighten down the clamp, mine is the small 4 or 4.5 inch version and I've found that with the plate turned round to do long single items that even on this short version the single clamp isn't enough and items have moved - the problem is of course fitting more clamps and still having guide pin space!

[dr_gn]

72twink said:

I've always used the knob to tighten down the clamp, mine is the small 4 or 4.5 inch version and I've found that with the plate turned round to do long single items that even on this short version the single clamp isn't enough and items have moved - the problem is of course fitting more clamps and still having guide pin space!

Is the knob too far away from the edge, or is the problem more at the corners? I could put another series of holes next to the continuous edge, and have a long steel strip under the knob to spread the pressure more evenly.

[72twink]

I think it could be a combination of factors, the thumb screw is set well back to allow etch items to fit under the top plate, the top plate being ally can flex a tiny amount and the base is anodised so not as grippy as bare ally may have been. All these factors said I've usually been able to work round any issues.

[dr_gn]

72twink said:

I think it could be a combination of factors, the thumb screw is set well back to allow etch items to fit under the top plate, the top plate being ally can flex a tiny amount and the base is anodised so not as grippy as bare ally may have been. All these factors said I've usually been able to work round any issues.

I must admit I have virtually zero experience of photo-etch, but are you saying you put the larger portion of the bend under the main plate, leaving the small bit to be bent? Of course, the further the photo-etch is pushed towards the clamp point, the greater the 'fingers' will be lifted away from the edge (unless you put a corresponding thickness of material under the opposite side). And at the opposide side, the fingers will tend to be bent upwards against the base plate (depending upon the specific design of tool). Factor in the low stiffness of aluminium and I can see you'd have a potential problem.

I mentioned a steel spreader plate: how about a /---^---\ shaped top clamp (the ^ represents the central clamping knob) which would act directly on the ends of the fingers, thereby eliminating much of the lifting problem? It could even be an extra part that could be used as and when necessary.

BTW, the maximum profile I can mill in my lathe without major hassle is about 80mm x 80mm.

[dr_gn]

I won't be making a batch of bending tools: I've been scared off by the risk of someone stupid enough to injure themselves on it and make a claim against me. If anyone's interested, Paul at "litle cars" is offering a 'proper' version with free postage for a limited time, based on the interest in mine, and the fact I'm no longer taking orders. Anyone interested, just go to Britmodeller and look at my thread under "Tools & Tips".

Back to the real business: I must admit I hadn't bargained for having to *make* the RB productions' seatbelts for the '109! They're TINY! I'd assumed they came ready to fit. They do make my home made spitfire ones look crap though. Here a progress picture of the lap belts. Believe it or not, they are adjustable for length:





Finished! Shown here with the photo-etch seat and the Matchbox seat. The Matchbox seat is too thick, but a better form, the Eduard one is the right thickness, but too 'square':

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 27th March 16:10