weak wing spar issues with 1/32 B-25

.

weak wing spar issues with 1/32 B-25

Joined: March 10th, 2005, 5:37 pm

May 9th, 2012, 6:31 pm #1

the review at cybermodeler states this assembly could be an issue.

anyone got that far in building? would love to know what if anything you did to strengthen the wings.

thought about running a metal or plexi rod thru the fuselage and wings.


craig


http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/ ... 1e01.shtml
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 1:09 am

May 9th, 2012, 8:29 pm #2

carried a Norden bombsight as it interfered with the flexible .50 calibre gun.
When the sight was carried the flex gun was taken out and the pilot fired the fixed guns in the nose.
Have not read anything else about a problem with the wing and fuselage join. Profimodeller in the Czech Republic has a set of 13 brass barrels that are VERY nice. Ordered a set today...a little pricey though.
Ken
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 29th, 2007, 2:02 pm

May 9th, 2012, 9:51 pm #3

... an non-sequitur I've ever seen.

You at least made passing reference to the OP's question - but JUST in passing.



He who dies with the most toys wins!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 1:09 am

May 9th, 2012, 10:31 pm #4

of the Norden bombsight...just trying to tell him why. I do hope there is no problem with the wing/fuselage join.
Ken "non sequitor" Daigle
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2010, 10:15 pm

May 10th, 2012, 12:20 am #5

the review at cybermodeler states this assembly could be an issue.

anyone got that far in building? would love to know what if anything you did to strengthen the wings.

thought about running a metal or plexi rod thru the fuselage and wings.


craig


http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/ ... 1e01.shtml
He didn't read the instructions very well or study the parts as there is a Norden bombsight included in the kit, parts, H2, H3, and the centre .50 can be made flexible as in the standard bomber configuration.Pushrods for the cowl flaps are molded into parts D18, D19, the engine firewalls.Personally I think he rushed his review without taking a good look at the instructions and parts.

I much prefer the cowl flaps open than closed on the model as you can see the back of the engine, the exhaust pipes and and all the hard work you've done. Dont know why you would want to display a model of this detail and size with gear up but I guess some will I imagine.Then how many kits these days are designed so you can have the gear closed up?

The props and the engine front casing are incorrect and Harold from AMS has new resin examples casted and they should be available from Sprue Brothers within the next couple of weeks. LSP has pics of them casted up if you want to take a look. I started a thread on LSP about about the props and engine casing being incorrect and Harold jumped straight onto it. there was also no prop govenors included and Harold has reproduced them also.

The biggest problem is getting enough weight inside to keep it from being a tail sitter. I added weight to the engine nacelles and inside the centre of the engines and then a small amount under the cockpit floor. I do not like the idea of putting so much weight over the nose gear strut so I used the engine nacelles and engines.

It really is a nice kit.
Last edited by cunumdrum61 on May 10th, 2012, 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 10th, 2005, 5:37 pm

May 10th, 2012, 12:26 am #6

thought I read that it is not necessary to put the weight in the nose,
but rather a little front of midline so any weight stresses are spread
out along the entire undercarriage - you don't have to put all the weight
up front.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 25th, 2005, 9:31 pm

May 10th, 2012, 12:31 am #7

He didn't read the instructions very well or study the parts as there is a Norden bombsight included in the kit, parts, H2, H3, and the centre .50 can be made flexible as in the standard bomber configuration.Pushrods for the cowl flaps are molded into parts D18, D19, the engine firewalls.Personally I think he rushed his review without taking a good look at the instructions and parts.

I much prefer the cowl flaps open than closed on the model as you can see the back of the engine, the exhaust pipes and and all the hard work you've done. Dont know why you would want to display a model of this detail and size with gear up but I guess some will I imagine.Then how many kits these days are designed so you can have the gear closed up?

The props and the engine front casing are incorrect and Harold from AMS has new resin examples casted and they should be available from Sprue Brothers within the next couple of weeks. LSP has pics of them casted up if you want to take a look. I started a thread on LSP about about the props and engine casing being incorrect and Harold jumped straight onto it. there was also no prop govenors included and Harold has reproduced them also.

The biggest problem is getting enough weight inside to keep it from being a tail sitter. I added weight to the engine nacelles and inside the centre of the engines and then a small amount under the cockpit floor. I do not like the idea of putting so much weight over the nose gear strut so I used the engine nacelles and engines.

It really is a nice kit.
"I do not like the idea of putting so much weight over the nose gear strut so I used the engine nacelles and engines."


We've had this discussion here before and it's a bit too lengthy for me to recap.

Short version: Putting weight over the nose gear strut to balance the plane will not stress the nose gear. By using the engines and engine nacelles, you add unnecessary extra weight and put extra stress on the main gear.

You should put any weight as far forward as possible.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 25th, 2005, 9:31 pm

May 10th, 2012, 12:34 am #8

thought I read that it is not necessary to put the weight in the nose,
but rather a little front of midline so any weight stresses are spread
out along the entire undercarriage - you don't have to put all the weight
up front.

"...but rather a little front of midline so any weight stresses are spread
out along the entire undercarriage..."

Again, that's a fundamentally flawed understanding of how the plane is balanced.

That simply increases the total weight born by the main gear.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2010, 10:15 pm

May 10th, 2012, 12:42 am #9

"I do not like the idea of putting so much weight over the nose gear strut so I used the engine nacelles and engines."


We've had this discussion here before and it's a bit too lengthy for me to recap.

Short version: Putting weight over the nose gear strut to balance the plane will not stress the nose gear. By using the engines and engine nacelles, you add unnecessary extra weight and put extra stress on the main gear.

You should put any weight as far forward as possible.
And it is not very much. The main gear is very strong and the thought of up to about 200grams of weight over the nose gear worrys me in case it is knocked as the nose strut will snap in two. The weight being forward of the cg and the main gear struts does spread the weight across all three landing gear struts.
Last edited by cunumdrum61 on May 10th, 2012, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 12:37 am

May 10th, 2012, 12:43 am #10

thought I read that it is not necessary to put the weight in the nose,
but rather a little front of midline so any weight stresses are spread
out along the entire undercarriage - you don't have to put all the weight
up front.

I've got that covered. Check my post on Plane Trading about page 2.

Cheers, Terry
Quote
Like
Share