Hi,
After wondering several times what Trumpeter where thinking when they placed the sprue connector on the clear windscreen portion on both their 1:72 and 1:48 kits of the Westland Wyvern, I began to think about other manufacturers' kits. I didn't remember seeing them having a similar windscreen, without a frame on each sides.
Trumpeter's windscreen:
Indeed, only Trumpeter's kits have this feature. Both Dynavector and Classic Airframes have the windscreen fully framed.
CA
Dynavector
I made a quick search and couldn't find any pics online to confirm either frame style. Which one is correct then?
Do I have to do some very careful cutting on the sprue connector and sand and polish the scar away, or I can I just clip it off the sprue and make the missing framing with thin styrene strip?
Cold War (1950-1974)
Discuss the aircraft modeling subjects during the Cold War period.
Discuss the aircraft modeling subjects during the Cold War period.
Hosted by Tim Hatton
Confused about Wyvern's windscreen
Emeritus
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 06:23 AM UTC
Grumpyoldman
_ADVISOR
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:56 PM UTC
Although not the greatest photo, this one looks like they missed the mark, as it looks like it does have some framing around the bottom also.
Emeritus
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Posted: Friday, February 29, 2008 - 04:52 AM UTC
Thanks.
Now that's a relief, hair-raising cutting, followed by sanding & polishing. Just styrene strip glued in place.
Now that's a relief, hair-raising cutting, followed by sanding & polishing. Just styrene strip glued in place.
Posted: Friday, February 29, 2008 - 10:15 PM UTC
Hi Eetu
Here's a clearer view taken from the 4+ Publications book on the Wyvern:
There seems to be a very thin frame, but nothing like as heavy as shown on the kit's boxtop painting. Your answer of careful polishing and covering up any blemish sounds like the best compromise, but it really is a badly designed sprue attachment.
All the best
Rowan
Here's a clearer view taken from the 4+ Publications book on the Wyvern:
There seems to be a very thin frame, but nothing like as heavy as shown on the kit's boxtop painting. Your answer of careful polishing and covering up any blemish sounds like the best compromise, but it really is a badly designed sprue attachment.
All the best
Rowan
Emeritus
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Posted: Friday, February 29, 2008 - 11:54 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Eetu
Here's a clearer view taken from the 4+ Publications book on the Wyvern:
There seems to be a very thin frame, but nothing like as heavy as shown on the kit's boxtop painting. Your answer of careful polishing and covering up any blemish sounds like the best compromise, but it really is a badly designed sprue attachment.
All the best
Rowan
Bummer, I'll have to practice my polishing skills then. Well, at least there's no frame detail to worry about. (as opposed to Revell's 1:72 spitfire, there's one connector neatly only on a frame, and on the other side it goes over the clear portion...)
A spot of bad design indeed. I was quite surprised to see this oddity repeated on the 1:48 scale kit, as there were several other parts which where improved from the 1:72 version, like the addition of PE seat belts and instrument panel in place of the awful lear panel (a trend I'm not that fond of) behind which you were supposed to glue a piece of film.
Guess they didn't get enough feedback on the canopy.