Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Building the Master Box Mk1 Tank


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Building the Master Box Mk1 Tank
Permalink   


Yesterday I started constructing the Master Box Mk 1 'Female' tank and I thought it might be of value to share some of my observations.

The kit comprises some 52 grey plastic parts and includes items such as exhaust deflectors, head lamps andthe steel sheet protecting the tailhydraulic gear (usually found on the Gaza Mk1s?), the 2 tracts are 'rubber band type' and an etch which contains 5 parts, including the grenade mesh. The Tracks are probably going to cause widespread disappointment as they have unfortunate moulding sprues that distort the finished track.

The mouldings seem fine to me and, thus far, match Helen's drawings.

A couple of minor points I've identified so far:

1. The vent on the rear panel is facing upwards so catching any rain! I believe the comment has been made on this forum that the BovvyMk1 has had the vent fitted upside down!

2. The rivet count on the perforated rectangularplate reinforcing the trailing steering wheelsis wrong (there should be 13 rivets rear left to front rightbut only 7 rear right to front left - both counts include the middle rivet) MB have 9 in both directions again including the middle rivet in both counts. It is a minor point. The triangular reinforcement plates are correct.

3. There is no rivet detail around the periphery of the circular hatch.

Putting it together:

The instructions are clear enough but I did encounter one point of concern.

Drawing 3 shows the completion of the 'cabin' section, but adding the 'roof' to the'floor' at the front is not clear - there is no referencing mark and the 2 main components have twists. So, when you reach this part I would strongly recommend attaching the drivers cab first. This will then allow you to register the front fixing correctly and judicious use of elastic bands will hold everything together.

Drawing 4 shows the construction of the spring unit and these are very delicate. I found one of the 'D8' springs broken even before my careful removal from the sprue.

Photo 1: Comparison of Airfix, Mr X, MB and EMHAR.

Photo 2: Top my 'grenade roof' then MB 'grenade roof frame' and etched wire. Below is modified Airfix, Mr X and MB tails.

Photo 3 & 4: Distorted mouldings showing, in particular, the challenge of fitting the top and bottom units together.

Photo 5 is my Mk1 tail for an Airfix kit, showing correct rivet pattern (cf Photo 1 for completed view).

Photo 6 is the reinforcement plate as on the Bovvy Mk1.



-- Edited by TeeELL on Tuesday 14th of January 2014 02:44:29 PM

Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

A further check of content reveals Lewis guns on the sprue as well as Vickers (standby for the Mk2?). I have now fixed the upper and lower body halves, using the method recommended earlier, it really would be pure guess work to match the front correctly otherwise.
I shall bow to MB for the diagonals on the grenade canopy - a check on various photos I have suggests that they are right. Nevertheless their method of mounting the grenade canopy to the tank is totally wrong. MB have used an extended tab at the rear with the front cross member resting on the drivers roof, in fact supports at right angles to the frame on the first inner frames either end are correct. No real problem, just a length of appropriate sized plastic strip, a hole drilled through and some very fine rod will do the job. (Look carefully at my scratch built grenade canopy to see what I mean). Not sure about the etched square chicken wire - but then I've never knowingly seen 1916 chicken wire!! I am pretty happy with my hexagonal wire although it is possibly a little over scale.

MB have acknowledged both this Web site and Helen Lawson in helping them produce their models.

OK, back to the production......

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1608
Date:
Permalink   

Following this with interest Thanks for posting, I quite your Chicken wire what did you use?

Cheerswink



__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 



Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Date:
Permalink   

I would agree that the grenade roof appears to have been supported by four struts which were likely bolted to the roof of the tank through pre-existing bolt holes. The frame members seem to have been attached to the struts with U-bolts, the frame member having been reinforced at the point of attachment. I think that the kit manufacturers confusion about a support at the centre of the base of rear truss stems from the fact that the frame wasalso reinforced at this point. Note that the grenade roof should have projections which cover the roof of the sponsons, and that the wire netting seems to extend beyond the edges of the frame.



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Rhomboid, thank you, especially for sight of those 2 photos which I have never encountered before. To add to the mix, I have 2 very short clips of film which shows the crew of a 'Female' removing the tarpaulin from a grenade canopy that extends further to the rear, with a downward ' curve'. The second clip shows the vehicle moving with another shot of the extended canopy.
Look on u- tube, type WW1 tanks and watch the clip from 'filthydirtyanimal' : http://www.youtube/watch?v=M7k485WdBTo
First part, 1:24s and 2:40s.

I shall see if I can extract stills from my movies.

also note the various different styles of camouflage



-- Edited by TeeELL on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 11:04:00 AM

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

I have extracted some stills from my video clips. They show the crew removing the tarp (even the officer commanding is lending a hand). One crewman, centre left nearest the camera appears to be wearing a soft rimmed hat. Apart from the extended grenade roof you will notice the storage box on the tail, with what appears to be a thin rail extension. The Tarp appears to be stored on the rear of the grenade roof, incidentally this was clearly a tough structure as the crew can bee seen walking on it (in the you-tube extended version of my film clip.

Sorry about the quality.



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

With the body complete and one side attached I started work on the tail wheels. This is quite a fiddly exercise as they are moderately flimsy, certainly the spokes more accurately reflect the appearance of the real thing (compared to Airfix) see photo 1. As with the Airfix wheels, MB have moulded theirs in 2 halves with one half including the steel 'tyre',removing the moulding plugs is a bit challengingthey fillfrom the flat to the 'tyre' see photo 2. In terms of appearance and when compared with photos the width of the wheels seems a little narrow - see photos 3,4 and 5.

The next challenge is to fit the other tank side but that requires fitting the steering tail, this has 2 points of fixing, the upper part of the springs and the pivot point at the rear of the tail frame. Unlike the Airfix tank, you cannot dry fit and then apply liquid cement to the inside, it is going to be a case of apply cement and then, all fingers and thumbs, fiddle the tail unit into position without smearing cement every where!

Photo 6is that of the female sponsons showing the rivet detail on the roof and floor, as previously mentioned the sprue has Lewis guns as an alternative fitment, stndby for a Mk2?

The final photo shows the 'rubber band' track distortions at the moulding points.



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

I'm not actually much of a fan of the grenade roof, I think it's one of those love it, hate it, Marmite type things. :)

Some of the tanks did have them though so it is worth more investigation than I have to confess I have up to know.no

From the information here and some other photos and books I have looked at, it appears the grenade roof is made up of sections... Main, Rear and the two sponsons. My best guess for now is the metal brackets coming up from the roof of the tank are making use of the square roof bolts. Easier than drilling out rivets. They could though have drilled into the L Beams that run across the roof.

The forward main roof appears to rest on the drivers cab, not sure if it extends to the front or back. Maybe a view showing the periscopes in use would make the grenade roofs position clearer.

It's an interesting thread and got me thinking... Thank You.

Helen x



__________________


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

I would have to agree, the wheels look a tiny bit narrower than the originals.

I've not yet managed to build my kits, so reading your review is going to help. Thanks x

I'm still trying to get information on the tail mechanism, but here is a 3D view of how far I got before i was stopped again.

Helen x



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Wow, Helen delighted to see you take an interest! Madam, you have my admiration in all the work you have done on the Mk 1.


Lost my train of thought! Oh yes, I've just taken a photo of the steering unit from, as far as I am able, the same position as the real thing. What the comparison of the 2 photos does show is that the number of louvres on the model is possibly wrong - 9 on the kit vs 7 on the Bovvy tank - but there is a bit of a gap so perhaps there are 2 louvres missing?

The steering control rods do not go far enough outwards, the real thing is only just short of the spokes.

OK, instead of sitting hear talking about it I had better get on and fit the tank together so I can report on how easy/difficult it is



-- Edited by TeeELL on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 06:05:06 PM

Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

This post is specifically for Helen: regarding the L shaped bracing bar at the 'tank' end of the steering tail. From my photo attached, I believe it should be the other way around ? It appears to me that the rivet/bolt heads are passing through the L reinforcement, I stand to be corrected. My thoughts on this matter are based upon those bolts being visible from this view, were it as your drawing then those bolts/rivets wouldn't be visible.

tn-1467178?AWSAccessKeyId=1XXJBWHKN0QBQS6TGPG2&Expires=1390435200&Signature=xgs02Rc8yOnGg14S02P7Pba%2FHSg%3Dtn-1467180?AWSAccessKeyId=1XXJBWHKN0QBQS6TGPG2&Expires=1390435200&Signature=8oHQ%2Bn13feWRXKxnprnft3YiV6g%3D



-- Edited by TeeELL on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 06:03:08 PM



-- Edited by TeeELL on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 06:08:51 PM

Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 813
Date:
Permalink   

Thanks for the comparisons and photos. I'm building the Airfix tank -from time to time!- and got bogged down a bit during the construction of the bomb roof, especifically on how it must be attached to the hull. Taking into consideration that the tank was made of bulletproof steel sheets, how did they managed on the field to fix the structure without drilling the surface?
Studying photos show that the bomb roof design was quite unique to each tank, and I'm still doubting if they were painted, if they were made of lumber joined with metal plates, or iron L or U profiles soldered together. What I'm fairly convinced of, is that the wire mesh on the roof was quite sturdy and not your run-of-the-mill chicken coop wire, but perhaps a fence or hedge wire variety. At least if it was me inside the tank, I'd get the heaviest gauge of wire mesh!



__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Helen,
for clarification:



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

My thoughts on how the grenade canopy was fixed are based upon a number of photos but one in particular suggests the 4 point fixing of the 'basic canopy'. In the attached photo if you look at the rear point a mount can be discerned that is at right angles to the framework, there also appears to be a thickening of the framework where it attaches. Move forward and a similar arrangement appears to be in place, certainly it is possible to make out a support and thickening of the frame. My conclusion, therefor, is that the canopy was attached by these 4 supports.

D Fernetti, your assumption on the strength of the chicken wire is 'supported' buy the video clips showing the crew climbing on it. (See still in one of my earlier posts)



-- Edited by TeeELL on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 06:31:20 PM

Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

I have just completed a dry fitting of the tail assembly and second side and it proved less daunting than anticipated. However, I have decided to scratch a new top reinforcement plate (as per my Airfix mod shown earlier) this will have the correct rivet pattern and larger holes as per the real thing. In addition I willreplace the rudimentary'whatever it is' that is underneath and loops at the rear - see photo.



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

The more I study the tail unit, the more errors I discover. There are 3 'bolts' on the rear axel which is correct but the two outer bolts pass through the diagonals and NOT the apparent point of articulation for the steering (a fault common to both MB and Airfix). Indeed, I have studied my photos at length and have yet to determine exactly how/where the steering mechanism sits. So I need to do a bit more work than initially anticipated. I will post some photos as and when the mods are completed. I've pulled the unit from the 'Male' tank to work on.

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

TeeELL wrote:

The more I study the tail unit, the more errors I discover. There are 3 'bolts' on the rear axel which is correct but the two outer bolts pass through the diagonals and NOT the apparent point of articulation for the steering (a fault common to both MB and Airfix). Indeed, I have studied my photos at length and have yet to determine exactly how/where the steering mechanism sits. So I need to do a bit more work than initially anticipated. I will post some photos as and when the mods are completed. I've pulled the unit from the 'Male' tank to work on.


Sorry about the L beam, forgot all about it being backwardsnoI lost heart and dropped the plans for a while. Now I'm getting back into it a bit more I am noticing things I've missed and forgotten to change. This post is helping a lot, thanks.

The 3 bolts just hold the arm to the frame, I think the arm and wheels come off one of their traction engines, as I'm sure I've seen it before somewhere. The pivot for the wheels are actually hidden in the hubs, I've attached an extreme close up for you. :)

The grill at the rear should have 10 slats to it... facing UP.

Also there are a few alterations to the kit to do... minor stuff so don't panic.

First there is a missing pistol port at the front of the tank. It is an internal flap unlike all the others so easy to miss. Its position is to the right of the tow hook on the lower front plate. Just drill a hole and stick a piece of plastic on the inside.

Then there is the aft periscope... just drill a hole, you can try and make the four tiny bolts that go around it if you're feeling insane. :)

Last for now is a missing pistol port on the sponson.

Hope this helps

Helen x

I forgot to mention the extra support on the back of the shield for the hydraulic mechanism. I never noticed this extra support for the bar that holds the springs before tonight.



-- Edited by MK1 Nut on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 08:59:36 PM

Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Helen,
Your close up of the wheel hub makes it clear, the pivot sitting within the hub. Saves me a drive down to Bovvy. That is also the first photo I've ever seen of the hydraulic actuator protected by the cover. I must go through my small collection and study some more.



-- Edited by TeeELL on Wednesday 15th of January 2014 11:35:04 PM

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

The shield on the rear of the tank also has the tail light at the top of it. Do a search for Palestine tanks on here for some good pics of the shield, the wheels were gone but the protector still in use.

I've been thinking about the picture posted by Rhomboid showing metal supports on the roof... my theory is they actually hold the grenade roof down and the wooden support is on the cab roof, sponsons and where the roof starts to angle down at the rear.

Helen x



__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Helen, my earlier post shows, what I believe to be the forward mounts. The rear and forward supports are circled. The photo of 'Clan Lesley' C19 in Warpaint Vol 1 pg 31 by Dick Taylor also shows forward supports. In each case they are on the strip next but one to each end. The photo of 'Clan Lesley' also appears to show one periscope which is forward of the front horizontal canopy brace.

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Further to my previous on the errors encountered on the tail, I am now looking at scratch building the axle and then attaching it to the original cross frame.

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Date:
Permalink   

Helen, I agree that the front truss of the grenade roof was designed to rest on the roof of the cab. However, it appears that the extensions did not normally rest directly on top of the sponsons, nor did the rear of the frame usually rest on the roof of the hull. The videos stills posted by TeeELL are a bit deceptive, as the grenade roof on this vehicle (A17 HMLS Oh I Say!,photographed on 12/11/16) is damaged. An example of this kind of damage is seen in the photo of 510 (C16) below. The photo of A13 (544) HMLS We're All In It shows some space between the extension and the roof of the sponson. As far as I can tell from examination of photos, there was only one design for the grenade roof fitted in France, howeversome are seen in a damaged state.



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

As I am now awaiting some styrene to re-construct the steering tail I shall take the opportunity to offer some food for thought about the grenade canopy. Perhaps we should start a new thread!!biggrin

Rhomboid: I offer the following 2 series ofphotos, which I believe are the same tank as thatshown having the tarp removed. I therefor offer 3 observations and photos to support my suggestion that a rear extension is fitted to this tank:

1. In the first photo (3/4 rear), the rear canopy can be seen covering a greater part of the rear of the tank than a 'damaged' canopy could reach, in addition it is equidistant above the tracks. Notice too, that the diagonal visible reaches to a point which would be the rearcentre pointof the last V frame of thestandard canopy. Also, there is clear sight of the undamaged standard frame base and that ofthe add-onrearward extension. I have circled the tell tales in the successive versions of this photo.

2. In the second photo (3/4 front andwhich is the very last frame of my video clip), the extended frame can just be made out above the rear tracks and the original type frame is visible and intact. (If film existed beyond this point I am confident that the rear extension would be all the more clear - I shall see what I can find) I have circled the frame in the second of these photos. Earlier in the video clip the tarpaulin can be made out resting on the top of the rear portion of the standard canopy which is certainly undamaged.

All the photos above are grabbed frames so the quality is nothing like as good as they appear when thefilmis running.

3. Finally, if I may - were this a damaged canopy the crew would, surely, be more circumspect in crawling all over it when removing the tarpaulin.

So, Ioffer to you, the conclusion thatan additional grenade canopy variation existed: Standard canopy with extensions over the sponsons and, in this case, a further extension to the rear. Perhaps a 'one off' but certainly there. What I cannot suggest, at this stage, is how it was supported andsufficiently to permit a crew man to clamber over it!

Whilst I will acquiesce to the concept of the front of the canopy resting on the cab butI remain totally convinced, from study of photos I have available, that forward supports, attached to the second set of V frames,existed as per my earlier posting.



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Wow, Rhomboid, take a really close look at the second photo of your previous post! If you look at the grenade canopy cross member that 'rests on the cabin roof' you will be able to see through the gap. Whilst it could be argued that the grenade canopy has 'shifted' due to the ditching of the tank the fact that the gap between cross member and cab roof is parallel suggests (to me) otherwise. In addition, just to the immediate rear left of the cab, can be seen the forward support for the canopy. The thin line at right angles to the V support.

I have taken the liberty of marking the points of my observation on a cropped copy of your photo.



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 813
Date:
Permalink   

I've got a bit behind the discussion I see!
As a coincidence, yesterday I looked at the same photo you attached, TeeELL, but printed in Fletcher's book on Mk.I tanks by Osprey. The "thickening" are discernible as U brackets with an adjusting bolt that goes through. The biggest .jpg I could find of the photo on the web shows it faintly, and I've attached it here.

Here's a theory, that I offer for your consideration: the lower attachment of the uprights to the hull had a similar bracket, pinned to the "rib" between the roof armoured panels, which made the roof removable and easier to install in one piece. The ribs weren't probably made of hardened steel, so it was possible to drill for the bolts to pass through them.

As for the material of the strucutre, I'm still undecided if these are square sectioned metal tubes or wooden beams. Would they have painted them or left in it's natural colour?

D.



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

D happy to agree with your suggestion. I have just done a very unscientific experiment to see if your theory might be right. Firstly, when I originally made the pattern for my 'Airfix' grenade canopy I used a variety of techniques to change the perspective of tank side views and then tweak them to match known dimensions. From that I was able to determine, reasonably accurately, the size and spacing of the canopy construction. In addition I am quite pleased to see that MB have pretty much assessed the same as me (I say that only because I made my canopy about 8 months ago!!).

So, to try and prove your theory (and using my assessment of 4 mounting points), I offered both canopies to the model and neither would match any of the cross roof angles. So I am not saying you are wrong but it doesn't appear to be correct.

I attach a further photo that, in my opinion, shows the 4 roof mounts although 3 have been knocked out of position - each has, what appears to be an angled piece to support the canopy V frame. The support that is correctly positioned is farthest (front left).

I am working on the thought that they are made of something like 3" x 3" (7.5 cm x 7.5 cm) for the main frame with thinner slats for the diagonal bracing - possibly iron - which, to my eyes, appears outside the wire netting.
The frame and, indeed the netting, is obviously tough enough for the crew to crawl over it.



Attachments
__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Date:
Permalink   

I suspect that the grenade roof was constructed from 2"x4" wooden beams, with the central beam which formed the ridge of the roof being a 4"x4" laminate made from two 2"x4" beams. The diagonal strips on top of the wire netting appear smaller, perhaps 1"x3". The support struts were probably iron or steel strip, and look to be about 1/2"x2" size. The upper end of the strut appears to be bent at 90 degrees, forming a short "arm" to which the frame is attached with a U-bolt. I would guess that the lower end of the strut was also bent at about 90 degrees, the lower arm being drilled through for a bolt to attach to the roof. The photo of C14 below shows the location of the rear two struts. I suspect they were bolted to the roof at the riveted strip which joined the roof plates, possibly by knocking out a rivet and replacing it with a bolt. The forward struts seem to be attached to the roof at the site of some pre-existing bolt holes located behind the cab. See Helen's top plan of the MkI for reference.

Whatever the construction of the grenade roof, they were manufactured in haste. The first twenty roofs, having been ordered on Sept.3, 1916, were shipped from England on Sept. 6. This would seem to imply that "off the shelf" components were used for their construction.



-- Edited by Rhomboid on Friday 17th of January 2014 06:59:37 AM

Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

I can now categorically and absolutely state that at least one Mk1 tank had an additional extension to the grenade roof which extended rearwards. I have just watched the You-tube clip of the Mk 1 by Philthydirtyanimal, he has access to longer clips of each piece offootage than I do. At 0m:25 sec the tank (3/4 front view) moves past the camera sufficiently farto show the extended frame work at the rear, at 1m:31 secthe crew have almost removed the tarp and the main and extension to the grenade cover is visible (a robust structure as 2 crew members are seen crawling over it!), finally at 2m:39sec there is a 3/4 rear view of the whole contrivance. I shall have a go at fabricating a model of this version, just need to identify the tank name and number!! Fingers crossed that Rhomboid can reaffirm that this is indeed A17 HMLS 'Oh I Say'. The extensions over the sponsons are at a flatter angle and, from a photo Helen posted, the video clip and Rhomboids observationthe wire nettingwasn't cut and finished very tidily and excess appears to curl up around the edges.

At this point "I rest my case M'Lud" as I think the proof ofexistence of an extended grenade canopy (on one tank at least)is unequivocal - just going to make that scale model now!



-- Edited by TeeELL on Friday 17th of January 2014 01:02:12 PM

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 813
Date:
Permalink   

I wonder if the drawing I use to make my model are still valid after all this time. They were grafted from the internets, many years ago...



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

I am not at home until Monday to compare your drawing with mine, although it looks very similar. At the apex of the front and rear V there is a reinforcing plate with, if I remember correctly, 2 bolts per side. At the base of the rear horizontal strut there is a further rectangular reinforcing plate - views of these have been posted earlier in this thread. As I mentioned to work out the dimensions, I found a 'more or less' side view of a Mk 1 with grenade canopy, adjusted the perspective and then stretched as appropriate to match known dimensions. From that I measured the spacing. I would say that my canopy is perhaps more accurate than MBs; placing the two canopies on the MB model with the front cross member just behind the periscope ports, my intermediate V struts align more accurately with the front and rear of the sponson - I am taking the bold assumption that these provided structure and support to the sponson extensions.
As promised I have commenced building a model of the extended canopy and it is shaping up quite well. I shall have to create the decals for 'Oh! I Say' if Rhomboid confirms the identity. Following Helens advice I have drilled the pistol port in the lower forward hull just to the right of the tow hook, I used a .8 mm drill bit, it looks about right and scales to about 2.5" (5.8cm).

Apparently the sponsons are missing a pistol port, has anyone any tips on creating the tiny odd shaped covers?



-- Edited by TeeELL on Friday 17th of January 2014 05:05:09 PM



-- Edited by TeeELL on Friday 17th of January 2014 05:12:44 PM

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 813
Date:
Permalink   

I made a couple after the corrections of the Airfix kit. They're cut from styrene bits, and the ingredients were: 1 small chip of 0.05 plasticard and 2000 Tons of patience...



Attachments
__________________


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 813
Date:
Permalink   

I'll also try to photograph my own incomplete "bomb roof" soon.

__________________


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Date:
Permalink   

TeeELL, I seem to recall that this vehicle was identified in annotations to films clips from Geoffrey Malin's "Battle of the Ancre/ Advance of the Tanks" posted on the IWM site. Here are some stills of this vehicle from the film. It is probably a good one to model, as there are photos of the both sides of the tank which show the camo pattern.

Note the three exclamation marks after "Say". I believe the name was taken from a musical show which played in 1916,as was the case with"We're All In It".

I see what you are saying about the rearward extension of the frame seen on A17. This may even be visible on the wreck of A13, and I wonder if this was an improvisation unique to A Company.



-- Edited by Rhomboid on Friday 17th of January 2014 07:47:43 PM

Attachments
__________________


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

Well that's it, you made me do it! I'm not a fan of the chicken shed on the roof, but I have started modelling it.no

I'ved fired up the 3D image and started playing with the information I have gleaned from photos and the is thread, should have something by sunday night... or monday. :)

The attaching points are the bolt holes for the unused spaced armour. They line up well with what's in the photos and frame proportions.

I'm going with there being U Bolts to hold the straps to the frames as photos suggest, but I'm still trying to work out the reinforcing strips at the same point on the beams. Possibly there to strengthen the beams AND maybe stop the U bolts sliding down, to hold them in place?confuse

Helen x



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Initially I thought it would make sense to mount the front part of the frame behind the periscopes but I have to say, that on further study, it is clear in at least one photo that this was an incorrect assumption on my part. I will place the MB canopy such that the forward frame is ahead of the periscopes, I think this would then have the intermediate Vs lining up with the sponson.
On Monday I should be able to post a photo of the canopy, with extension, mounted on the tank. I have yet to add the intermediate V and I'll not add the diagonal bracing until the wire net is added as I believe these went over the top.

Helen, Wish I had your skill set for 3D CAD, I used Corel Draw in 2D and projections at 16 deg from horizontal. How is the 3D printing progressing?

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

I am toying with approaching an etching company to see what it might cost to have pistol port covers made. I wondered if there might be any interest. I have gone no further than thinking about it!

If I research further into the possibility then I would appreciate any dimensions. I'll look out a close up photo as well. Why am I doing this? You may well ask - it is all down to Helen mentioning that even MB haven't got their 'female' correct!

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Helen, in your drawings you show the front supports, have you identified a suitable fixing site for the rear pair of supports?

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

Oh well, looks like no sleep yet, so a quick update.

The brackets to hold the grenade roof on makes use of the bolt holes already drilled for the spaced armour. I have a better idea where they all are now so will add them to my drawing at some point.

I will work on the sponson and rear additions next.

Hope you like.

Helen x



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

Terrific work Helen,
I apologise for causing you to create drawings of something on which you were not keen, but great for the creative grey cells. I will confess that I didn't use lap joints for my canopy construction just butt joints and a dollop of liquid cement I shall be interested to see what you make the downward anglerfish the extension to be. I used the main horizontal vs the second ( further) change of angle; easier to see on a drawing or model than to describe.



__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.



General

Status: Offline
Posts: 328
Date:
Permalink   

I have had a PM from one of our members, in it he alluded to the circular access perhaps being flush with the roof. Helens drawing suggests a riveted surround to the actual access which, to me, implies a slightly raised access. Views and opinions great fully received.

__________________

Regards TeeELL

Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.

1 2 36  >  Last»  | Page of 6  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard