SPA Modeler

jkim wrote:Re-establishing a uniform cross-section is much better than filling and sanding so bravo on your fix!

Marius, Thank you! (I want to thank everyone in order) Thank you, Kari. Thank you, Carlos. Thank you, John. What a difference it makes to have friends who care about solving problems and are kind enough to offer solutions. This must be the written: I did not even know the modeling term “step” before joining here, amongst many, many other techniques. I still have so much to learn too. I also wanted to thank John regarding what he wrote about starting to glue pieces together—that is a big moment even if in this case I screwed up. I should have fitted the wing together then fitted the nacelles to the wing... with tape. I was just so focused on developing better looking engines. This is such a distinctive feature, but it is nothing if the rest of the nacelle does not fit the wing.

I want to post an image Kari sent of his Monogram Do 17. This is a better kit, more up to the standards we know today. I think if there was an evolutionary chart—the Frog is a step past wooden model stage, and the Monogram is the Golden Era of Plastic kits. The Frog like wooden kits will build into a well proportioned model—you need to be a careful builder! The Monogram feels like it is more detailed and professionally produced. In Kari’s hands, it really shows off its quality.



Also, Kari—I thought I saw a photo with writing on the hatch door - indicated at the red arrow? Maybe? Makes sense to warn entering and exiting crew or service personnel?

speedgraflex wrote:A question: Which is correct - lettering #1 or lettering #2?



Am I splitting hairs, perhaps?

No Bruce, you are absolutely not!

I think we have an answer, I started to investigate this question.
Facts: The decal set is either for DN-51 or then for DN-63.

To find good pictures of DN-63 is very easy, tens of pictures of her in all my books...
This is quite good pic, confirms that decal #1 belongs to DN-63


Ruling out, would of course mean, decal #2 should be then DN-51's.

**

First reference picture I found of DN-51 was this, where you can somehow see the crew hatch. But of course, you cannot see the text at all.


And this was the only "clear" picture I could find, that shows the warning texts without the line, caption tells it is DN-61.


I could identify the following Dorniers with a line beween the text: DN-52*, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 63.
And those without a line, DN-61..

Then I found this picture, also of DN-51


A close up... very difficult to say if there is a line or not...


Based on SBS Decals... #2 belongs to DN-51... But bulletproof proves I don't find...

*)
What also confuses is this... Caption tells it is the DN-52... but look at the warning text... circular...


But we can see in this clear picture of DN-52, that it had a line...


Might be of course that the hatch has been changed.. DN-52 did a crashlanding once and might be the hatch was replaced ?


PS. Only DN-51 and DN-52 had the squadron symbol, the bison, in rectangular shape. So could it anyhow be DN-51 ?
But then #2 would not be correct....

* * *
So, summasummarum....
Might be this confuses even more.. best perhaps to follow the guidelines of SBS decals...

- Kari

Kari, I am deeply in your debt. Thank you so much for your help processing the FAF Do 17 details. Sincerely. Thank you so much. Your detective work was fascinating, well researched and fell in line with what we are developing as a working theory with this particular aircraft—that the special features such as the silver dope and hatch cover markings represent the initial changes from German camouflage and stenciling to those of Finnish design. It took me until I sketched out the stencils covering the hatch to realize that the “line” separating the warning lines is a stylized propeller!



Interesting! Najolkka Beach? Is this the same area as the airport (I assume so, as the airport was built in 1937).

Great detective work, Kari! Looking at the evidence you have presented, I have to wonder...

Could this be DN-51 and not DN-52 as described in the caption?


Hard to tell but it almost looks like the bottom line of text on the crew hatch in the other photo of DN-51 is curved, no?

Thanks John, it has been quite exciting also. Learning things I did not have a clue about, until Bruce decided to "change the course" of the build..

I agree with you, I did also first question the caption of the picture...
The squadron symbol is squarish, so it is definitely either DN-51 or DN-52.

But then this picture made me doubt, claiming to be DN-51, it has a slightly different demarcation between the upper and lower surface camo.


The "bulge" in DN-51 is sort of between the crew door and the window, whilst in DN-52 (or the one with circular text) the bulge is more above the crew door..

But what if.... the picture is actually mirrored (it happens) and it should actually look like this ? Then it suddenly "matches" quite well with the previous picture of DN-51...


And secondly.... The guy in the cockpit is the pilot... And the pilot seat is on the left side of the cockpit, and much more in the front. The co-pilots seat on the right side is further back... and this guy sits very much in front....

SO... perhaps it is anyhow so, that the circular text belongs to DN-51...
Which again would mean... the decal set does not have the correct one....


- Kari

Thank you, John and Kari!! You are both amazing! Great detective work! Now how to achieve the effect. "The game," as Holmes says enthusiastically or dryly or as Benedict Cumberbatch intones in a sarcastically snarky witty way: "The game, my friends, is afoot!"



What a long and painful night to build nacelle 2. I decided to affix nacelle 2 to the lower wing, and started by masking at a panel line—removing the raised panels, reducing slightly too high shape of both nacelle join and wing surface. Milliput twice. CA many, many times. Lost the new feeling of excitement in a hard slog to create a decent looking join, but that is what happens. Into the fray. It appears I have hit an accuracy issue. By building out the rear shape of the nacelles I have created a rounder rear end. This is cool, though, I think this is going to be far less of an issue then having to rebuild the areas at the front. That is my story, gentlemen. I am sticking to it.

In my eyes, this is looking so good!

- Kari

Thank you so much, Kari. I was up late—and certainly no longer objective as a result of trying so many ways to position the nacelle sections to correctly align with the engine’s circular section... huh? I was just trying to eliminate the steps! No steps = better lookin’ aircraft!

Phaser lock inoperative

Best guess Mr Sulu