Rob's Tonka *finished*

Enough said -- a GB celebrating Matchbox kits, to include "pure" re-pops. Join the fun!!
The GB runs 1st February to 4th March and your host is FredK.
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Rob's Tonka *finished*

Post by rob_van_riel »

I'll be using this thread to abuse the competition from Tonka a bit :twisted:

Oh wait, we're not talking about toy cars here. OK, lets try that again.. :-D

Years ago, I bought the Hasegawa Tornado F3 with the "Red Zebra" markings. Or so I thought. This kit was from a period when the decal producers for Hasegawa were unable to distinguish between white and tan, so the decals were utterly, totally useless. Not yellowed, mind, but printed in a colour that didn't remotely resemble white. So, nice plastic, no decals. :cry:

Somewhere between now and then, I stumbled accross the Matchbox Tornado F3.

Image

The kit cost less than an after market decal sheet, and I rather fancied a non-UK F3, so I bought it for the decals. Good thing too, because the plastic crude. Matchbox was always simplified, but otherwise neatly done, but this kit is neither. So, nice decals, no plastic. Balances the Hasegawa neatly :-D

Now incomplete, the kit languished for years (which is a polite way of saying in just hogged shelf space). Then we had the Dambusters! 617 Sqn GB on this board. When my models were complete, I dragged them off to the local IPMS meeting, and quite naturally, talk went into "what if" territory, wondering how the RAF would go about removing an inconvenient dam on someone else's territory these days. Conclusion was that most likely they'd have to nuke it, as they didn't have anything else capable of knocking down such a structure, and even if they were to build a new bunch of Upkeep bombs, they'd have nothing to deliver something that big with. Until someone mentioned the Tornado could carry about as much unpleasantness to the enemy as a Lancaster. Much hilarity over Tornados with bouncing bombs ensued.

Some pennies slowly started to drop. I had an obsolete Tonka eating up space. I remembered someone in the GB mentioning he was building a Lancaster that included the Upkeep system, but that he hadn't used it. And I remembered playing around with the Upkeep bomb and idly noticing it could fit, if only just, below the fuselage of a Tornado (it depends a bit on whick kit really, sometimes the legs are just long enough, sometimes they're just a bit too short). A plan came into being. The non-dambusting builder (I can't find or remember who it was, to my shame) was kind enough to send me the surplus weapon. And then, sadly, the idea failed to get off the ground due to all those other interesting projects :sad:

Still, I tend to hang on to my crazy ideas better than to the sane ones, so neither the kit nor the plan ever went away. and then this GB came along, and suddenly the plan was irresistable. So, WWII markings, and a totally inappropriate payload will be added to this:
Image
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

I've made a modest start on this one.

Image

Assembling the wings, nose cone, Zeppelin tanks, and tail is about all I can do before joining the fuselage halves, and that will have to wait until I've done some hacking of the lower half to accept the "revolutionary" weapon it will be hauling along. The Upkeep weapon is from the old tool Airfix kit, which means an early prototype of the bomb still in it's wooden casing. Since this casing was invariably removed by impact on the water without adding anything useful, the designers decided to remove it themselves, so operational weapons were smooth metal cylinders. Due to limited space between the undercarriage legs of a Tornado, I'll be placing the bomb rather closer to the fuselage than on the Lanc, so the support struts had to be clipped. The plastic doesn't like me; one of the pins connecting the supports and the weapon jammer up solid in the drive chain while dry fitting and tore off, the other snapped off while I was shortening the supports. I'll go shopping for some 1.5mm brass rod later today to replace them.

The lower wings have been drilled to accept a set of outer pylons from the spares box, which will be used to carry the standard RAF countermeasures pods, themselves obtained from an Italeri Tornado that looked at a distraction when it should have been paying attention :twisted:

A decent sized bucket of filler will soon be going onto the wings and tail. I'm glad Matchbox did much better work in their early day's, or I might have been put off from the hobby right at the start :frown:
User avatar
JamesPerrin
Looks like his avatar
Posts: 13669
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 8:09 pm
Location: W. Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by JamesPerrin »

I think the designers spent more time working out how to cram the parts on the standard sized sprues than working about such things as details.
Classic British Kits SIG Leader Better to fettle than to fill
(2024 A:B 5:2) (2023 13:8:7) (2022 21:11) (2021 15:8) (2020 8:4:4)
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

I've spent some time dry fitting the Upkeep system. As of now, it's too high for the legs, but I still have more clearance between the bomb and the fuselage, and that's before I've sanded off the wood casing. We'll see where I end up after doing so and cutting the braces down as far as I dare. I may end up having to extend the legs a bit, which is a frightening prospect..
Width wise, the fit is perfect; it is exactly the same width as the space between the undercarriage bays.

Rather ridiculously, the best fitting parts are those that do not belong with the kit. I'll refrain from a long rant, but I've been expecting the kit to start barking at me any minute. :roll:
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

I cleaned up the wings, and finally closed up the fuselage. The intended wing synchronisation mechanism merely ensured the wings were permanently out of sync, so I left it out, and fixed the wings at full extension (I want them there anyway; a Tornado with lots of things under the wings doesn't look too good with the wing swept). There'll be some more cement and a load of various forms of filler spent before the fuselage looks anywhere near to what it should look like :roll:
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

The Upkeep weapon very conveniently had holes in the centre of the ends, so removing the wood ribbing was easy. An improvised attachment for the drill set the thing spinning, and then it was just a matter of lightly pressing sandpaper to the sides and waiting for the bomb to become smooth.

Image

Further measurements on the weapon and the undercarriage once I've done some more sanding and filing on the fuselage halves :roll:
User avatar
DavidWomby
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 11750
Joined: May 1st, 2011, 8:09 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by DavidWomby »

Clever!

How the heck will that thing fit under a Tornado, Rob?????

David
User avatar
iggie
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 23417
Joined: July 31st, 2013, 11:04 am
Location: North Somercotes, Lincolnshire
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by iggie »

This is a crazy idea......and you know what? It might just work!

Love the idea Rob!
Best wishes

Jim
If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing
"Never put off till tomorrow, what you can do the day after tomorrow"
User avatar
DavidWomby
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 11750
Joined: May 1st, 2011, 8:09 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by DavidWomby »

Clever!

How the heck will that thing fit under a Tornado, Rob?????

David
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

dwomby wrote:How the heck will that thing fit under a Tornado, Rob?????
It's not as crazy as it looks. Even at the current length of the support struts (which can be shortened further while maintaining a degree of clearance with the fuselage), the Upkeep system extends only about 3mm further down than the undercarriage, based on measurements made before sanding off the wood panels, which in itself may have gained me a mm. The undercarriage legs, as usual, are modelled with the shock absorbers completely compressed; extending them should give me another 2 to 3 mm.
Mounting the weapon right behind the wheels should keep the dynamics roughly right; loads on the heavy fuselage hardpoints are surprisingly far to the rear anyway.
Tougher springs, a long and meticulously smooth runway, and taking off with minimum fuel, should get close enough to sell in what-if territory.

This of course is based on the current kit; an out-of-the-box Italeri has slightly more clearance, and might actually do the job without messing with the legs.
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

I've squeezed all I could from the weapon and supports, and I'm coming up somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 mm short (literally). Well within what I could fudge with the shock absorbers, but modifying those is a terrifying prospect; less than 0.1 mm wall thickness left if I try to cut out the piston and drill holes in the top and bottom to insert a longer one. Fortunately, I've found a suitably wimpy cop out :-D

Image

If I put a blanking plate on top of the rearmost ridges in the picture all the way to the back (right side in photo), I get just about the correct amount of extra height, without messing with the legs. This, then, is the plan.
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

The tail and nose cone went on today, and if you don't look too closely, it's actually starting to resemble a Tornado. I'll be throwing a decent sided bucket of filler onto it later today, since, obviously, neither subassembly felt any need to match up to the whole :evil:
User avatar
splash
Senior Service Rotorhead
Posts: 13828
Joined: May 1st, 2011, 11:02 am
Location: Somerset England

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by splash »

A technical question.

How will the upkeep bomb Aimer who is sat in the back seat, use his upkeep bomb aiming sight to line up on the towers on the dam?

This build is so mad it's genius :grin:
My work bench is starting to look like Portsmouth Naval Dockyard.
User avatar
fredk
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 6195
Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Location: Donaghadee, N'rn Ir'n

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by fredk »

We need more pictures!
:nopix
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
rob_van_riel
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 3324
Joined: November 4th, 2012, 11:28 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Rob's Tonka

Post by rob_van_riel »

fredk wrote:We need more pictures!
You do, and I need more picture-worthy progress :roll:

There's not a whole lot more to be seen than a pile of putty slowly being shaped into a Tornado, using some plastic as scaffolding..

Image

With all the hard work going into making a Tornado, the fiddly bits below the plane aren't getting all that much attention yet, but here's a dry fit:

Image

Very thin margins thre, but they'll have to do.
Locked

Return to “Classic Matchbox Kits”