|
Title: Different fuselage lenghts on early I-16s? Post by: ChristianK on September 18, 2009, 01:58:31 AM Gentlemen,
at the moment I am devoting my precious time to an Amodel kit of an I-16 Type 5. The scheme and scene I chose to depict was the following one: (http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/btdaumann/5.jpg) (Source: expired ebay auction) At first I thought, "ok, the cowling covers are a little bent. No problem, with some scratch building, this is easily representable on the model". It looks like the left engine cover (ignore the upper one) was removed at some point and later reattached in a not-so-textbook-manner, i.e. it was wedged into the opening somehow. Later I found this photograph (besided others, very similar ones): (http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/btdaumann/Image2-1.jpg) (Source: Armada book on the I-16) Hmmmm, I noticed, the cover is overlapping the fuselage by about 20 centimeters and the firewall would block any attempt to squeeze the engine cover behind it. So how, by all means, they managed to get the engine cover into the opening like they did it in the first photo?? Ok I thought, maybe the thin metal sheet was quite violently bent and this is just not visible in the first photo, as it is rather blurred. Then I found the third pic: (http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/btdaumann/1301944133410182DA.jpg) (Source: expired ebay auction) Ok, here we have only a marginal overlapping of the engine covers, not comparable to the 20 centimeters in the second pic. Within the dimensions of the maintenance opening on THIS particular machine, it would be no problem to attach the engine cover like it was done on the first plane. The opening is nearly of the same width as the engine cover, while on the plane in the second photo it is distinctly broader. But how can this be? And I am pretty sure that this is not an optical illusion. Could it be that there were (at least) two variants of I-16 fuselages? One which was about 20 centimeters (ca 8 inches) longer than the other?? A difference in length, ahead of the cockpit, that was visible only when the engine covers were missing? Ideas? Christian Title: Re: Different fuselage lenghts on early I-16s? Post by: Massimo Tessitori on September 18, 2009, 12:02:20 PM Hi Christian, :)
the engine cover of the first image is not bent into the opening. It is rotated upwards-rearward and a bit bended, being locked upwards to the frame; so, its overposition to the fuselage sides is increased in the lower part. Massimo Title: Re: Different fuselage lenghts on early I-16s? Post by: ChristianK on September 18, 2009, 04:23:51 PM Hmm, the first image is very blurred in this part, but I am rather sure that that the lower right part of the engine cover is stuck into the opening and doesn't overlap the fuselage there..
What do you think about my different fuselage length theory when looking at the second and third picture? Christian Title: Re: Different fuselage lenghts on early I-16s? Post by: Massimo Tessitori on September 18, 2009, 07:13:15 PM Hi, :)
in my idea the side panel of the third image is moved to the front of the plane, and somewhat inclined, so it allows to see a part of the wooden fuselage that is usually covered. The upper part of the photo, the junction between the bended upper panel and the fuselage, can give a wrong idea because the surfaces are differently inclined (see a good profile view) so there is a thin triangle of shadow between them that, on the third photo, gives a wrong idea of the curvature of the section. That is, the upper panel is 20 cm overposed to the wooden part, as can be deduced on the second photo. No need to suppose that the wooden part had different length on different planes. Massimo |