Churchill SBG Bridgelayer

[Guest]

Jakko,
The Matchbox/Revell version is an innacurate version. It got slated when first released as the Matchbox offering and it looks as if things have still not changed. The Matchbox/Revell Churchill alone is of a much later mark and never saw service as depicted by the kit as being on the beaches on D-Day. And if as you say you have based your measurements on that kit, I would be very sceptical of what you have. I used the Futter drawings on my original build and found them to be 90% correct, and as there are no other drawings available I would accept these as being correct. Bearing in mind the date of the drawings (1971) I would say that these are the ones to use as it appears there are no others. I have seen the self same drawings offered for download and when they are downloaded they are not to scale this is due to the computer. I have also had a chance to measure up the ResiCast version, but have been unable to obtain a copy of their drawings. So it comes down choice. When I built my original there was a small correction factor due to not having a 1/35 scale rule, and the accuracy is I admit not 100% but then again neither are all of the models produced. But when I come across this type of discrepancy I look at it this way, if it looks like a horse, then it is a horse.
Cheers, Mike.

[Guest]

Peter,
Pleased to have you along.
Cheers, Mike.

[Guest]

The Matchbox/Revell version is an innacurate version.

The tank is, yes.

And if as you say you have based your measurements on that kit, I would be very sceptical of what you have. I used the Futter drawings on my original build and found them to be 90% correct, and as there are no other drawings available I would accept these as being correct.

I’m not sure now what made me reach the conclusion that the Matchbox parts were better than the drawings, since it’s been a few years since I looked into it, but comparing Futter’s drawings to photographs left me with the definite feeling that the girders as he drew them are too wide.

I have seen the self same drawings offered for download and when they are downloaded they are not to scale this is due to the computer.

At least I don’t have that problem, as I’ve got a genuine, original, near-mint copy of the book. (Thanks to a local AFV enthusiast dying about ten years ago and his collection of 1960s–’80s books ending up in a second-hand book store I frequent. I wish I’d known him other than from his address stamp.)

when I come across this type of discrepancy I look at it this way, if it looks like a horse, then it is a horse.

That was my problem with Futter’s drawings, I think. But I can’t find my copy of the book right now (it’s probably in my hobby room) to compare and see if I can point to the problems I saw a few years ago.

[Guest]

Jakko,
Yes I agree with you. And the discrepancy is probably on the underside of the bridge. From some angles to underside looks as though it reaches across as in your rendering, but I am looking at two photos one of which is the first in the series you posted. There the bridge structure looks to be full width as in how it looks in the above shot of your rendering. But in the photo I am looking at which is 3/4 front view you can actually see that the structure is much narrower, as in my build today. BUT! I also have another view of just the bridge and it looks at first view as if the structure is full width untill you look carefully and you can see the other side quite clearly. And one more photo again 3/4 front, and here you can clearly see the bridge underside as depicted in my build, but wrong on the Futter drawings. The trackways were added in two different ways, one as per Futters/your rendering and the other as per my build. These observations were taken from 'Vanguard of Victory' by David Fletcher. I will scan the photo's and put them on the site tomorrow, it will give me something to do other than watch the liquid cement evaporate. Keep hold of the book it is a collectors item. And as for the Matchbox kit, it was again the only one available at the time and did the job when at the time we did not have the resources we do today for research.
Talk to you later Jakko, in this heat the dogs have to be out at about 05.00, so it's bedtime.
Cheers, Mike.

[Guest]

Yes I agree with you. And the discrepancy is probably on the underside of the bridge.

I’ve found the book now — it was in a pile behind me all along

In the drawing on page 35, Futter has the girder as being almost the same width as the bridge deck, but in photos (including the one on page 37) you can clearly see it’s about a third or so that width. Since you’re also building it much narrower than the deck, I think you’ve reached the same conclusion :smiling3: The Matchbox designers must also have noticed this (assuming they used Futter’s drawings at all, of course), because the bridge from their AVRE kit similarly has a girder much narrower than the deck.

Keep hold of the book it is a collectors item.

I wasn’t planning on giving it up, no :smiling3:

[Guest]

Update....
Just been for a jaunt down to italy for my ex boss, so the build has stalled slightly.
Jakko, I have not forgotten the photo's of the bridge, I will get them online asap.
The turret is almost finished and half of the bridge is complete, the exhaust extension is built and in place.
So, next it will be the second half of the bridge and then finishing off the build with all those little parts you always forget.....
Cheers, Mike.
[ATTACH]308211[/ATTACH][ATTACH]308212[/ATTACH]

[Guest]

Those photos show some of the reasons why I decided against making a bridge layer of my Churchill AVRE Very nice-looking work on the winch cage, wading stacks, etc.

[Peter Gillson]

Loverly solder joints - a black art I have never really masters

[Steve Jones]

Outstanding as always Mike. Fortunately for you I am lost for words:smiling3:

[scottie3158]

Very nice scratch work indeed really looks good.

[Guest]

As of 12.00 hrs today this model is no longer.
I'm off plane spotting or something.
[ATTACH]308811[/ATTACH]

[Jim R]

Hi Mike
What happened? It was looking great.
Jim

[scottie3158]

Mike,
Something serious must have happened this was looking great.

[Guest]

I’ll join the previous posters: the model looked great, so it’s a bit sad to see it end this way.