Valom Models

[Mossie]

I'm guessing the ratios were lower so it was less effort, the trade off being you were ready to land by the time the gear was up.

Or even turbo-props? A la Jetstream maybe?

I felt the Anson was a little small. Just below the size were turboprops become worthwhile, especially for the period.

Although a stretch (and dare I say it, longer wings) might put it in the turboprop category, a pair of Astazous or Garrets, maybe PT6's.

[PR19_Kit]

In seriousness though was each leg cranked up individually or were they both linked to a single crank handle ?

Good question, and that's taxing my memory a bit. I think it was all on one crank, on the starboard side behind the co-pilot's seat, but there may have been one on the other side operated by another poor benighted cadet. There were usually half a dozen of us aboard on any one flight.

[Wardukw]

I'd say one handle to crank both sets of gear at once ..it's probably why the ratios were stupidity high ..less drag on a already slow arse plane if both come up at the same time.
The B-17s was one crank handle for both sets ..can't see why the Anson wouldn't be any different there.

[NARSES2]

For those who like 1930's tri-motors

You cannot view this attachment.

[PR19_Kit]

That could be better than the old FROG Fokker 3M kit.   

[frank2056]

From a distance, the wing engine on the thumbnail looks like a pilot in a semi-exposed cockpit. It gives me an idea...

[NARSES2]

From a distance, the wing engine on the thumbnail looks like a pilot in a semi-exposed cockpit. It gives me an idea...

Took me a while, but yes I see what you mean 

[Diamondback]

Every so often one of the Wings of War guys posts a Valom build of one of their 1/144 biplanes... and I start wanting to try one then get strange twitches and pains in my hand just thinking about the PE and tiny struts.

[zenrat]

I have a similar reaction to the 1/72 Roden Felixstowe  It's the rigging which sets me off.