Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.

Boman

Members
  • Content count

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About Boman

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

248 profile views
  1. USAAF 8AF and 9AF stationed in the UK and on the continent used letter squadron codes and individual aircraft numbers. The 69TRG was a 9AF unit and would follow suite. USAAF 12AF and 15AF operating from North Africa and later Italy used numbers with squadron colors as identifiers, hence fairly easy to distinguish where the origins are. When 15AF/12AF moved far enough into the north of Italy and the second front in France was opened from the mediteranian, the 8AF/9AF/12AF/15AF units meet in France, often bombing same targets throughout europe and into eastern europe, balkans, Austria etc. Hence photos from late in the war and in southern europe can easily allow a 9AF unit to be mistaken to be operated by 12/15AF and vice versa. More on the 69th Recon Group here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69th_Reconnaissance_Group
  2. P-8 crew composition is different than the pilot/wso combo in the Tornado, so not relevant to compare with. (The P-8 will have different kind of system operators) For the Typhoon, the dual seaters are mostly for training, hence no requirement for wso.
  3. Twin seaters are more expensive operational if used as ie the F-15E as you require training of double the number of crewmen. Add to that the potential redesign of the fuselage to get sufficient range, or lack of if left the same as the single seater, and you see that single seaters are cheaper to produce overall. Computers have taken away much of the need for the second crewmember too. Many will argue against this but this is the main reason why ie the F-35 only exist as single seaters. You also don't need the dual seaters for training as much of the training can and is done much cheaper in a simulator. The real flying is then performed in the single seater after the required simulator hours.
  4. Modern two-seaters are built as fully mission capable fighters just like the single seater, however with less fuel due to the additional seat. You need to go back to the F-105F/G and F-106B to find dual seaters with same amount of fuel as the single seaters as the fuselage was stretched for the second seat something not done today, yet still the second seat will pose a weight penalty over the single seater.
  5. Very nice! Love Costal command fighters
  6. Although I love the 352FG it is also nice to see a release that don't contain them - have all the aftermarket I need I like the 2ACG option too
  7. If you look at the history of "A bit o'Lace", you will find it is similar, although her damage and subsequent wing change was done ~April 1945. Even if the US produced a lot of airplanes, this doesn't mean that you throw away the older ones like dirty socks. You repair and fix everything you can, when you can. http://www.447bg.com/42-97976.htm I believe that Airfix likely have good reason for displaying the markings as they do. However usually they also indicate a time corresponding to the markings - does the instructions give any clues?
  8. From the decal options, this should be a "long wing" https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/rm/kit_rm_5506.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder#Variants
  9. The point is that you can't take any of the existing Agressor decal sheets and easily make the new splinter scheme. So no need to be smart in your comments.
  10. Anyone seen what price this kit will be at?
  11. No weapons?
  12. 86-0314 which is the 354FW CO bird has tailcodes in grey, (FS36270?)