This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here:

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

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      Ongoing DDoS Attack causing Forum Slowness   26/04/17

      In case you have missed the announcement, the reason that the forum has been slow at times since the minor version update the other day is due to a Denial of Service attack, brute force attack on our email, and judging by the lag with our FTP response, that too.  If you're feeling like you're experiencing a glitch in the Matrix, you're not wrong.  This is the same MO as the attack in September 2016 that occurred when we transitioned to the new version 4 of the software.  We're currently working with US and UK cyber-crime departments, who specialise in this sort of thing, and we're hopeful that we'll be able to track them down this time by using the accumulated evidence already held.    We are pretty certain that it's a continuation of the same attack last year, only at a reduced intensity to deter people from using the site "because it's terribly slow", rather than taking it down completely, and we're also sure of the motivations of those responsible.  Spite.   Please bear with us in the interim, and wish us luck in dealing with these.... "people".


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

411 Excellent

About Antti_K

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

567 profile views
  1. Reini, the cockpit looks very good! Nice building and paintwork. The An-2 I flew had a very dusty cockpit and everything was covered with a sticky tar from cigarettes (the Soviets were smoking all the time). And the smell inside the plane...words fail me. Best Regards, Antti
  2. Hello Reini! An interesting subject and a good looking cockpit. It seems like this aircraft had the electric trim system. It was like an old telephone switch board behind the throttle lever: there was three electric cables with a plug at both ends. You then inserted the other end to a hole in the switch board and then decided to which hole the other should go for a certain trim setting. I had a chance to fly one of these (not the gun ship) back in 1987 or 1988. "DOSAAF Leningrad" visited our flying club and the Soviets let us fly with their aircraft. Of course 1000 hp radial engine was something I couldn't resist. My "Flying Instructor" was an elderly professor from the Technical University of Leningrad. He told me that his real salary came from crop dusting during his summer vacation. The money he made teaching was "useless" or "terrible". It was very interesting to see the soviet system. For example two ground crew members turned the huge propeller by hand before engine start. Then the Crew Chief entered cockpit and started the engine. Pilots weren't allowed to do that. It took ages before the huge radial came to life. The blue smoke, the vibrations and terrible noise weren't very assuring. When I opened the throttle it felt like nothing is going to happen; beside the even greater noise. But all the sudden the tail wheel lifted up and we were airborne. It was quite a feeling to fly at tree top level over the Finnish country side with a big olive green/ pale blue aircraft with big red stars on fuselage, tail and wings. Professor showed me some maneuvres he was using in crop dusting. One was a "flat side slip" between two barns. An-2 cruised 80 km/h no matter where the nose was pointing at. It was useless to touch the throttle. Turning into final my "Flying Instructor" used very simple yet effective hand signals: pull! Pull harder! I had the stick allmost fully back half way down the final leg. Then we simply sat and wait. What a soft landing it was. Enjoy the project! I will follow this. Best Regards, Antti
  3. Hello Seawinder! The PR.XIX in the Linkoping Museum (in Sweden) has beige coloured seat belts. Shoulder belts pass through a slot in the armour plate. Above the oxygen bottles the two shoulder belts are sewn together and only one belt runs backwards. When viewed above the belts form a letter "Y". The tail end is attached to a quadruple metal plate. A simple metal wire is attached to this plate and the wire passes the rear pressure bulkhead. Some very good photos of this PR.XIX can be found on Spitfiresite. Best Regards, Antti
  4. Warpaint series No. 31"Phantom" has a photo of XT595 (Port side). The caption says: "First flight of ... was made at the St. Louis plant of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation on 27 June 1966". In this photo the Phantom has only Roundels, serials painted on wings and fuselage and white "ROYAL NAVY" on the fuselage. No pylons were carried. In the book "Phantom - a legend in it's own time" (Francis K. Mason) there are two photos. The bigger one (Port side) shows a phantom with Roundels, under wing serials, white "ROYAL NAVY" on fuselage and white number 3097 painted on just under the fin cap but no serial on fuselage. An interesting detail is a long blade aerial under the port intake. This photo was taken above St. Louis. XT595 was transferred to Edwards AFB on 21 July 1966 for further testing. The plane carries inner pylons. There is no pitot tube on the nose. The other (also Port side) shows XT595 taking off from Lambert Field (St. Louis) with most of the details as above but with the white "No. 1 F-4K MCDONNELL" on the nose. At this point there is no red "MCDONNELL" text on the fuselage spine. Also the white number from the fin is removed. Peter R. Foster's book "RAF Phantom" shows XT595 with all the colourful markings, long pitot tube and Sparrow missiles. The photo caption says: "Here we see the first British Phantom on it's first flight". The same photo that is in the Warpaint book appears also in Peter Caygill's book "Phantom from the cockpit". Considering all this info it seems possible that XT595 didn't carry any special markings on her first flight. Best Regards, Antti
  5. I know Gary, I know... been there myself. The Internet packed with photos and information makes you wonder: "is there somewhere the photo(s) I need...". I have further books about British Phantoms. I will check if I can find more information. Best Regards, Antti
  6. Hello All, there is few good quality photographs of XT595 on Patrick Martin's book "British Phantoms". One of the photos is dated "August 1966" and shows the smaller white "No.1 F-4K MCDONNELL" text on the port side of the nose. There is no red "McDonnell" text on the fuselage spine. Two more photos only say "during early testing" and they show the port side with large white "No.1 F-4K" behind the British Roundel and a red text with white outline "MCDONNELL" on the side of the fuselage spine. I have (somewhere) a photo showing a line-up of brand new British Phantoms in their original paint. As you may have noticed the original blue gray on Royal Navy planes looked lighter than British EDSG. In the photo the colour looks exactly the same on both variants. That made me think that same blue gray was originally used for both F-4Ks and F-4Ms. Best Regards, Antti
  7. Hello David, Perfect Skyhawk! Excellent paint work, decals and superb weathering! Best Regards, Antti
  8. Mark, You are Fast Thank You for the Photo; now I can locate the undercarriage and other details make sense also. My mistake, sorry... Best Regards, Antti
  9. Hello All, once again a very interesting topic as I have the Tamiya Brewster in the stash. The photo in Allan's post makes me wonder... Is it really a Brewster? Look at the wing: the undercarriage is missing and there seems to be no recess for the wheel either. Also the pitot tube is too close to the fuselage. The wing appears to be too thin. I made a photo comparison but can't get it downloaded to Photobucket for some reason. I will try again later. Best Regards, Antti
  10. Hello occa! I studied Haze and Synthetic Haze schemes for my P-38 F5. I'm not sure if this information suits for a B-24 but here we go. Haze Paint: the whole aircraft was painted with black and then a over sprayed with special white paint. The pigment particles were smaller than an air molecule which caused the light to back scatter from the surface. Depending of the altitude and light it looked anything between black and light blue. The shadow areas were given a thicker coat of white paint. Problems with the Haze Paint were: 1. The painted surface was very delicate to all erosion and 2. It looked too dark above 20.000 ft. Synthetic Haze Paint was developed to replace the original Haze Paint. In this scheme the aircraft was given a coat of medium blue colour called "Sky Base Blue" and then over sprayed with light blue called "Flight Blue". Sky Base Blue is FS 15123 and Flight Blue FS 35190. Flight Blue was available in Xtracolor's enamel range. Both colour schemes were very difficult and time consuming to apply. This is why they were dropped and late F-5s went to war in NMF. Best Regards, Antti
  11. Matchbox Javelin? ... More and more interested ... Best Regards, Antti
  12. Hello cherisy! Looking at the photos of the kit (I don't have the kit) it looks that is a FAW.9/9R. This means that You need to: - remove the "bullet fairings" from the wing leading edges - remove the protruding gun muzzles - fill/sand the leading edges straight between outer gun and pitot tube (FAW.8 was the first with "kinked" leading edge) - fill the four wing pylon holes (unless You are modelling a trial aircraft with missiles) - drill holes for guns - discard the long air intake scoops on top of the fuselage (Re-heat cooling intakes) - re-scribe the details on Port intake side (Ground connection) - make new aerials for "Violet Picture", "FI.5", "Rebecca"and communications - build a new rear fuselage with non Re-heated engines Hope these help for a start. Enjoy the build as Javelin is a very cool aircraft Best Regards, Antti
  13. Ouch! That's sad. I think that 30-35 years ago the photography books still gave you the theory in depth. Today people get easily bored if they need to study a few formulas or look at a page without pictures. I bought Langford's excellent books a couple of years ago from a book shop in Uppsala, Sweden. Then there is some very good theory books published by the U.S. Navy and they are also available online. Then of course I still have my study books about aerial photography (written by former 543 Squadron navigators and photographers). BR, Antti
  14. Indeed; we kept all our films for aerial recce or survey work in a freezer at -18 centigrades. One day before the mission the film was moved to a fridge.Then the film containers were wrapped in a chamois and placed in a bag to keep them cool. I still keep my films for SLR photography in a freezer / fridge. It is also important to process an exposed film as soon as possible. Otherwise it is necessary to put it back to the freezer, but you can only buy some days that way. Looking back I remember my grandparents who had one roll in the camera for years; they didn't want to waste that precious film. As it was Agfa colour negative film the prints were always completely red BR, Antti
  15. A very interesting topic! Filters were (and are) used for two primary reasons: 1. To minimize the effect of Haze (those tiny particles in the air which are smaller than air molecules and reflect "back scattered light" causing too bluish picture). In these cases the filter should be yellow. 2. To correct colours for printing. For example if you want to show a very dark sky with white clouds then you should use a deep red filter with panchromatic B+W film. Third reason is anti-vignetting but I don't know if this has been used in "consumer" cameras. The only times I have used an anti-vignetting filter is during aerial reconnaissance and survey missions. I would firstly try to recognize what film type was used. Take a look at the RAF Roundel; if the red center portion looks darker in the photo than the blue ring then the picture was taken using orthochrome film. Another hint are the camouflage colours; they look almost the same when photographed wit orthochrome film. If the blue and red look similar then panchromatic film without filter was used. One thing to remember when taking pictures with a DSLR: digital camera has a different sensitivity than film. You need to use a UV filter with digital cameras but not with film. Reason: films are not sensitive to UV light. This means that a digital B+W photo will look different in any case when compared to film. It is also useless to scan photos from books and then "tune" them using Photoshop or Lightroom. Fun it may very well be but not "scientific". Best Regards, Antti