Des

Apologies for that Kev and looking at the post in light of your comment above the censorship becomes clear Odd though , I had the impression from some of the earlier comments made that industry feedback was actually being sought.

Pretentious, moi !!!!! And yet a conclusion reached despite never having met however I will bow to your apparent experience of needing sub-editors to tidy up your work and it is good that you can so publicly acknowledge your shortcomings.

How amusing in its own way but while you have obviously heard of the concept of multiple negatives I am afraid you have rather missed the point of how their use can vary when used in the English language. As with so many aspects of English context is everything and where multiple negatives are being used in connection with one specific point they can but do not always serve to contradict each other. However when used to emphasise individual aspects of an issue such as I was discussing they serve not only to identify the negative aspect of each individual point but also intensify the general tone of negativity across the whole statement. Funny old thing English , but if our rather twisted rules of language are troubling I believe that the suggested advice is to ask a teacher , librarian or adult literacy advisor for a recommended reading list , read quality rather than tabloid newspapers , be selective in your radio listening and television watching habits all of which I am sure could help to prevent you being ‘tied in knots’ by what are apparently the more arcane aspects of the language.

Ah , the populist and erroneous conceit that all information is available on-line which implies that everyone having internet access actually mediates their lives by it! Case in point - why does this like other modelling forums have such frequent requests for information on the existence of everything from full kits of a subject to accessories and decals (usually resolved by someone posting a link to a Hannants item listing) if this information is already such an integral part of the lives of all but a ‘vanishingly small percentage’? Does it not rather suggest that not all of the reportedly vast majority of modellers who are not of the ‘vanishingly small percentage’ who lack access to the magic of the worldwide web may not have actually surrendered their lives to its wonders or may even have concluded that 'The Emperor's New Clothes' is actually a cautionary tale for our digital age and not a life model?

Nicely done and it is a monster of kit in a good way , compared the parts with those of an unbuilt Italeri Hercules when it first came out and the size difference was more surprising than I had expected , might even get it to the top of the build queue one of these days.

I quite agree , merely countering the suggestion made way back in the depths of the thread that contemporary modelling magazines are flooded with adverts unlike those published back at the dawn of time.

I hope that is not a reference to Airfix Magazine as was in the good old days. I pulled out a few copies covering late 1972/early 1973 and found that including the cover issues back then had either 60 or 64 pages on which between 25 and 28 pages carried advertising. By contrast I checked the latest crop of purely modelling magazines that I take and found :- Airfix Model World (AMW) had advertising on 26 of 116 pages Scale Aircraft Modelling (SAM) had advertising on 23 pages of 88 pages Scale Aviation Modeller International (SAMI) had advertising on 24 of 100 pages Model Aircraft Monthly (MAM) had advertising on 19 of 84 pages Fine Scale Modeler (FSM) had advertising on 10 of 66 pages I counted each page on which there was an advert irrespective of the amount of space it used and while in most cases for all magazines full pages were used for advertising purposes part and half page adverts were more common in SAM than in the others including Ye Olde Airfix Magazine. Perhaps goes to show that back when the world was black and white and when modelling magazines really were modelling magazines as some might claim not only was the use of parts from other kits more expensive in relative terms than aftermarket is today but there was also a far higher proportion of those evil adverts.

Just to clarify that it is not a dummy pod being used as a counterweight - it is a Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing System or RAIDS Pod and the 'pseudo seeker head is merely a grey coloured nosecone as opposed to the more usual white. Essentially it combines GPS technology, a memory card and a data-link to provide a rangeless ACMI capability that records and allows the replay of the actions of all pod equipped aircraft involved in a sortie. They have been in widespread and everyday UK service since shortly after the turn of the century and unless an aircraft is actually involved in live combat operations they are the store most likely to be seen day in and day out under the wing (or over with the Jaguar) along with perhaps an AAM acquisition round and depending on role a CBLS with practice bombs during routine squadron flying and exercises. Over the past fifteen or so years they have been or still are carried on one of the usual missile launch stations on the Tornado F.3 and GR.4 , Harrier GR.7/9 and T.10/12, Jaguar GR.3/3A , Hawk T.1A but not the T.2 which has embedded mission software that does the same job, Typhoon T.1/3 and FGR.2/4 although they have added weights attached and the Dassault Falcon 20's operated by Cobham as well as by various publicity shy foreign air arms.

Going by my own images taken on visits onto the flightline at RAF Kinloss and RAF Leuchars during TLT and CQWIC exercises it was AIM-9 Acquisition round with seeker head to port and RAIDS to starboard , both carried on BOL launch rails although not always both at the same time. Sorry that I cannot post any of the images to show you but still not sorted out anything after the Photobucket debacle but here are links to reports I posted on Milavia.net that have some of my older images - http://www.milavia.net/specials/cqwic/index.htm and http://www.milavia.net/specials/cqwic_kinloss/index.htm - that might help.

Several ways to look at this. One is the writer showing what is possible to gild the lily although sometimes it is difficult to tell what has actually been achieved. Another is that some of the manufacturers of to me overly expensive kits that originate in some Asian countries seem to regularly skimp on their research and either miss bits or get bits wrong which need to be provided/replaced by either scratchbuilding if it is within the modeller's abilities or buying aftermarket. And perhaps linked is that not every version of every aircraft is going to be kitted which again goes back to the options of scratchbuilding/aftermarket. Yet again not every possible markings option can be provided with the kit and not every aftermarket decal manufacturer keeps every sheet ever produced in their catalogue or goes to the trouble of re-printing an old or creating a new sheet just because yet another kit of an already well covered aircraft has been produced so if the modeler wants to do a specific scheme they may have to go searching for an out-of-print sheet. I do write for modelling magazines and unless essential I do try to avoid aftermarket items unless necessary but sometimes it just cannot be avoided to achieve the end result sought. At the moment I am returning to an aircraft I built solely for my own interest many years ago and not for printing which involved scratchbuilding some changes to make the particular version I wanted to model as well as to add some additional general detail but felt then and since that I did not quite do it justice to my satisfaction. So this time I am going to use some aftermarket items and decals that became available after I had completed the first model mainly because I find the aircraft quite intriguing and would like to take a second shot at getting it a bit better. The result is that the aftermarket has cost three times the price of the kit although I still have the print references from first time round so I have been spared that expense but like many modelling decisions that choice comes down to preference , I tried doing it relying on my own skills and it did not work so now a few years down the road and after a bit of thought on the cost I am going to try again. If it works I might offer it for print and it might be accepted in which case readers can make up their own minds on whether or not it is worth the effort to try themselves either through using aftermarket items or attempting the scratchbuilding route. However what really does annoy me is reading entries on modelling forums along the lines of the 'the Airtrumpyhobbyiya whatever has just been released ,what aftermarket is available?' before anyone has even opened the box to see what is inside and if it in fact needs to be replaced or embellished but on the other hand such comments do suggest that there are those among us who have made that choice in pursuing their hobby.

That is definitely a big help and I can confirm that the Mirage IVP decals are exactly the same as those in the 2012 boxing of the kit I bought a couple of weeks ago right down to the pin-ups draped around the unit tail badge but will have to get into the attic to check if the Mirage IIIC?B or 2000N decals differ from the examples I have. More than likely the explanation but on the other hand if anyone has actually come across an example of the release with the 2000D artwork it would be nice to have it confirmed ....... just in case !!!!! But in any case with reasonable shipping costs the package as shown would still be worth it for anyone wanting what are basically good kits of the three types , the Mirage IVP I mentioned was bought on ebay two weeks ago for £20 including shipping which was maybe slightly on the low side compared to others being offered for auction or buy it now around the same time.

If the doubts over the inclusion of the basic 2000N or upgraded 2000D Afghanistan kits were not enough I have found something that confuses things a little bit further. I had a look at one of the shops offering the set - https://www.france-maquette.fr/maquettes-avions-fr/coffret-100-ans-dassault-1-48-heller-52322.html - which shows the 2000D boxart and also has illustrations showing the paints required and views of the artwork for the decal options. These are shown for one Mirage IVP , one Mirage 2000N and three conflicting options for what Heller describe on the box as a Mirage IIIE which now comes with decal options for a Spanish IIIC although the artwork shows it correctly as a IIIE , a French IIIR and a Belgian 5BA. Which I suppose raises questions of whether Heller has merely produced a decal sheet that does not relate to the plastic included , have they sourced someone else's IIIE/R plastic (although I cannot think of any 1/48 kit that contains the parts for both) or have they carried out a very major overhaul of their old IIIB/C moulds? From the size of the boxart it was difficult to tell for certain but it looks as if the artwork for the original IIIB/C kit might have been altered on this new box top to show a IIIE style afterburner which of course is far from being the only difference actually involved. It would be good to hear from someone who has bought or even just had a look inside the box bearing the 2000D artwork to hear exactly it contains - imagine if they had ran out of 2000N kits and had to substitute surviving 2000D kits - about as much chance as winning the lottery without even buying a ticket I suppose.

And there are so many to choose from , despite a few dull and anonymous periods the F.3 carried some great marking schemes both in regular squadron markings and special schemes.

The kit here is in 1/48 however back at the dawn of time Heller were very much into 1/50 scale French aircraft of the day often based on prototypes including a Mirage IVA which has little in common with the current kit and came with hinged cockpit canopies , retractable undercarriage , moveable control surfaces and lots of the usual 1960s gimmicks. The practice carried on for a while and went on to include more production level aircraft without gimmicks such as the Puma , Cessna O-2 and others before they adopted the by then more common 1/48 scale and onto the current Mirage III , IV and 2000.

That's a pity , their 2000D was tempting when it was released with extras in the Afghanistan packaging around the same time as their Super Etendard Modernise with similar extras but they were horrendously expensive. The 2000N was a reasonable kit which Airfix released as a 2000B but I have already got a couple of them up the loft along with a couple of the IIIC/B and I recently bought a IVP on its own having built all three previously. All were nice kits in their time and while the Mirage III and 2000 families have got more recent and expensive competition the Heller Mirage IV remains unique in 1/48 scale but as has been mentioned unless they have been reprinted the decals were the definite weak point of all three being just enough out of register to be noticeable and having a wide carrier film usually displaced off to one side. The Mirage IV has raised panel detail and although I cannot recall the Mirage III I am pretty certain that the Mirage 2000 had recessed but could be wrong. Notwithstanding that if I did not already have the kits available it would definitely have been a tempting if the postage was reasonable.