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. :)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About AWFK10

  • Rank
    Established Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. The fin and rudder (Part 13) are much too thin in cross-section, a problem it's inherited from the Frog kit - where it was pointed out in a conversion article in an old copy of PAM News by a chap who had served as groundcrew on a Javelin squadron. See the photo here taken from the top of the fuselage - I can't link direct to the picture but it's the first one in the section headed "Tail". Annoyingly, like Frog, Plastyk produced the whole vertical tail as a single part, so you can't just shim it: when I built a Novo Javelin recently, I made a new fin and rudder from plastic card.
  2. I agree about the potential for producing other BE2/BE12 variants but RE8 wings aren't exactly the same as the ones fitted to the BE2e/f/g and BE12a. Although the chord is identical, the RE8's span (both upper and lower wings) is just over two feet longer, or about 0.35" in 1/72. A new RE8 would be great in itself and ideal for people prepared to crosskit, with some minor fettling, to produce a later BE variant - and both types are a lot more significant in the history of British military aviation than some others that have been more frequently kitted - but selling kits of both using the same wing mouldings would be a bit of a cheat. How about a May/Richthofen/Brown dogfight triple......
  3. The same question struck me. The Morane theory sounds plausible, it's hard to see where else the guns would have come from. Mason says that 46 Sqn had been intended to take the first IIcs to the Middle East in May 1941 but "at the last moment this plan was dropped" and IIcs only arrived with 229 Sqn that September - which could give a context for one or more local conversions to cannon armament after the Syrian campaign in June. Warner's Blenheim book, at least in its first edition, gives no clue where those Hispanos were sourced from (in late 1941). The anti-tank theory may be a red herring, M Moulin only says that it's "probable", so it seems to be speculation on his part.
  4. The French text doesn't reveal a lot and is of dubious accuracy. Basically, it says that the photos were taken by an RAF photographer in Egypt; as early Mk IIs - IIA and IIB (sic) - only mounted eight machine guns in each wing, it's understandable why "the mechanics" would have tried to mount a heavier armament in the form of Hispano-Suiza HS 404 20mm cannon; we don't know what the results of the trials were, but later Hurricanes (IIC) were armed with two cannon in each wing, and that it's likely the trials were carried out in an attempt to make the Hurricane more effective when attacking tanks. It's possible that there were several aircraft fitted out in this fashion and, "during the same period" (actually, considerably later, I should think), some aircraft were equipped with 40mm cannon "and/or" rockets - which is accurate if it means that the Hurricane IIE/IV could be fitted with either but not if it's intended to suggest that it could carry both at the same time. My French is O-level standard (regrettably, the syllabus didn't cover anything as interesting as aircraft armament) and dates back 40 years but I'm not sure that, as Grahame suggests, the text indicates that the machine guns were removed. My dictionary gives "sur place" as meaning "on the spot" rather than "in place of"; I think it may be emphasising that it was a local modification. The cannon seem to be mounted inboard of the existing gun bays and of course there's no space being taken up within the wing by the cannons' ammunition drums, so there would probably still be room for the Brownings. The weight, on the other hand.......
  5. Airfix made a Marauder. It's old but has always been considered one of their better kits and although it's OOP it's available secondhand. There would also have been second line aircraft types flying into the airfields: I don't know about Essex specifically but there used to be a website about RAF Glatton (now Peterborough Business Airport but a B-17 base in WW2) with some nice photos of visitors like USAAF Vengeance target tugs and Norseman light transports.
  6. From "The Other Few": 46 Hampdens, 10 of which claimed to have attacked the briefed target, the Klingenberg power station. Bombs were also dropped on the Henschel factory, Templehof airfield and marshalling yards. 22 Whitleys, detailed to attack the Siemens works - only two claimed to have bombed them, and another attacked "a concentration of part of the defences of western Berlin". 21 Wellingtons, only some of which (it doesn't say how many) were destined for Berlin: in the event, only one attacked the city. The aircraft lost were all Hampdens (the ditchings are probably accounted for by the fact that Berlin was at the utmost limit of the Hampden's range.....): P4416, 49 Sqn, Scampton. Lost without trace. (Bomber Command Losses: EA-L) P2070, 50 Sqn, Lindholme. Force landed near Lautersheim. P2124, 50 Sqn, Lindholme. Ditched off Scarborough pier. P1354, 83 Sqn, Scampton. Ditched in the Wash. (Bomber Command Losses: OL-Y) P4380, 83 Sqn, Scampton. Ditched off Grimsby. (Bomber Command Losses: OL-Z) X2895, 83 Sqn, Scampton. Crashed at Boldon, Co Durham, while trying to land at RAF Usworth. For what it's worth, there are two photos in "The Other Few" of the rear fuselage of an 'EA' coded Hampden, less tail section, inverted and buried in a hedgerow. The caption implies they were taken following this raid, in which case it can only be the remains of EA-L, somewhere on the continent (only the upright stroke of the individual letter is visible but it could be 'L'). "EA" is behind the roundel on both sides of the fuselage.
  7. This was the one that sprang to my mind as well. It was a real treasure trove in its heyday, I remember the anticipation of climbing the stairs from the street to get to the kits. Yes, it had some great books: I still have a copy of Harleyford's "Von Richthofen and the Flying Circus" that I bought there about 40 years ago. Time has certainly done a thorough job of obliterating it - there's no trace of Blenheim Street, never mind the shop.
  8. I've seen similar concerns expressed about the National Army Museum, which is reopening after a complete revamp which I've got to admit I hadn't realised was happening - I've not been out that way in many years. It must be at least a decade since I was in the IWM but a quick google suggests that not everybody is happy with its last makeover. Museums that I do visit have most certainly been 'dumbed down'. I've commented before on the Manchester Air and Space Museum (as was). I call in fairly regularly at the Discovery Museum in Newcastle, for no other reason than that it's near Central Station and convenient when I've got time to kill waiting for my train. Compared to the wonderful old Museum of Science and Engineering of my childhood, which it absorbed, that element of its collections is the palest of shadows - interesting exhibits, the ones that haven't simply vanished, are displayed with no interpretation and/or in a way that makes them impossible to view properly, as if the museum resents being lumbered with them. Same with the so-called "Great North Museum" on the other side of town, which swallowed the old Hancock Museum (natural history) and the university's Museum of Antiquities but isn't a patch on either. I'm all in favour of museums developing in a way that captures people's imagination: staying on Tyneside, the Roman sites at Wallsend and South Shields have done it very successfully with reconstructed buildings. But aiming them at the lowest common denominator is counterproductive: they end up neither challenging casual visitors to increase their knowledge nor appealing to enthusiasts.
  9. That brings back some memories. I built quite a few of the Series 1 aircraft when they were in polybags with the Roy Cross artwork on the header. Our local newsagent used to have a good selection of them on a hanger; I was in there every weekend sorting through them with my 2s 9d burning a hole in my pocket. They sold Airfix glue and paint (in little glass jars then) as well. I even bought the Cherokee Arrow (that wasn't in a polybag, they'd moved on to blister packs by then). I have no interest in the aircraft now and I hadn't then, I bought it just because it was new and I could afford it because it was in Series 1.
  10. Definitely the O-2.
  11. Yes, it was tooled by Inpact and later went on to Pyro and Lindberg. They also made the Bulldog, Fury and Gladiator: all four were superb kits for the 1960s. A kind relative bought me the last pair one birthday. I built a Lindberg boxing of the Gladiator about 15 years ago, and I've got a Fury and the Flycatcher to do.
  12. The Seafox box art is here. The HS126 box has a sunset (or sunrise?) scene on it, maybe after all these years your memory is a mixture of the two?
  13. You might find you get a much better result if you tried one now, though. I thoroughly messed up a Merlin DH9a (and a Pegasus Snipe) in about 1990; after a further 25 years of practice, I built another Ninak and it turned out quite well.
  14. There is a model shop on Nile Street, which is the same road that the Metro station's on - Phill's Models. I've never been in, as a quick glance in the window led me to think (maybe wrongly) it was largely R/C stuff but it did have some plastic kits, IIRC. I haven't been past lately but I assume it's still there. Back in the 1970s, there was a model shop in almost the same place but that closed decades ago.
  15. Me too. Years ago, I used to buy it every month. Then I stopped buying it altogether and I'm now back to buying it occasionally, when there's an article that interests me, as I think the standard's picked up significantly. But there are many issues in which there's nothing that appeals to me at all, so no way would I subscribe.