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.

Blacktjet

Members
  • Content count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

97 Excellent

About Blacktjet

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday 13/10/61

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chesterfield UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,764 profile views
  1. Sheet 72-233 The 25 years of Tornado ops, ALL the fin decals are over-sized, the list of ops. angle is too steep and the white 25 is not strong enough. Not sure which kit they were designed for, I have used a Hasgawa but I doubt that they would be correct for any kit.
  2. I think the machine you are using is different to the one I used. The one I used was a + white, it printed the colours and the white in one run, thus giving perfect registration. The problem for decal printing is that the software is designed for printing iron on transfers so it prints the colour layers in reverse order, with white being the top layer. I was just wondering if there was a way of modifying the process, so that it prints the white layer first. Oki are missing an opportunity to sell the machines for small run decal printing and for decal proof printing.
  3. I agree that it is most likely a duff sheet but it does seem to be quite common and at £9 a sheet, it shouldn't happen at all. Maybe Microscale in their pursuit of producing thinner decals, they have become too delicate.
  4. I have used one of these Oki printers, thanks to a local company. The system is designed for iron on transfers, so the white is the last of the colour process - you end up with a reverse decal - have you managed alter the software and print the white first then the colours?
  5. I've picked up two brand new, end of line Laser Jets for £50 in the past, one off ebay - a Konica Minolta Magicolour 1600W and the other from Tesco - a Dell 1250c LED printer. Both work fine with a variety of laser jet decal papers but for decal printing, the Dell LED printer is by far the best. Keep checking Tesco on-line store, they seem to get a lot of end of line electrical goods. For £50, they are worth buying and keeping just for decals, mine are still on the trial toners that they came with.
  6. These were fairly recent sheets. Ordering two sheets to cover any problems is getting to be a bit expensive!
  7. Has anyone else had experience of the latest Xtradecals cracking up? I've had problems with a couple of RAF update sheets where some of the decals have broken into several parts either while sliding off the paper backing or whilst positioning once on the model. One sheet in particular, I had problems with several items on the sheet but the same items on a second sheet were no problem at all. The most frustrating was the Be.2 decal on the 2 squadron anniversary Tornado, one side broke into several pieces while still on the paper and the other side, the blue section of the rudder broke away from the white section while positioning the decal - a clean colour divide, then when I tried to move the the portion that had broken away, it shattered into several pieces.
  8. Just found this post and I have to say, I am starting to get the same issues with the latest Xtradecals, mainly with the pilots names on modern RAF aircraft. They are so small and hard to see on the light blue paper backing anyway (I've accidentally cut through a few when cutting out other decals) but Sometimes they won't slide off the edge of the paper and some have just wrapped the brush the instant they do leave the paper.
  9. I have another picture somwhere that I think shows the F2 legend was changed to F3. Of note in this picture, is that the rear fuselage extension was just a straightforward cut & shut, just after the burner cans. Prodution F3s had a complete new design section aft of the frame at the point of the tailplane pivot.
  10. Nice find! I had always assumed that Dick Ward had probably seen a picture of WH646 with the wing tank or tailplane partially obscuring the 6 and making it look like a 0. I don't think that the photographer could have placed the camera in a better position to cause confusion if he had tried! That picture settles it for me, that airfame is 646, if you look hard enough, you can just about make out it's a 6.
  11. If you use the modeldecal sheet, you will need to alter the registration, WH640 was written off a year before Suez, while serving on 104 sqn at Gutersloh. I think the registration is a mistake and should have been WH646
  12. If it's just the scheme you like, protoype A.02 ZA267 carried the same scheme for a short time after being converted to the F.3 development airframe - albeit with a few modifications and a dark grey (MSG?) radome.
  13. Where is Dennis??? Had a thought about that attachment at the front of the missile, I wonder if it was to feed the correct airspeed to the missile due to the lower AOA and thus the pitot sensor not getting the correct airflow - this would explain why the Vulcan didn't need it. I think the two photographs above could show a short lived mod after Blue Steel had been withdrawn from service. I think there are three doors, two missile shaped doors that had a curved cross section and were rotated in the same way as the standard bomb doors and a small rectangular door at the forward section, that was hinged at the front.
  14. This was my thinking but these pictures from the other thread, would suggest that there is a recess with possibly the rear fared into the rear fuselage. But this would suggest doors that filled in the gap left by the missile and reinstated the bomb bay doors cross section - although I think this is an SR and should have the original bomb bay doors fitted. This picture shows what looks like closed Blue Steel shaped doors and the black (rubber seal?) aft of where the missiles wings would have been. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/8/2530881.jpg?v=v40 It's clear that the kit recessed part is incorrect, however, with the missile fitted, it is sufficient as non of the internals, or the trapeze that the missile is fitted to can be seen - although Airfix have missed the aerodynamic disposable fairing from the rear of the missile and the (pitot warmer?) attachment at the front. Still need clarity on those closed doors though.
  15. Had I not seen the two photographs on the other page, these AP extracts would have been sufficient in convincing me that there were indeed doors that closed to reinstate the bomb bay door shape. However, the closed doors in the pictures look concave at the front and flat to the rear.