stever219

The Model Box, Old Watermill Shopping Village, Faldo Road, Barton-le-Clay, Bedfordshire, MK45 4RF. Small and friendly but with an incredibly varied stock: Airfix, revellers, Tamiya, Valom, Misterkit (the latter on offer at present). Handy coffee shop nearby plus other businesses in which to offload SWMBO (other WMBO's are available). Access for wheelchair users is possible but the slope is quite steep. Not easily accessible by public trapsnort.

Tony Clayton at Diaerama might be a good source of information.

How much energy do you think an RP has? Even though most ship’ bulkheads were not particularly thick one or at most two might be breached by an RP in a smaller ship provided that the warhead hadn’t detonated on impact. Factor in any cargo, machinery and other assorted gubbins in the way and your RP is going to encounter a lot of energy-sapping resistance. The Mosquito has a span of just over 54 feet, the RP rails are about 1/6 of that in from the tips. Assuming an incredibly accurate head-on attack on a ship with a beam of fifty feet all eight RPs might score hits, although the outboard pair might just as well ricochet off the sides due to the shallow pact angle. The first things they’re going to encounter are, in no particular order, the crew accommodation, the chain lockers, ships’ stores, collision bulkhead and forward hold. If, as I said above, the warheads haven’t detonated (unlikely) by the time they’ve penetrated that lot they are going to have lost most, if not all, of their energy and at that point the only way they are going is downwards at considerably totally reduced forward speed. A head-on pass will require the aircraft either to break away to one side or the other of the target or to overfly its entire length or to fly alongside its entire length, giving defending gunners plenty of opportunity to have a go whereas a beam attack will give a rapidly approaching and then rapidly receding target. A beam attack on a 450 foot long ship should result in all RPs hitting the target: ships of the era in question rarely had spaces more than 50 feet long fore and aft so it’s likely that any breaches of the hull would straddle at least one bulkhead. If any of the compartments breached included engine room, boiler room and/or bunkers, far more likely as the pilots would probably aim for the middle of the ship to ensure a hit, the outlook for the ship and crew is going to be grim. During the approach and escape the attacking aircraft will present the lowest cross section to the defending gunners and be over or alongside the target for the shortest possible time.

I think you’ve been over-thinking this. A beam-on attack gives you a bigger target, for example a 400-odd foot long ship has a beam of around fifty to eighty feet, so harder to hit from head on. A head on attack also creases the chances of a wasted shot as some of the RPs might glance off the hull plating due to the curve at the bows producing a shallower impact angle. The chances of knocking out the bridge on most merchant ships of the time, with the possible exception of tankers and transports, is also compromised by the amount of high-rise gear (masts, derricks, etc) ahead of the superstructure. A beam attack allows an opportunity to breach more than one watertight compartment, be it hold, boiler room, engine room or bunkers which, although maybe not resulting in an outright sinking, will increase the probability of crippling the ship and creating a liability to the operator (do we stop to pick up the crew, can we put a damage control party aboard, can we get a tow line into her, do we have to finish the job to deny the enemy an attempt at salvage?). Underwater impacts by RPs could be devastating; remember the Dambusters? The water behind the exploding RP acts as a tamper, directing the blast forwards much like a modern shaped charge, cutting a hole in the hull and then allowing the pressure of the water to amplify the damage. There are many instances of ships being lost because, having been holed below the waterline, bulkheads have collapsed because the ship’s remained under way long enough to overload the bulkheads.

D’oh! So used to building in 1/48th now I’d forgotten about Tamiya’s 1/72th Mossies. Please excuse me while I get back under my rock🐍.

The PR. 34 and NF. 36 both had two-stage Merlins which neither Tamiya kit features. I don't recall having seen the Freightdog conversion being advertised for some time (I hope it is still available) so you might be forced to (drastically) re-engineer those in the Airfix B/PR. 16 kit which leave quite a lot to be desired.

The main structure of the Defiant is metal bur all of the control surfaces are fabric covered. I've a strong suspicion that the retractable fairing aft of the turret and some of the structure above the upper longeron in that area are fabric-covered plywood but I can't reach my references just now.

Andre I think that the image I referred to is the only one that I’ve seen that wasn’t taken in pouring rain.☔️☔️

There are some super images there but there’s a gotcha. Image 37 purports to show XN781/B of 19 Squadron but in fact it’s an F. Mk. 6; check the length of the cable duct below the cockpit and the ADEN installation in the front section of the ventral tank. None of the F. Mk. 2As wore Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey camouflage. The image was taken at Binbrook during the commemoration of the Lightning’s 25 years in service when the colours of every squadron that had operated the type were applied to a number of the jets; by that time the F. Mk. 2As had been withdrawn from service and XN781 herself had been scrapped at Leuchars.

Nice idea but sadly no. Although the Mosquito was built of wood it was also fabric covered on its entirety, apart from the engine nacelles and cowlings. The fabric was applied in large sheets and did not match the joints of the wooden skin panels except at production joints between major assemblies. You might be better using the technique to lightly accentuate the removable panels on the Mosquito and on metal-skinned aircraft.

Are you going to install the radio in there after you went to all the trouble to find those cutaways and schematics for me? From experience the turret is a tight fit into its mounting ring to the extent that a coat or two of paint will prevent it seating properly. Thanks for taking the hit and getting those bracing struts in before I did mine; now I know what they should look like.

Only in its dreams!🤣🤣🤣

You’d be surprised. Sometimes a very small change in shape can have a significant effect on aerodynamic performance and/or handling, a classic example being the Jet Provost Mk. 5. As built the aeroplanes did not have wingtip tanks and it was found necessary to fit a small strake either side of the nose to assist in spin recovery; when some examples had wingtip tanks added as Mk. 5b navigator trainers it was found that the strokes could quite happily be lived without. The APU in RAF VC-10s was located at the rear of the tailcone so, on the AEW version, would have to vacate that space to make way for the radar. VC-10s were built with a hard point under the starboard wing to permit ferrying of a spare/dead engine in a streamlined fairing (not all were built with the main deck freight door and strengthened floor) so using that capability to house an APU/baggage/ESM/whatever pod makes sense.

Thanks Trevor @Max Headroom. The cutaway at post 5 in your third link is the one that I was thinking of. It doesn’t have much detail of the radio installation but it does show the struts either side of the fairing and the fairing operating jack, so that’s a couple of birds dealt with

Jamie indeed I have: a friend of mine worked at RAE Bedford (as well as being ex-RAF) and built a model of a Dakota that he’d worked on. The judge took one look at the model and said “That’s wrong, that aeroplane never had a radome there!” “It did,” said my friend “I built and installed it!” So saying he then disappeared to the car park and retrieved his logbook showing the work that he’d done. Needless to say he still didn’t get a prize. Like you I’ve never had the time or resources to spend that long on a single model (a child, up to 3 cats and, until last year, paid employment amongst other things have seen to that) but I do like to improve where I can, or just add some difference to give my models a bit of individuality.

Thanks Trevor. That video’s quite good isn’t it? I’m now wondering how much of the brassware that Eduard give you for the turret is actually applicable😳😳. I had though that the Scale Models article included quite a good cutaway drawing, but if it doesn’t show the area between cockpit and turret I’m still stuffed. Gizmology to the rescue I suppose.

That’s a nice little kit, apart from some overly-thick trailing edges. I’m currently working on the 1/48th kit, for which the Eduard brass has been procured. Does your reference show the area of decking behind the pilot’s seat? I’ve not been able to find any decent images of this area, not even in the Valiant Wings book that I recently acquired. I’m looking forward to seen no how you get on with this project.

As the Wellington is predominantly fabric covered there will be very few rivets to see. The fabric effect is subtly and delicately rendered however.

The RAF never “officially” operated RB-45Cs, however some were painted in spurious RAF markings and, operated by RAF crews, flew reconnaissance sorties close to the Iron Curtain. What’s never been fully disclosed as far as I know, is exactly which side of the curtain was being flown close to.

No. The Javelin was designed purely as an interceptor to take out Warsaw Pact aircraft that were carrying nuclear weapons before they were within weapons launch distance of the UK. The UK never developed air-to-air weapons with nuclear warheads.

Michelle you do know that the kit has (roughly) Olympus 301-style tailpipes whereas ‘558 has Olympus 201s.don’t you? Thankfully Freightdog Models do some nice resin ‘201s for a very reasonable price. They’re a doddle to fit and look so much better than Airfix's now nearly 40 year old efforts. Do you intend to depict ‘558 as fresh from the factory or in her first unit’s colours? (I can’t believe I was only about 23 when that kit was first issued and had been in paid employment for nearly 5 years by then!)

The Mk. V was developed from the Mk. III, the main difference being the engines and propellers. Where the Mk. III had an offset dorsal turret the Mk. V had a hatch either side just aft of the wing root fairing trailing edge for defensive armament. The Mk. V radar scanners were installed in a radome under each wing tip outboard of the floats whereas the Mk. III had the yogi “stickleback” arrangement. There are plenty of other differences but I can’t remember all of them just now.

There are a number of images available of XH592 after retirement to 2 SoTT at Cosford showing her wearing tactical red and blue national markings with 232 OCU’s double arrow emblem on the fin, what they don’t show is any form of AAR tanker fit. I think, without being able to get to my references at this red-hot second, is that the OCU used her as a crew trainer to maximise availability of the desperately-needed tanker fleet rather than giving pilots practice at driving aeroplanes.

That’s the problem with “box opening” reviews, you get a look at the parts but never see how well, or not, the parts actually fit together or how accurate or not a representation of the real thing they are.

Not necessarily; a dead matt finish on a model can tend to make a model look flat and lifeless but a hint of sheen helps to show off the contours a little. You can’t always trust a restored aeroplane as a reference, particularly if it’s been extensively rebuilt or renovated and some modern paints may be a nearest available equivalent to the original finish in terms of colour and sheen. A good photo of the original is always a good starting point but, as you’ll know if you’ve been around on the forum for a while, even colour photos can be a bit of a minefield.