stever219

Phantoms in the Air Defence greys scheme (like yours) didn't carry underwing serial numbers, apart (maybe) from very early examples.

Sorry, I was countng rivets earlier and it just slipped out.

53 Squadron never flew Phantoms; the last type that I can remember them flying is the mighty Short Belfast. 56 Squadron, however, did fly them and were the penultimate operator, only being succeeded by 74 Squadron for around a year before the type’s final withdrawal from service.

@AV OThe memorial plaque on the site of the former aerodrome stated 2, 3, 4 and 6 Squadrons when last I saw it, but that was too many years ago. Yes, Dover is close enough for government work; Dover Swingate for the pedants among us, including me. @AV O you have the ball, well done sir!

Sorry, nowhere near.

Usual caveat regarding preserved aircraft but generally, from a quick and dirty web trawl, the trapeze seems to be between US interior green and British interior grey green with the weapons carriers/launch rails in dull aluminium or thereabouts. One image appeared to show dull aluminium trapeze also but this can't be properly verified just now.

Thanks @zebra. I honestly thought that the Woomera was, at best, a paper project. As for competent question setting your hope is welcome but perhaps misplaced. However here goes: From which airfield did 2, 3, 4 and 6 Squarons of the RFC initially fly from England to France near the sart of World War 1 as the first elements of the Air Component?

Woomera.

I couldn't possibly comment!

I used to work in the Luton enquiries office for an indirect tax branch of a well-known government department. One of my colleagues was an Asian lady who hailed from Birmingham. On one occasion she had spent around 30 minutes trying to explain a particularly entertaining piece of VAT legislation to an uncomprehending trader or accountant; from across the office we could hear her getting progressively more animated and the two linguistic elements of her heritage merging, becoming stronger and more pronounced with every passing moment. Eventually she decided that she couldn’t get the caller to accept her version of the law and handed the call over to the shift senior officer who took it on with a cheery “Good morning, can’a help ye’ “ in his strong Scottish accent. From across the office I could clearly hear the caller bawl “I want to talk to someone who speaks ENGLISH!!”

If you don’t like it that much you can send yours to me and I’ll enjoy building it for you!

I have an Airfix E-3 Sentry but nowhere to build or display it presently.

There are more differences than that, the KC 135 has a circular-section fuselage whereas the 707 (and C 137) have a double-bubble section. The wings are also significantly different in platform (and probably section).

“Turn left, heading 270!” ”Repeat please!”

It very looks like it doesn't it?

My favourite position in the school team.

Very much so, sadly.

Which cars usually have wet bottoms? Fords

Let’s hope that they will get round to it😁😁

Airfix are about to reissue, or have just reissued their new-ish-kit with Operation Granby markings. If you can still find them the old Modeldecal sheets covering Gulf War RAF subjects are worth buying

I don’t mind as long as it’s a J(UK), K or M.

My first thought was “Dear God, please not another “let’s try to second-guess the Airfix designers and marketing teams on a kit we think we’d really like to see them produce” thread. Then I thought “OK; I’ll bite, just for the sake of a quick(?) game of Devil’s Advocate. The Hasegawa F-4K and F-4M kits are over 30 years old; Hasegawa never down-scaled them to 1/72th scale, quite possibly because the very good Fujimi kits were there. The kits have been re-boxed by Revell, with different decals, and are often more available in the UK and Europe than the Japanese-made originals. Surface detail on the Hasegawa kits is quite fine and reasonably restrained; no excess of indented rivets here! Outlines and sections are generally good. Unfortunately the lateral braces for the inboard wing pylons are moulded on to the wing undersides; see the gorgeous Academy 1/4th F-4J for a better interpretation of these items Some surface features of late-service Spey Phantoms are missed out, e.g. belly reinforcing straps and outer wing skin doubler plates. Also lacking is the navigator’s periscope. The cockpits are a little generic and no provision is made for dual controls for XT-serialled FGR.2s (to be fair the 1/72th Airfix kits also lack this provision).. The engine air intakes are definitely under-represented with no ducting aft of the intake lips; the Academy kits are better but by n means perfect. If you’re not fitting blanking plates you need to go after-market (f you can find ‘em). Hasegawa are notoriously parsimonious with external stores; none are included in their Spey Phantoms for mud-movers or bucket of instant sunshine carriers If Airfix are taking their 1/72th Phantoms as a starting point they have their work cut out to produce a better MiG killer. The surface detail is deeper and wider than the existing Hasegawa kits and something akin to the 1990s 1/48th Lightnings needs to be the goal. Parts breakdown is a mixed blessing, the one-piece fuselage spine eliminates a “not there on the real thing” joint but fit is a bit off and the multi-option multi-part wing assembly gives a few unwanted “not there on the real thing” joints, e.g. in line with the outer pylons. Airfix have a chequered past with upscaling/downscaling: the Defiants and Buccaneers are good examples of it working well, but the failure to upscale the 1/72th Blenheim IV to 1/48th is almost comprehensible, as is the decision not to downscale the 1/48th Javelin and Sea Vixen to 1/72th. Let’s hope that if the powers-that-be at Airfix sanction design and production of a new 1/48th Spey Phantom they give the job to the ‘A” Team who did the Buccaneer, Anson, Beaufort and 1/48th Blenheim. Maybe we’ll find out at SMW or early in January when the 2024 range is announced. Airfix lose out to Fujimi in the cockpits simply by using decals in lieu of the Japanese kits’ define raised details on consoles and panels. However Airfix score by including the navigator’s periscope. The Fujimi seats are nicer too. Airfix have about the best intake ducts of any 1/72th Phantom, spoiled only by the wagon-wheel compressor faces which are, thankfully, almost invisible. Fujimi also score by including the air data probes just inside the intake mouths and a better-defined stab at the boundary layer bleed duct outlets. Airfix score well on the provision of “things that go bang in the night” especially in the “Black Mike” FG.1 boxing, including ballast Sky Flash/Sparrow rounds.

That would be to ignore, in no particular order, the Fleet Air Arm, Army and Royal Marines, as well as various research, test and trials organisations and agencies plus airframe, engine and equipment manufacturers. I will, however, agree wholeheartedly that the research and development collection is unique and significant and that its dispersal represents both wanton ignorance and corporate vandalism of breathtaking proportion. True the late-mark He111, Bf110 and Ju87 (formerly?) in the Battle of Britain Hall are inappropriate but they are [almost] the only game in town to represent the other combatants without resorting to plastic replicas. The B-17 and B-25 in the Bomber Command Hall also are "out of context" although both were operated by the RAF but no-one is going to pay to repaint them in RAF colours.

The pylons for the Operation Corpirate Vulcans were, as one account put it, "hastily knocked up in Station workshops from bits of girder found in the Engineering Wing dump". They were "designed" to take advantage of the long-dormant Skybolt hardpoints and ducting rather than have to create new attachment points and electrical conduits in airframes that only a few weeks earlier had been destined for the scrapyard.

Sorry, no. It was to increase elevator authority in the full flaps and undercarriage down configuration.