stever219

Having just had to disassemble the liquid poly-deformed “broom cupboard” that I’d scratch built for a Revell Sea King that I’m (still) converting to an HAR. 3 superglue should have been my weapon of choice. The joints have to support infinitesimal loads and the plastic wouldn’t have softened to produce a less-than-90-degree inside angle at the front corners. Superglue’s also the least-worst agent for attaching the nice new Aeroparts resin intake ramps to the remainder of the intake tunnels on my Airfix Phantom FG. 1.

8l00dy Hell John! You’re going to need to post warnings if you’re going to post pictures of wanton and gratuitous cruelty like that. I nearly wound up wearing my coffee in my lap. Sorry Mods: I’m going to need counselling after seeing that!

Most of the gubbins in Lightning undercarriage bays is “silver” of one shade or another, including the insides of the doors. There are plenty of images on t’interweb, including the Walkaround pages on this esteemed site. At least one of the jets on there is an ex-Saudi (or Kuwaiti) F. Mk. 53 so should give you a pretty good idea of what goes on in there. Obviously some of the images are of “preserved” aeroplanes which may show some deterioration and discolouration so be a bit careful. If you’re thinking along the lines of weathering less is more: if the bays look to be full of crud the pilot isn’t likely to want to fly it (the Lightning suffered from problems with the undercarriage for much of its life) and SEngO is going to be looking for someone to be spending a lot of time looking for leaks.

We lost our Sooty on New Year’s Eve 2015, just under four months short of his 18th birthday (he, and his beautiful sister Sweep, would be twenty this coming Monday). She predeceased him in May 2012, not quite a month after their 14th birthdays. My then ten year old daughter and I spent two hours on New Year’s Day 2016 laying Sooty to rest: I still don’t know which of us cried more.

Most model clubs are not competition-centric but, sadly, some are. My local club caters for a variety of ages and abilities and all are welcome to display the fruits of their labours on the Club stand at shows (we’re at Milton Keynes this Sunday coming). We’re lucky in that, for now, we have a venue where we can sit and glue bits of plastic together whilst having a chat about life, the universe and everything else over a cup of tea or coffee. We started as somewhere to go for those who couldn’t easily get to or from either of the other local-ish clubs and we’ve attracted members from as far away as Coventry in the past (we’re in Bedford) but Mr. Cameron’s “austerity” has seen the longer-distance members drift away, more’s the pity.

Has your attachment become detached?

I’ve an idea that the Airfix Harrier and Sea Harrier kits also include SNEB pods but I’m not 100% sure and can’t access my kits just now. John’s photos also show the ventral rocket packs which were rarely, if ever, installed on RAF F. Mk. 6s.

The Mk. 53 is based on the Mk. 6 but was fitted for underwing pylons outboard of the undercarriage bays which could each carry a 1,000lb bomb or a pair of SNEB rocket pods. There are photos of at least one Mk. 53 on the Walkaround page on this site and on Thunder and Lightnings, amongst others. I’ve no experience of using Model Alliance decals but others have commented on a lack of accuracy on some sheers, for example the 6 Squadron spotty Jaguar, and print density.

The service entry of the Meteor T. 7 pre-dated that of the Vampire T. 11 by some time, so many Vampire units acquired, or were issued, Meteor T. 7s for jet conversion of pilots who’d only flown piston engined aircraft previously, instrument flying (and other) checks and for a lucky few air experience flights.

Might be your browser or screen Roger: those panel lines look like some quite hefty weld seams on mine.

Looking very good so far. Did you have any trouble getting the tailplane to sit flush to the top of the fuselage? The mould part lines were quite prominent on mine and needed some filing down to get a neat joint.

Hi Jon, and welcome from a wet and soggy Kempston. Like you I’m staring 60 in the face and started in the sixties with Airfix; I’ve stuck with plastics ever since. Apart from a brief flirtation with US Navy subjects in the mid-seventies my main focus has bee RAF aircraft from the thirties onwards.

Available space often determined whether unit codes appeared ahead of or behind the roundels, usually distance from main plane trailing edge to roundel and distance from roundel to tailplane leading edge. Serial numbers were not upposed to be obscured by codes and i/d letters but there are plenty of documented exceptions to that rule. IIRC the roundel is supposed to be 1/5 of the mainplane root chord behind the mainplane trailing edge so for mid-wing types, particularly those with short-chord wings, this could seriously restrict the amount of room available fur the unit codes. 247 Squadron operated a number of night-fighter Hurricanes in overall Night wearing squadron codes and i/d letter in Red, separated by a hyphen, between roundel and wing. Several Coastal Command Beaufighter and Mosquito units used a similar convention, but with the letter groups above the wing centre section, e.g. 235 and 236 Squadrons in the period around D-Day.

I hope you enjoy building this kit; I have two in the paint shop with a third still in its box and, apart from self-inflicted snafus, they’ve been a pleasure to stick together. The Eduard masks will be a God-send to you, especially for the turret. One thing that I failed to appreciate is that, if you’re building your model with the canopy open, you need to glue the fixed section between cockpit and turret inside the sliding hood and then glue the latter to the fuselage, butting up against the two small horns at the front of the turret aperture.

The two “handles”are the thigh guards and they prevent the occupant’s legs from flailing as he hits the slipstream on leaving the cockpit. They were deployed automatically at about the time that the canopy was jettisoned and before the seat had started to travel up the guide rails. Your Aires seat doesn’t look too bad but they’ve obviously looked at an unequipped seat (or illustration thereof) and have failed to appreciate that the seat was installed in the aircraft fully equipped (“just add pilot/navigator!”). If you want to depict an in-service seat you’ll either have to lose those neat cast-in straps or drive yourself bonkers trying to work round them. The “handles” are thigh guards, intended to prevent the occupant’s legs flailing as he hit the slipstream. They deployed automatically at the start of the ejection sequence. Other Mk. 2 seats had fixed thigh guards, those in the Canberra and Meteor for example, but these restricted access within and, in some cases to, the cockpit. Something else Aires seem to have missed is the provision of footrests. Like the thigh guards these were provided with the aim of minimising lower-limb injury during ejection (what’s the use of getting him out of the aeroplane if he can’t then walk nonchalantly to the nearest farmhouse, with his parachute under his arm, to borrow their phone to ring his unit to ask them to send him a car to get him home for tea and medals?).

No, that was an F. Mk. 1 and it was reasonably accurate in outline for that mark, lacking cockpit, undercarriage wells, twing leading edge dog tooth, brake ‘chute housing and Sabrinas but having the small-bore tailpipe. It isn’t a re-pop of FROG’s later FGA. 9 either which, although less accurate than its forebear was still more Hunter-shaped than Mister Kit’s version. Thank you Harry for taking one for the team with this one.

Wish I still had my RAF Argosy; the box art depicting a couple of palletised Land Rovers being dragged out of the back of a crud’n’custard example by parachute low over the desert was an absolute classic that Roy Cross should be truly proud of.

Probably put about by B*e*n* so they can get us to fund re-opening of the C-17 line in a few years time when they have to stop building the KC-46 Frankentanker. (Just checked: cynicism still showing😉).

I usually file the slot slightly deeper to allow the wing to sit higher or lower as required, helping to maximise gluing area by using as much as possible of what’s left of the tab.

A quick ‘n’ dirty web trawl suggests that your subject is XV477 “C” and that it was lost at the end of 1972. That being the case it should still have been wearing the so-called “Type D” national markings, including a rectangular fin flash. Toning down of national and unit markings didn’t commence until 1973 so you should be safe with hi-vis national markings. Print Scale produce a decal sheet providing “Type D” national markings. The only photo that I’ve yet found of her shows her in 54 Squadron markings, including “Type D” national markings..

The ends of the tabs aren’t bearing against anything inside the bay and are therefore not supporting the wing-to-fuselage joint. I’m not 100% sure if installing the bombs will help to hide the tab ends completely.

I’m currently working on an early edition of this kit, having built one a few years ago, and it still holds up well. Interior detail is good in cockpit, wheel bays and weapons bays. Surface detail is very fine, albeit raised, for the most part with some recessed access panels. Fit also is generally good although the engine nacelle-to-wing joints need some work. The intrusion of the wing locating tabs into the weapons bay can be dealt with by trimming them flush to the inside of the fuselage halves before assembly and sheeting over the inboard face of the wing root with thin plasticard. The gun barrels definitely need replacing and the decals in my example are yellowed beyond belief. Most of the small transparencies are marred by sink marks but the main canopy, nose transparency, dorsal turret and tail turret transparencies are OK. This is still a kit worth building, notwithstanding the lack of a credible or affordable alternative. I don’t have an example of the Valom kit but apparently the fuselage is significantly over-sized in diameter.

That is a beautiful rendition of a very obscure subject. It’s also a snapshot of, IIRC, a very brief moment in US Navy aviation after the Second World War when “Navy” titles weren’t carried. Although the early Pirates were marked like your model later prototypes and the few production examples completed did wear them. I remember reading of the XF6U in an issue of Air International back in the mid-seventies and being impressed with the (apparent) simplicity of its design. The account of Vought’s troubles in building it was somewhat brief. There’s a stunningly badly-written account somewhere on the internet (youtube) which goes into a little more detail about some aspects, for instance the aeroplanes being built in Vought’s original factory, being dismantled, trucked to another factory (whose runway was too short to operate the jets from) to be reassembled, then dismantled again and trucked to an airfield for final reassembly and eventual test flying.

This topic has been done to death on this and other sites. What Bentwaters81tfw and Graham have said is true. Goods exceeding a certain value and imported from non-EC states normally attracts Customs duty (kits don’t). Royal Mail, as your self-appointed agent, apply a handling charge. VAT is calculated on the declared value of your item plus the cost of getting it to the UK border plus the duty (had it been charged). RM’s charges should be zero-rated for VAT. You’re not going to avoid the VAT if you want your kit: if you don’t pay the tax it will be sent back to the vendor.

Sorry to appear cynical but is this another rock-bottom-priced sale by the Misery of Disarmament (think of the 2010/11 Harrier giveaway) or will it really give the hard-pressed British taxpayer enough value for money to reinstate part of one of the cancelled A400Ms, helping to keep that taxpayer-funded programme running for a few minutes longer?