stever219

The F. 53 was based on the F. 6 so you're going to have to source one of the latter if you want to satisfy us rivet counters. The F. 6 will also give you the blanked off nose gun ports, longer cable ducts, Red Top AAMs and over wing tanks. The gun-toting ventral tank was interchangeable with a fuel-only version.

I don't think that those are any part of the normal undercarriage structure; they appear to be square section whereas the radius arms are circular cross section. I think they're some form of jury strut to hold the wing structure in alignment for storage and/or transport.

Would either pilot need to have their hands near the throttles by then? As I understand it PF would handle the throttles during the early part of the take off run but with PNF following up. At between 80 and 100 knots PF relinquishes the throttles and places his/her throttles hand on the yoke (I know it's different for [most] Airbus pilots) and at V1 PNF also relinquishes the throttles as the aircraft is committed to flight at that point. PNF is also going to be busy selecting gear and flaps up in turn and changing radio frequencies. There's no clue from the abridged(?) transcript from the CVR of the tone and inflection of the crew's words. In the shock of the moment did the crew use their native tongue, and was at least some of what they said lost in translation? One version that I have seen puts the question as "Why did he shut off?" No hint of tone or inflection. Likewise the "I didn't do it." Was this indignant? Defensive? Accusatory? Who pulled the nose up in the last few seconds of flight? I can't deny that it seems like a very instinctive thing to do, but would holding the nose down, allow the recovering No. 1 engine to accelerate just enough to sustain flight and allow speed to build enough to initiate a slow climb away 'til No. 2 engine could catch up? I wouldn't want to be either of those pilots faced with that situation and I certainly haven't a clue what they could see ahead of them in their last moments, but I suspect that I'd have pulled quite hard..... Is anyone else feeling echoes from the 1972 Trident crash at Staines? Steep authority gradient in cockpit, major controls moved but no-one knows for certain by whom or why and insufficient speed and altitude to allow a recovery to be flown.

Indeed it is: it's jettisonable, either as part of the rear crew ejection sequence (no command ejection system on these jets!) or independently as a crash/ditching exit.

Also the Spitfite VIII.

I was fortunate enough to spend a week at RAFC Cranwell in the summer of 1974 on our CCF annual camp, and even more fortunate to spend 3 wonderful half days on the JP Line "helping" on turn rounds The jets were a mix of Mk. 3s and 5s, the former having black cockpits and the latter something close to Medium Sea Grey; all were in the then-current Red/White/Light Aircraft Grey scheme with the two-blues Cranwell band on the rear fuselage. Ejection seats [Matk 4s in both marks of JP) were almost matt black with sandy brown parachute packs: seat straps were a glossy medium blue with parachute straps a golden brown colour. The prominent 'chute withdrawal line at the top of the port side frame was white.

If @Gary Medland can't get back to you for whatever reason there's a wealth of Victor knowledge on here to get you going. Have you chosen a subject yet? From memory only 34 Victor Mk. 2s were built and some of them, including XH668 and XL159, had very short lives, so images might be a bit thin on the ground. The Airfix Victor has the later standard wing with the fixed cambered outer wing leading edges and the later style fin leading edge root intake. Only the last five Victors, XM714 to '718, were built with the later wing. An early B. Mk. 2 will require the most work: moving from front to rear the AAR probe needs to be omitted, as do the oil coolers under the engines (their locating recesses need to be filled too) and the outer guide vane for each engine intake (with their locating slots filled). The bomb bay doors are the original straight variety and the Kucheman Carrots/Whitcomb bodies on the inboard wing trailing edges can also be left off. The major work for this version is to cut back the wing leading edges parallel to the existing line and aligned at the inboard end with the leading edge of the wing centre panels. The "nose flaps" (leading edge droops) will need to be scribed in. The ailerons are uprigged at the trailing edge and need to be adjusted to lie in line with the fixed sections of the outer wing trailing edge, as do their tabs. Finally the fin root leading edge intake needs changing (resin replacement from Air-Graphics Models or scratch built) Or you could save yourself a lot of work and build one of the kit subjects! Especially if you build XL231 in her Gulf War colours as I believe that Airfix used her as one of their references.

The pod itself was Light Aircraft Grey but there is a large (radar transparent?) panel along each lower side which I've seen described as a darkish metallic colour, but I can't remember seeing a decent colour image of one to confirm this.

@Lord Riot you're welcome. Like @canberra kid I've accumulated a lot of information (but nowhere near as much as he has) on one of Mr Petter's fine aeronautical creations. I've just remembered, having seen your images, that the Airfix kit has an entirely spurious access panel on the starboard side just aft of the sloping pressure bulkhead panel line: maybe you can deal with that while you attend to the scratches round you lovely new window. (On the B. Mk. 2 and its derivatives that panel's on the fuselage spine just abaft the nav's escape hatch.)

@Lord Riot looking very nice so far. You might want to do a quick check, if you've not already done so, as some TT.18s had a window on the starboard side opposite that on the port side IIRC.

Too hot here too..... Thanks for the warning; my rivet-counting obsession will now know not to play with the starter kit.

Those are ailerons old fruit. The Spitfire had Frise ailerons where the visible lower surface chord is greater than the upper surface. With the inset hinges on the Spitfire this gives an aerodynamic balance on the up-going aileron (if you get the opportunity at an airshow you'll see quite a gap between the aileron and wing as the aileron leading edge goes down). Looking at your bits (oo-er!) the darker grey set looks closer to accurate IMHO.

You're in the Untied States and buying a kit from Japan: VAT doesn't apply. VAT is a tax levied on goods and services in the UK and was introduced when we joined the EU, replacing Purchase Tax. Although we are no longer in the EU we have retained the tax for domestic use. However I suspect the the Trumpalumpa has imposed punitive import duties on goods imported to the Untied States from Japan so you may wind up selling some of your organs to pay the charges. Good luck, this message will self-destruct in fi.............

Funnily enough, yes.

There's a road in the town where I live called Bushmead Avenue; when booking deliveries for our van crew I'd often move the "m" two places to the left....

The Airfix 1/48th Hunter F. 5/J.34 is a bit of a half-hearted effort at a small-bore Hunter; the smaller-diameter jet pipe is included, as are conversion parts to produce a straight leading edge for the wing, and an early air brake. However the centre fuselage changes required for the small-bore Avon and Sapphire engines are rather glossed over (ignored). All is not lost, however, as Aerocraft Models (no connection here, just a satisfied customer) have produced resin inserts for the upper fuselage to cater for this.

Thank you: I stand erected!

II(AC) and 31 Squadrons were the RAFG recce units, the other Jaguar units being tasked with mud-moving and buckets of instant sunshine delivery IIRC.

One of Monarch's A320s got slightly broken at the gate during offloading. Passenger disembarkation had started so the self-loading cargo at the front were already moving while those at the back were still trying to find their duty-frees and kids. Baggage offloading had also started from the front hold before the rear. The captain was standing in the cockpit doorway and noticed that the PFD had changed from "ground" to "flight" status, which normally occurs when the load on the nose wheels drops below half a ton. He was very quick off the mark, stopping the passenger offload and getting the ramp agent to stop the baggage offload at the front. Some damage had been done to the L1 door and frame as the nose leg extended and the door contacted part of the airbridge, but the aeroplane was repaired and returned to service.

The comment in the article about the Cactus 1549 crew not using the "ditching switch" ignores two things: (a) lack of time to go through the checklists which I suspect would include this item, and (b) despite some very skilful flying the impact was sufficient to rupture the pressure hull, allowing the rear baggage compartment to flood immediately (the damage was severe enough that the rear galley floor was also disrupted sufficiently to allow water ingress to the cabin). Something that the article also misses is that certification requirements also demand that all souls on board must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds with half of the exits unavailable.

I've been thumbing through Craig Bulman's tome trying to find something that I think I've seen. I've an idea that some Vulcans from the XL- batches onward (?) were delivered with fittings for TFR and a scabbed-on plate on the nose which was later replaced by the TFR radome: do you think I can find the reference? Can I eckerslike!

The F-35B development costs were always going to be far higher than for either the 'A or 'C so our self-styled so-called greatest ally mug-jobbed, sorry, persuaded us into buying early examples of it to get their money back faster. Cynical? Me?? Believe it!

@BarryBAFAiCR the radome was interchangeable between airframes so could, for example, be swapped at squadron level if any work had been done on the antenna or the radome itself. If you've not done so already try to get hold of, or access to, a copy of "The Avro Vulcan B. Mk. 2 from a different perspective" which goes into great detail on the service lives of these aeroplanes and many of the visible differences between them.

@MACALAIN please can you do something about your lighting? You're not doing the fruits of your labours any justice, especially as it's such an unusual subject from a part of the Second World War that I [also] know nothing about. Did you do a WIP please? If not please could you provide a little info on the build? This is one kit that I lusted after in my yoof but never managed to acquire an example of.

Gates Learjet; wing design "borrowed" from cancelled Sw8ss fighter project?