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

      Ongoing DDoS Attack causing Forum Slowness   26/04/17

      In case you have missed the announcement, the reason that the forum has been slow at times since the minor version update the other day is due to a Denial of Service attack, brute force attack on our email, and judging by the lag with our FTP response, that too.  If you're feeling like you're experiencing a glitch in the Matrix, you're not wrong.  This is the same MO as the attack in September 2016 that occurred when we transitioned to the new version 4 of the software.  We're currently working with US and UK cyber-crime departments, who specialise in this sort of thing, and we're hopeful that we'll be able to track them down this time by using the accumulated evidence already held.    We are pretty certain that it's a continuation of the same attack last year, only at a reduced intensity to deter people from using the site "because it's terribly slow", rather than taking it down completely, and we're also sure of the motivations of those responsible.  Spite.   Please bear with us in the interim, and wish us luck in dealing with these.... "people".

stever219

Members
  • Content count

    957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stever219

  1. Are the anti-spin strakes included in the kit please? That would also be a definite improvement over the Airfix kit.
  2. Didn't some of the 1 Overseas Ferry Unit Sabres have red hi-vis panels on wings and tail for the Atlantic crossing at least?
  3. Although it's a personal favourite this is one of the kits that Airfix need to re-tool NOW! It still has the same markings options as when first issuee 45-odd years ago. I can't remember the fit ever having been that bad previously: you might have been better cutting the (dis)-locating pins off and using the tailwheel, cockpit and nose cone to align the fuselage halves. The "box" does the job pretty well too: having near-terminal AMS I spent several evenings building up a double-deck box to replicate the bomb bay roof and wing centre-section, complete with appropriate curvature of the top surface, only to discover that, with the canopy on, it was all but invisible!
  4. From memory some of the Walkarounds on this site have just the sort of pictures you're looking for but many of the subjects are museum examples or even derelict so representation of "in service" detail isn't guaranteed. Personal experience tells me that the only panels or doors to be seen open during flying operations on the JP4, for example, are the nose, to allow access to the oxygen bottles and charging point and some of the radio gear, and the two small panels on the rear fuselage giving access to the first aid kit and forward end of the jet pipe. Engine doors were also opened briefly but closed again as soon as the check had been completed.
  5. Things have changed then: I was introduced to root beer at RAF Upper Heyford when I was in the CCF. It looked like Coke and tasted like Germoline (please don't ask how I know what Germoline tastes like).
  6. To describe Hershey as a chocolate-coloured congealed vomit is an insult to chocolate-coloured congealed vomit. I tried it once and that was twice too many. Sadly the Americans are now busily ruining anything with a Cadbury's label on it.
  7. I've just done a quick web trawl for R5868 at Hendon and she doesn't appear to have them, nor does the nose of DV372 formerly at IWM South Lambeth. '868 was overhauled between service with 83 Squadron and 467 Squadron RAAF, losing the fuselage side windows in the process but not receiving "your" brackets. The brackets are, however, clearly visible in many scenes in "The Dam Busters" which used four airframes from the "RT"-serialled batch of Lancasters built late in the war. I don't think they were there to hang a bomb sight on or to provide foot rests for the front gunner and the emitters for the "Z"-equipment (infra red IFF) were attached directly to the nose blister above the optically flat bomb-aimer's window. I'm off to see if PA474 or NX611 has them. '474 has them, '611 doesn't. Further research required. (Thinks: '611 was sold to the French for maritime reconnaissance work, so was she built with them and they were deemed surplus to requirements for MR work and removed? '474 had a service life with the RAF (82 Squadron as a PR/survey platform) but was then used as a flying test bed, so how did she keep hers? The plot thickens.) KB889 at Duxford has an "N"-shaped bracket port side only supporting her bomb sight.
  8. The B. 2s always had provision for Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) but this was deactivated when the strategic nuclear deterrent role passed to the Navy's Polaris boats. Up to that time the Vulcans appeared not to need any aerodynamic crutches to deal with fuel spillage during refuelling. I suspect that over a decade of inactivity coupled with the need to remove inhibitor in a hurry, some of which had achieved the consistency of reinforced concrete, made the system more leak-prone than it had been in its younger days (a bit like me, I think). Some of the Vulcans had a (very) colander-like piece of kit as a trial fit pre-Operation Corporate but the vortex generators proved to be the least-worst fix. I suspect that they came off after Corporate as the now much more impending departure from service coupled with the assurance that Argentina wouldn't be doing any more sabre rattling for a little while meant that the requirement for the Vulcans to receive fuel in flight had convinced a Top Neddy at the Misery of Disarmament that the removal was another cost-ineffective way to spend the taxpayer's hard-earned: why else devote the engineering effort to a fleet on its way to the knackers' yard?
  9. RAF Jaguars didn't carry Matra AAMs.
  10. NMF is an abbreviation for Natural Metal Finish, a term commonly used nowadays to describe an unpainted metal-skinned aeroplane. This often results in various panels appearing to be slightly different in colour. Sometimes this is due to different surface treatments or manufacturing processes being applied to the different panels. I'm not too sure about the "turtle back" mags, but the magneto installation on the engine changed during its production life, the Tamika kit apparently represents an aeroplane with an earlier engine installation than the one that you wish to model. The magnetos were mounted somewhere on the reduction gear housing on the front of the engine, the location and housing varying between engine sub-types.
  11. The seat and main cabin floor colours are correct: IIRC the seat cushions are intended to be used as additional crew flotation devices in the event of a ditching and therefore need to be eye-catching. The cabin floor is covered in a green waterproof material which is also used for a dam across the cabin just aft of the radar operator's station to prevent water brought aboard by rescuees from getting into places where it's not wanted. As others have said with your figures in the doorway you ain't going to see much inside. What you've got looks pretty good though.
  12. If you'd not told us about the fillet we wouldn't have noticed! Thanks for the warning about the wing fences; that's one that I'd definitely have missed. Your model looks very nice: what did you use for the black? I can never get a result that good.
  13. Having recently struggled with the Eduard 1/72nd 110G, mostly due to some very small and fragile parts, I can attest to the good fit of the main components; the wing to fuselage joint requires almost no filler at all and the tailplane to fuselage joint barely more. I had no need for filler on the engine nacelle to wing joints. At least in 1/48th masking that nightmare birdcage canopy should be a bit easier. I'm looking forward to seeing this model progressing.
  14. What at a lovely pair of Brits It's such a shame to leave 'CC unfinished when she's so close. Go on, do it! You know you want to.
  15. If your use of the term "atmospheric" involves even a small dollop of pure, unadulterated, unexpurgated nostalgia with wings bring it on!
  16. Same problem here. Like your choice of colour scheme as described, just show us the pictures!
  17. I think I spent at least half an hour and two attempts getting those serials the right way round on the first of my 1/48th Lightnings: even turning the model so that it was aligned with the kit's instruction drawings didn't seem to help much. At least we don't have to hack the wretched things about like we do with Hunters.
  18. That's looking very good but I hate to be the one to tell you that the starboard underwing serial is the wrong way round: the first character should always be at the outboard end.
  19. Those little "extra" drawings are easy to miss; I've recently done just that with Airfix's 1/48th Meteor. Thank you for your kind comment: I know more about RAF Harriers than those of other air arms; your best bet for really pukka Harrier gen is the Harrier SIG, some of whose members hang out around here. However you could try Googling "Harrier" and its BuAer number (the six-digit number applied to the fin and/or rear fuselage of your subject). I'm sure you know that equipment fits change over time and your subject could have had the dispenser at one point in its life but not another. See what you can find in terms of images and go with that. If you get conflicting images it's decision time!
  20. Phew! My pleasure. Whatever else it is it wasn't standard fit on RAF Harriers. Is your subject one of the options in the kit or one for which you have aftermarket decals?
  21. Don't cut the nose off if you're doing the NF. II: it's only the FB. XVIII that needs that surgery. The Aussie FB. VI is not natural metal but aluminium dope overall, including the metal bits (mostly engine cowling panels) so you could be OK there with a rattle can of "silver" from your favourite automotive paints retailer. Many of the early NF. IIs were finished in RDM2A Special Night, a very matt finish which tended not to stick too well even to properly prepared surfaces and collected grot on an industrial scale, so some scope there for some judicious distressing. National markings were in the normal paints and exhibited a slight sheen in contrast to the Special Night. Later aircraft adopted Smooth Night (Night, Type S) which had some sheen to it and contrasted less with the finish of the national markings.
  22. Sadly not; all of the TeaC-10s have been withdrawn from service and the TeaSR2 never got into service.l
  23. Your odd part looks like it's someone's idea of what a chaff or flare dispenser looks like. If it's going on at all I think it lives behind the air brake or on the upper rear fuselage (check your references). Different operators have/had different installations and it may not be required at all for your model. What do the instructions say on the matter? Your seat looks a little too upright: its guide rails are secured (very firmly!) to the rear cockpit bulkhead and as such are angled slightly aft of vertical. Hopefully it'll be an easy fix and you can crack on. Don't envy you getting those wings properly lined up; the perils of an older kit.
  24. And what's the betting that the geniuses at Boeing, having forgotten to provide tea-brewing facilities as a factory fitted option (or listing it as a too-hideously-expensive-option-for-the-Misery-of-Disarmament-to-consider) have also failed to provide an Elsan (or similar) to deal with the results of all of that tea consumption?
  25. Tony, in fairness to Airfix the illustration of their kit is a CAD rendering and may very well not be fully representative of the final product, but thanks in any case for the reminder that the H2S radomes needs to be set back from the nose transparency. Thanks also for the reminder about the IR emitters at the bomb aimer's position. Note also the different windscreen arrangements with at least one aircraft fitted with the small direct-vision window at the outer end, a feature catered for in the kit.