This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here:

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

93 Excellent

About RJP

  • Rank
    Established Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    WW II in the air, political and military history, photography.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,798 profile views
  1. Nothing stupid about it. The Harvard family is like Rabbit's friends and relations, far too numerous to get a handle on. Researching them all - AT, BT, T-6, SNJ and all the assorted cousins - can keep a man fully occupied just about forever. Besides, it allows the experts (and us wannabes) to get some exercise.
  2. Google G-AFKX for pictures. Originally L1606, it had fabric wings and was used for propeller trials from 1938. Silver doped fabric and polished metal bits.
  3. Another can of worms! I've just had a look through my collection of downloaded photographs and think you are on to something. Where do you believe the length difference occurs? The canopy discussions on the family always seem to focus on the extreme aft section, T-6 vs Harvard, but I suspect there is a lot more to it than that. It has always seemed that the SNJ shared the Harvard's aft section but some were single piece - were they the same shape? Then there are the windscreen differences. The earlier BT-9 (as an example) seems to have had a flat centre panel with a squared off top, replaced with a curved panel with a curved top by the time of the T-6. If the early variants were squared off, were they also shorter? And what about height of the various canopies? I have always thought the Wirraway had a shorter (height) canopy than others but if this was a holdover from the NA-16 or an Australian variation (or my own imagination) I can not say. It leaves me wondering why the designers needed to evolve the canopy anyway. Apart from the need to open the aft section for gun use . . . ?
  4. It's easy to see the allure of the Harvard canopy but if I had the yen for a Harvard II I'd probably start with a Heller or maybe Academy kit and use a Falcon canopy: Nearly everything else needs significant modification: The Yale had a Wright engine with a different cowling and forward fuselage. The wing was not only shorter in span but also different in plan view, more like a Harvard I with its straight trailing edge but without the rounded tips. Not that you could tell in 1/72 but it also had a different section. The main undercarriage needs wells extending forward of the wing. If it were me, there's be a nice Yale wireless trainer on my shelf to go with a whole whack of Harvards.
  5. The RCN simply took Sea Fury and Firefly deliveries in the production colours, that is, those in use by the Royal Navy at the time. The Royal Navy schemes didn't last more than a couple of years and the change to the grey scheme suited Canadian conditions. Don't confuse the Commonwealth connection with a subsidiary relationship. The same scheme was applied to US-sourced equipment such as Avengers and to Canadian-built Trackers and Sea Kings too.
  6. Many years ago (this was the 1960s) a school friend had a penpal (ha! remember them?) in the Soviet Union. He managed to get hold of some unbelievably crude Soviet airliner kits. This one looks a lot better so perhaps it wasn't quite that old. The plastic stand looks like a copy of the old Airfix style. Perhaps that's a hint to the date.
  7. I can't help directly with the paint pattern but this machine was still reported airworthy as of 2011. Here is a link to some more information: It started life as BuNo 92629, then to El Salvador, then back home to the States. Using any of its three identities might help in your search, and Google image search turns up some similar pictures, worth a try.
  8. Here is a link to the Oxford door arrangement. My notes say this is also P8833 and was serving with 24 Sqn:
  9. The inevitable Wikipedia reference says the machine spanned 88' 0" and had a length of 80' 9". The AW23 used a Tiger VI but Wiki quotes the Tiger VIII with a diameter of 50.8" and notes that "The engine was built in a number of different versions but performance and dimensions stayed relatively unchanged". Are those numbers proportional to the drawing? Probably best to print the drawing and use a ruler.
  10. Joe Baugher has more:
  11. There were some minor differences between Revell USA kits and those from Potters Bar. I seem to recall a sliding canopy on the F4U (?) not seen on the US kit and decal differences too. Perhaps the Wildcat saw more of the same?
  12. That film was made by Powell and Pressburger and is included as a bonus on the DVD of 49th Parallel held by the Toronto Public Library. It includes some useful footage of (IIRC) Albacores, Martlets and Kingfishers, some of it close in. I love DVD ripping software🙂
  13. Do you actually plan to (as distinct from actually wish to) build it? I find it's best to have a plausible plan to build and Mrs P. never minds.
  14. Here's another, child actor Jackie Coogan. He put his civilian pilot experience to use as a glider pilot in Burma with the 1st ACG. A tougher man than you might think if you only knew him as Uncle Fester.
  15. It's a rich vein. Wayne Morris was an up and coming Hollywood actor when he joined the US Navy and became an ace flying Hellcats. His acting career suffered for being off screen for some years but he worked until his death at age 45. Ed McMahon trained as a fighter pilot but served as an instructor in WW II. In Korea he was a forward air controller flying the Cessna O-1. Closer to home, Jackie Rae was a Spitfire pilot and earned a DFC in 1944 for anti-V-1 work. He later was a TV star in Canada and the UK and was a successful songwriter and bandleader (The Spitfire Band). His nephew was Premier of Ontario and interim federal Liberal Leader.