Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

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

      Switched Identities   18/06/17

      If you are still having problems logging in and remaining under your own username following the DDoS attack last week, you need to log off, clear your browser's cache, and restart your browser to ensure you clear all the old files from your temporary area.  Then you should be sorted.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

139 Excellent

About TimB

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 29/02/60

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    UK - Somerset
  • Interests
    Rotary Wing, Real Space, Harriers, and aircraft photography!

Recent Profile Visitors

985 profile views
  1. And now... https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/06/u-s-air-force-taps-spacex-to-launch-next-x-37b-spaceplane-mission/ No announcement yet on booster recovery plans. Tim
  2. Well, if the X-37 weighs 5 tonnes (less payload adapotor and fairing), and can be launched on an Atlas 501 (payloat to LEO a bit over 8 tonnes), then a Falcon9/X-37 should be feasible as it has a revoverable payload of 9.6 tonnes. (All figures from Wikipedia) Nine out of 10 booster engines would be recovered plus the spacecraft.
  3. Really well done. The subtle weathering looks just right and gives it that authentic look. I agree about the Olimp resin - I have a Typhoon on the SOD due in part to the stuff! Regards Tim
  4. My memory is that the separate Apollo set has more detail, but that there is basic info on the SV set. I can check in a few days. I'm flying back to the UK tomorrow night so give me a little time to sort out jet lag and email backlogs. Regards Tim
  5. Hi, exemplar. I think your idea of a plywood approach could work. I use plywood jigs for some models, but prefer to work in polystyrene for accuracy and easy of gluing; ABS is a bit harder. I went off perspex after building the Gemini Titan. The David Weeks drawings are superb, and are the gold standard for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. There are a very few minor errors, mostly because of poorly documented differences between the launch vehicles for each mission, but the basics are correct. If Dragon had used them, then we would not be worrying about scratch building. Regards Tim
  6. I'd add the Haynes Saturn V book, which is also by David Woods. David's How Apollo Flew to the Moon is probably the best technical description of the spacecraft, but if you want less technical overviews then Murray and Cox's Apollo and Andrew Chaikin's A Man on the Moon are the best books. For websites, it is hard to know what to recommend, as there are many. Regards Tim
  7. Hi Elemplar My scratchbuild is currently on hold, but has a completion target of Telford 2019. I decided to complete a Saturn 1B in 1/72 first, and took it to SMW in 2016 for the NASA SIG. The Apollo stack and SIVB are essentially the same (except for the differences between the -100 and -200 SIVBs), so I just need to do the same again. I'm also doing another SIVB with the Apollo in transposition and docking. I may have that finished by this November, but my plan to retire in 2015 failed and I'm spending rather a lot of the time in the US on business rather than modelling! Here is a picture of the Saturn 1B - and the S-IC. Can't do more as I'm off to Seattle tomorrow morning. My approach has been to use ABS tubing from plastruct, and add suitably sized stringers from evergreen or similar. Priority 1 is external accuracy, priority 2 is enough internal detail to separate the stages as well. The S-1C is mostly there, and I've made the masters to vac-form the S-IC engine fairings, but need some more practice to form the final versions. For the S-IC, I have the batted F-1 engines from LVM, and I bought the J-1s for the S-II and the SIV from shapeways https://www.shapeways.com/product/M333Z44KF/j-2-engine-1-72-set-of-3?optionId=43127680&li=marketplace which are very nice. I'm using David Week's drawings http://www.realspacemodels.com/drawing-sets/ as the main source data, but there are lots of detail pics on-line for the more complex bits. Doing the Saturn 1B first was very useful, as I learned a lot about how (not) to fit the stages together. It's a good time to do real space models. Once NASA or SpaceX fly another manned craft I'll build that as well. For the future, my money is on China to be next on the Moon, and SpaceX on Mars! Regards Tim (trying to finish off a Real Space New Horizons, Pegasus Von Braun Moonlander, and the Airfix 24th Typhoon)
  8. The Dragon SV is impressive in size, but not accuracy. As the author of the nitpicking list linked to on Martin's site, I decided to go the scratchbuild route (albeit still only part finished). However, the Apollo bits (SLA, CSM, LES) which are also in the Apollo 10 are not bad and can build up to a nice representation. The LM is a mixed bag - OK ish Ascesnt Stage, too smalldescent stage; I replaced the latter with an old Airfix one off ebay. Bottom line, the Dragon model is a good centre-piece of an Apollo collection if you don't mind the errors. If you want accuracy and are content to invest a lot of time, you can probably scratch build for under £150. Other wise, go for the Revell 1/96 version which needs much less work to bring it up to scratch. Regards Tim
  9. Airfix Blenheim in about 1967. I took it round to show to my gram, playing 'planes with it, and the wind caught it and blew it under a parked car. Not much damage; a quick reduction in the now excessive weathering made it as good as it had been, and it must have lasted at least another couple of days... Tim
  10. Very nice - I was thinking about doing something very similar for an Apollo display. You wouldn't like to cast a few more noses, please?.... Regards Tim
  11. Very nice, and good to see it finished. The SAR Wessex were (usually) immaculate and you have captured that well - blade detail and all. Congratulations! Tim
  12. A very nice late Harrier, in one of the most attractive markings they wore. Bravo! Regards Tim
  13. Hi, Paul. The nose aerials on the HC1 were for UHF homing; the HF was a wire, mut changed to the much more robust "clothes rail" foir HC2. I've some pics of the outside of 955 in Black Peter scheme taken at RIAT. They are not great, but give a 360 view. Regards Tim
  14. Very nice. I like the subtle weathering andoverall finish. Regards Tim
  15. Paul, the ex-RSA Pumas were converted to HC1 standard (by Eurocopter and Westland), then to HC2 with the other aircraft from various batches. It will have all the HC2 mods, and should not be significantly different (if you were making it as an HC1, then it would need less weathering than the earlier HC1s). I don't think that Whirlybirds do a specific HC2 set? The HF aerial was one of several changes to the outside of the aircraft during the upgrade from HC1. Most of the other changes were internal, but note revised engine door and gearbox fairing details, as well as other aerioal changes. Can't help with internal photos of ZJ955 but pm me if you need some more detail on the HC2 interior. Regards Tim