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. :)

  • 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".


  • 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

941 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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 which are very nice. I'm using David Week's drawings 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)
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. A very nice late Harrier, in one of the most attractive markings they wore. Bravo! Regards Tim
  10. 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
  11. Very nice. I like the subtle weathering andoverall finish. Regards Tim
  12. 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
  13. Hi, theRealMrEd, thanks for posting I have had the same problem but found a different recipe. Canon inkjet plus Canon OEM ink on plain paper settings, Experts Choice decal paper, and a brush coat of Humbrol Satin Cote to seal the ink when dry works for me. I think different inks react differently to different solvents - for example future just dissolved the ink when I tried it as a sealant. If I have to use an Epson, I'll try your mix. Regards Tim
  14. Hi, Sofus et al, Flyboy72nd is right. The same blade will always be over the tail pylon. Each hinge has a different geometry. On a point of detail, blades are normally refered to by colour codes on the pitch links, to help avoid confusion during adjustments. I have one photo showing the yellow (painted) blade on the yellow (tape marked) position on a HAR3, but am not sure if this was sop to reduce the opportunity for a visit by Murphy. Regards Tim
  15. Hi, Wez, I cant give you an absolute answer but when I was building my Montana ANG F-106, I looked very hard for any pics of one with the gun from that unit, and failed. Certainly there were F-106s as late as 1984 without the gun. I suggest that you look at for starters. Regards Tim