Vulcanicity

Thanks everyone!

I've been mostly away from BM for a few years now. Finding time and energy for modelling got a lot harder after leaving academia in 2018 for the "real world" - my previous job in particular was stressful and tiring and left little space for making tiny aeroplanes, let alone showing off my efforts online. Part of the issue is that my modelling time was getting so sporadic and disjointed, I was not actually keeping skills in practice or maintaining enthusiasm for each project - and the results were starting to suffer. Several of my builds from the last few years feel like I managed to salvage a tolerable result from near disaster, rather than produce something I was really pleased with. In short, I lost my mojo a fair bit. I'm very aware that many on here have had much worse life problems to deal with than me - but nonetheless it's where I've been. Anyhow, despite not posting I have been slowly plugging with builds, and (with a new job and a regular modelling evening in the weekly schedule) I have actually started producing things I'm quite pleased with again, so I thought I'd dip my toe in here again with my most recent effort. This is the newish Azur Fairey Battle, which was generally a very enjoyable build. I built the MPM kit as a teenager, and I have seen a built Airfix kit from less than 1/2 mile distance, so I feel qualified to say that this is easily the best Battle in 1/72. The fit is superb and it seems mostly accurate. The sliding section of the canopy does look a bit tall, and when modelled closed the canopy doesn't quite have the low sleek lines of the original to my eyes. I wonder if the pilot's canopy is slightly overscale to allow it to fit over the rest? I didn't try to fix this but did pose the whole lot open. I did however address the following minor (or less minor) omissions of the original kit: Reduced the overly heavy fabric details on the ailerons with multiple coats of primer and sanding back. The elevators and rudder are much better rendered, and only recieved a light sanding. Added the fuel filler cap for the fuselage auxiliary tank to the starboard canopy Constructed a roof for the main radiator "bath": this is competely open to the fuselage interior above and this is the weakest part of the kit - if anything it looks like the designers meant to include a part to fair it in but forgot about them halfway through! Scratchbuilt details on fuselage decking under the canopy: pilot's rollbar, v-shaped canopy support struts, upward navigation light. Scratchbuilt the interior of the bomb-aimer's compartment including oxygen bottles, instrument panel, cabling, bomb release switch, mounts for the bomb sight (I have so far not built the CS bomb sight and may not bother) Added the bottom of the auxiliary tank itself (visible upwards through the bomb-aimer's ventral hatch) Other additional interior details: missing compasses, retracted footsteps, pilot's and rear gunner's armour, trailing aerial winch, first aid kit, flare cartridges, etc. Nearly all available interior photos of the Battle seem to depict the prototype, and unsurprisingly Azur's detail follows these, but I amended interior equipment to reflect the operational aircraft better, from the scanty alternative references available. Built an early-type cranked pitot head using a part from the Airfix fabric-wing Hurricane (the kit only supplies a small pitot head which doesn't seem to match any type used on the Battle) Other exterior details: cut out the wing machine gun cartridge ejector port, added the bead of the ring-and-bead sight, and various small holes and vents The very sharp eyed may notice a semi-intentional error - the result of a certain piece of armament being lost to the carpet monster at the 11th hour! I will rectify at some point. I used the kit scheme for K9183 MQ-R of 226 Squadron attached to the AASF, although I only used the kit serials and made up the rest from better-quality Xtradecal stock. The kit depicts the aircraft depicts it during early 1940, but this website includes a photo taken by the Wehrmacht and purporting to be K9183 as shot down at Bettendorf (Luxembourg) by ground fire on 10 May, the opening day of the German campaign in the west : https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2023/03/fall-gelb-documenting-equipment-losses.html. I wanted to take the opportunity to represent the aircraft at its loss - a typical story, but among the very first of the tragic wastage and sacrifice that subsequently befell the RAF light bomber force on the Western front. The photo is poor quality and a tree obscures the serial, but the presentation of the "R" well back from the roundel certainly matches the 226 Squadron style and the blazing wreck is consistent with descriptions of the loss. The markings caused some head scratching. The Air Ministry order to apply fin flashes, remove rudder serials and add a yellow ring to the fuselage roundel came through about a week before K9183's final flight. The flash is clearly visible and I also represented the overpainted rudder serial, but the roundel is ambiguous as the quality is too bad to determine whether the photo shows an orthochrome-darkened yellow ring. Trawling through photos of wrecked Battles in France, I found plenty of aircraft where the fin markings were changed but the roundel was not, and it is easy to imagine that yellow paint was in short supply on AASF bases, having only previously been required for propeller blade tips. Therefore I have chosen to assume that the original type A roundel was retained. Anyway, here she is - hope you enjoy!

This is a very exciting project and I would be most keen for an RAF Comet 2 if you make one. To my mind the earlier machines are the most beautiful and the C2 is probably my favourite post-war RAF transport type. I have had the Mach 2 kit of the 4C for several years, and every so often I get it out and have a look, but the heavy surgery required to correct it, let alone buffing out all the moulding imperfections, puts me off! I wonder if, in parallel with the complete 4C, (if you get there) there would be a market for correction parts for the Mach 2 kit? It would need a complete engine/centre section replacement, because I seem to remember they slavishly copied the Airfix Nimrod and it has the much deeper RR Spey centre section. It also needs a new canopy/windscreen as it incorrectly has the earlier design (see below), new non-ficticious wheels, and a replacement fuselage strip on each side to deal with the wildly misaliged passenger windows. Anyway, the main reason I am posting is to point out something I noticed a while back, but have never seen mentioned in print anywhere. Considering all the research you've done so far this may still be old news, but I do wonder how many others have ever spotted it - there were two designs of windscreen/canopy area used on the Comet. They differ in the size of the of the central four windows: in the later design they were made taller, or at least they were shifted slightly upwards. The way to spot this when looking and photos is to mentally extend the top edge of the square side window across the front of the nose. In the earlier design, the top edges of all the windows form a continuous smooth straight line; in the later design the top edges arches upwards and the imaginary line extending across the nose from the side windows has a kink in it. I put together the below showing a Comet 1A nose (see https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1879483) and a Comet 4C nose (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nose_of_de_Havilland_Comet_4C_(G-BEEX)_(24806496097).jpg), and the difference should be obvious: The bottom line also appears to be different - the bottom edges of the windows in the earlier design seem to extend slightly lower. Also of note is the fact that the later design has very obvious strenghtening plates around all the windows which are absent earlier. Finally, it's hard to tell but I think the earlier design has a slightly curved cross section profile for the four central windows, but the later design has them more optically flat. Certainly it seems that the earlier design is less angular/faceted than the later on: see this view of G-ANAV (another Comet 1) and compare the centreline of the aircraft with the above https://media.abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0359/1538408-large.jpg As far as I can tell, the change in design comes between the Comet 4 and the 4A/4C. Duxford's Comet 4 has the earlier design. It therefore isn't associated within the skin strengthening between the Comet 1 and 2, or the redesign between the Comet 2 and 3/4. The Nimrod, although using a fuselage of Comet 4 length, uses the later 4B/4C windscreen design. Anyway, rambly post and I realise it adds yet more complexity to the kit designs but hopefully the information is helpful. The Comet is such a historically important aircraft that it is long overdue an accurate, detailed 1/72 kit, so all power to your arm for making one!

Superb build, that's some very impressive masking results, and a neat job with the radome too!

Great build Dragan, cool colour scheme and done extremely well 🤘

Absolutely glorious, there's no better scheme for a Buccaneer than this one (maybe EDSG over white) and you've captured it perfectly. Love the subtle drybrush weathering on the ladder steps and grubby bombs!

Cracking build, you wouldn't know it's a vintage kit from looking at such a handsome model

Hi Bob, You assume correctly! I think I have a grip on all the differences in the pre-retrofit B.2 and have the Air Graphics conversion set, but just in case I've missed something? 1. Smaller fin root intake 2. Slightly different probe arrangement on nose tip 3. No IFR probe, tanks or "carrots" 4. Fewer intake vanes 5. No cooler intakes under engines 6. No Blue Steel cooler intake on under fuselage by bomb bay doors 7. Smooth tailcone Thanks,

Thanks all! So: it looks like there isn't some large crutch protruding round the sides of the bomb, or any kind of carrier visible above the bomb that I would have to model when attaching the YS, because the winching mechanism described so well by @Selwyn and @Retired Bob just attaches directly onto the lug/release unit on the top of the bomb and draws it up to the roof of the bay. However: the more I look at the original loading image the more convinced I am that there is a large cylindrical fuel tank in the bay forward of the bomb being loaded. The fwd bulkead is the busy looking structure behind the ground crew's middle back, not the smooth surface up and right from his face. If nothing else there should be a large retraction jack mechanism for the door there if it were the bulkhead! I take the argument that the CoG can be balanced in an aircraft like the Victor by moving fuel between tanks, and the argument that the bomb has to be on the CoG - after some head scratching I guess that as long as you seek to move/burn fuel in such a way that that its mass causes equal turning moment abount the CoG, no massive trim change when you drop the bomb even if it isn't on the CoG. Thanks for the heads-up re. the K2 kit. I'll see if anyone can spare of these tanks, as I'd like to try and replicate this fit I think!

Hiya, A long shot but does anyone have any images of how the Yellow Sun bomb was attached on the Victor bomb bay roof? The bomb has a small central lug on the top and there is a well-known shot here showing a practice round about to be hoisted by the lug into the bomb bay from above. The Air-Graphics bomb reproduces this lug and it fits perfectly onto one of five crossways structural members on the Airfix bomb bay roof - I presume these represent weapons stations on the real aircraft. If this is correct then the attachment is simple and no crutches/carrier frame is visible above the bomb. However I have seen photos of an bomb carrier beam used on the YS bomb with the Vulcan ( a rectangle with a curved top, attached to the top of the bomb and presumably winched with it upwards into the Vulcan's bomb bay), and was therefore wondering if there is a similar, more substantial beam to support the real thing in the bomb bay of the Victor? I suppose what I am getting at is whether there is any kind of additional structure that would be visible from below when the bomb is carried, and which would therefore need representing in model form. Second question: the linked photo shows what I take to be an auxiliary fuel tank in the bomb bay forward of the bomb. I can't work out which station the bomb would be attached to but presumably if this tank was carried the bomb would not be central in the bay, but some way aft. Was this tank often carried? I can't help wondering if there would be an alarming trim change when the bomb was dropped - the tank and bomb can't both be central about the CoG point! Either the aircraft pitches down when the bomb is dropped, or up, depending where the CoG is!

Glorious-top job! I especially like your NIVO mix, I think you got closer to the real thing than I did 🙂

Thanks @JWM @Elias it's directly photographed by me from the maintenance manual (AP) for the Heyford III held in the National Archives at Kew. You're welcome to make use of it! Note that the wires that connect the top of the spats to the points where the small struts join the bottom of the fuselage are crossed over. I don't think I've ever seen anyone get this correct on a Heyford build, presumably because photos of this area are so hard to find!

Cracking Hunter, nice to see a GA11 with rocket pods- was this a common fit?

Lovely work, these two look just as smart as display team mounts should do!

A real weathering masterclass 10/10!