AnonymousAA72

It was this one of my FGA9..now a lot of this could be due to the positioning of the windscreen..or the proximity of the camera and distortion, but it looks too blunt to me.... On my KUTA FGA9, I started to reprofile the nose. I've more or less removed a chunk of plastic from in front of where the windscreen will eventually go... not sure how much difference it'll make?

And another thing....looking at photo's of my Academy Hunter's, I think that the nose cone looks a bit too blunt, a bit too rounded maybe. I've tried to gently re-profile that shape on my FGA9...don't worry I shan't add any more pic's!! But do check that out and see what you think Jonners... You are obviously aware of all of the other collection of "Improvement Opportunities" with the kit?

Nice one Jonners....the Academy wing tip is also the wrong shape. Its too rounded in profile. I'd recommend Mark's (StephenMG's) drawings in the SAM publication....they will show you a whole host of 'improvement opportunities" to the kit's overall shape..... EDIT: Here's my "Shelf of Doom/KUTA candidate" FGA9 wing....with wing tip modification

Thanks Dennis...I know I've seen some photo's of F1's with them..somewhere!

Nice one! I've just read your for inspection thread, and never knew that the pod's seemingly couldn't be carried, by a twin-sticker, but the camera can't lie! So even if it was a press photo, you can justifiably prove that this aircraft did even if only briefly. I wonder why the squadron didn't have a single sticker available? Maybe they'd all been transferred out as the Jaguar had been delivered?

Well, I never knew that a twin-sticker couldn't carry the EMI pod, till I read this thread, so I'd have made the same mistake. Incidentally I have lists like that on my models, but by the time I've compiled the list I'm halfway on building my next one....in fact thinking about it I have quite a few models with lists like that! If it's not too insensitive to ask...have you added the rear throttle controls, if not there's something else to add......;-)

Why's the EMI pod wrong? Is it because '898's a twin-sticker?

She was a big girl by all accounts, was Sabrina........I think the gun pack, I.e. The detachable part was separate from the section containing the rear of the Sabrina's and therefore the shell ejector chutes. So it wouldn't have been that straightforward a job to swap them over. I'm sure someone will be along soon to correct me on that if I'm wrong! And Sabrina's do seem to have been retro-fitted to some F1's in second line units, I doubt that many F2's would have survived long enough to have them fitted but never say never.....

Thanks Wez And SPerx for your swift responses. I!ll check out Dennis' post...incidentally just dug out Warpaint 36 by Steve Hazell and read up on the SR2. Fascinating stuff including..."one aircraft could photograph the whole of the UK in a two-hour sortie whilst for maritime reconnaissance a Victor SR2 could reportedly photograph the whole if the Mediterranean on 10,000' of film during a seven hour sortie from Wyton" ..mind boggling!!

Am I right in thinking that the Victor SR2 had the same and original wide span wings that the B2 had? Just thinking ahead, thats all........

Thanks Selwyn, I knew I'd seen pic's of the F1and F2 with Sabrina's, however given the length of time they actually served, and the haste in which they were replaced by the F4 and F5 respectively, it's doubtful many would have seen that much in the way of frontline service.Incidentally a few F4's and F5's certainly entered RAF service without them, plenty of photographic evidence on that front -including pic's of 34 Sqns F5 WP130/"S" in full "Suez stripes" at RAF Akrotiri.....

Hi Jonners, Col. Is correct re the re-alignment to enable the "Sabrina's" to be fitted. Photo's of the F1, F2, F4 & F5 in various books I have to hand..WoF Vol 20, SAM Publications (including Stephen MG's superb line drawings) and Francis K.Mason's Hawker Hunter, show them as in your F1 description above... Edit: just to add the Sabrina's were initially introduced on the F4, and The F5, I'm sure I've seen pic's of an F1 or F2 similarly fitted, but these may have been trial aircraft. There is a note in the WoF book regarding the fitting of the Sabrina's. " one modification added to many F4's during the type's brief existence was a pair of massive ammunition link collectors......empty shell cases continued to be simply ejected overboard, but they were heavier and fell away more cleanly" Just wondering if the heavier shells had a bearing on this as well.....

I actually saw the RRP and was a bit shocked.....initially anyway. Then I remembered how much I paid for the old Revell/Matchbox kit, the Flightpath set and the aftermarket decals....

Back on track.......Revell have issued some superb kits in the past, their Tornado's were superb, and I'm looking forward immensely to their GR4 - when it arrives. As I tend to build only UK subjects, I've found it interesting that they've issued a wide variety of other manufacturers kits..Airfix's/Heller's Jaguar rubbing shoulder with Hasegawa's FGR2 for example, now whereas this is a welcome, certainly to one's modelling budget, it would be good, and healthy, to see Revel start in ernest, to produce some new modern kits. Subject matter? Well, one would assume majoring on European types, and maybe those from the Eastern Bloc. There's plenty of space on the model shop shelves for affordable quality kits of this ilk. And of course Revel don't just issue airplanes!!

Yes, of course thanks Dennis....

Sorry Wez, I've said my last piece on the subject. So hopefully this thread can now indeed get back on track...

No, it's not people! It's just you! You are the only one saying that Frank Brown is an idiot and that Revell stopped issuing RAF 1/32nd scale kits because of some supposed legal action from Frank against Revell.

it's a shame that there isn't a "Dislike This" box for nonsense such as this!!

Edgar Brookes was also involved in the production of this kit, certainly in the R&D stage, so maybe able to add some thoughts, or clarification.I also spoke to Frank, some years ago and this is my understanding of the situation too. Now bearing in mind this was a decade or so ago..and that my memory MAY be a bit faded but I seem to recall that the spurious ribbing detail was in fact a hatched area that required removing on the vacform sheet, in the cockpit behind the ejector seat. This was included in the Revell FGA9 kit but was changed I believe on the F6 partial re-tool. Regardless of who did what. who was right and who was wrong, Frank Brown WAS convinced that his kit, or parts of it, had been plagiarised. He did approach Revell, with offers of assistance, they ignored this. Bearing in mind the accuracy of his kits, the R&D, legwork etc., in measuring these aircraft by both Frank and Edgar, I find it wholly reasonable for Frank to expect some kind of acknowledgement from Revell. Did this saga in anyway have an effect on Revell's ability or ambition in issuing further RAF kits? That has to as stupid an idea as any I've EVER heard...absolute drivel!

It is a 1/48th scale Buccaneer...... I know this because today I started building an Airfix S2....,

I think a good printer will help, certainly any coloured printing would be better on white sheet. Of course then it needs to be trimmed carefully... Talking of Airfix's Jag...here's one I made 5 or so years ago... http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/53656-jaguar-gr1-148th-airfixparagon-etc/page-2

Thanks. I've used decal paper a few years ago (in fact about a dozen years ago actually!), on a 1/24th scale Airfix Harrier, just for the serials and they came out okay. Good news for you, aiming for II(AC) Sqn markings ( I so love the "official" squadron designation ) is that you can use white decal sheet and carefully cut around the bars and the triangle. Look forward to seeing process on your build!

Luckily enough..I do happen to have a set or two tucked away.....basically the Meteors wheels were 'handed' if that's the correct term. One side had "holes" the other side had discs. The holes faced towards the left/ port side, whereas the discs faced right.

Can you post some photo's of your build? May be easier to work it out from those...

Yes, missed the bit about the white under fuselage...