71chally

Great diagrams again John. Funny I was reading a Flight article recently when they visited a B.2 Sqn in the early period and they referred to the window countermeasures, the Victors clearly didn't have the over wing pods fitted and I wondered where it was dispensed. Your diagrams have cleared that up! Is the upper center section diagram shown that of the B.1? You can see a difference with the wing centre sections, the bottom one looking like it shows the B.2s inboard wing extension. So, basic question, if new wing centre section/intake parts were available, could we in fact make the Airfix B.2 into a B.1? Idealy you want a new fin base and wing tip parts, but they aren't too hard to correct using DIY methods. From the info so far it looks like it isn't an impossible job?

I must admit though until now I thought that the lead-in aerial was fitted to all Mk.2s, other than the prototype. Another difference is the B.2s Blackburn Artouste APU and associated intake mounted under stb'd inner wing, I'm not sure how often this was opened, always when on the ground, or just when it was running?

Ah, I thought we were talking 48th scale, hence my reference to using the Airfix F.1/F.3 boxing - will stick to plasticard and milliput! Great thread though, and really fired me up to a late F.3 sans tank!

Great work and updates. Is there a similar conversion set for the 48th Sea King?

You would have to use the F.1/F.3 kit as the basis anyway, unless you want to make up new wing leading edges and the fin. In a way it's a more straightforward job than suggested with the F.2A/F.6 kit, as a fair majority of the clean belly is already there, just need to remove the small tank and fill the remaining hole.

After seeing Johns last pic and having no idea that they did this so late in their career, I had a quick google around and found this shot of '716 flying without the tank, Phil Bradshaw - Flickr I can feel another Lightning build a coming!

John, you always come up with the goods! F.3 XP701 was a trials machine for a long time, but never expected to see that last shot when it was in sqn use!

I've never paid more than £25 for a Hasegawa Brit Phantom, they are about! Edit, You can get them from Hobbylink Japan for £25 brand new, http://hlj.com/product/HSG07441

Man, you've been busy! Superb quality, and enviable quantity, there!

Sad to hear this, but you are doing the right thing. You sometimes need to do the virtual equivalent of sitting back with a cup of tea and a piece of medium fruited cake. Carefully box everything up, and only return to the bench when your heart is good and ready for it.

Precisely, Whitcomb at NASA and Kuchemann at the RAE were aerodynamicists that worked on area ruling principles, whereby adding mass in the right areas reduces overall drag in the transonic regime. The Victor pods were primarily added for that reason, and also handily housed window dispensers. But, Interesting that earlier references (Flight etc) and APs refer to them as Window/Chaff housings, but in the tanker era they were more commonly known as Kuchemann carrots.

Older references quite often refer to them as Window of Chaff housings. I believe the actual discharge points were the slots that you can see under the bodies at the wing trailing edge line. They were a clever modification by reducing drag end increasing stowage at the same time. Great illustration again, can't get enough of these, thank you John!

Looking at the breakdown of the Airfix kit I think it's pretty safe to say a K.2 will come from them, whether that's in a dedicated kit or as an additional parts set, who knows yet. The shorter wing tips are easy enough modify, especially as they are separate parts, but at the moment the HDU pods and centreline pannier will have to come from the Matchbox kit. There might be some kicking about, where people have converted that kit to a bomber!

Thanks Wez, As if by magic, the Victor B Mk.2 pilots notes, http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PILOTS-NOTES-HANDLEY-PAGE-VICTOR-B-Mk-2-60s-STRIKE-COMMAND-V-BOMBER-200-pps/400569913686?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D38661%26meid%3D45da049b832f474aa7b2a4185d723e5e%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D3%26sd%3D132029234807

That looks promising! So, the 48th Bucc in spring 2017 with the 72nd version to follow in the summer, 2017 cold be a golden year for late '60s/'70 FAA fans!

'Mk' was still in use during that period. Many manuals/APs of the time used Mk, as in say a Hunter F.6 being referred to as an F Mk.6 I've seen Mk used well into the 1970s, on Phantom, Harrier and Jaguar APs. It is a brilliant kit, as you say!

I thought that 'EB was the only NM (at least with BA), and it was indeed a converted L. Because of that it had the extra baggage compartments, one standard passenger door situated behind the stb'd cockpit bulkhead instead of the larger cargo/SAR door, this allowed for 32 (instead of 28) passenger seats. Made it ideal for the fare paying passenger run, and along with 'NL, was my Grandfathers favourite airframe. G-BEON was a standard N, and I believe was used on the route while 'EB was in on maintenance. We never knew it as anything other than S-61 either, and certainly NOT a Sea King! I must admit I have to differ from FAAWAFU here (oh gawd!), to my ears at least the S-61 sounded quite different to Westland Sea Kings, one way you could tell them apart when they did PDs at st Mawgan was by the noise. The Scilly 61s were always well loaded and utilised, apart from deepest off season, but even then small freight (usually flowers) filled the spaces.

That turned out very nicely!

If Sir Richard Fairey made models....

I am, my grandfather worked for BEA, BAH and BIH, but at the other extreme in the UK, on the Scillies. The S-61N was a huge source of pride for him and fondness for the type inevitably rubbed off on me. In fact my first ever memory was looking at the huge red float out of the cabin window as we rattled between Penzance and St Mary's. Loved watching the first morning 'damp' starts! The service also suffered it's unfair share of tragedy when it lost G-BEON with the loss of 19 passengers and crew. Will remember that day like yesterday. However the S-61N rightfully has a great safety reputation in the UK, and there was uproar followed by sadness when the Penzance heliport was sold off to make way for another supermarket. I'm still amazed that the S-61 has never been issued as a complete mainstream kit. Just one little thing though, the S-61L still has the 'boat' hull, just lacks the float/sponsons I've never attempted this conversion so will watch with great interest, looks like a superb build and work so far.

Giorgio that is a single loop MDC. It was a continuous loop formed by a line with zig zags and a return line, around the top part of the canopy. Used on the metal Harriers GR.1/3 and Sea Harrier, and in the references I have, the AV-8A and S Matador. In answer to the first question in the first post, I would put my head on the block here and say that all the metal Harriers had the same MDC layout, at least at some point. BTW the Sea Harrier canopy is different to the GRs but it's not appreciably bigger. The twin MDC type on T.2/4 & 8 trainer canopy front perspex, looks like the single type, but narrower and positioned one next to the other, each side of the top of the canopy. In fact a great way to see the differences between the two MDC layouts is to look at a complete trainer canopy. The reason it's so hard to make out the different types, is that they are so thin and greyish in colour, in 72nd I personally don't even represent them. I'm not very familiar with the second generation Harriers, but just glancing at pictures shows that their MDCs are very different in layout, and look appreciably thicker. The walk around shows the GR.3 MDC (about a quarter way down), Sea Harrier here, Good link to a GR.3 build here, http://reddogmodels.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/124-airfix-harrier-gr3.html

I'm no 262 expert, but the tyres always struck me as looking a bit low pressure and flattish on the real examples, but might be adjusted for grass surfaces?

That looks very nice and crisp, like the windscreen part breakdown.

Interesting Wooksta, I was thinking of doing a Shackleton B.2, a bomber version of the GR.1 (with the front canon and rear turret). Almost for the same reasoning, far greater capacity bomb bay and room in the fuselage for equipment and crew.

I know that the GR.1/3 & SHar canopies are different, I'm saying the MDC arrangement look similar to me. This was the T.2 accident I referred to, https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=137406