71chally

I'm guessing the two lengths given is due to the short, and long radomes that are said to be included. Personally I don't care what box design it comes in, and I suspect most after a decent 48th Yak28 won't either.

Brilliant thank you John, more illustrations like that (particularly of the wing) would be a real treat! Some more dimensions for the B.1, Undercarriage track 30' 2" Tailplane span 32' 8" Fuselage length (nose probe to tail cone) 102' 5"

Absolutely superb work there! Hard to believe its based on an almost 35 year old kit.

With you all the way with the Alize'

Go on (and you Ian!) - you know you want to... I think someone has started a B.1 conversion, saw pics in rumormonger, unsure if he they have started a dedicated post on it. I won't get any bench time in until the other side of Christmas now.

Problem is the Fujimi Phantoms are still very nice kits, I won't be off loading mine! Noticed that there are loads of Matchbox Victors on there now though!

That inboard extension is really obvious when you look at head on pictures. The B.1 intakes start pretty much at the fuselage to wing join, the B.2 intakes are noticeable further outboard. In theory the inboard extension would have moved the main undercarriage units outboard by 18 inches as well, or was this compensated for in the redesign? Also that tip extension, is that what was essentially removed for the K.2 wing modification? 3'6" seems to be about the same amount. Re HDUs, believe the K.1 centreline unit was MK.17 and the K.2 a Mk.17A, don't what the differences were though. Think they both used the Mk.20B wing pods, BTW these pics of the B(K).1A at Duxford are nice and arty, but provide excellent detail shots, http://igor113.livejournal.com/647009.html

Are you sure on that first point, I can't find any references to show or mention that? During the K.2s' service life it did gain the RWR in the bullet nose and tail, but that slightly lengthened and sharpened the outline. The 6th seat is just right, it was rotatable and moveable on rails centrally mounted on the cabin floor, and also acted as an assisted rear crew escape seat with an inflatable cushion and a sprung backrest to force the occupant out and through the door.

Having done tiger stripe Pumas, I would agree with Andy. I wouldn't get too clinical with the application of the stripes, I try and find the best shots I can find and see what points or features of the airframe that the stripes pass through or come to a point at. ie they might come to a point at a fuel cap, or coincide with a panel line etc. I then mark with pencil and paint free hand. Having said that though I'm not an airbrusher, so you might be able to do the same by applying masking tape to the relevant areas and cutting after marking with pencil. And don't forget, the white is applied over the dark green on the real subject. Sea King HC.4 ZE425 WR 28 Feb 13 4 by James Thomas, on Flickr PS I have a couple more shots if you need them

Seems that there may be an appetite for detailing the differences between the Handley Page Victor B.1 and B.2. This would be helpful for conversions using the new Airfix, or the old Matchbox kit, both Mk.2s, the latter a K.2. Published dimensions are, B.1 Span 110' Length 114'11" Height 28' 1 1/2" B.2 Span 120' Length 114'11" Height 28' 1" Obvious visual differences to my eye, The main wing centre section and intakes are slimmer on the Sapphire powered B.1. The B.1 fin has a clean formm leading edge, the B.2 had a pronounced leading edge fairing with intake at the base of the fin. The B.1 wasn't fitted with the Kuchemann 'carrots' or underwing tanks. The B.2 had a small aerial mounted above the feel unit intake at the extreme nose, and pop up ram air turbine inlet scoops either side of the upper aft fuselage. Be interesting to know, are the outer wings essentially the same, bearing in mind differing leading edge flap and drooped leading edge arrangements? Is the fuselage identical? Is the extra 10 ft of span made up in the wing centre section? Be grateful for any info at all on this, and please feel free to add any of your knowledge here, thanks.

Unless you prefer 48th of course, go well with my Hasegawa Phantom FG.1s!

It is a beauty of a kit, the first state of the art kit I've seen from Airfix since their 1:48 Vixen and Lightning kits. Some great touches in this kit, such as the wing tips in molded in clear to make it easier to represent the tip lights, the alternative ECM and standard tailcones, and the seven parts to make up a main undercarriage leg (15 with the wheels). The designing of the intakes and splitters assembly alone must have been something else. Plastic quality is superb and the surface detail is just so and very nicely rendered. If Tamiya did a Victor I don't think it could be much better than this. Like Simon I'm a ware of some of the detail differences between the B.1 & 2, but not the general ones, ie were the wings and the fuselage the same etc. A subject for a dedicated thread? I fancy doing the first prototype HP80 at some stage. Getting back to Hattons, I have to say my kit was really nicely packed in a well fitting box and nice to see wrapped in parcel paper, makes a change from loose boxes rattling around in oversized plastic postage bags

Absolutely stunning micro work there Tony, I see that the brave sawing at plastic continues! Great to that you managed to retro-insert the instrument panel into the helm.

Wow! Great to see this thread. I love this kit (possibly my favourite older Airfix) and built one when I was young and lived in a two berth caravan! Seemed to remember that it was very crisply molded in dark blue plastic, with some lovely detail in the undercarriage parts and that it went together really nicely. I built the Marines photo reccon long nose, and I was very happy with the finished result. Your build looks far superior of course!

Apart from the (admittedly big!) hint, has Airfix officially announced a B-25 yet?

Mine arrived from Hattons this morning (just two days after ordering) with no changes or demands for extra charge etc. Very happy with their service. I must admit I don't quite understand their postage pricing policy, they charge the same postage for the Jet Provost and the Victor! I don't think you're going to lose out be just having the one kit now, I'm sure this will be issued under different boxing and feature in many sales in the future. I agree with an earlier comment about box sizing, Airfix boxes are way bigger than the contents, maybe looks better on shelves, or to contain major built up parts of the kit during construction?

looks good, the main undercarriage layout shows the reasoning being 300ft wide runways for the very Heavy Bomber stations!

Wow, that's pricey (puts the Airfix Victor price into perspective)! Wait for the Jadlam offers I think. I have no interest in the Macchi Veltro, but I do like the idea of depicting the camo markings on the decal sheet, is that a first on a mainstream kit?

They have released the AEW.2, the MR.3 is in the future.

Note there are at least two different designs labelled under the Type C, the one in the three view above, and the painting shown on the Cover of Tony Butlers Secret Projects - my favourite. They are both broadly similar, but the painting shows a different nose layout, inline engines (Griffons) rear facing gun barbettes in the engine nacelles (trialled on the Windsor), and main wing endplate fin & rudders, as opposed to the large single fin. To my eyes that variant almost looks like an Avro project, possibly because of the nose glazing and fins layout (Lincoln/Shack style). There was another similarly sized project from Vickers, but far more conventionally laid out. Two questions come to my mind, would it have been of geodetic construction as per standard Vickers large aircraft, or would they have employed monocoque construction that was available within the Vickers Supermarine group? The painting version does look monocoque, but I get that is an illustration. Also, how exactly was the undercarriage laid out? This was just pre bogie arrangements, even for the Americans. I believe one of the advantages of the wing layout was that the it could relatively straightforward be adapted for turbojet use.

Have to agree on the scale thing, 72nd would have invited me to buy it. Having said that I do get the cost argument as well. I'm guessing as this is an Anigrand production that it will be in resin?

Just a thought, but could the '?' have been the individual aircraft code? Though rare, other units have done this, believe in the absence of a letter being allocated. Probably seen this, some nice 264 sqn Defiant shots here, though of too low a quality for me to make out serials, http://264squadron.co.uk/gallery/1940-1942/

Hattons have got their stock in now, nice to see they're honouring their original offer price of £46 + £2 postage, even if you haven't pre-ordered.

Good point, I had forgoten about that station 9 & 10 only bit, so essentially the 16 Sqn Buccs would have been clean in combat (apart from slipper tanks)?

I think that service Buccaneers would only carry 4 x 1000lb bombs underwings on four hardpoints. Looking at pics, the common 'daily' load for 16 Sqn Buccs seems to be 2 CBLs and slipper tanks, or 1 CBL and an ECM pod. 16 squadron was WE177 (nuke capable), so assuming this would translate to 1 (with ECM pod) or 2 WE177 bombs externally in war use.