XV107

Yes, ZJ815 has always been a T3 in terms of the Block capability it has - it left the factory as a Block 5 aircraft, despite having begun life on the construction line with the intent that it'd be built to Block 2A (IIRC, might have been 2) standard. However, my point was that when it came out of the factory (not on delivery, brain fade), the T3 designation hadn't been introduced - so rather than being a 'Typhoon T-we're-waiting-from-the-air-staff-to-tell-us-the-number-it-might-be-1A-but-could-be-3', it was technically speaking a Typhoon T1A for a few days until it reached the RAF, who introduced the new designation in time for it to be a T3 when it reached 17 Sqn. The RAF thought that a new designation was appropriate to distinguish between the Block 5 airframes and those which weren't - otherwise you could have a FLIR equipped aircraft with 'austere' AG capability having the same designation as an aircraft that was AD only and without the FLIR. This would've been terribly confusing in terms of working out at a glance which unit had what capabilities on its airframes. Put another way, when ZJ815 left the factory, it was a T1A, but by the time it reached 17 Sqn, it was a T3, with the only modification to take it to this new designation being the metaphorical stroke of a Group Captain's pen approving the T3 designator. And if that makes the slightest sense, you're doing well.

Paul, confusion reigns. Most of the professional aviation press has it was an FGR4 (ZJ943) involved in the incident in question; given the Sun's [sarcasm] superbly high quality defence reporting [/sarcasm], I'd tend to go with it being a single-seater. It could, of course, have been a two-holer with just one person aboard, though. Not sure about ZJ810. It is quite possible that it is sitting in a hanger at Coningsby as a useful Christmas tree, and will remain that way until sent back to Warton to be upgraded to Block 5 or Block 8 standard. 'AY' is a T3 - ZJ815, I think - and was built as a Block 5. Since the redesignation of the aircraft to T3/FGR4 came after that airframe was delivered, it was - technically speaking - a T1A on delivery, but it hasn't actually been upgraded from T1A to T3 standard, just redesignated. I think.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a bit of a trend for irritating inaccuracies in the Kev Darling books. His tome on the Bucc was reviewed in the RAF Historical Society Journal by Graham Pitchfork (who is, I think it fair to say, something of an expert on that mighty aircraft) and he gave a brief highlight of the four sides of A4 worth of errors he'd spotted - all of which were avoidable with some simple cross checking. I have the Seafire book and agree with Graham - yes, the Seafire was derived from the Spitfire, but I'm sure that a much more creative and interesting means of tracing this could've been adopted than simply giving us a potted history of Spitfire development in Chapter 2. A couple of stray photos of Barracudas pop up with captions that have little if any relevance to Seafires, making them them more appropriate to a book on the FAA in WW2. The number of Firefly photos is silly, and as well as using a Hellcat as representative of Grumman aircraft, I've not yet spotted a photo of a Corsair in there - if you're doing a comparison of FAA fighters in the war, you'd think that one of those might be more appropriate than another Firefly, or the second photo of the Barracuda, or... The best caption mistake comes on p.144, when the book is dealing with the Korean War (in a rather perfunctory manner, I'm afraid) when a caption relating to the Supermarine Type 224 appears under a photo of a Firefly Mk IV/V. The exact same photo appears a few pages previously, which makes me wonder what on earth was meant to go in the book on p.144 - surely not a photo of the Type 224 in a chapter on post-1945 ops?? There are other silly errors that really should've been spotted during the proofing process. The captioning of photos by persons other than the author does indeed occur - it's happened to me on a couple of occasions - you open your free copy (only one these days from some publishers), find a photo you don't remember seeing when captioning the others, and read the caption.... which is complete drivel. My favourite was when a side-view of a Wellington was slipped into a book at the last moment. Readers now think that I believe that the Wellington XVI had a displacement of 70,000 tonnes and used a Leelight [sic]... A colleague opened a copy of his own book to find a photo of the landings at San Carlos, with a caption dutifully informing the reader that we sent Three Commando Brigades and Five Infantry Brigades to the Falklands in 1982 - no wonder the Argentines lost!

Two different Predators - the upward-facing surfaces are on the Pred B , while those facing down are on the RQ-1 Predator A. I've seen a number of RAF videos of the take off, but these aren't, as far as I know, in the public domain. Fortunately, our chums the Italians have let this onto a certain video site, which gives an idea of the angle of attack (or lack thereof) on rotation: And no aerodynamic braking on landing, either...

Which is the better Airfix kit? The Italeri... (which is much sought after and can be quite expensive when you find one). Assuming you're stuck with the Airfix - and chances are you will be - it depends what you want to do. If you want to do an early F2/F3 then the ADV kit will suffice. If you want to do something more up-to-date, then the the latest boxing of the F3 (the F3/EF3) is a better bet, since it includes things such as ASRAAM (but no AMRAAM) and the BOL launcher rails (the Italeri kit, BTW, contains neither), and it also has a couple of ALARMs for the aircraft kitted out by 11 Sqn for the SEAD role just prior to Op TELIC. The upper fuselage was also retooled, IIRC, but Airfix cunningly did this part so that the panel lines were recessed on the new bit and raised on the rest of the kit. Hopefully, Hornby will retool the thing and give us an F3 that's of similar quality to the Canberras (or, if we're really, really lucky, the Lightnings), since F3s, despite their bad press, have been pretty significant aircraft in the RAF's history.

SM - there are a couple of other threads on this, but to summarise them: 1. The 'dumb' option consists of 2 x 540lb bombs, which appear almost impossible to source in 1/48, although 1,000lb weapons have been used from time to time, plus CRV-7 rockets. The usual mix of rocket pods seems to be 1 x 7-shot pod and 1 x 19-shot pod, although carrying two of the smaller pods isn't uncommon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chowmi/2394316864/sizes/l/ - note the employment of the DJRP (recce pod) on the centreline and the pair of gun-less gunpods. 2. 'Smart' option no.1 involves carrying 2 x 1,000lb Paveway II (the UK version, of course). If carrying Enhanced PW II, then the bombs go on the innermost pylons (EPW II wasn't, last I checked, cleared for use on the middle pylons) with tanks on the mid-wing ones; if carrying standard PWII, then the bombs can go on either the inner or middle pylons. 3. 'Smart' option no.2 involves AGM-65, on the mid pylons. This fit is not seen very often, but it is used from time to time. 4. Semi-smart option - this involves carrying a PWII on one side and a 1,000lb iron bomb on the other - http://www.flickr.com/photos/chowmi/2394316878/ AIM-9M are rarely carried. The AIM-9 pylons often carry the BOL rails, but sometimes you see the aircraft with them on the outer pylons instead; on occasions, both the dedicated AIM-9 pylons and the outer pylons have the BOL rails fitted.

56® may be able to get their badge onto an airframe or two - there's at least one E-3 which has (or at least had in October) a neat little rendition of the 54® Sqn badge under the cockpit on the right hand side. ISTR that there was a short piece in Air Forces Monthly about some er... slight technical problems with the undercarriage on the Typhoon, but that the old 'could not replicate fault on ground' problem arose meaning that it was hard to trace the precise cause of the fault (allegedly). It appears that someone may, at last, have managed to replicate fault , while on ground, just when they didn't want to...

The reason that 6 will go to Leuchars is very simple - the plan has always been for the third front-line Typhoon unit to form there, along with another two squadrons (there may, in the end, be four squadrons there). It is not unknown for squadrons to form at one location before moving on to their intended permanent location - and forming at the location of the OCU, from which a slightly higher-than normal percentage of the squadron's pilots will be arriving (because they will include people converting to type and probably slightly fewer coming in from one of the other squadrons) makes sense. The main question is one of how many front line Typhoon units there will be, and whether there'll be a need for a numberplate for a second OCU which will take on the role of training the Saudis. Also, there are strong signs that most, if not all, of the squadrons will be multi-role, so we can't really say that the number of AD squadrons is reduced just to two. While 111 is slated to disband next (which is why 43 has taken on the training task - you don't give that job to the next unit in line to go), it doesn't mean that it will disappear permanently. There is some confusion over which of 43 and 111 is most senior, because there are some suggestions that 43 appears lower on the list of seniority than it should do; however, unless the Air Staff abandon their policy on squadron numbering, and barring the assignation of the numerplates to squadrons forming on new types, the two Typhoon squadrons after 6 eventually form should (note not 'will') be 25 and 111, unless it has already been decided that the RAF will only have five front line Typhoon squadrons, in which case it might be that 111 goes into limbo, and 43 re-equips straight onto Typhoon. I would imagine that the paperwork trail over squadron numbering for the fourth front-line Typhoon unit is only just starting to develop, and unless a new approach has been adopted to doing this, the identity of the fifth squadron will not have come onto the radar yet.

ISTR that the last DH Sea Hornet ended up in the oggin in the same manner...

John - I think so, but my mind is doing it's 'now I know that you know this information, but I'm not going to let you remember the details now you need to' trick at the moment... As for the name - first RAF aircraft I sat in the cockpit of. I'm a civvy but spend rather a lot of time involved with the RAF to the point where they're foolish/generous enough to allow me some 'hands on' time with some of their aeroplanes.

Dave is referring to http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...ic=4900&hl= where I demonstrate an ability to bore for England on the subject. With 56 being assigned to the OEU (I know the OC, and I suspect that he might be described as 'surprised but pleased' since he is a man who knows his RAF history and was expecting a different numberplate), I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that a 'save the Saints/Tigers/Cobras campaign really is running in the Air Staff...

It was for a directional-finding antenna, the exact details of which escape me at the moment.

The feature on the Bucc in Wings of Fame Vol.14 says the aircraft received an all-over Med Sea Grey scheme. Kev Darling's book rather unhelpfully gives two answers, referring to a 'light grey' scheme, and to MSG. The latter reference is in the colour photo section. Tim Laming/MacLelland (late of this parish, IIRC...) says that it was an overall light/medium grey scheme... If he's not on leave when I get back, I'll ask my friendly ex-Bucc nav colleague if he can remember. Which I'm 99% sure he won't, bless him (he was more interested in dropping things on people than the colour of his aircraft), but worth a try.

Not sure how easy it'd be to get, but: Canberra - In Southern African Service - by M Hamence & W Brent , IBSN 0 958 38804 0 Might be interesting, apparently has about two dozen colour photos in it. If the captioning is correct, then this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0927...o_comments=hide could well be one of the SAAF B(I)12s delivered to Peru after they were retired from use in SA.

Mike, Might be of interest if the FD2 has taken your fancy. The aircraft in Gary's sig block was converted into a BAC 221 for Concorde development, but a 'proper' FD2 still exists at RAF Cosford: http://www.rafmuseum.org/cosford/collectio.../fairey-fd2.cfm There is, as Gary says, a 1/72nd kit. Frog did the first one; the molds went to Novo and Maquette issued the same plastic (albeit with much more flash, AIUI) relatively recently. As for the Hawk http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=AEC48005 - although note the caveat that it was designed for the Premier kit.

Been years since I built my Fujimi FGR2 'Firebird', but IIRC, the box artwork is an accurate reflection of what ordnance is in the kit - no AIM-9s? Even more bizarre on the artwork is the strike camera, though!

Mike - the original report suggested that the aircraft had exploded and crashed while it was in the process of regaining terra firma, so my caveat was correct when I posted - and wrong by the time you posted, since the story had been updated/corrected by then.

Original BBC report barely accurate, it would seem... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...y-in-qatar.html

BBC 'breaking news' report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7331740.stm Caveats about the possibility of this report being inaccurate at this early stage apply - but let's hope that the crew have all just become eligible for whatever the B-1 equivalent of a Martin Baker tie is.

Oh, I like that. As for the name, I suspect that 'Raven' would actually be in the running. The RAF's plan for the F-111 onwards was for birds of prey (as Roland says), and the F-111 would've been the Merlin GR1 had it entered service with the RAF. The documentation makes it clear that the plan was for all strike aircraft (and probably fast jets generally) to be named after birds of prey. However, the RAF did toy with town names even for the F-111K - Richmond was an alternative to 'Merlin' for the F-111, narrowly beating off 'Harrogate'. However, it is equally clear that a principle that anything from overseas that came with a name already would adopt that name. As the Su-25 doesn't have anything other than the NATO reporting name, the nickname would be considered. Ravens are more at home in wild areas (AFG might just fit the bill for that) in comparison to other corvoids. In mythological terms, Ravens wander at large and upon meeting other animals destroy or eat them. In Celtic mythology, the most aggressive goddesses - the Morrigan - Badb, Macha and Nemain are associated with the Raven. (see http://www.angelfairygoddess.com/godsgoddessesofdanu.html - surprising how much of this rubbish I remember, but the young lady in my university days who went on about this stuff was sooooo nice....)Badb was an evil goddess who delighted in slaughter, and was associated with the Raven (IIRC, she could take on the form of a Raven - any Celtic scholars out there??). Rooks, on the other hand, forecast weather and escort the virtuous dead to heaven. On balance, then, I think that while Rook would be considered as the direct read-across from the Russian nickname, the AHB would probably recommend Raven because it's more associated with getting its hands (beak?) dirty in all sorts of bloodshed, violence and mayhem, which is what you want from a CAS aircraft.

They were on strength between 1968 and 1975 for target facilities duties. There was no NEAF target facilities unit, which is why the squadron had a few handy - its own TF flight, in fact. 56 didn't just use the B2, since I know of at least one T4 that was on strength. Target facilities doesn't necessarily mean target towing, of course - various stations used Lightnings in the TF role during the late 60s/early 70s, and they most certainly didn't carry Rushton winches... 56 didn't convert to the 'toom until 1976. It was withdrawn from Cyprus in 1975 (less airspace to play in after the spot of bother the previous year) and disposed of its Lightnings on 28 Jun 76. 56(Designate) Squadron had formed earlier in the year at Coningsby and had worked up on Phantoms; when 56 disbanded on Lightnings (at Wattisham) at 2359hrs on 28 Jun, 56 (Designate) lost the 'designate' part of its title at 0001hrs 29 Jun 76. It moved to Wattisham a short time later.

As ever with the Typhoon gun, the answer is not a simple one... Squadrons that are multi-role will be able to use the weapon. Last I heard (October 07) was that the idea is that the gun will be employed for training purposes when the squadrons are working up for deployment. Since the gun's use can be simulated quite effectively without the need to fire it and sustain the usual array of fatigue issues/damage/etc, the chances of it being used extensively on the ranges outside pre-deployment work-up are slim - probably only to provide suitable noise to accompany firepower demos as war-torn Imber village is ravaged by conflict for the benefit of the assembled audience and the RAF proffers air support to the gallant demonstration unit dislodging the ruthless, un-named enemy occupying that gallant little village. If live-fire is needed in FAC training, etc, then there's no reason to suppose that it won't be fired on those occasions also. 3 Sqn, as an AD only unit have not made the gun operational. However, it has been noted that firing warning shots with ASRAAM is probably not a good idea, so having the cannon may be useful for the QRA aircraft. Also, 3 Sqn appear to be on the verge of working up as a multi-role sqn now (I forget where in the public domain that info is, but it is out there), in which case they too will have the gun available as an option. So the position as last i heard (NB, I am a few months out of date) was/is that XI(F) aircraft, be they F2 or FGR4 have the gun as an option, while 3(F) currently don't, but, as this is role specific, they will do once tasked as a multi-role unit.

Not sure that this is helpful, but it is an excuse to point you in the direction of a pic of the PR9 carrying the pods! http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0231...mp;photo_nr=280

Not a 'D', but http://www.ausairpower.net/Matra-BGL-ATLIS-S.jpg While I've seen photos of the 2000D with a single AS30 and a single large tank loaded asymmetrically, I've not seen BGL-1000s fitted in a similar manner (doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course) From what I can remember of a chat with a 2000D driver a couple of years ago, one of the reasons for integrating the dual GBU-12 (and similar) carriage on the centreline was to allow the carriage of more than one LGB without having to sacrifice the underwing tanks.

Some at the following places: http://www.tornado-data.com/History/Protoypes/p2.htm http://www.tornado-data.com/images/prototy...l-Victor-ta.jpg http://www.tornado-data.com/images/prototy...ft-off-CN37.jpg http://www.tornado-data.com/images/prototy...-flstores-c.jpg