Jump to content

wellsprop

3D Members
  • Posts

    3,673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by wellsprop

  1. Looks excellent! The weathering looks right for a hard-flown Hornet
  2. really excited to follow this - my favourite Hunter and I have the same conversion!
  3. Balls, I read the serial wrong Managed to get on a handful of the Mk3s during their navalisation to Mk4s. I think this one ended up at Boscombe after it got bent!
  4. @Psychovadge these do come up on ebay and at model shows for about £60. I've got one on the way in the post admittedly, I'm not building the crab version!
  5. I'd love to see an update on this one too! I have this cab in my logbook, albeit in a different guise
  6. Hi, Whislt I do have a circle Cutter, not a great one, I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a circle Cutter that accepts scalpel blades? My cheap circle cutter has a plastic cam lock that only accepts some very small proprietary blades. Cheers Ben
  7. Agreed with some of the other comments here, there are a few assumptions that are, in fact, incorrect. The Typhoon and F35 do different jobs, the Typhoon is a superb air defence fighter interceptor AND a multirole fighter. The F35 is a stealth strike fighter. The UK does have the ability to develop it's own indigenous fighter aircraft (look at Tempest). The reason the UK is the ONLY tier 1 partner on F35 is that the UK is the only country that had the knowledge and capability to do so. The UK has specialist design knowledge relavant to the F35. More importantly, the UK made a really smart move and managed to get itself the largest workshare (outside of the US) as a tier 1 partner on the most advanced combat jet in the world, whilst having the US taxpayer fund the development. The UK has done really well out of the F35 and has a 5th gen fighter that isn't significantly more expensive than a Typhoon, without having the burden of funding development. The second question, why do most modern fighters all look the same... Basically it's down to "convergent design". The specifications for all fighters are roughly similar, as is the technology (software and manufacturing processes) used in the development of said aircraft. Because we all have to obey the laws of physics, the only real variable is budget constraints and social structure (yes, weirdly, that does affect how aircraft are designed). Industrial espionage plays a role too. Oh, and by the way, don't apologise for asking these sorts of questions, to an outsider, engineering decisions (and engineers themselves) seem wierd, illogical and confusing - but there will be a document somewhere that explains the reasons
  8. I can't agree more! Over the past few years, Airfix has got better and better, the Buccaneer marks a new standard for Airfix
  9. http://woodair.net/Aviation/roundels/RAF_Roundels.htm IIRC, the conspicuous yellow outer rings were initially removed as they were though to be too conspicuous. It soon became clear that being conspicuous is actually quite helpful when things get a bit chaotic (i.e. Battle of Britain). As @alt-92 has pointed out, the yellow rings were also painted on the upper wing roundels (and sometimes lower) of 2TAF, as again things became a bit confusing in the air, during the death throes of the Luftwaffe (and even encounters with the Soviet Air Force).
  10. That sounds like an engineering term for a chute
  11. The various manuals relating to the Vampire may help. https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/product/de-havilland-dh100-dh115-vampire/
  12. Dull metallic is definitely correct Painted or natural, I'm afraid I can't help. @Ray_W cracking picture of 4A!
  13. Beautiful, lovely paint work, certainly looks like a well worked grasshopper.
  14. This is utterly incredible. I'd love to CAD and print this in 48th!
×
×
  • Create New...