Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,162 Excellent

1 Follower

About noelh

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 12/16/1959

Profile Information

  • Gender
    I'd rather not say
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lots of CGI, I imagine. But the right people are making it. I wonder will they resurrect the airfield in some form or other. Should be interesting. Will Sally B get a part?
  2. While I had known about DH 10. I had literally no idea there was a model of it. You did a great job on it.
  3. Those old Frog kits still scrub up well.
  4. A quick Google reveals the Swedish are looking for a primary trainer. Almost certainly something along the lines of Tucano, PC9 etc. So yes propeller driven. The Aeralis idea is a good one but they don't even have a prototype flying as far as I can tell. Not much use to Sweden. It's only a paper aeroplane at the moment or should that be a pixel aeroplane.
  5. The detailed requirement is no surprise. Air forces tend to want to buy a training 'system' these days. Including simulators and support. It isn't clear to me whether they were looking for a primary trainer or advanced trainer or both. The Boeing/Saab T7 is an advanced trainer. But the old Saab 105 was used as a primary trainer like the Jet Provost. So were they were looking for something in the PC9/Texan range which can be primary or advanced? If they were to acquire the T7, they'd still need something for primary training.
  6. That looks great. Matchbox did some great kits. I'm fond of the Twotter. My friend and a pilot I mentored got to fly Twotters for Skybus to the Scillies. He now flies for Jet2. That's a nice build.
  7. Like others, I built that kit when it was first released. One of my favourites. Nice build of a nice kit.
  8. Hmm, the P1127. That kit is so rare now. Fond memories of it myself. As for the discussion of smartphones. They're only 13 years old same as my son. I don't know how I survived without one. I use it for everything electronically speaking. Only today my solicitor rang, (we're moving house). He needed a document. I said 'Stand by. He had it in his inbox before the phone conversation ended. Needless to say I'm using my phone right now to write this. I think this is science fiction sometimes.
  9. Yes it applied to all of them. It used to irritate me that many kits had either them fully open or fully closed. It was very fiddly cutting open closed ones adding plastic card to depict a parked Harrier. Airfix at least made an effort. They were only fully open at slow airspeeds and in the hover when there was insufficient airflow through the intake. It was automatic not pilot controlled. On the ground the top ones flopped open. The middle ones were partially open or closed. The bottom inlets were closed. Just from gravity.
  10. I would agree with Graham that the boxes probably contained all the bits and pieces required to maintain an aircraft. Safely stored out of the weather. Ammunition would be highly unlikely. Then as now weapons and ammunition would be well guarded and issued as and when required to be loaded by armourers. Security wise, there was also real concern generally about fifth columnists and sabotage not just the risk from Irish labourers???? Who like those Irishmen serving in the RAF were not well disposed to the IRA mucking things up for everyone.
  11. Well, I can't wait to see this rescue featured in the next series of 'Saving lives at sea'.
  12. I think you have a point. Anytime I've been up and close to military aircraft. The paint is, depending on aircraft, very flat. Particularly the USN. Recently I had a close up view of a military helicopter. Up close the paint surface was very matt. But when you step back there were reflections. Not gloss or shiny but not matt either. So yes I think if you take into account scale viewing distance. A totally matt model looks wrong.
  13. noelh

    F4U Corsair

    Indeed they did. Blackburn himself did the first landing and wrecked the wheels and tyres. He said that on final approach he couldn't see the carrier at all. Just the LSO and Chesapeake bay on either side. 'Like an idiot', his words, he lowered the nose to see the carrier and bounced badly. But the squadron managed to qualify with a few banged up airplanes. But no injuries. 'A terrific performance', as he said. The British curved approach was better for visibility and was safer but required very precise speed control. It's much easier to stall in a turn. But practice makes
  14. noelh

    F4U Corsair

    According to the book I have VMF-123 and VMF-124 were the first US squadrons to operate the Corsair in combat from a carrier. That was the end of December 1944. So you can be sure by then they were GSB. Of course VF-17 did fly from a carrier but of course they weren't carrier based.
  15. I saw and photographed one of those at my first UK airshow, RAF Valley back in the 80s. I was fascinated by it. You've done a great job on it.
  • Create New...