Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

319 Excellent

About KevinK

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 02/28/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Washington State

Recent Profile Visitors

522 profile views
  1. Perhaps they're chanelling the ghost of Matchbox! Not much delicacy in the panel lines either.
  2. I think we can all agree that there's definitely an elephant in that photo. Q.E.D
  3. Yes, it was. The gun "button" was a rocker switch. Press the top and you fire the Brownings, press the bottom and you fire the cannons, press the middle and you fire both. My Dad told me the way to remember it is "BBC": "Brownings, Both, Cannons". It was useful in ground attack, as for firing at soft-skinned vehicles like trucks, the cannon shells were a waste - would go through without exploding - while for locomotives, .303 would just bounce off, while 20mm cannon shells were very effective. Kevin
  4. At last, a use for Humbrol 30?
  5. If you are used to the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels, you will find the Red Arrows display very different in style and content. The Arrows display is much more open and flowing: formations are just as precise, but the aircraft are not quite so close to one another as in the US teams' displays. This allows them to use more sky, manoeuvering nine-aircraft formations. As PaulJ said earlier, there is a continuousness to the Reds' display - always something going on to keep the crowd's attention. After the nine-aircraft display, the two singletons split away and the main team with seven aircraft alternate with them in coordinated and opposing passes. It would be wrong to say which style is better or worse, because both represent very high precision flying, but if you have seen enough of the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, the Arrows may interest you.
  6. It's worth remembering, when looking at photos of clipped-wing Spitfires, that some were clipped "in the field" as a result of damage. My Dad flew VIII's and IX's with 253 Sqn in Italy and Yugoslavia: he mentioned that the field modification for a damaged standard wingtip was to remove both wingtips and replace each with a 2" x 4" strip of wood, shaped in place to match the aerofoil. Functionally, it was the same as the Supermarine clipped wing, but Dad mentioned that you lost your nav lights. When you're a long way from the nearest M.U. and you're keeping aircraft serviceable, local mods may vary from production!
  7. Blame it on the software he used to produce it.
  8. I wonder, in the modern world, whether BA would paint up an Imperial Airways scheme. How about an A-380 in the HP-42-era scheme: overall silver with I M P E R I A L in large, friendly letters across the underside. That would "impress the natives".
  9. According to the Putnam 'Blackburn Aircraft', it was named after the town of Blackburn, Lancs, but you do have to wonder what was going through the mind of the chap at the Air Ministry who named it. Unfortunately, Heller didn't kit it. As far as I know, nor did anyone else. Perhaps it'll be Airfix's next 1/24th scale kit, after the Beverley, of course.
  10. It's actually the Blackburn Blackburn: so good, they named it twice! Actually, it was pretty good in service - about 60 built and in service for ten years, including carrier ops. But not pretty.
  11. So: the wrong version. ... and the wrong scale. You've really got the hang of this Britmodeller thing, John!
  12. Well, to add to the pilot preferences above: my Dad flew Mks I, Vc, VIII, IX and 22. Of these, he said that the Mk V with a Merlin 55 was the most pleasant to fly, with the extra power over the Mk I not detracting from the handling. In other words, an ideal display aircraft, after it had been superceded in the front line. As a combat aircraft, he thought the Mk VIII with a Merlin 66 was the best he flew. His Squadron - 253 Sqn - was equipped with a mix of VIIIs and IXs and the "extras" of the Mk VIII - especially 36 gallons more fuel - made it more capable. Slightly off-topic, but related: the next Spitfire he flew, the Mk 22, he considered was really a different type. The extra power, and especially the torque, made it much less pleasant to fly, although it was still an effective fighter. It's worth remembering that the Spit 22s were replaced by Vampires: the Vampire 5 offered some increase in performance, was much easier to fly, but the fuel burn went from 50 gal/hr to 200 gal/hr in an airframe of roughly the same size, so was really an interceptor only.
  13. That's not necessarily a 'what-if'. Apart from the Met Flight's W.2, I seem to remember a photo of XV176 at Lockheed-Georgia in something like that scheme in 1966: it wasn't delivered that way, but it wore the scheme for a brief time. If anyone has Air Pictorials from that time, I think it was a cover shot.
  • Create New...