Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KevinK

  1. This video of installing the 'real thing' might give you some ideas. The materials are modern, but the shape, size and procedures are exactly the same.
  2. Current update: Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau, and the FAA have suspended operations of B-777 aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 engines. This is a small proportion of the total 777 fleet. In the US, only United appears to be an operator of the subtype.
  3. The post-landing photos appear to show one and a half blades missing from the first stage of the fan. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638797-united-b777-uncontained-engine-failure-4.html
  4. Thinking laterally, maybe any Manchester/Lincoln/York conversion should be for the Tamiya kit: there must be thousands of them which will suddenly become available at low prices and would be an overall lower cost option, perhaps meaning that more conversions would be sold?
  5. Actually, it doesn't! They paid an advertising agency half a million pounds to come up with it. There is no meaning: it's like Exxon. Somewhere - I don't know where - I have a copy of a spoof org chart someone circulated at the time. Every department was 'Q---Q': I remember that Security was 'QrooQ', for example.
  6. Well Bill, the RAE morphed into DRA, then DERA as the '90s went on, merging RRE, A&AEE and most of the other UK government defence R&D establishments. Just as it was beginning to gel into something which was a viable organization, privatization came along. This could have worked, but the new QinetiQ's owners seemed more interested in 'asset-stripping' than technology development and the organization declined. It wasn't all QinetiQ's fault, as they inherited a staff which was a curious mix of (i) some truly world-class scientists & engineers, (ii) quite a few people hidi
  7. Bill, you probably know this, but the DERA titles on the aircraft are correct for the period before QinetiQ came into existence. However, as the instructions say that the markings are 2008-appropriate, and QinetiQ came into existence in the summer of 2001, there's definitely a discrepancy there. There's also an image on the Key Aero site, caption dated March 2007, showing the QinetiQ titling on the aircraft. Personally, as an ex-RAE guy, I would put on anything but QinetiQ!
  8. Yes - take a look here: As you can see, the changeover took place between the 1929 and 1931 contests, hence the different order of colours.
  9. Good question! You, I and many others had that experience and, personally, I bought one of the packs of multiple Frog decal sheets which were being sold for about 50p and gave up on the Novo ones. Of course, this didn't help for kits like the DH106 Comet, which weren't in the decal multipack!
  10. Yes - I think that low price must have been the key to the Woolworth's agreement, and quite possibly it was the availability of cheap Novo kits which ended it. Lines and Hellstrom's "Frog Model Aircraft 1932-1976" says for 1955: "Airfix had done a deal with F.W. Woolworth whereby Woolworth's would automatically take a large quantity of each new kit that Airfix brought out. This enabled Airfix to spread their tooling cost over a high volume and thus achieve a retail price of 2/- for the smaller planes. The cheapest of the new Frog kits was 5/3 but as there was no clash of subject a
  11. There was a reason for Woolworth's only doing Airfix: there was an exclusive contract in place from the late '50s onward, under which Woolworth's had each new Airfix kit before other shops and Woolworth's sold only Airfix kits. Frog was in the corner shops, department stores, cycle shops, toy shops and of course, model shops. You know, Adey, I think that - while it was a contributory factor - distribution wasn't the real killer, although it might have been inevitable a decade later when even Airfix failed. It was the "asset stripping" of the Rovex/Triang empire whi
  12. ...and here's an opportunity for Airfix to license it and issue together with a Pot Noodle kit as a "Dogfood Double"
  13. Wrong scale, panel lines unrealistic, no Nippon-46 option.....
  14. Same here! One further thing I seem to recall is that - unusually - the US market got a batch before the UK ... or something like that...
  15. Perhaps a bit harsh: between July & October 1953, five different aircraft types took the record. The Swift took the Hunter's record, which stood for only 18 days. It was an exciting and very competitive period as everyone was creeping up on Mach 1. For the record (), the succession was F-86D - Hunter F.3 - Swift F.4 - F-4D Skyray - YF-100A Super Sabre, and the record went up by only 40 mph total in that time. Interestingly, only six British aircraft have ever held the absolute airspeed record, and three of them were from Supermarine.
  16. Well, it took the World airspeed record - so it was actually pretty good....
  17. Indeed it was. Perhaps - in kit review terms - one could say "assembly starts with the cockpit - and finishes with it, too!" If I recall correctly, about the only major external difference between the early Mercuries (Redstone-launched) and the orbital ones (Atlas) was the window, which changed from a porthole to a rectangle, pretty much by pilot demand.
  18. Real answer: for directional stability. The contraprops move the aircraft's centre of pressure a long way forward (lots of effective side area) and this needs to be counteracted by more side area aft - hence a big fin.
  19. It's actually a reasonable representation of the Mercury "seat". Unlike subsequent spacecraft, each Mercury was flown with a form-fitted couch moulded to the individual astronaut's body. It was known that the ballistic re-entry would exceed 10 "g" and it was decided to give the pilot all the help he could get by supporting him as best they could. Subsequent spacecraft, including Gemini, used an offset c.g. to enable some aerodynamic lift on re-entry both to allow manoeuvring for accuracy and offset the "g" loading. The Apollo CM took this further with a lift/drag ratio of 0.4 and o
  20. Thanks for the link to that excellent, well-produced documentary. Amongst many other things, I noticed a couple of stills of the above Beaufighter - its name was 'PAMELAMAX'.
  21. I completely agree... BUT, if you take away the hardware, you take away not only the tangible evidence but also any reason for a physical presence of any kind: in the limit, that kind of museum will exist only in cyberspace as a collection of information. The hardware grounds the information in reality and acts as a preserved 'library' of information for future generations. Some years ago, the Science Museum did a sort of 'archaeological dig' on Stephenson's 'Rocket'. In effect, they used modern methods to examine the real artifact in great detail and produced a long paper giving a
  • Create New...