KevinK

The skies of industrial Europe in the 1940's were filled with industrial pollution which could give a yellowish coloured tinge to the predominantly cloudy sky. Add in the reddish low-angled sun at dawn and dusk - ideal illumination for some targets in low-level photography - and you have the basis for a "warm-off-white" overall camouflage...

Clearly a crime against humanity!

Tim, If you just go to the checkout, with the item in your cart, it will deduct the price and say 'no payment required'. Worked for me.

It is indeed a "W/T" symbol, signifying the need for a good electrical bond. It stood for "wireless telegraphy" and came into existence when aircraft radio started: by equalizing the electrical potential across the whole airframe, electrical noise was minimized.

The OR specified 1000 nm radius of action, not range. Additionally, it required "at least the final 200 nautical miles to and the 200 nautical miles from the target to be flown at low level".

It's not so much that it's turbulent, it's more that it is slow-moving, compared with the free-stream velocity. If the intake were to ingest the boundary layer, this momentum deficit would manifest itself as a loss in thrust/increase in intake drag, however the designer accounts for it. Related, but slighty off-topic, boundary layer control became a big research area in the '50s, both for intakes and airframes. Dedicated prototype aircraft were built for this - e.g. the Hunting 126.

It's retractable: it pushes straight up to lie flush(ish) with the fuselage. I looked after an airworthy Hurricane for about a year, in the late '90s.

At least you've got a start on the rigging. (Not to exceed 25%, though)

Marty Feldman:

Sprue D, parts 28 & 32, plus the lights on the clear sprue.

I'm not sure, but maybe D15/16? Plus, the wingtip lights for them may be the smaller pair - parts 7 & 8 - on the clear sprue.

All true, and there are examples of many types which can be quoted. Desirable control authority over the aircraft's speed range is the underlying requirement and this is dependent on a variety of factors including variables such as downwash at the tailplane location. c.g. range, etc. However, the OP specifically asked about the Scimitar.

As Graham says, it's difficult to prove "universal and consistent", but it was at least common practice to have red / "A" flight, blue / "B" flight, yellow / "C" flight. This continued through WWII with some squadrons.

Is it that rare,though? Or is the aftermarket which comes with it worth the price of a car? Well, I do happen to have one in the stash, so.....🙂

That is incredible! It's really hard to believe that anyone is daft enough to pay that, but for a Trumpeter Lightning???

I believe so. The only other possible hinged surface would be a tab. However, with a fully-powered all-flying tailplane, neither a trim tab nor an anti-servo tab would be needed, so I think it was just what Andrews & Morgan said. The Buccaneer was, as you say, different. It had an all-moving tailplane and also elevators. It also used much more boundary-layer control (BLC) than did the Scimitar, with engine bleed air blown over wing, tailplane, flaps, ailerons and elevators. The Scimitar, only half a generation earlier, had been the first RN aircraft to use BLC, but only on the wing surfaces.

According to the Putnam "Supermarine Aircraft" Andrews & Morgan book, it didn't have elevators. When referring to the control system issues at high Mach numbers, they say "...increased downwash over the slab-type all-flying tailplane , that is, with no independent elevator." Some confusion in references might arise from the fact that the Type 508 predecessor to the Type 525 Scimitar DID have an all-flying tailplane with elevators, but the 508 had a butterfly tail, the elevators giving additional pitch control.

Tony, this is appallingly arrogant behaviour by Airfix. The pictures alone should be sufficient to establish that their product is faulty. To be honest, this puts me off buying ANY Airfix product, if this is the way they treat customers. In contrast, I have found the Eastern European producers much more willing to acknowledge errors and fix a problem. Airfix will lose business - mine at least.

A bit late to comment, but I really don't believe that's "late" 1944. From the sun angle, shadows and the grass, that's definitely summer on Thorney. There's also a set of bright fields on the South Downs in the background, typical of a summer-ripening crop. By the way I used to live two miles away from there, and learned to fly at Goodwood. Late in the year, the scene would have much darker hues, with the lush,wet grass. Thorney Island is virtually at sea level so tends to retain the rain. I think that a mistyped photo caption is much more likely than late-year extended invasion stripes, which would otherwise make 464 Sqn unique.

Kevlar wasn't invented until 1965 and Wikipedia states the first commercial use as early 1970's. Given that the Lightning had entered service in 1960, it seems unlikely.

It was. In the 1980s I worked with an engineer who had been a junior stressman at Vickers on the Valiant B.2; he said that the whole aircraft was restressed.

There used to be a press kit for each major NASA mission: they were called "News References". I took a cursory look on the JPL website but I didn't see one there for Voyager. I guess it's not surprising as it would date from 1977. The News References - usually 100+ pages - were excellent for detailed descriptions/diagrams of parts, subsystems, etc but in those days they were paper documents, of course. It might be worth continuing an internet search in case someone went to the trouble to scan one in. By the way, you may not know, but Eduard produces an etch set (ED48761) for the Hasegawa kit. HTH Kevin p.s. take a look at the Wikipedia page on the Voyager Program: there are lots of references quoted and some may have what you need.

... and RAF Canberra PR 9s, Nimrods, C-130s, C-17s, A-400Ms.

Good question. It all depends on their confidence in their own understanding of the requirements. Airbus can certainly leverage their hard-won previous C-46 experience. I've worked on both sides of the fence and on both sides of the Atlantic in aerospace procurement and I've seen major Primes screw up by not understanding RFP elements or their implications. It usually adds to your probability of success to have someone on your team who gives confidence to the customer that you have drawn on all the best experience which complements your own. For Airbus, no-one would doubt their ability to produce a good, workable tanker, but they will also need to show how it integrates into the US war-fighting fleet. If Airbus can do this on its own resources, they may not need a partner.

Agreed! Although it tends to be much easier to sell into the Armies than Air Forces or Navies, at least in the Western world. Air Forces/Navies are highly-technical services who want to "dot the Is and cross the Ts", whereas Armies are much more user-oriented. Many years ago, an Army helicopter mast-mounted sight specification was summarized by the Army procurement official as "Fundamentally, we're looking for a mirror on a stick". Refreshing, and unlikely to be said by the Navy or Air Force.