Jump to content

Ex-FAAWAFU

Gold Member
  • Posts

    7,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Ex-FAAWAFU last won the day on April 18 2021

Ex-FAAWAFU had the most liked content!

About Ex-FAAWAFU

  • Birthday 12/09/1959

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salisbury
  • Interests
    Fleet Air Arm & RN, especially WW2 & Cold War.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,344 profile views

Ex-FAAWAFU's Achievements

Completely Obsessed Member

Completely Obsessed Member (6/9)

29.7k

Reputation

  1. No idea whether you can still get hold of them, but Hasegawa did release a boxing “HAR5 Ark Royal”. Ignoring the fact that there was no such thing as a HAR5, they did contain enough to make a reasonable attempt at a Westland machine (e.g. different vents on top of the engine bays, ESM bumps, aerials, Sea Searcher radome). There are lots of detailed changes needed, though - depends on how accurate you want it to be! This might help if you’re interested
  2. I too wouldn't start from a Mk.3, which has numerous details that were never on Mk.5s - e.g. the auxiliary battery bay behind the cockpit on the starboard side, a fair few aerials and aerial bases. Back-dating a Mk.6 to a 5 would be much easier, since all the HAS6 airframes were HAS5 at some point
  3. With this build, the former is an important stage in not wasting time at the latter. I’m at the stage where I need really nail down exactly what I am building (especially on the island, which we have barely looked at yet - but also in the hull openings / boat bays, which will be my next focus). Merit provide a blank canvas, but I don’t want to waste time building things that I then realise are wrong.
  4. Working my way aft gradually And the whole thing so far:
  5. OK, I will concede that the Defiant did some useful stuff (but then, so did the Roc, which is almost universally derided as a useless lump; if nothing else, a couple of Roc turrets were converted to airfield AA guns...). But it achieved precious little in the role for which it was designed (I too know of few Faeroe-ese rock & roll giants). After all, the Shorts Sturgeon was a pretty decent target tug in the end... but the trouble is that it was actually designed as a torpedo bomber. Not Boulton Paul's fault; it's just that the whole "turret fighter" concept was... let's keep it polite and say 'flawed'. Flawed in a similar way to the Admiralty's pre-War belief that our carriers wouldn't be operating close in to land, so the RN didn't need fighters that could compete with Bf109s et al... and anyway the AA barrage from escorts would be plenty. So 'flawed' as in "complete rubbish", in fact. There was a war on, so serviceable airframes were used for many purposes - squadron hacks, trainers, or uses where performance wasn't the primary issue (such as ECM). My Dad has Whitley and Defiant time in his log book as late as 1944 ("map reading Speke - Carlisle - Ouston"), and I'm sure those aircraft were fine for the purpose of a young Observer keeping his basic skills up (and probably having a bit of a jolly; his girlfriend at the time lived near Carlisle...). But that doesn't make either of them successful designs.
  6. Ooh yes - good thinking. I am indeed a Mac-head (if it were up to me I would never touch a Windows machine again), and though I have read about Freeform I haven’t actually tried it yet. But those are the worst pictures of Ark Royal I’ve ever seen; the entire ship is obscured by a Defiant. Useless.
  7. For the avoidance of doubt (since we are dealing with a lawyer here), I can exclusively reveal that there are no apostrophes missing from Terry’s post. No-one handles Crisp’s anythings at elevenses, even on a Saturday morning. The Martin Baker bang seat Meteor was flown by the father of one of my EFTS course mates, and he brought it to Linton while we were there and even allowed us to crawl over the aircraft. At the time we were amazed that such an old aircraft was still being put to such modern use - from memory they were testing Tornado bang seats at the time. I had no idea that MB had ever used a Defiant; fabulous - at least the beast did something useful. Always a pleasing-looking aircraft, the Defiant; a slightly more pointy Hurricane to my eyes, and that can’t be bad. Shame that the whole “turret fighter” concept was so deeply flawed, thus consigning it (and the even more useless Roc) to the backwaters of history. You officially have my attention, M’Lud
  8. Lest anyone think it's all gone a bit quiet again, I'm continuing to work on the drawings while I am away from home with work. Island pretty much done (still a few details on the mast platforms, plus the Pom-Pom sights to sit inside those buckets). Note also that the boot topping is now as indicated for the May 41 time period - thanks to @dickrd for the research! More soon Crisp
  9. Even less reason for blade droop - even apparent blade droop - on a Lynx / Wildcat because the semi-rigid head means they don’t even hinge downwards with the blades in a straight line. Wasps far less aerodynamically advanced, so blade tip fell under gravity on the flapping hinge, restrained by the droop stop. But in both aircraft, if you take the head out of the equation, the blades themselves are stiff enough to stay straight as seen by the naked eye. [There are enough Finbarr Saunders moments in that post to keep @CedB chortling for a year.]
  10. Thanks! 3” out? That’s ruined the whole model…
  11. Seems highly unlikely; no warship in history displaced less as her life progressed! We're always adding stuff...
  12. The whole point of draught marks is to provide a simple visible indication of how low the ship is sitting in the water, so I imagine they'd calculated that anything less than XII was physically impossible once the ship was afloat. Even with zero fuel, oil, ammunition, ships' company etc., just the weight of the metal that makes up the hull would easily see the bottom 12' of the hull under water. Yet another great photo, Evert-Jan - is it Hood or a KGV? C
  13. Thanks all, and especially Jamie & Richard [by the way, Jamie, the draught marks decals arrived safely yesterday; they look fab!] The boot topping thing is one of those errors that is blindingly obvious as soon as someone points it out; as previously depicted it is definitely not deep enough. However, I am not sure about Jamie's drawing; the draught marks are too high up the hull (with I being nowhere near the keel). This is a close-up of my drawing with a partial scan of the bow section of the As Built plans overlaid; the marks look in about the same place as yours, Jamie, but the lowest mark is XII, not I. Using Richard's information that the lower edge of the boot topping always seems to sit at the bottom edge of XXI, I have re-positioned mine - and then taken Jamie's approximate depth (just over 11 marks, top to bottom) and used the same to position my top edge. The result looks like this, zoomed out a bit: My upper edge looks a bit lower than Jamie's when you look at the relative position vs the lowest row of scuttles, but not wildly so. What do you reckon, chaps? Looking further aft, this width/depth means that the boot topping now covers a large proportion of the armoured belt. Thanks for help Crisp
×
×
  • Create New...