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. :)

John B (Sc)

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About John B (Sc)

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Moray, NE Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

2,244 profile views
  1. (from Alex) Edit: a funny kit, it even has an airbrake where the original hasn't got one... Alex - I didn't see any airbrake on the kit I have, and as you say the original hasn't got one at all. (In the conventional sense) Reading some early reviews and looking at pictures online, I got the impression there may have been two different kits issued by Italeri. Where does the airbrake appear on the kit you have - or have seen ?
  2. Thank you all. Alan P's guess was correct - Italeri have provided an earlier piece of kit, the ASQ-173 LST, which is what Alan's picture shows. ( Wikipedia shows this along with the AAS-38) Given the age of the kit, this makes sense. (True, a photo would have helped.) I may add an ASQ-228 to my next build - looks like something quite possible to scratch build. I agree - it is a funny kit. Very curate's egg - some good, some bad. Odd was the way fuselage has been split, also the wing-fuselage junction with complete;y useless (to me) locating pins. Made flush assembly impossible for me Much filler required... Regards, John B
  3. HI all. I have been building an Italeri F/A-18E Super Hornet. (If you are wondering - don't do it, unless you have LOTS of filler available. My next will be the Revell offering!) IRather than give it the deep six it so deserves, I am battling on. Amongst the various weapons offered with the kit is a strange modification to the port lower fuselage side mounting for the AIM120. This is replaced with a fairing and a long tube, bulged at the rear, with a clear lens at the front. Clearly intended to be some sort of sensor, but what? I can;t find anything similar on the photos I have seen, so is it an Italeri oddity? Any help appreciated - it;s just idle curiosity but I am reluctant to add on something I know nowt about at all. Oh for the long lost days when kit instructions named all the parts, some times in detail ! John B
  4. That new conversion looks terrific, but it is in resin. My record with resin work is not good, sadly - so, is there any chance, do you suppose that there will be a plastic conversion kit sometime?
  5. Super, thanks, It make the machine look quite different !
  6. Thank you Rod. I wondered that but couldn't find the information Regards, John B
  7. Does anyone know which Naval Air Station used the tail code 'LP' in the early 1950s? I saw some Fireflies and Spitfires with those codes in a short film about RN Artificers, dated 1952.
  8. Thanks rossm. Most interesting. I wonder if that also applied to the MkVII machines, I suspect it did, since they were essentially MkVs with the Coastal equipment and ASV added. That would also explain why the 502 Sqn machines, from early Mk V conversions, show no boots while the 612 machines, built as later conversions, do. It does make clear that where boots are fitted they are on the horizontal tail too, which is logical of course. Looks as though my Coastal machine with boots will be in 612 markings! And well weathered with operational wear and tear too... I was aware of there being different coloured boot materials, thanks, though I think the USA had more variation (earlier) than we had - different and arguably better materials available there sooner than here. Painting rubber, even with fairly flexible cellulose dope, doesn't work particularly well, since the stuff peels off quite quickly and patchily. (Long ago I saw that tried, for reasons that made sense then)
  9. Hi. I am building an Airfix Whitley, Since many years ago I built my Frog kit as an early war bomber variant, this time it just has to be Coastal Command. (Living up on the Moray Firth, Coastal Command & the 'Kipper Fleet' is still part of the background...) My question; my sources tell me that the later mark Whitleys, from the MkV onwards, typically had wing de-icing boots fitted. The Airfix model has believably appropriate wing LE definition lines, however the kit colour instructions show nothing of that sort. I have found illustrations of 612 Sqn Whitleys showing the normal black rubber wing de-icing boots - and what appear to be fairly narrow fin LE boots as well. Logic suggests there would also have been horizontal tailplane boots too. (Can anyone confirm that?) No scribings on the kit match what I’d expect as tailplane boot fittings. The kit machine is from 502 Sqn and the only photo I have found so far was taken from the rear threequarter, so no de-icing kit is visible. It seems unlikely that the machines of the same mark would vary in that regard from squadron to squadron; I'd view de-icing as vital for maritime work, if possible. Unless of course these were removed in some cases for better performance reasons; I have found at least on picture of a 612 coded machine which appears bootless. Any comments, thoughts or help appreciated – maybe I should contact Mr Smock of the Whitley project, or Midland Air Museum. John B
  10. That is most interesting Jamie, thank you. A depressingly good example of what may happen if the wrong, or inappropriate, simplifying assumptions are made. A lesson for all engineers there; sometimes a deeper bit of thinking & investigation is needed. I recall the BA crash very clearly, was never aware of the underlying causes. As you say, I hope caution and careful thought are involved, to ensure they understand the real mechanisms at work here. John B
  11. Ah, now a 1/24th Hunter would be something indeed. I have an Echelon 1/32nd Hunter part built as an F Mk1, and a two seater to complete as well. Something to make those look small; what a dream. I like your comment about the probability of other classic British machines eventually being produced by Airfix - an upbeat assessment & why not! Fingers crossed some of those dreams come true and that my modelling skills last long enough.
  12. Thanks for that 71chally. I knew there some adverse comments, couldn't recall what they were - I haven't yet bought one though I certainly will, having fought an Academy kit to a standstill and many years ago having rebuilt a Lindbergh effort as a 74Sqn F6. It would be churlish not to have a go; perhaps I have been unduly influenced by the doomsayers. Thanks also to VMA131Marine & Enzo Matrix for adding some realism to counter my gloom ! (Apologies to Vulcan enthusiasts for briefly 'borrowing' this thread.)
  13. Interesting. I am a bit surprised Airfix feels there is enough interest to produce a replacement for what I thought was a darn good original kit. Given the development cost and the high likely retail cost, this suggests they believe the Vulcan still has a serious hold on public attention. I hope they are right, for the sake of future releases. And well done ‘General Melchett’ and others for helping guide them! I wonder how much this was influenced by the fact that there are fairly good example available to scan and that technique has now well proved itself. It may make overall development cost lower I suppose. Before I get shot down by flak from the enthusiasts upset at my less enthusiastic comments after 16 pages of ‘wow’, I say this as one who built, way, way back, all three Frog 1/96th V bombers, built a Lindberg Vulcan and an odd Far Eastern small scale machine, plus a vacform B2 (immediately before the original Airfix issue!). I also have built the original Airfix kit for myself and by request for two non-modelling Vulcan enthusiasts, so I do have ‘form’ here. And several 'in stock'. I agree with the view that this means there will be more modified and ‘what-if’ machines around, built from the cheaper originals. I’m already debating a couple… Just curious about the economics, which has to be long term, unless the moulds are deliberately short life low cost ones. Rather like the new 1/72 Buccaneer, the extra detail looks impressive, but so is the (likely) cost. I do hope Airfix is going to continue to expand to cover some of the other kits people have mentioned over the years, not just opt for re-working existing types. (Off topic - Sigh. Still no good Hunter two seaters in either 1/72 or 1/48th, and eventhe recent Airfix single seat issue was not good as many hoped…)
  14. All very true Jon, and I agree with much of what you say, having been involved long ago in editing a publication - not a modelling magazine I hasted to say. In this case though Jonny's point seems to me to be that the editor is writing an article of his own, and is adding - well made - detail which did not exist in that aircraft. That is a different error, and something of an 'oops'. Especially since some of the public presume (hope?) an editor's ideas are more reliable than the average. By all means add such spurious detail if it makes the end result more pleasing, but say so. 'What if' models are often more fun. It seems like a waste of considerable modelling talent. Of course since this is apparently part of a series of articles on the build, perhaps Jonny could drop the editor a note so he can mention his 'deliberate mistake' later ! We all make them...
  15. John B (Sc)


    Looking back at Gordon M's post about the restraint of the chap with a piano on his foot reminds me of how impressed I was, some years ago when teaching the lady who is now my wife to drive. We came round a roundabout in open country onto an uphill dual carriageway so I'd suggested she plan to change down a gear to accelerate away. New to driving, she got the gear shift wrong and went into first, not third, which caused a very loud and rapid rev increase from the engine. Her instant reaction, as she changed back up - 'Jings!' the old Scottish 'Broons' comment. The closest I have ever heard to her swearing...
  • Create New...