Jump to content

John B (Sc)

Members
  • Posts

    1,146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John B (Sc)

  1. Most interesting topic. I do like the comment that one aircraft had particular 'corksecrwing' tendencies. It'd often surprised me how apparently identical machines can differ quite a bit in their feel and handling, presumbly due to minor differences in trim and riggging, plus of course the impacst of operational effects and stressings over time.
  2. Thanks Adam. That's what I thought, though it is why I said 'under cover', rather than a hangar. A 'hangar' seems to excite planners to add all sorts of extra details, whereas a simple 'shelter' could perhaps work. Not for £60k however ! She's a large beast to keep in good condition, as is a Vulcan - though there seem to be plenty of those around, so I'd hope it doesn't take too much attention from Beverely restoration work. I must find out more about their Gannet; a fine, tough and complex aeroplane.
  3. Interesting project. Will the preserved machine be stored under cover or will she be exposed to the elements? I hope under cover of some sort, to aid long term survival. It would be terrific if a working Centaurus could one day be installed, though I suppose that is high;y unlikely. A project well worth supporting. Long ago, reading one of Nevill Shute's books about a chap who starts a freight airline in the Middle East, 'Round the Bend', I thought one of the machines in that was based loosely on the Universal Freighter or Beverley. Does anyone else think so?
  4. Does anyone know if Spitfire F XIVs - the full wingspan fighters, not the recce machines - flew with D-Day stripes? I haven't yet seen any pictures suggesting they did; thought someone here might know. Also - did any of the machines with cut down turtle decks, the all round canopy variants, fly with full span wings? I thought I'd seen pictures suggesting that late Burma campaign or Indian based machines may have been full span with no recce fit. Just for more variation in markings !
  5. Thanks for those photographs bonkin. Superb work. I have a part built Airfix 1/24 Huricane which I need to complete. Like you and Jonners I was unhappy with the spinner, had wondered about the 'fill with Milliput' - or other hardening material - to do exactly as you describe. Nice to know it worked. John B
  6. " It is a far cry from the Airfix 1980 tool Lancaster " - true but the Hampden itself was a 'far cry' from the original Airfix Lancaster of 1958 or 1959 with its thick heavy gun barrels held by stolid looking gunners heads! (The comparison with the very delicate machine gun barrels of the Halifax, iuused around 1962 was consdierable). The Hampden was a much finer product; things were evolving fast. I liked it way back then as showing the essential quirkiness of the Flying Suitcase, and also built one much later - as a Hereford style conversion attempt a la Mr Hall. Yes, the transparencies are thick and the surface detail overdone, but the main structure looks fairly accurate. I have not seen that AZ kit; AZ do some really good stuff, but often some overly fine details are added. Assembly can be awkward and strengthening of joints may be needed.
  7. Excellent news. I still have one ofthe old B-24Js hanging up - one from over 25 years ago, though I first made one when they were new and the greatest thing going, in my opinion. So I shall definitely build one of these immediately and hope there will be[arst to make the conversion to a Coasatl Command machine easy. The price is a tad 'ouch' but that's life today. I think my first one was 7/6d, back in 1963 (apparently!). For the youngsters amongst us , that is around 37pence in modern money.
  8. Thank you to the earlier posters who have reminded me that I have an Inpact kit of this - umm, at least one! - in the stash. Must build it before this comes out... As for those who feel 'underwhelmed', I am sure there will be 'surprise' announcements during this year. I bet at one will be the SAR version of the Sea King, in its RAF yellow markings (and oters) The only possible reason for delay will be if Airfix think another round of the curremt RN issue should go out first. Intersting marketing timing debate for them.
  9. That is a fascinating picture, thank you. It shows the additioinal height of the AEW variant's undercarriage and the slightly different 'sit' of the later machine. The 1/48th superbly built AEW varaint I saw online looked odd to me in only one respect - it had an unusual slightly tail high sit, This confirms my impression of that. Most useful, since I have two 1/72 AEW machines to build to sit alongside my AS machines. Great fun. John B
  10. Thanks Gunzo, I hadn't seen this. Sounds promising, must find out more !
  11. On the AEW variant. Thanks for the extra information on differences. The atilplane attachemnt differnece is minor and easily dealt with. The inner wing I hadnb't realsied was different - it looks as though it is mostly that the AEW inner wing doesn't have the leading edge extension towards the fuselage which the AS version has - I wonder why. Perhaps because of the engine mount and exhaust location. That would mean some internal structural changes and higher wing loadings, unless the max AUW was lower since there was no need for warload provision. I know the undercarriage had to be longer, though the drawings I jhave seen show no significant variation in bay dimensions. Perhaps an extension on lowering? So that would leave the fuselage as the main headache. Let's hope soemone has a go at a resin fus, eventually. I might investigate 3D moulding, bit by bit ! Meantime, I await my AS kit ! John B
  12. I too shall have one of these for Christmas, to sit - eventually - alongside my 1/72nd versions. Must refurbish my Classic Airframes one as well ! (Hence justifying my building Airfix's one with folded wings.) Now wouldn't it be great if Airfix later issue an AEW version? After all the anti-submarine Gannet only served for around five years on the front line, while the AEW variant seved for 18 years. Snag is there is only one scheme - while in contrast the anti-submarine Gannet served with four Air Arms and could also easily be modded to the COD or training versions - or the 'AS 6' specials. And it would need a new fuselage and undercarriage, so it is unlikely from Airfix. *Sigh* Surely one of the after-market folk will come up with a conversion? I don't much like working with resin, but if that is the only choice... John B
  13. Sadly, our company law seems much weaker. Repeated declarations of insolvency and the re-appearance of the same directors in a new company carrying on iin the same line of business gets little aattention though it is indeed bad news for creditors. Even repeated bankruptcies - not the case here incidentally - get a lot less attention than I'd expect. I suspect the only defence for a prospective creditor is to do a thorough check on Companies House for previous directorships before taking on a new customer. Our law does very little to protect anyone but company officers, it seems. Even a Court Order can be avoided by declaring insolvency, something which surprised me.
  14. I had a vague impression someone did one, though possibly in 1/48th scale. Having checked around Flightpath, Freightdog adn Alleycat, I now think I am mistaken. Mind you, I think Mr Parkins' range at Flightpath may have been slimmed down a bit since last I looked - or perhaps that is the rose coloured specs of memory. (And luckily I believe I have most of what I really wanted already in reserve, so to speak.)
  15. I am sorry to hear that Karel. Sadly, you are far from the first to find difficulties with this organisation. They used to produce some fine magazines years ago, but have fallen into difficulties for various reasons, best not enumerated. There are quite a few people on this forum who used to work with them; few if any now remain. Regards, John B
  16. Ah . thanks. That rather suggests my guess that what I was seeing on the upper wing was a fuelling point is wrong. What I had thought to be the undersurface has a smooth skin section near the wingroot and also one much further out. There is also a single smooth section of surface outboard on the other surface. I guess the outboard smooth sections are where plywood sheet reinforcing of the spars and ribs was done to reduce wing twist effects as ailerons moved - part of the solution to the early break up accident problems. The wing section with the inner What I had thought was a recesed fuel cap point must be something else. Cheers, John B
  17. Yes, the balance horns are there. Like you I suscept they will be very vulnerable. Having looked at few more images and read up a wee bit, I think the balance horns must be part of the reworking after the flutter problems were encountered. The later tailplanes with no struts seem to be deeper, suggesting a redesign, and the balance horns appear on that style tail. There's a debate going on in our household about the tailwheel. My wife thinks having a recess only would make a sig difference to drag at the speed of a Staggerwing. I wasn't so convinced, since we have been flying our Sportavia RF-5B without gear doors for a couple of years or more and I don't the performance is affected. 75-90 knots cruise rather than 180 mph though is a bit different ! And my wife is the better pilot... John B
  18. Very nice model work Paul. The more I read about Staggerwings, the more variations and minor complexities I find ! Your original CF-BJD, was first built for Imperial Oil as a seaplane variant, so had a starboard door as well as the standard port side door. It aslo apparently had a lower wing fuel tank plus two belly tanks, to ease refuelling. At least one ex-seaplane is said to have, post re-build, lower wing tanks each side, for four wing tanks total - which implies perhaps all the seaplanes had upper tanks as well, just not always used. It looks as though -BJD has no tail strut - some Staggerwings appear to have one tail strut, some two, some none. I think all have a mass balance hanging off the undersaide of the elevator. That may have been fitted as a side effect of the wing/aileron flutter solutions. I also see my kit has doors for the tail wheel, as -BJD has, but photographs also show Staggerwings with the retracted tailwheel simply in a recess. Interesting - you pays your money... John B
  19. Super J-W, thanks a lot. Now I know which wing to put on where. That confirms what the wire fairleads entry points suggested; the instructions got the upper wings reversed ! Cheers, John B
  20. Quetion about the real Staggerwing - were the fuel tanks in the upper wings? I ask because there seem tot be two very faintly scribed circles which may be fuel fillers on the model. If so, that fits with what look to me like the bracing wire entry points on the wing surfaces. It also means the instructions label the upper wings the wrong way round, I think. Not the first time instructions have done that ! John B
  21. Like several other posters, that one rings a few bells from a long time back - 1s/11d from Woolies - and like JohnT I also had the Revell red themed variant with the sliding canopy. (The Revell kits with the special box tops were a fine novelty way back, and the sliding canopies on the P51 and P47 impressed me, thoiugh not a smuch as their Bf109 which ahd the hinging canopy. I made several of those) That Airfix P51 I built a few of - though I didn't notice the changes Paul J mentions. Several 'what-ifs' were dreamed up! It is a good reminder of how far the technology has improved - nicely built too !
  22. Is the first aircraft in 'KevinK's message a Defiant? I recognise the second type obviously, but that first one has me slightly puzzled - both by the configuration and the impressivley oversprayed work - looks like some of my modelling ! I know they were having to knock stuff out at speed, but why not either remove the wheels or roughly maskthem. That piant may nitbe good for rubber. Also, the entire undercarriage leg has been sprayed. Was there no chrome piston section for the oleo. which presumably you would not want to spray. Or did that type use another shock absorbing system? John B
  23. The Airfix blurb does mention in passing that they used the Cosford example for the Lidar scan, 'Texantomcat'.
  24. Given the period, I'd think blue grey and yellow lifejackets. I have some pictures taken by a cousin who was a Medical Officer on board HMS Ocean not long after Suez and my memory is that they showed yellow lifeajckets
  25. It does seem odd. There would be a weight penalty and perhaps a small range penalty of having them fitted. Maybe if use of a particular airframe was expected to be largely summer and daylight - after all some of these machine shad v short active lives. Perhaps re-fitting later was also done? Still seems weird.
×
×
  • Create New...