John B (Sc)

Yes - and also of RAF Leuchars BoB Day 1966, which I was also at. That was the first show I drove myself to, the same year as I had driven to Farnborough. Imagine my astonishment when I saw a very young, intense John B walk across one shot in that Leuchars film !

Found it ! In a Cranfield report on blowing trials, the tailplane section is described as an RAE 102, 5% , with negative camber. The main wing section varies, but is variously RAE 100 9.25%, RAE 101 8% and RAE 102 8% cambered, from inner to outer wing. So the tailplane section fairly similar to outer main wing section. Hope that helps

Since the air blow on the tailplane was on the underside, so I suspect it was indeed an inverted section aerofoil.

Presumably the aircraft dropped photoflood flares - Lepus or similar? - on its run in? I always wondered about those - rather a giveaway of position, but I suppose anyone looking is dazzled for quite a while? I see the listing of items includes a 'photoflash crate' .

Yes, like space ranger, thanks for the info folks - now I need to take a more careful look at my Valiant kit(s) !

Now that is very interesting, SR. I just went up to my stash in the loft and checked. My box has exactly the same as you describe - one sealed plastic bag with the grey plastic parts. There are no transparencies - as you say 'part1G' on the sheet. Decals are present. This is the first time that box has been opened, it still had the Airfix seal on ; that suggests that they were sent out like that. Drat ! Too long ago to do much about it , though I might drop Airfix a note.

At one time when NATO was facing the Warsaw Pact and somewhat outnumbered, the basic ground defence plan was that any aircraft heading East was to be left alone and anything heading West low to medium level except in a few designated safe lanes was to be clobbered by ground - air missiles and guns. Anything high altitude was to be left to the fighters. The combined missile flak defences were felt to be enough to seriously degrade Warsaw Pact air attack. Fighters were not considered adequate defence for low level work. (By the army!) If you read Pierre Closterman's account of Tempest flying late in WW2 when they tried to attack German airfields or shoot down Me262s, you will see that the intense anti aircraft fire was the big killer. On one airfield single high speed pass attack he lost 6 out of 8 Tempests. My father worked briefly in the REME setting up radar predictors fro AA guns, He said that by late war if the target held a straight or steadily curving track,, the gun would be hitting them on the third shot. Erratic weaving was the only worthwhile answer. So, personally I'd think 'flak' - though 'jackroadkill' has a darn good point!

Thank you, np. So my memory of seeing photos of them isn't fantasy! And shorty84 - also my thanks., the idea of splitting the tasks to reduce costs and minimise expensive flying hours make sense. And also make operational sense since using Typhoons to intercept really slow manoeuvrable machines adds risk. Sounds as though once again politicians are pretending to 'expertise' they don't have.

Giorgio, Your earlier post discussing what you like in a modelling magazine in many ways matches my preferences too and struck a chord. I like to learn more about the real aircraft - actually that is relevant when I build a model. Often I learn a lot more about the aircraft and why it is as it is from looking at and building the model and thinking about the machines function. MAM some years ago, SAM and also, as you said, particularly Replic and other French magazines provided lots of detail which interested me. Some of those French aircraft magazines remind me of the happy days of Flying Review International - a long gone magazine I still dip into for photos and reference. Learning new modelling techniques or how to apply those I use better is also of interest. Overall, what I want to do is build a model which looks and feels to me like a replica in miniature of the real thing, often to help me remember them better. A magazine which helps me towards that is worth having - and part of that is worthwhile r reviews which tell me when a kit is a real challenge to build, even if they have to hint it, or which point out the occasional mistakes the kit manufacturers make. If I gain any better technical understanding of the real thing, so much the better. I suspect my ideal modelling magazine wouldn't sell well!

I must admit I thought the decision to buy Eurofighters was sorted out ages ago, Somehow I had the impression they were in service already.

It has a multi role function - trainer, ground attack, reconnaissance. In theory they provide interception as well, though that would be of fairly slow airliners only I'd think, since flat out max chat is 520 knots at sea level. There was an update proposed about twelve years ago, possibly of electronics, not sure. May have been for Swedish machines only. A little early to retire them; I thought Saab still had a servicing contract to run for another two years or so. They were supplied - 40 of them - in the Seventies, so quite long in the tooth. They replaced vampires and Tunnans - the Austrians had a small Air Force only, consistent with their slightly awkward position of quasi-neutrality between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. (Days long gone! ) Somewhat of a 'nominal' force in some respects, perhaps.

Some quite good pictures in it, some familiar some new to me - and like you BM I have quite a few FAA tomes. I bought mine new in 198x.

I seem to recall there is a long running friendly argument between No 1 Sqn RAF and No 3 Sqn RAF as to which is the 'first squadron' in the RAF. This hinges I think on whether or not (tethered?) balloons are acceptable as aircraft. Some of the discussion here sounds on similar lines!

It was a long time ago, but I reckon the shade of blue on the left in your sample looks close Timmas. Spent quite a few hours in BA's machines, all those years ago.

The membership pages are working again now- or were for me. Cheers, John B

So far I have kept or re-furbished most of my older models. I use cardboard fruit & veg boxes to store them in when not on display. Stored in the loft and for 'ready use' under one of the beds. Quite fun to haul out old boxes and remind myself of what I built - some I don't remember at all... Mind you, that could also be because my wife is a modeller too ! Like wellsprop I used to 'retire' them with an air rifle at one time.

I have only just noticed this - what a shame, and a most interesting back story I suspect. I have never built one but greatly enjoyed reading the reports by those who had. Some terrific work apparently Like another writer here I wish they had gone into interwar machines - there are some fascinating aircraft they could have made, which I'd have been delighted to try. 1/32 scale works well for biplanes, since for me at least it makes rigging feasible! I see Hannants are saying that the WNW Fokker Dr1 will be re-issued by Meng, so perhaps some hope they will not disappear. (That at least will be an easy rigging job!)

Yes - I am getting 'Error 404, Page not found.' I think Ratch is right. Hopefully they will sort this as soon as possible !

This looks superb work - something to try to emulate! Can I ask - can someone tell me what the differences are between the early version Tempest V and the late versions? Is it just the short barrel cannons, the rudder spring tab and wheel size & pattern ? I have the Eduard early version in my stash. just thinking of breaking it out and saw this. A Pierre Clostermann machine is tempting on a personal basis. Not sure if he flew the early version as well. (Must re-read 'The Big Show') John B

Like JohnT I too have a set of old 'night glasses' made by Ross, which belonged to my father. Not sure where he got them, probably an illicit swap along with his 1942 pattern RAF Flying Boots. I recall using them in late evening, owl spotting. They do gather light quite well, with low magnification obviously. . There are occasional crew reports to be found of 'Ross glasses' apparently being used for target identification at night. Re-reading 'night Fighter' I bet that is what Mr Rawnsley was using.

Thanks both. I have built a couple of the Kinetic Magisters, a few challenges but nice overall. The AMK kit is attractive, I agree.

I see that there is a re-issue of the Kinetic 1/48th Fouga Magister kit, this time in Austrian colours. What I can't find out anywhere is - are there two kits in the box, as with the first issue? I suspect not, but the price of this reissue is very similar to that of the original, so... And it was a nice kit, which I'd like to make more of!

True. Long ago, I built a vacform Vulcan, bingo Airfix came out with theirs. I built a vacform Valiant - same thing happened !

Very true. By the time the air had been in, compressed, heated etc., its volume and velocity would have changed a lot - which was the point wasn't it? Then only additional 'exhaust' points I can think of was the additional boundary layer blowing on the inner wing. I believe the boundary layer slits were modified generally, so flow rates may well have increased.

On Scalemates - it is good and a very useful resource, but be careful. Like all of us, sometimes they get it wrong. For me the most recent example was a Super Hornet kit with some quirks. I wanted to check its origins and Scalemates told me what they thought were the various re-boxings. However one which they mentioned was a kit I had in my stash. When I checked that kit it was very evidently not the same moulding. Part breaks and assembly process quite different. So it's good, but not always right !