Jump to content

John B (Sc)

Members
  • Posts

    878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John B (Sc)

  1. Haha - I'm eagerly awaiting mine too - though if they went out on the 24th January, which is what was said earlier on in a previous topic, by second class post that could mean another day or two wait yet ! John B
  2. I think Cmdr Ward also shot down a C-130 which was making a low level night departure from the Falklands heading W or NW? using a missile, presumably an AIM-9L .
  3. Found it. The (usually) diagonal stress undulations you often see in thin skin structures under stress, are Wagner tension fields.
  4. It's not so much around the rivets as an effect caused by shear stress in the (very thin) sheet surface., There is a formal name for it which I can't recall just now. It is due to the diagonal shear forces being applied, typically. Because it looks like the dimpling you get when using an old fashioned clink clonk oilcan, it was called 'oil canning'. Cheers, John B
  5. The Tornado F3 was involved in the Gulf War, of course. No 29Sqn deployed with them to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. I don't know if they changed livery from grey to desert pink though; seems unlikely for air defence operations. Edit : I have found a photograph which suggests some F3s were painted desert pink. Most handsome too, so that would avoid Ringo having to buy another kit at all ! John B
  6. In my limited experience, constructive criticism is not something an editor will object to, nor have I ever had any alteration made by an editor, except where poor grammar was concerned. Something I have noticed is that occasionally both modellers writing for magazines and enthusiastic modellers in clubs demonstrate extraordinary gaps in their knowledge of real aeroplanes, That may explain some of the failures to point out the rare major errors which manufacturers have inadvertently foist on us. As a pilot and engineer, I try to look at my models and ask myself if things make sense. If not, why not. I've learned a lot about aeroplanes that way ! Personally, when I wrote reviews, it was the errors, commonly mine by not reading the instructions properly (!) or more rarely the manufacturers for not writing those correctly, plus the awkward bits of the build I had difficulty with, that I felt people would want to know about. John B
  7. Lovely. I wonder if there is any chance they'd eventually do an Aeronca Champion, or even an L-3? More light aircraft in that scale would be great. The Champion has a slightly more rounded and friendly look - and a better undercarriage set up. A pretty aircraft that never gets the attention the Cub does.
  8. My understanding is that the Phoenix Editors are aware and hope to feature smaller scale models in future, not just 1/72 but 1/144 as well. Graham Boak's observations are spot on. Modern close up photography occasionally depresses me. What looked like a good result to my eyes looks poor when a real close up zoom in is done. I keep having to remind myself I aim to produce a model which has the right look and feel. That usually involves viewing at fair distance, not ultra close up. It is tempting to go up a scale to make things 'easier'. Silly, given I have so many fine 1/72 kits to build ! Actually, thinking about that further, don't look too closely at the real thing. Some have noticeable grotty bits; working aeroplanes develop flaws. I can think of one I fly regularly which has a piece of fabric under the belly which keeps coming loose, another which has cowling panels which are heavily re-rivetted to deal with small cracks. I have flown on airliners which likewise have small patches and resprays where minor repairs have been done. Occasionally real life paint jobs look quite rough close up. That includes some military schemes; it's not just D-Day stripes that were hastily applied. (Sea Harriers in the Falklands are a classic example of that, Hand repainting on some while at sea,. Hard to get precision.) So maybe sometimes we modellers are our own worst enemies. The real thing ain't perfect, so neither is a replica ! John B
  9. Thanks David, that makes sense. It appears to be a good close fit over the forward fuselage.
  10. Most interesting. Looking at that picture of PL848, there is another Spitfire in the background with what appears to be PRU blue rear fuselage and tail feathers plus D-Day stripes and some dark almost mottled camouflage over the forward fuselage. Unless that is some sort of camouflage netting - any ideas?
  11. Blimey - I hadn't realised that the Revell 1/72 Hunter was now priced at £18.00. I bought their (superb) 1/32 Hunter for less than that ! Clearly now time to build some of the saved stash; I don't feel I want to pay the depressingly raised prices now. Javelins and Victors at £70+ ; that is bad enough but at least they are fairly large. The Buccaneer is a deal smaller. Like Beermonster I'd be prepared to go £55 or so for the nice extra detail, not more. Sad, but it looks like I have hit my price limit.
  12. Thanks Roland Pulfrew, some useful information there. I was aware that roles change, wasn't aware that 54 had been the 'ISTAR' OCU for so long. In such a small service now, I do worry about the diminished opportunities and options for personal development compared to the (relatively) recent past.. In that regard, I wonder whether a change from the long established two year tour system might be helpful. Is it rather too short in the modern world? Agent K, on costs; really, that argument has been (mis-) used by the MoD for so long it has whiskers. As a taxpayer I have seen some of the cost excesses, embarrasments and silly cream-offs etc. Suffice it to say it is clear there are more efficient ways. Be efficient with the small amounts and it aids efficiency with the large ones . The aircraft will all be pooled anyway, for servicing so any separate squadron identity is for 'esprit de corps' competitiveness or whatever you want to call it. I can't help feel it's a little pathetic with such a small force. Impressive/depressing how few Poseidons have replaced so many Nimrods - yes I know there were not many MR4As being built; the same argument held there. The oceans are still very large and nine aircraft must mean a large reduction in our intended coverages. Ah well, enough of the real world angst. I wonder how long before we get a mainline manufacturer 1/72nd Poseidon, 1/144 mainline injection kit should be straightforward and soon, but I bet we have to wait a while for the larger scale.
  13. I like the way the modern RAF manages to make three 'Squadrons' out of nine aircraft. Is it only me that thinks this is a slightly absurd way to operate. Admittedly 54 Squadron, as the OCU, will mostly be operating the simulator(s) etc., and presumably 'borrowing' an aircraft when required. Rather more admin and bumff than operational capability, and a great way to ensure more senior officers can justify their expensive existence. And no 54 - once a great ground attack and fighter squadron. Hmm. At least 201 and 120 have long maritime histories.
  14. Thanks for the information about the old moulds. That description of no longer being viable because of increasingly high moulding reject rates - which is effectively what is being said - makes engineering and economic sense. It also suggest that older 'stashed' copies of the original mould are more valuable, since being earlier pressings they are less likely to have suffered those failures. Like RichG, I still have one of the accidental 'two kits in one box' cases, as well as several other early pressings. I still intend to build an SAAF example, remembering having seen them at Lossiemouth. As Beermonster1958 says , the question of aftermarket items is very much optional. I am old enough to recall and to have attempted some of the ideas of Alan Hall and others. Do it yourself. Some things, like intake and exhaust blanks, are easy to make. - a waste, for this frugal Scot - to buy. Wheels and cockpit details are easily enough improved with some careful filling, filing and painting/shading. Colour scheme details I used to enjoy hand painting, with great care, at least to my standards. The thing is, I realise that most of my models end up being viewed from several feet away, only occasionally inspected in detail. So 'stand-off scale' works well ; a common idea in radio control flying, which some of you will recognise. Heck, some of my models are still displayed hanging up from ceilings. (Just like in some museums!) So aftermarket mostly isn't vital, though it slightly disappoints me when I read of the speed with which some folk throw away the moulded items in favour of new 'extras', sometimes described as 'essential' ! That's a matter for each individual; that is the fun of modelling. For me aftermarket is used rarely, for the few cases where I really want close detail for later inspection. Things like wing folding mechanism details can be interesting and useful. Occasionally the learning from examining the aftermarket detail has helped me with some later scratch building, to define what can and cannot be seen and hence what really matters for the model...
  15. Thanks sniperUK. Hadn't checked to see what the detail was there; that said, it's not a huge task to remove that unless it has been done in some odd way. It was q surprisingly simple mod to change the airflow at that point. I imagine the next debate will be what is needed to produce a satisfactory SAAF Buccaneer Mk50 ! Very nice colour scheme. I don't think they used the rocket assist much; I believe it was removed quite early on, Not sure about the larger slipper tanks, and there will be lots of fun for some people sorting out the later weapons fits. John B
  16. A good point; though since I recall seeing three of these schemes for real I like them. Shame that at least one of the EDSG over white preceding schemes is not included - they were really nice. I remember my serious spotter friends discussing where the demarcation lines were on different machines. A Mk1 would be nice; do you suppose anyone will produce a conversion kit?
  17. I am lucky enough to have a couple 'in stock'. I have built several of the old mould, which I found excellent once you found a way past the awkwardness of some of the basic construction. Once completed, they really look the part; hefty solid machines, just as the real aircraft were. This does look nice, but maybe not sufficiently improved to warrant that price for me. Quite likely you will find a few of the older moulds being sold on for tempting prices. I made one of the new 1/72 kits, having previously made both the earlier mouldings. Good, with lots more detail but hard to build really well, with very tight clearances and some difficulties.
  18. Very nice I'm sure, but at that price I shall stick with my existing kits !
  19. I'm with you SAT69. I like the Spitfire, especially the later variants but the Hurricane has always had an appeal. The father of a good friend and flying buddy flew in the Battle of Britain and on throughout the war. He flew Hurricanes, then later all sorts of other machines including the (later) Spitfires. He felt the Hurricane was the better aircraft for new tyro pilots with very few hours - he hadn't even fired the guns before arriving on his first Squadron. Easy to fly, reassuringly solid, tough, manoeuvrable and a steady gun platform were his main thoughts. Plus easy & stable to land when you are all shaky and scared, possibly in a damaged aircraft. He felt the Spitfire , like the 109, needed more care in handling. especially on landing and his view was that the early Spits were harder to fight, not as steady for gunnery. Greta once you had the hang of them! He also like the ease of repair of the Hurricane. Main dislikes for both Hurricane and Spitfire -the unprotected fuel tank right in front of the cockpit. He later commanded a Spitfire squadron, so wasn't biased against the Spit. Fascinating man; I wish I'd asked him more.
  20. Interesting. So Airfix now have a Spitfire Mk 1a, Mk V and Mk IX in 1:24th. Quite a line up; presumably that completes their likely Spitfre output (please!), though I agree with wellsprop, a Seafire would be nice, to display wings folded. Maybe I need to get my old Mark 1a and the Mk V built...
  21. "Left hand down a bit, Mr Pertwee."
  22. It will be interesting to hear from the more expert amongst us, over the next few months, if articles are being recycled, or believably 'tweaked' for re-use. What a shame if that happens; a once good magazine.
  23. Indeed. I recall the F104s being shiny and new and then the F-5s and RF-5s. God grief, where have the years gone? Just whizzed by !
  24. Hello Dominic. Like many of us, I was very sorry to hear of your father's death; he was a really lovely man to listen to. Glad you intend to carry on modelling, especially with all the reference materials you must have ! Welcome to this madhouse.
×
×
  • Create New...