John B (Sc)
-
Posts
1,070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by John B (Sc)
-
-
My memory is that the Sea King AEW capability then appeared with impressive speed after the Falklands war
-
Hmm, well at least one of those names doesn't inspire confidence. A gentleman who allegedly was 'released' from his role for having played fast and loose with some of the samples provided by manufacturers. Those with long memories and useful contacts will know to whom I refer.
That 'curiosity' aside, the gentleman had an odd style anyway - which i my view is not terribly encouraging for their future!
-
2
-
1
-
-
"There was a counter argument that the radar shouldn't be used as Argentine pilots knew when they were being "lit up" by the radar as they had RWR - Ward again argues that this is a good thing as the Argentines therefore new there were Harriers in the area, tracking them and that this would deter Argentine pilots from continuing an attack."
To my mind this showed how well Lt Cdr Ward was thinking as a leader, not a fighter pilot. Their job was to deter, disrupt or stop attacks by opposing aircraft. Shooting them down was of secondary importance.
Hadn't heard of Adm Woodward's order; that sounds very strange, given his lack of aviation expertise, unless those like Captain Middleton or the CO of 800Sqn felt that pilot morale was an issue. Odd one, unless it was an order about not using radar too close into the fleet or on a vector direct from the fleet, since that would give away fleet position. I'm sure I read something about that, whether from Ward or others, not sure.
As for opinionated, self confident - yes that certainly defines fighter pilots - actually I'd say it well defines most pilots, certainly those who are enthusiastic long term pilots. Confidence in your own abilities is important when faced by 'challenging' conditions, and given how large the sky is and how awe-inspiring the weather can be, a certain amount of self confidence or arrogance that you can deal with the issues matters. And that is without people shooting at you! This is also why aviation puts so much effort today into pilot psychology and attitudes.
Opinionated - surely not? Just go into any crew room or flying club bar... !
-
2
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, wombat said:
There’s quite a lot said about Ward by those qualified to do on the military section of PPrune...
From my reading, the bulk of the comments on PPrune are from ex-RAF folk who are not the least biased people around, Are they qualified? I rather doubt it., in most cases.
There has been FAA vs RAF banter and dispute for many years, some justified , some less so. I think both Squadrons had RAF pilots successfully integrated within them; the aggro I suspect comes from people probably never near the action, or those like the Hercules pilot Ward mentions who claimed to be on 'active war duty' weeks after all the fighting had ceased. Technically true but - yawn.
Lt Cdr Ward was clearly not the most tactful of people, but then in a war situation, tact often comes second. He also clearly enjoys winding up the 'light blue'!
It does seem from the evidence that 801 Sqn did get better radar operation; I think they had had longer to get used to and tweak the set up. That, combined with 801's different patrol and loiter tactics generally worked better than 800's approach. I get the impression that 800 was inhibited rather by being under the direct eye of the overall commander, Adm Woodward, who had no aviation experience - a submariner. Possibly the style of Lyn Middleton . CO of Hermes, contributed, though I suspect he too found having the Task Force commander flying his flag aboard a strain. (He definitely wasn't happy with the RAF Harriers at first) In contrast, Invincible seems to have been rather more relaxed with a closer understanding between the seniors involved.
Overall, despite the strains and evident disagreements about tactics and deployments, a great job was done by all, against the odds.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I agree with des and Muzz. Take your time and put in the effort it comes out well. Looks and 'feels' like a real heavyweight aeroplane, just like the real thing was. I've done several now and am just now working on an all dark grey FAA machine from Lossiemouth back in the great old days of the Navy.
But yes, I expect Airfix will do a new tool, eventually. At quite a price, no doubt.
Their retooled 1/72nd Buccaneer - their third 1/72 moulding - is excellent.
-
Thanks all. Yes gingerbob, I did finally realise that the OP was talking (implying) 1/48th. I have all these variants already in1 /72, except the PR10.
Shall check on the presence/absence of airbrakes on my kits. I suspect they are are old enough to have the error; they were bought in a reduced price sale many moons ago! . Some filling and re-scribing might deal with it adequately. Super - and winter just coming along, right time for this sort of mulling - well done mackem01 !
-
A sudden thought. If you use the F8 main kit and add the F3 tail feathers, that will leave most of an F3 with a Mk8 tail available.
How similar to the PR10 wings are those of the F3? Is it possible to modify them to become a suitable emulation? Haven't seen a 1/48th PR10 to my knowledge.
And going further, I think I have a Tamiya Mk1 kit tucked away somewhere - how similar are the F3 wings to the Mk1 ? I recall there was much angst about the Tamiya Mjk1, but I cant remember why now. Anyone?
Maybe some old style kit bashing looms!
John B
-
Thanks 71chally, and Wes. I knew the Mistrals had ejection seats - and of course it makes sense that the Swiss would also have ejection seats, given how long they used the Vampires.
-
2 hours ago, franky boy said:
John, was that in 72nd scale?
James
Ah - yes, the 'one true scale'. Sorry, forgot that Airfix had produced a 1/48th F8. Fairly stupid, since I have two in the stash to build ! A favourite aircraft of mine too...
And - I do have a 1/48th Mk 4 to build; from Classic Airframe, way back. Sorry folks, of course that's not available any more. (I wonder what happened to the moulds? Jules never did really come back after the 2009 stoppage as far as I know)
-
1
-
-
Didn't Revell, amongst others, produce a Mk 4? I'm sure I have a built Mk 4 model sitting gathering dust somewhere!
John B
-
Superb cockpit photos, thanks. (kibbitzing in on Wez, guess why!)
An immensely silly question - was the fitting of an ejection seat unique to RNZAF and possibly RAAF single seat Vampires? The picture of the machine at HOTAT has an ejection seat warning stencil and possibly a head box visible through the canopy, but the detail cockpit photos show what looks to me to be a standard fixed seat.
John B
-
18 hours ago, SAT69 said:
Can we add the Hunter T.66B to the list? Hunter trainers with two cannons look awesome to me.
Very true. Really, a good modern set of 1/72 and 1/48th Hunter two seaters to cover both the small and large Avon variants OUGHT to sell, surely. I was surprised at Revell's comments about their 1/72nd Hunter selling rather poorly, though the 1/32nd one was surely a risky bet, given that Echelon had already kitted it.
-
As said by someone else, a 148 Scimitar would be terrific, as would a Swift.
A 1/48th Hunter two seater would be really really nice - yes there are conversion options available. I have a1/32 Hunter two seater, in vac form.
John B
-
2
-
-
I'd agree with 'dogsbody', broadly. The undercarriage bay assemblies in the new kit are a pain - though I've only built the new MkII variant. Wrestling those bay areas into submission was a challenge. The nacelle to engine cowling fit was also not great on the MkII, possibly due to incompetence on my part.
If you can find a kit of the earlier issue Airfix Lancaster, I thought it fairly good, and easy to build, by (admittedly dubious) memory.
John B
-
1
-
1
-
-
Cheers Terry. I did once manage to thermal a T31, by sheer luck immediately off a winch launch. Totally unexpece4td, just blundered right into it , but gave me the 15 minutes we needed in those days for a 'C' badge. I later flew that T31 with my instructor on an aerotow into wave. Scared the heck out of both of us, and he was an ex-RAF bomber pilot ! The way the in wings twisted in the turbulence - gulp. We never tried the T31 in wave again !
I didn't realise the Canadians used the Phoenix or Sovereign, which is what I think the later variants became called. (I wonder which?) A curious machine - was it Andy Gough who flew some aerobatics in it and then after investigating some odd noises found that a frame had been left out of the fuselage ? Rumour had it that even when properly built there were some very odd noises, making Blaniks and Pilatus B4s sound quiet.
Mr B17's reminiscences on the Schweizer 2-22 and 2-33 bring back happy memories too !
-
2
-
-
On 11/16/2021 at 1:28 PM, Maginot said:
Very nice finish on the Grob Astir. And don't the Air Cadet trio look great? Interesting comparing these different design solutions to powerless flight. Very pleasing forms.
Quite a time difference between them of course - and very different materials ! The T31 in particular was so much more a glider than a sailplane - needed good strong lift to stay up, while the T.21 or Sedbergh, aka 'Barge' would thermal at astonishingly low speeds and waft around superbly on hillslopes. The gentle 'hoot' of a thermalling Astir is still heard occasionally near here.
Lovely models of fine aircraft.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Good point, 'Rob G'. I have in the past used a sharp needle , or even a pin with very thin plastic when modelling away from home. . Just pushed through, with the protruding edges then skimmed off with a sharp blade and eased out as required.
-
Thanks Dave 'pin vice' was the description I was struggling for !
-
Generally these additional holes are to allow you to add optional items, such as drop tanks, stores pylons etc. If you don't want to add them then the surface of the model is untouched.
Typically I'd suggest a 1mm hole if not otherwise stated. Perhaps for 1/72 start with 0.8mm - small enough that its easy to cover up if you change your mind,. Generally easy to open out with large drills or a fine needle file.
Hand drilling is better; plastic is usually quite soft. Theses small drills will break easily , so use a short shank and rotate slowly.
Sets of small drills and suitable hand chucks (drill holders) are available from good model shops or online.
John B
-
Sounds interesting and the completed examples look good.
How extraordinary to require filing off 0.5 mm in several places and also to cut away or scrape away plastic to improve other poor fit points. I presume they felt it too expensive to modify the moulds. Rather suggests a quality control error at an earlier design stage.
Still, none of the alterations look particularly difficult to do!
-
Almost certainly an Airfix kit in a bag, 1/11d from Woolies. Maybe a Spitfire (yawn) or a Hurricane from their first mouldings - I certainly made both of those.
The first I really remember and treasured for years was the 1/48th scale Revell S-55 helicopter on floats, with opening clamshell doors and an engine. Mt father helped me with that.
-
1
-
-
Following up on the comments by MikeC and from Jon Kunac-Tabinor, as an occasional review and article contributor I was clearly told by editors to make constructive criticism when required and I have tried to do so whenever necessary, If a kit fails badly, it should be called out as such, for everyone's benefit, manufacturers as well as modellers. That is all we can do.
At no time have any of the editors I worked with sought to change my writing to influence such critical comment. My grammatical errors, yes...
I'd hope that my occasional blunders and sometimes deliberate (honestly!) changes of build order have helped a few readers, either with their purchase decisions or their own builds.
John B
-
5
-
1
-
-
Unpleasant as it would be to leave groundcrew behind, I would have thought that in war saving the (frequently rare and slow to train) aircrew and their fighting aircraft might have to come first. Presumably that would also be a matter of orders, so the aircrew would have no choice? Just like some poor sods have to provide the distraction attack and quite possibly die doing it.,
-
3
-
-
23 hours ago, canberra kid said:
I've just read through this hoping it may shed some light but unfortunately not, other than stating the P.11 (T.4) is aerodynamically no worse than the P,1A and in some respects better.
John
Was this not similar to the case of the Hunter two seater? Slightly better aerodynamics after much tweaking resulted in lower drag rather than higher for the two seater. I believe EE were given the canopy & spine lofting information from the Hunter two seater and use that as their basis - any confirmation of that, can't recall where I read/heard that?
John B
SAMI, MAM, June & July issues
in Magazines & Books
Posted
I'd agree with that!