John B (Sc)

I'd expect online publishing to increase, 'spruecutter', but there are always going to be folk who prefer to read physical text rather than view on a screen. Many of us do both, and some of my youngest friends and relatives are amongst the keenest reader of what I will call 'real' books and magazines, Still rather easier to re-read, annotate and look back over text on a paper page, so I think some magazines will remain - maybe in both forms or as hybrids.

Given the delays in recent issues, I suspect that 'en masse', the actions of many may be having an effect. I agree, comments on here would only ever reflect a tiny proportion of opinion overall. Still not the way I'd run a business !

"Otherwise I read A. Evans's editorial : not a slightest trace about any difficulties or explanation about the switch to a bimonthly edition regrouping" - 'Christian. I suspect the editorial you mention may well have been written quite some time ago; perhaps it predates all the main changes and furore, hence noting is mentioned. Given that this combined issue contained information about events already well in the past, the pointers are clear. How much in that issue was recycled, and when from?

Are 'Trading Standards' capable of doing anything? Have they any teeth?

Entirely agree with you both, 'Whitewolf' and 'Scimitar F1'. Type 31s useful only as OPVs - ouch ! "credible frigate", with only one 57 mm gun, Admittedly 200 rounds a minute helps, but still a rather light weapon. (Oops - gone a bit off topic here!)

Thanks Dave. A closer look at what I thought was an actuator shows it is some sort of reinforcing or bracing rod, near to one of the hinges, but not part of it. Tsk. Closer examination required. I see those missing hinges.

Sorry to see these go, so soon - it seems. So 8 Sqn returns to Lossiemouth but with three aircraft only. Strewth. I recall thinking when the old 8 Sqn reduced the number of Shack AEW2s that things were getting bad, but this... Three aircraft isn't a Squadron , it's a Flight ! How can they justify a Wing Commander as OIC , etc? The aircraft numbers and rank structures are getting truly absurd & embarrassing now; I feel sorry for the service folk involved! John B

Thank you Dave. I had seen the first photo, not the second. So the number of mounting frames (not beams) did differ according to load. Excellent. It is indeed a good general representation of the interior which is provided. I had wondered about the bay door interior contours. Having now found some more photographs and drawings of Universal Bomb Carriers, my rigging the ones provided upside down (according to the instructions) makes some sense, since that shows the nose and tail fusing units (in a general way). If Airfix do produce a version with the 4,000 lb bomb, those braces will be tricky in scale. Actually I might build a bomb bay without the bomb, but with the braces - quite interesting. I believe I have a 4,000 lb cookie unused from a Lancaster kit, so could put it on a trolley nearby. Though possibly the bomb needs modification to fit into a Mosquito I also note in the photos what looks like a door actuating jack at ~mid door point. Hadn't spotted that before Much thanks. John B

Hi folks. Does anyone have any clear information and/or photos of the bomb bay set up within a Mosquito B XVI please? The reason I ask is that I am trying to complete my build of the new 1/72 Airfix Mosquito B XVI. A fine kit but with a few niggles, as always. Clearly Airfix used information and presumably scans of a TT35 or similar. (I'm sure I saw something here about that a while back.) That means the bomb bay doors have minor oddities, easily dealt with. I suspect it also means the interior is 'reconstructed' to best available information. Notably, the cross beams for support within the bomb bay fit rather poorly & vaguely, and what I take to be the bomb crutch supports (or whatever the nomenclature should be), running fore and aft, seem oddly moulded and positioned. They have what appear to be stabilising pads on their upper surfaces, which seems odd since these would rest against the fuel tanks in the upper bay. Not a good structural notion. The bomb attachment itself is simplified down to a single tab - unlikely., I'd have expected any support pads to rest against the bombs to minimise sway in flight - in other words rig those supports the other way up. A pity; this all seems to spoil an otherwise nicely detailed area; it would be a shame to leave the doors closed, but that is the simple option! . Hunting for pictures, I see several which appear to suggest three cross beams existed, not two. Perhaps this reflects different marks or different possible load outs. Any available expertise welcomed !

Hah - Alan P you have me scratching my head. There was a rather dubious Qantas nickname I remember which would not meet 'standards' today , but a dodgy Lufthansa one has me puzzled. There was one about Luggage Usually Flown to Hamburg...' Clearly I shall have to PM you for a subtle hint !

Ah, thanks for that chaps. I had a memory of building a Monogram 1/48 Mosquito B IV as a youngster, in dark green and dark earth. Not sure about the undersides, though sky sounds right. A very long time ago now, so while building the new Airfix B XVI, I debated whether my young self had erred. Maybe not, though when the old Monogram B IV had short tailplanes and a single contact tailwheel, who now knows! The young JB certainly didn't!

haha - There used to be various airline nicknames/comments in the old days - SABENA - 'Such a Bloody Experience, Never Again' BOAC - 'Booked On Another Carrier' TWA - 'Teeny Weeny Airlines' There were many of those, some quite funny and a few truly scurrilous.. I wish I could remember what Alitalia's and Qantas's were.

The quality of some modern decal printing is astonishing. Like you, I have used magnifying glasses to read some of these, and many actually do have the correct wordings. In older style, small stencils ,tended to have that nonsense writing 'lori ipsos etc.....'' I think /M after a serial indicates a maintenance airframe, withdrawn from active use and for training or 'reduce to produce' spares only. Is that what you meant? John B

Thanks guys. Having now read the kit instructions more carefully (doh!), it says the aircraft had just returned from repairs at Hatfield. The photo I found online is of the same aircraft. So either these were panels painted for another scheme as you say 'Chuck45' or just in primer as you suggest Mike. Maybe that explains the odd coloured panel on the port wing upper nacelle area too. The picture I have shows that too, in a very light colour. John B

Looks like you had a really enjoyable day and those photographs are well taken. A shame for you that the machines are all so similar, so bland in their uniform greys with virtually no distinguishing marks. Sigh. (I am intrigued that Britman could see signs of squadron bar marks; my eyesight must be getting worse than I thought! ) It is really disappointing that the modern RAF seems to have lost all interest in unit identities on their aircraft. Presumably most servicing is done at station level now, so maybe that makes squadron markings pointless. If so, why not emphasise stations, as some countries do. I thought much of Squadron identity effort was done for morale boosting. Is not that required any more? John B

I see in the new Airfix Mosquito B Mk XVI kit, one colour scheme shows the top panel covering the radiators painted in pale grey. Previously I'd only ever seen these panels outlined in red with a large red cross over them to show (I presume) they should not be stood on. WAs the colour variation method common? I have found one photo online which might show that, but I'm not sure. Checking just in case this is another example of following colour schemes from refurbished post war or preserved aircraft. The kit scheme also shows a pale grey panel on the upper wing surface towards the rear of the port nacelle area. Does anyone know what that was for? Comments from any Mosquito experts welcome ! John B

There was some sort of drone being trialled in an area near RAF Lossiemouth recently; it was based out of Waddington apparently (though it wasn't clear whether the machine(s) were controlled from Waddington during the trial or whether operators were stationed at Lossie. Presumably that will have been whatever drone is replacing the Reaper - does anyone more expert on drones know?

Giorgio - I agree, the Hindustan Marut was an interesting aircraft. (Wasn't it designed in part by Kurt Tank, after he left Argentina ?) I'd like to see a kit of that, and of the developed Ajeet in 1/48th scale. (Someone made a 1/72nd kit of that, can't recall who)

Interesting, since I am halfway through a build of this kit. I agree with Finn that a change in inlet shape and size would be unlikely. Part of the apparent difference is I think being caused by the shadows on the sunlit photo. The spinner shadow makes the upper lip of the inlet look different. Meantime, I am trying to decide the shape of the rear of the bomb bay bulge. The kit provides a cutaway bulge suitable for a TT Mk 35 I believe, so some filler needed !

"I do wonder if they are trying to flog the magazine in shops to get in any cash they can and quickly. Subscriptions are a write off as that cash has been spent." Will that work though - I thought the shops pay the distributors when they ask for magazine copies, then get refunded for unsold copies. That presumably means the distributors don't pay the publishers for some considerable time, which won't help cashflow. After all this time, given the way other magazines appear to be managing successfully, this all sounds very strange.

Yup, or Must Respar Canberras Again. A ver fine aircraft Mind you many folk reckoned updating Buccaneer instruments and doing some fatigue check work would have given us a more capable strike aircraft than the Tornado !

I thought the B-52s which are still airworthy have already been heavily reworked and extensively rebuilt already, including some re-sparring. It is now essentially operating as a carrier of stand off weapons, to get them within a reasonable range. Operating at height and at fairly low speeds, they have plenty of reserve capability for this 'trucking' mission. Makes sense to refurbish and re-engine old well understood airframes. Some must be like 'my grandfather's axe' by now., especially with re-engining coming along. Last time I saw a 'low level' B-52 I was astonished at slow it looked - because of its size. John B

I think the grey/blue flying suits went out of use in the late Sixties, didn't they? I do recall having an ex-Forces gray/blue suit with I think a mix of zips (upper) and buttoned (lower leg) pockets and a yellow knife sheath/pocket, but later on only green overalls were seen around. Memory may be playing tricks of course

Oh I do hope so. A 'niche' aircraft indeed but a very impressive one. Happy memories of seeing some at Lossiemouth in the days of RNAS Fulmar.

It does seem to vary quite a lot. As Finn said they don't show up on many photos of the BoB period. I suspect the identification marks were carried at the roots. Also, since adjustable pitch propellers and removable blades were fairly new to the maintainers and riggers, with only two or perhaps tree types around, perhaps minimal ident info was needed. Only ref numbers so a blade's history was trackable. As time went on and so many more blade and prop boss types appeared, stencilling clearly to ensure correct fit, even in rushed circumstances would have been more important. Later on in the war the stencils did seem to be more obvious. American practice of easily read detailed blade stencils may have helped change British habits too? Possibly during the BoB there was a bit more rush and less interest in detail recording, at times, so stencils would not have been foremost in the minds. John B