John B (Sc)
-
Posts
1,070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by John B (Sc)
-
-
On many early Lightnings it was easy to see that the front of the shock cone was fibreglass. You could see the yellow-greenish colour and the weave.
Fibreglass to be as transparent as possible to radar. Is kevlar transparent to typical radar frequencies? I have no idea.
Apart from the fact it was a much later development than the LIghtning, why use expensive kevlar when cheap fibreglass will do?
It is also worth saying that at the time the P1, then Lightning, was being developed, understanding of supersonic flow characteristics and jet engine inlet and requirements were still fairly limited. Few good wind tunnels (if any in Britain) operating in the right speed ranges, little modelling. It is easy form here to assume all sorts of things, all sorts of knowledge which simply did not exist. A good deal was 'best guess' engineering based on experience and gut feel, backed up by testing - 'suck it and see'. A lot was learned and there were many surprises along the way. Keeping it as simple as possible reduced the number of variables and unknowns and the risk of failure. Good engineering practice!
So, no moving bodies. I suspect if more work had been needed, Giorgio's suggestion of bleed air extraction for shock wave control might have been tried. Simpler & lighter than moving bodies. Mr Petter was involved in the early design, a great believer in simplicity and lightness.
-
Good luck all,
John B
-
Thanks 'bigbadbadge'. I shall look forward to hearing more in due course.
I do know what you mean, sadly. I too used to get SAMI regularly, but have little inclination to do so again, which is a shame.
I see the 'new' company publishing SAMI, Triple Six Media, says on its website "We are currently contracted to produce International Best Selling magazines in the hobby industry for MA Publications." Quite an interesting way to describe it, given that the officers of Triple Six Media appear to be the same people who are listed as the officers of MA Publications.
Like you I still enjoy SAM, though its a while since I had a subscription. Used to get it from my newsagent for the first few years ; I still have Issue 1 somewhere. Hopefully it and other good magazines will continue to fill the gap for me!
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, bigbadbadge said:
Crikey just had the October/November issue arrive through the letterbox!
Chris
Wow. I wonder what is in it, and who the editorial team is?
-
2
-
-
56 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:
Except railways, which if anything exceeds aircraft. I'm not sure what other modelling markets could be described as "major".
True. And one of our modelling magazines is edited by a keen railway enthusiast; real crossover in the enthusiasms.
-
To the best of my knowledge the Lightning shock body was immovable on all variants and I don't think the geometry was changed for any of the operational marks. The original English Electric PI had no inlet body, but much lower power engines, The P1B did have a central shock body and higher power engines, I think. Presumably the necessary trials were done to attain the optimum compromise during P1B flight trials?
Given the low fuel capacity of the original Lightning, possibly the thinking was that a movable body would add much complexity for very little return. Short duration dashes only.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:
I entirely agree with your action, but expect it to have little effect on their business.
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 !
-
2
-
-
"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?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:
Time Trading Standards were called in. Pretty obvious what is going on here.
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
-
1
-
-
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!
-
On 6/2/2014 at 7:24 PM, viscount806x said:
Well, I can't hope to join in this thread legally but I can add a couple of airline nicknames:
Astraeus - Ashtrays 'R' Us
Air 2000 - Air Two Bob
JMC - Jiggle My .........We'd better leave that one.
Aer Turas - Air Tear Ar$e (when I typed the full word the program replaced it with 'Tear Bottom')
Dan Air - Desperate Dans' (not fair, it was a good company according to ex employees I know)
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.
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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)
-
3
-
Lightning inlet cone
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
EE had the first induced flow wind tunnel in the UK running by the end of 1949. It only went to Mach 1.07 initially, which was enough.
Reading some of the development story, it is impressive how little was known, in so many areas including inlet design, how much was done on best principles and good reasoning. With a fair degree of luck !