John B (Sc)

I think the snag is that if you make similar compromise assumptions, the most believable or acceptable answers will look similar , at least to anyone who is part of a committee. Old style designers were more apt to go with their gut feel or their personal idiosyncratic engineering preferences. There used to be a saying about IT kit - " no-one got fired for buying IBM". In this case, if everyone else is producing shapes like this, that reassures the doubters. A radical departure may be seen as more risky.

This has been going on a long time. Airfix's first Buccaneer kit was the Blackburn NA39, based on an early prototype. Their Fiat G91 was also an early model with the pointed nose not the later PR nose. The Hawker P1127 and then the early pointy nose Harrier and pointy nose Jaguar. Frog had an English Electric P1B model. I had several Revell kits of US fighters which were also early models. Natural to want to be first with the new stuff.

Having just come across this thread, can I ask any Stampe experts around on this site what is known about the licence manufacture of SV4C aircraft in France and Algeria? Are there any lists of constrictor's numbers around to help determine which machines were built where? I do recall someone telling me that the early postwar Algerian built Stampes were considered to have been made to a different standard. I haven't yet come across the Azur kit, though I still have an old Heller ~1/50th ? kit as well as a 7ft span Precedent kit (radio control) to build

Presumably for XT287 with 237 OCU you'd need to remove some of the reinforcing patches applied later on - the Airfix S2B kit depicts a late life airframe with various strengthening patches. These could be sanded off. Interestingly, the S2C kit also has those reinforcements. Since I believe that some of the external reinforcement was a result of the Red Flag fatal crash, presumably some of the patches should also be removed from the S2C - which at least gives you the non bulged bomb bay.

Thanks all. I wondered what the writing was on the top edge, -thanks dov. To me this is part of the fun of modelling, finding out odd things about aeroplanes - with the help of friends on sites like this ! Cheers, John B

Hello all. I have been puzzling over the canopy opening arrangement of the P-38 Lightning, an aircraft I have never had a really close up look at. I know the central canopy section hinges up and back. Do the side sections beneath that slide down vertically into recesses in the fuselage - the two rectangular sections which appear to be cross braced lightly with diagonal wires ? If so, that would explain why there seems to be a heavier metal section across their tops, to provide a handhold and presumably an internal latch fore and aft. Any information welcomed ! John B

A USAF C-17 low across our airfield descending in to Lossiemouth. Then the Martin Baker Meteor recovering back to Lossie from a flight up to Cape Wrath.

A Dominie - the biplane one, either late Fifties or early Sixties, courtesy of the Royal Navy.

Thanks Troy. Super photos. Since I still have a half completed 1/24th scale Hurricane to detail I may use some of that to help prompt me.

I wasn't aware of the use of glassfibre on the F-86 except at the intake, thanks for that. Interesting that Boeing used non-structural glassfibre so early and yet it did not spread significantly either in Boring or the industry generally for so long. I agree about the conservatism of the construction and management sides of the British aircraft industry. Superb and imaginative design & engineering work by some, hugely held back by other old fashioned views and practices. Despite that, the Canberra was a superb aircraft - perhaps because EE was relatively new to the aviation game.

'AFAIK the red dope is the first coat, which is why it can be seen bleeding though the fabric.' (Troy Smith) I agree Troy, first coat after the (normally clear) tautening coat. What I can't recall is why we used the red dope. Do you know? And yes the next coat used to be called Aluminium; it was for UV protection. Thanks. Intrigued you think the fabric interior at rear of cockpit would be painted grey green. Just for neatness? No significant weight impact, just another small cost I suppose.

I found old copies of JWR Taylors booklets 'Aircraft of the RAF' and 'Aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm' from the early Sixties. The FAA still listed Tiger Moths and the DH Dominie - the biplane one - on strength. Mind you, we had seven aircraft carriers then too. What happened? What we have now available is a farce, not a force.

Ah yes, good point John. I suppose glassfibre was a bit advanced for the days when the Canberra was designed, especially for structural use, whereas wood was well understood. Rather nice that our 'latest jet bomber' and some of our jet fighters still had woodwork involved. It took a long time for military aircraft and inded power aircraft generally to do much structurally with glassfibre; the gliding manufacturers used it extensively much earlier!

It's quite a list compared to today. Presumably that book only mentions active inventory 'front line' machines. There would still have been a few Meteor F8 target facilities machines like 'Winston' then, plus TT Meteors at Llanbedr and possibly Malta. On Vampires, I must ask an ex-RAF pilot friend who just yesterday was reminiscing, talking bout practising 'E2B letdowns' through cloud which they used to practice, and I think he taught at one time. He mentioned Vampire two seaters and I know his service started later than '66. He was seconded to the FAA to fly Buccaneers, so perhaps the Vampires were Navy.

Wasn't it because of the aerial in the fin that the fin structure was wooden, to reduce interference?

The grey green was typically applied to metal surfaces by some manufacturers (though apparently not usually Hawker early on) I think, possibly for anti corrosion. I'd go with that slightly smeary reddish hue seen on the Finnish Hurricane. I think it was a non-tautening red dope put on immediately after the tautening cellulose dope coat. I think it was a coating to reduce fabric deterioration. Slight doubt on the reasoning, since I think UV was the main cause of conventional fabric ageing and a sliver coat should be more effective for that. Too long ago, though I do recall using that red dope, way back ! Perhaps someone with a better memory will comment...

Thank you Antti_K. Must get on with that conversion. The leading edge droop is quite subtle. I shall probably also haul out a 1/72nd Novo Javelin and maybe an old Airfix T3 to build, now my enthusiasm for Javelins has been revived by reading these threads. The last one I built was the natural metal one used by the CO of 228 OCU, An aircraft which I recall seeing at Leuchars many years ago. Somewhere., I still have photos. Cheers, John B

Most interesting thread this. I had not realised until now that the Airfix 1/72nd Javelin 9R had, effectively, a modified T3 rear end. Was the early , pen-nib fairing rear slimmer in both plan view and in profile? I ask because I am tempted to modify an Airfix 1/48th Javelin 9R back to the earlier Javelin 5. At the moment Alleycat is not responding, so rather than use a resin conversion it looks like I will need to revert to old habits and build my own adaptation. It looks to me as though the main reduction in rear fuselage width is in plan view, with the side profile mostly being slightly straighter on its underside. With some internal filling before hand, it should be possible to sand the rear done to a reasonable impression of the earlier rear shape. What do you folk think? John B

Thanks Mike, yes that is helpful. Ok, not really that expensive when considered compared to some of the other things we use, but hey, I am a Scot fae Aberdeen and we have a reputation to uphold... (And it's the P&P charges often made for delivery up here which really rankle ! ) John B

Thanks Troy, nheather, I will try that. I will cut away the crust too, Tory. Mike - true, but I am getting a tad fed up of doing that & it ain't cheap. I only use it rarely. lasermonkey - tried that before, did nowt. add an item Cheers, John B

Hello. I have a couple of old batches of Milliput, the components of which have gone quite hard. With much working they do soften slightly. I am reluctant to simply throw them away. Does anyone know of a suitable chemical to help soften them further, whether beforehand or when mixing together? I am tempted to try some easily available options like enamel thinners, turpentine, cellulose thinners, iso-propyl alcohol or acetone. I suspect the latter two will be rather too drastic! I do know that water is useful when trying to smooth and blend newly mixed Milliput into position; I don't think it acts as a thinner for it though ! John B

Thanks Giorgio and 'tempestfan'. I have a 1/48 Kinetic kit and a Hasegawa one - I see what you mean about the surface detailing Giorgio. The Italeri 1/32nd kit seems very nice - especially the TF-104G, but an eye watering price. That decal comment is something to investigate, thanks. I do still have an old Revell kit ticked away somewhere, which as I recall looks accurate enough basically to be worth trying to improve/upgrade a bit. (I built their Mirage!! at the same time as the Italeri Mirage IIIE - both turned out well) The old Hasegawa kit I liked a lot ; built one many years ago as a Dutch F-104G for my kids. It had the right look and feel to my mind. Cheers, John B

I recall my father and uncles commenting about the use of firepower; that most of the ammunition expended was used to keep the enemy's heads down or put them off their aim. Since they were mostly doing the same, most was just wasted. Only 1% or less actually properly aimed. War is absurdly wasteful in lives, money and machines.

As Giorgio N said, amongst others Lamborghini did well out of war surplus army equipment. A lot of steel post war was made from recycled armour, especially from the Eastern Front, supposedly, and largely in the Soviet Union and associated countries. A metallurgist friend of mine said the variable quality and composition, plus some poor re-melting, made for variable quality steels for quite a while. In the late Fifties and Sixties quite a lot of that steel was supplied to Italy, which had better links with the Eastern bloc than some Western countries. Apparently it was apt to rust quickly and erratically, unpredictably, which gave some Italian motor cars a bad reputation for longevity at that time.,

One of my uncles was an engineering officer in the RNVR. He spent almost a year based in SW India supervising the dumping of brand new aircraft and spares, engines etc. He said it was quiet heartbreaking at first- stuff still in the preservation standards, never even run in. Meantime my father, in the REME, spent several months just clearing down and dumping repair equipment of all sorts from a REME main base repair depot, which had 'gained' ,over the operational period rather a lot of equipment in excess of establishment !