John B (Sc)

Ah - good point Graham. I do tend to forget that many younger folk may not be so familiar with the Chippie; I agree the Bulldog would also be attractive - Airfix's 1/72nd one was rather nicely moulded. - I'd love to see it re-issued or updated and scaled up. Mind you, the millenial sitting near me has just commented that folk pining for more mighty jet warbirds should remember that pilots of said warbirds have to start on 'umble trainers anyway. She also said the Chipmunk is so much prettier than the (admittedly very capable) ancient Cessna 150, so maybe she is not the typical millenial... !

Happy to see a Tempest; perhaps my old ?Heller? one cane be retired. And provided that right cockpit window options are provided, nice to have a Mosquito, though maybe I can also hope fort a scale up some day? The Chipmunk is I think the best news of the lot. OK, rather surprisingly, there are people interested in aviation in the UK who haven't even seen one apparently but many many of us have. Over all those years, many thousands of Air Cadets had their first power flight in a Chippie and quite a few will want to build a memory. Plus all the pilots who trained on them through Basic Flying and UAS operations, and all the civil operations; and that is only Britain. So many schemes. Lots of overseas service and plenty modification potential into Super Chipmunks, racing Chipmunks and - sorry purists - also Lycoming engined Chipmunks. (Gipsy Majors - shudder! Oil everywhere.) This should be a good money maker for Airfix, assuming it is up to the standard of their recent issues. Well done ! Much though I like (Cold War) military jets as model subjects, it would be nice to see some lighter machines in the range. That ancient Auster Antartic would be a fine remould option, into 1/48th, easily providing lots of Army and civil version options. A 1/48th Bulldog - now there is another possible seller. Heck, if we want to go utterly daft, how about a 1/48th 'Venture' (otherwise known as a Falke) Not my cup of tea being an aircraft which gets airborne by belief alone and possibly not at all when it is raining, but many Cadets will remember them with affection.

For what it is worth I also have a recollection that the 'tub' is essentially an empty box and was later reinforced to cope with blast effects.

I struggled to understand this list when I first saw it, and still do. I find the reasoning odd in several cases. I suspect the important thing we are missing is the precise brief given to the group considering this. That can make a huge difference, How the inclusion of the only two seat Fw-190 in existence can be justified on grounds of 'duplication' beats me. If it is the only one, it cannot be a duplicate surely? Likewise what does 'Relevance' mean against the Auster Antartic? Umm- the only surviving British made single engine piston aircraft flown by extraordinarily brave crews in potentially the most hostile natural environment on earth - I'd have thought the 'relevance' of that to a museum would be immediately obvious, even if the beast isn't a mighty metal warbird. As someone who has flown Austers of various sorts in various circumstances, though none anywhere nearly as challenging, those feats impress me greatly. I hope these are simply first discussion points, but given some past history, I ain't confident!

Thank you all - as gingerbob said, 'sheesh!' Impressive speed of replies , thank you. John B

I recently read of some Hurricanes which were modified for Reconnaissance work in the Middle East, with a ventral housing added. Has anyone got information on this, or perhaps even a photo? The impression was that the modification was a local level one , presumably at ME HQ area.

I did wonder about that - the other runway (10/28) is quite a bit shorter so may only be available at low weights. I am assuming that when the airfield was closed for runway refurbish/upgrade and (I think) added turning space for the P-8s was added on the main 05/23 runway that the other runway was also worked on. I don't recall seeing any signs of new manoeuvring areas being built for the alternate runway mind you !

Hmm, Those wedgetails may make for interesting handling in any strong crosswinds - lots of directional stability but imagine the sideways push when on the deck. Could make for interesting viewing at Lossie - or perhaps they will have low crosswind limits specified and will just divert instead...

That's nice to hear. I imagine there is quite a bit to do on the training side just now, given how many folk will be out of currency or just needing some rust removed ! I do wonder how the CAA is going to manage as we leave EASA; they seem to have taken on some good people, but it is many years since the CAA had to run the whole show themselves, so to speak. Not easy to recreate that capability quickly; there will be struggles. (And down at the private end, even more so since airline ops and commercial activities will naturally take priority. I have a foot in several camps here - my lady is a commercial pilot but we are also private pilot owners and involved with gliding as well.)

Hi all. Like quite a few of us, I am a member of the Airfix Club, as a way to use up those 'Flying Hours' acquired over a few years kit purchasing. Two queries - (1) all I see in the 'Club area' are strange offers for things like empty storage tins with bonny pictures on top. Am I missing something, perhaps not finding the Member's Area at all? (2) The offerings of aircraft kits which can be 'purchased' using Flying Hours is quite limited - presumably by stock levels. Is there any way to 'purchase' armour kits through the Flying Hours scheme? The armour kits do have Flying Hours on them, so it would seem logical. How would I determine how many Flying Hours an armour kit would need?

Most interesting,'junglierating'. Simple is often best. The KISS principle works well in much of engineering - 'Keep it Simple, Stupid'. Or as Sir Sidney Camm (chief designer of the Harrier) famously said - 'simplify and add more lightness'. (It is claimed he actually said 'simplicate and add more lightness' which has more of a ring to it...)

Thank you Alan P. (Hope you are indeed back to piloting!) The description you append sounds like the sort of testing I'd expect from a competent certification authority taking its responsibilities seriously - DP Davies would approve! . Sad that the FAA no longer give me that confidence.

I wondered if this might be associated with some late life wing investigation and repair work. I think the Mirage IV did have some 'mid life update' and check issues - which helps explain the Mirage IV tail the senior folk walked past on their way to the crew rooms. I have it in mid that early Mirage IV camouflage schemes were across the wings as well as fuselage - trouble is it is easy to see the side view, rarer to get a good look at the upper surfaces ! Have to loom out some old photographs to check. A beautiful aircraft.

I think that would have been true for the RAF strike force too, although they planned for return. Perhaps the French were more pragmatic ! Thankfully no-one ever had to do it.

That was very impressive, especially the sideslip to burn off excess height when you have effectively no instrumentation to help - in such a massive beast! Nice to see such good handling skills - wow. Very fortunate the aircraft was still controllable at all, with no electrics, no instruments and limited hydraulics. Some dry mouths there I bet.

Fascinating, thanks - and what an unusual pronunciation of Stranraer ; the residents of the town wouldn't recognise it !

Thank you 72modeller. An interesting variant. What look to be the pods either side of the beaver tail are supplied, but not used, in this first issue of the kit. It also provides three subtly different nose radomes, though none at all like that one. I wonder what that houses. The odd item under the port wing, which looks a bit like a slightly melted fuel tank is intriguing too. Some sort of rear and downward facing sensor presumably. A superb kit incidentally - hopefully there will be lots of variants issued. John B

Thanks for that excellent explanation, wellsprop. I had forgotten about the potential major pitch up problem on overshoot/ landing go around; I have a feeling that was a part of the cause of a night overshoot, loss of control & reference followed by a steep descent accident in Russia not long ago, I think that was a Boeing 737. I entirely agree that for engineers to deliberately underplay the significance of changes is clearly wrong and quite unprofessional. Very sad, as you say. Quite how they justify that to themselves, I don't know - either for their own consciences or in the event of legal enquiry,

A fine, gentle rant Paul. I agree that it is unfair to pretend that Roden are Tamiya or Hasegawa -they'd be a lot more expensive if they were. They produce some challenging-to-build-well kits of types just not available elsewhere. I haven't done any of their WW1 stuff. The important thing is to recognise before starting that there will be oddities to overcome, but that the accuracy is usually in there. It just neds work to make it all fit correctly. Real old style modelling where things don't just fall into place perfectly !

Thinking further on wellsprop's comment - surely when first designed, way back in the ?Seventies?, the 737 must have had positive longitudinal stability built in mechanically. 'Relaxed' stability aeroplanes - with computer controlled unstable systems, didn't exist. So this must be a later development, much later. I seem to recall the 7373 series went through quite a major set of stretch processes, having started out as the small brother of the 707, with the same fuselage diameter. I suspect the relaxed stability design element must be a very late change, perhaps made as tails were shrunk to improve efficiency - or at least tails were not increased to cope with increased loads and moment arms in a simple mechanical fashion. Hmm - I'm with that lecturer of yours! I don't mind low stability in pitch or roll in a soaring sailplane - it makes it light and responsive. Zero longitudinal stability can easily result in a PIO and risk of overstress unless carefully handled; some all flying tail sailplanes are 'challenging' in wave rotor turbulence and can be exciting to frightening if a trim failure occurs. That's fine if we choose to accept that for efficiency when soaring, but not good for an airliner.

I think part of the explanation to 'wellsprop' 's puzzlement may be that the 737 is an old design, so the later rules don't all apply. This is an oddity which Boeing in particular has used to their advantage a lot. I believe EASA was pushing for this to be changed but it all takes time, quid pro quos will be demanded and Boeing has lot of clout. This is not the first problem the 737 has had. Some may recall the rudder hard over problems of the Nineties. Two fatal accidents and some incidents which resulted in changes being required - & the type continued insrevice. Boeing tried to deflect blame then too; actually I'm not sure they ever admitted there was a design oversight. Once upon a time Boeing was run by people - enthusiastic engineers - who wanted to build darn good aeroplanes, now it is run by people who mostly want to make money.

Having checked with some others, I am told the pilot's notes for the Spitfire Ia and II note that the canopy can be locked in either open or closed position, but not at any intermediate. I suspect the vertical bolts either side at mid span of the blown section fit into slots at either position. Caution, air pressure holds the canopy closed at high speed, making it hard to open then. It is also noted that on climb out 'at leisure' close the emergency door fully, then close the canopy. This to allow for folk using the door for better view on take-off. Have done the same in a Stampe to get a glimpse forrards.

My understanding is that it was common practice, especially if in any doubt, to lock the canopies open before landing to avoid being trapped. Standard too on all Navy aircraft landing on. That implies some sort of catch existed. In later aircraft like blown hood Mustangs, the emergency landing drill included canopy jettison because it was unlikely to remain open in a crash. Also many pilots switched off the radio before landing, possibly to ensure the headphone leads were free in case of a fast exit. That led to several accidents where late calls to the pilot were missed. Also, a canopy latch back is a safety thing - many pilots stuck their heads over the side to get a better view on landing, around that long nose. Last thing you want on a bumpy runway is a heavy canopy sliding forward on you as you manoeuvre!

The plans for December sound good - I do hope they work out. Very challenging times to try and guess what will be possible in the immediate future. The cost implications can be crippling, very rapidly. Fingers will be crossed and we hope to see the next issue in the shops as planned, even though we up here in Scotland are only a tiny part of the market!

Interesting - thanks Jan. The idea of extending flaps on this fine kit is great. My first build is straight from the box for now, but excellent spur for later! Looking very carefully at the wing root and at photographs of the real thing I think you are right that the wing root fairing section lines should be maybe 2 poss 3mm closer in. I also looked through a bunch of photos of real C-130s trying to establish the inner wing profile properly. Hard to do, since it is usually well in shadow. A US AIr Force Academy study on wing prop interactions did show an inner wing profile, suggesting what looks to be a very slight rear undercamber or at the very least that the undersurface was flatter compared to the upper wing profile. Certainly suggests that Zvezda have overdone the concave bit, even if it should just exist. I'd like to see some inner flap sections laid out on a hangar floor ; that ought to be definitive. Overall a terrific kit - the fit is super. John B