John B (Sc)

Having originally asked this as what I thought was probably a silly question, I now have an answer. On the Airfix 1/48th Hunter kit I see the lower wings have holes to be drilled out for locating the inner pylons, and what I presume is a hole to locate the sway brace for 230 gallon tanks. There are also two part drilled holes much further outboard. I presumed those were intended to be in the correct location for fitting the outer pylons They looked a long way out to me so I checked a few sources. I am now convinced the outer pre-drilled positions on the Airfix Hunter wing are incorrect for fitting pylons. They are set in the correct position for the 'A' rail of the old 3 inch RP armament. The correct position for the outer pylon coincides with the position of what was the 'B' rail for the 3 inch RPs. That is why, on old photographs, the second rail of RPs was slightly set back, because the pylon fittings interfered with rail fittings. So don't use the Airfix part drilled outer holes, unless you want to fit RPs. Any comment from the experts welcome! John B

Truly superb work Neil, and something to encourage me to continue my stalled build of almost the same - in my case a 1/32nd Hunter F1 also to be in 43 Sqn markings - I have an Echelon vacform about half done. Thanks for the comments on the ejector link ports position - must check the Echelon drawings (which are excellent) I think the only thing I'd ask a small question about is the rear of your canopy - this is something which has long puzzled me. Is there actually a metal fairing around the rear which can be painted or was there simply a flexible seal around the inside? I seem to recall it looking like it was just a plain perspex edge, but (a) that seems unlikely for a pressure cabin and (b) it's a heck of a long time since I was last up close to a single seat Hunter. John B

Thanks Space Ranger. A Flying Review model discussion that predates W R Matthews! Those Airfix ads encouraged a lot of modelling - rather sadly I realise that over the years I made all of the models in that ad ! I think the level crossing and the Bentley lasted longest!

Just imagine the runway it would need. Concrete over a whole county!

You may well be right David about the attraction of moving parts. It was a feature, way back. I recall seeing these machines taxying past at Lossie, unfolding their wings as they prepared to turn onto the main runway, I thought it terrific, as a youngster back then. I also used to see the aircraft in your avatar picture occasionally, though to my disappointment Airfix never made a 1/72 Sea Vixen. I think the best moving parts model I ever had was the old Monogram Avenger, with rotating turret, elevating gun, opening torpedo bay, folding wings - showing that impressive Grumman system - and I think working undercarriage as well.

It took me several readings David - I thought I'd seen a measurement somewhere. John (canberra kid) ; Looking at your diagram either a length increase within the blue area or a small insert just behind and on the line of the red diagonal would fit the manufacturing breakdown. Probably the red line build would be easier. Like you David, I still have several of the old Airfix Buccaner S1 kits and have long been intrigued and exasperated at the poor depiction of the exhaust area. Having seen many of the S1s flying from Lossie in the old days, improving that kit still attracts. I was acquainted with one of the early Buccaneer pilots from the Intensive Trials Unit, Mike Hornblower, who many years afterwards still had his ancient Bentley.

Maurice Allward's book states, on page 36, that a 13" increase in forward fuselage length was made from the sixth aircraft (that would be XK491) to assist equipment balance and stowage. The fuselage manufacturing breakdown certainly would make an increase in length in the blue area shown earlier fairly easy to do.

Those small frame boxed kits with the 'art' style illustrations included some excellent kits for their day. In particular I thought the Bf-109E was very neatly moulded and the P-47D and I think Corsair with opening canopy were terrific, Those illustrations really caught my eye as a kid back then.

Out of curiosity (I've never been to Bruntingthorpe, though have flown over) what are all the vehicles stored there for? Are they new builds awaiting delivery here or overseas or imports awaiting distribution? There seem to be a most impressive number of them.

Well said Paul. I have also acted as a reviewer for magazines occasionally and also rather resent the implication. I have never been asked to change a review to make it less critical. I did on one occasion alert the editor of a magazine to let him know my review was quite negative. The review ran as written. The manufacturer did not complain nor change their sample distribution habits - fair criticism they were prepared to accept. My hope is that by commenting appropriately I can help other modellers avoid the pitfalls, limitations or instruction sheet errors I've found. That is part of the fun of reviewing.

Oops. What an unfortunate time for the magazine to have production and hence delivery & display difficulties. Not many non-subscriber sales likely, alas, as most newsagents shut down. Time to start decreasing the stash... Glad to hear you have fewer ambulance service time wasters, WarthogMKL. Some small positives!

It's awhile since I built mine, and frustratingly Airfix instructions don't include sprue identification diagrams to confirm spare parts, but I think the answer is no. All I recall is a blanking piece, with a window in it, where the upper turret would locate. Sorry - still worth asking in case someone has done an odd conversion.

Thanks exdraken. That makes it clear - I have the later variant of the kit. Does anyone know what the two shallow recesses on top of the LERX sections are, just in front of those vents, and why the covers are provided as separate items? What sits under there? Cheers, John B

(from Alex) Edit: a funny kit, it even has an airbrake where the original hasn't got one... Alex - I didn't see any airbrake on the kit I have, and as you say the original hasn't got one at all. (In the conventional sense) Reading some early reviews and looking at pictures online, I got the impression there may have been two different kits issued by Italeri. Where does the airbrake appear on the kit you have - or have seen ?

Thank you all. Alan P's guess was correct - Italeri have provided an earlier piece of kit, the ASQ-173 LST, which is what Alan's picture shows. ( Wikipedia shows this along with the AAS-38) Given the age of the kit, this makes sense. (True, a photo would have helped.) I may add an ASQ-228 to my next build - looks like something quite possible to scratch build. I agree - it is a funny kit. Very curate's egg - some good, some bad. Odd was the way fuselage has been split, also the wing-fuselage junction with complete;y useless (to me) locating pins. Made flush assembly impossible for me Much filler required... Regards, John B

HI all. I have been building an Italeri F/A-18E Super Hornet. (If you are wondering - don't do it, unless you have LOTS of filler available. My next will be the Revell offering!) IRather than give it the deep six it so deserves, I am battling on. Amongst the various weapons offered with the kit is a strange modification to the port lower fuselage side mounting for the AIM120. This is replaced with a fairing and a long tube, bulged at the rear, with a clear lens at the front. Clearly intended to be some sort of sensor, but what? I can;t find anything similar on the photos I have seen, so is it an Italeri oddity? Any help appreciated - it;s just idle curiosity but I am reluctant to add on something I know nowt about at all. Oh for the long lost days when kit instructions named all the parts, some times in detail ! John B

That new conversion looks terrific, but it is in resin. My record with resin work is not good, sadly - so, is there any chance, do you suppose that there will be a plastic conversion kit sometime?

Super, thanks, It make the machine look quite different !

Thank you Rod. I wondered that but couldn't find the information Regards, John B

Does anyone know which Naval Air Station used the tail code 'LP' in the early 1950s? I saw some Fireflies and Spitfires with those codes in a short film about RN Artificers, dated 1952.

Thanks rossm. Most interesting. I wonder if that also applied to the MkVII machines, I suspect it did, since they were essentially MkVs with the Coastal equipment and ASV added. That would also explain why the 502 Sqn machines, from early Mk V conversions, show no boots while the 612 machines, built as later conversions, do. It does make clear that where boots are fitted they are on the horizontal tail too, which is logical of course. Looks as though my Coastal machine with boots will be in 612 markings! And well weathered with operational wear and tear too... I was aware of there being different coloured boot materials, thanks, though I think the USA had more variation (earlier) than we had - different and arguably better materials available there sooner than here. Painting rubber, even with fairly flexible cellulose dope, doesn't work particularly well, since the stuff peels off quite quickly and patchily. (Long ago I saw that tried, for reasons that made sense then)

Hi. I am building an Airfix Whitley, Since many years ago I built my Frog kit as an early war bomber variant, this time it just has to be Coastal Command. (Living up on the Moray Firth, Coastal Command & the 'Kipper Fleet' is still part of the background...) My question; my sources tell me that the later mark Whitleys, from the MkV onwards, typically had wing de-icing boots fitted. The Airfix model has believably appropriate wing LE definition lines, however the kit colour instructions show nothing of that sort. I have found illustrations of 612 Sqn Whitleys showing the normal black rubber wing de-icing boots - and what appear to be fairly narrow fin LE boots as well. Logic suggests there would also have been horizontal tailplane boots too. (Can anyone confirm that?) No scribings on the kit match what I’d expect as tailplane boot fittings. The kit machine is from 502 Sqn and the only photo I have found so far was taken from the rear threequarter, so no de-icing kit is visible. It seems unlikely that the machines of the same mark would vary in that regard from squadron to squadron; I'd view de-icing as vital for maritime work, if possible. Unless of course these were removed in some cases for better performance reasons; I have found at least on picture of a 612 coded machine which appears bootless. Any comments, thoughts or help appreciated – maybe I should contact Mr Smock of the Whitley project, or Midland Air Museum. John B

That is most interesting Jamie, thank you. A depressingly good example of what may happen if the wrong, or inappropriate, simplifying assumptions are made. A lesson for all engineers there; sometimes a deeper bit of thinking & investigation is needed. I recall the BA crash very clearly, was never aware of the underlying causes. As you say, I hope caution and careful thought are involved, to ensure they understand the real mechanisms at work here. John B

Ah, now a 1/24th Hunter would be something indeed. I have an Echelon 1/32nd Hunter part built as an F Mk1, and a two seater to complete as well. Something to make those look small; what a dream. I like your comment about the probability of other classic British machines eventually being produced by Airfix - an upbeat assessment & why not! Fingers crossed some of those dreams come true and that my modelling skills last long enough.

Thanks for that 71chally. I knew there some adverse comments, couldn't recall what they were - I haven't yet bought one though I certainly will, having fought an Academy kit to a standstill and many years ago having rebuilt a Lindbergh effort as a 74Sqn F6. It would be churlish not to have a go; perhaps I have been unduly influenced by the doomsayers. Thanks also to VMA131Marine & Enzo Matrix for adding some realism to counter my gloom ! (Apologies to Vulcan enthusiasts for briefly 'borrowing' this thread.)