John B (Sc)

The kit Revell have issued is the HAS Mk3, the Gazelle powered version - though it is not accurate even as that without quite a bit of modification and addition. (To undercarriage, nose, cockpit, tail and underside) So possibly only the very early Light Stone and (?) Spinach 'Commando' Wessex HAS Mk1 scheme would fit, according to my rather unreliable memory. Conversion to a Gnome powered later version - HU Mk 5 (RN) or HC Mk2 (RAF) - would be harder. I haven't figured out a good way to scratch build the nose area or the exhausts yet. If our luck holds, Revell will re-issue the 'Royal Flight' Wessex , which was a Gnome powered variant. Regards, John

error deleted !

Andrew, Very belatedly, here is an attempt to upload pictures of the Duo ; The links seem to work, though I haven't yet figured out how to put them up as photos on here. John http://blg.mypicturetown.com/cache/eFE8ZES.../item.JPG?rot=0 http://blg.mypicturetown.com/cache/w6bD%3D.../item.JPG?rot=0 http://blg.mypicturetown.com/cache/%25V3v8.../item.JPG?rot=0 http://blg.mypicturetown.com/cache/_bCyyLa.../item.JPG?rot=0 http://blg.mypicturetown.com/cache/GTiZFDY.../item.JPG?rot=0 http://blg.mypicturetown.com/cache/EJ8oGVj.../item.JPG?rot=0

Very nice work Andrew. The belts are maybe a touch overscale, true, but the adjustment buckles are rather more so. Nice work on the harness release box. What sort of reference pictures do you want? I should be able to take some at the weekend, with luck, since a Duo that I used to have a share in normally lives in our hangar. I had a look through my own photos but all were either from the glider or of the outside - typical ! John B

A nicely done sideswipe on that other forum, deflating waht seeemd to be the somewhat pompous...... Nicely done Bill. I was also disappointed when I had a chance to look that book over - OK at best, but rather too much padding or retreading. Pity, puts me off trying any others by that author. John B

Guys, This has been fascinating. Useful materials info too. As an engineer myself it has been great fun to read of this and to realise what a diverse group of folk take interest in modelling as well as in the fullsize aeroplanes. I have spent quite a few hours soaring in PIK 20Bs and a couple of flights in a PIK 20E - a fine sailplane (though retracting/extending the engine in the E was a slow job!). Regards, John B

Fun looking little beasts. Didn't some of the Ekranoplan type machines go fairly high? I seem to remember some extraordinary figures quoted for these 'ground effect' craft. John B

A super find. Thanks for posting it. Interesting to see the variations in aircraft, especially the engine area colours. Was that due to sengine heat or oil staining or any early colour scheme changes ? And of course the odd continuity hiccups are fun. At least one 'take-off was actually an overshoot, with airbrakes still deployed until the aircraft rotated back off the ground. I wonder why the crew didn't wear their shiny new bonedomes, only the blue cloth inners? Not handy in an ejection! That 'handle like eggs' stencil I still have on my artficial horizon. They are delicate beasts. John B

I've had a look through a couple of references on the Hunter. No sign of that 'dot' at all, and no sign of an aerial of that shape in that position either on any F6s I can find. It seems that FR10s and GA11s of around that era did have a UHF (narrow blade) aerial in more or less that position, though centrally mounted. Wouldn't that dot be in the way of the canopy as it slides back? Not entirely conclusive for a specific machine, but as close as I can come for now. Cheers, John

Excellent photos. Thank you. Interesting that the weather looks fairly good. I was slightly further North, East of Birminghan. We had strong gusty winds and constant rain showers coming through all day, which prevented us flying. I commented that it was a shame on the Tattooo weekend. Glad to see it so clear. John B

The two 'prongs' you mention, Billy. I wonder if they were intended to act as stops to prevent the main undercarriage bogies from swinging up too far when unloaded? Pictures of Victors on approach show the main bogies tilted, with the front well up so the trailing bogies touch first. That was deliberate to help distribute wheel spin up. I can't find any really good close ups in my references so far. The low slung Victor makes it hard to get a clear picture of that area! Perhaps John Adams of Aeroclub knows the answer. Or General Melchett of course .... Bonny work. Cheers, John B

Hi Keef. I agree it isn't " All IPMS' fault". I, like very many others, have gained a lot of useful information and help from IPMS, in lots of ways. Some excellent and knowledgable folk are to be found in IPMS. Sadly however, there are some rather, shall we say, overzealous types who get attracted to IPMS. They do tend to get more attention than they deserve and sometimes have much more impact than they ought. I think it would improve IPMS if they wound some of those guys (and they are always guys!) back a bit. If your local is more relaxed, great. A habit to keep on. Personally I am more ineterested in overall look and feel than rivet counting perfection - partly because real aeroplanes have faults and oddities which crop up for various odd reasons, and anyway, I'm not that good a modeller. I did have an amusing encounter with an IPMS accuracy zealot at a show recently. The undercarriage arrangement on his example of one type would have had any aircraft engineer wincing. I greatly enjoyed his criticism of a kit which I had also recently built, of a type which as it happened I had flown. It was so plain the poor chap had little understanding of basic aerodynamics, and I suspect he had never flown in his life. (Other than as a passenger) That's fine, but then a little caution and either doubt or humility would be handy. For some reason, the worst of the real 'rivet counters' tend not to have any of either..... That does tend to upset non modelling pilots and engineers who come across these types. They then are apt to assume that all we modellers are obssessive and daft as brushes. (And, frustratingly, assume that modellers and reggie spotters are all the same thing) The awkward squad of modellers aren't all IPMS by any stretch, but that is where the greatest concentration of zealotry seems to be commonly found ! Perhaps within IPMS is where it would be easiest to encourage a more relaxed approach from some ? But hey - it is only a hobby. If it pleases them to be so precise and so 'right', I gues it doesn't hurt - and gives the rest of us some quiet amusement. Back to the topic - yes I think 'poetic licence' is a good thing. Most of us are making, or trying to make, 'impressions' of the real thing. To me, some licence is essential, since we are not using the same materials as the real beasts. And it can be a bit of fun - like that Vulcan B3. I reckon that must be the planned USAF version, with that tandem cockpit. Cheers, John B

Interesting. I agree with some of the posters here. It's a love-hate relationshiop with Revell. The brightly coloured plastic is disappointing, though understandable. Can be worked around. I used pale grey to subdue the red Hawk. Have used overall aluminium spray befoe -. (I wasn't aware of that F-104 colour. Pity. I shall avoid that kit. I understand it is the 1/48 Monogram kit reissued) I wonder - when next you set up a highly coloured plastic run, Revell, could you do a short run in ordinary grey plastic at the end? The cost would not be high and all it would need is a simple sticker for the box to tell us old style modellers which box to grab. (Little chance but a request can't hurt. Perhaps it would ease the end of run clean up?) The end opening boxes are also disappointing but reasoning understandable and easily worked around. The paint information is sometimes also hard to make sense of. Revell are not the only folk to do this recently. There are several of their kits I'd also love to see in 1/48. On the other hand --- They produce some superb decal sheets. They have done some excellent Cold War jet kits and some excellent modern machines. They have produced some fine civilian aircraft and modern sailplanes - a refreshing change and departure from the average. (Do a Schleicher Ka-8, please Revell ! Oh, and a Libelle.) They have reissued some of the better and more memorable kits from the past, including some old Renwal ones. And a few old dogs... They have even done an impressive range of What-If 'Luft 46' machines. Not my cup of tea but nicely done. And even a growiung range of tiny kkts in 1/144. Too small for my taste, but very smart. So, overall, I'd say very well done Revell Europe. More please, but easy on the coloured plastic! John B

Sadly that looks like all that might be re-usable here, since that is usually steel. The upper fin and rudder could perhaps be salveable, with luck. A high intensity post crash alumiumm amd magnesium alloy fire by the look of it. Shame, but great that all the crew got out first.

Absolutely ! I like to see a little oil around the engine bay. Only a little. Though the best car I had actually developed (mild) RUST on the outside of the engine block ! German engineering - no leaks at all. That did worry me a bit, always. John

That Greek Phantom is definitely the lowest aircraft I have ever seen. That low, and then turning! Strewth. John B

I think most high powered piston aero engines were good at throwing oil around. Especially in fighters with lots of variable g loads involved. Better to have the oil flinging around than to have insufficient lubrication. Even low powered engines have that tendency. I used to have to wipe down my old Stampe after every flight. A generous coating of oil would slather along the fuselage sides and bottom, even without the help of my grotty aeros. The Packard Merlin engine - interesting that the US companies had to redesign the Merlin in some respects. They could not work to Rolls Royce's sloppy (~cottage industry) manufacturing tolerances - they had to tighten manufacturing tolerances to match their (automotive) mass production standards. That meant they didn't need to blueprint every engine, but could churn them out. Slightly less power output, much easier maintenance and supply. I was fascinated recently reading a book by Jeffrey Ethell on the Mustang. How much its design owed to the Curtiss P-40 and its intended successor. Interesting. It was also mentioned that some pilots stayed with high backed Mustangs rather than move to the bubble canopied Ds. (And had the choice!) The old style razor back was slightly faster and some folk felt handled better. A superb aircraft and a wonderful example of co-operative design work. I'm not surprised our American cousins are so intrigued by it. One of the most capable, effective, significant & widely available fighters of late WW2. Some odd handling quirks, but all aircraft rushed out in wartime had those. And of course, there were lots of them! I won't be buying one of these kits, however - like others here I have the Hasegawa one, and plenty 1/48th veriosn. Tamiya are eye-wateringly expensive now. John B

Great photos Iain. Looks to have been good fun. One day I must go to another of these meetings. Was there a chap taking part called Ronnie Allan? Probably with a Pitts. Cheers, John B

Yep, I've been a glider (sailplane pilot) since my University days, also converted to power for glider towing and aerobatics. Spent years as an instructor, mostly flying wooden & glassfibre sailplanes and tailwheel aeroplanes. Some of the new carbon fibre sailplanes are astonishingly capable - breathtaking. True seven league boots. Teaching flying, especially converting people to taildraggers or showing folk how to soar wave, was great fun. There was a time when there was also much interaaction with the services, when we had both an active RAF and a fullscale Fleet Air Arm. Still fly anything I can get my hands on. Several of my mates fly helicopters and reckon it is even more fun. Haven't got around to that licence yet, though the occasionbal clutch suggests hoevring is an interesting learning challenge. I strongly recommend you try gliding as an excellent way to learn to fly. Pure flying and co-ordination skills , without worrying about engines. That stands you in good stead if you later go on to power. Forced landing (PFLs for practice), weather appreciation and hill flying skills can all benefit. Slightly cheaper to learn and with some time and experience that can reduce the time to NPPL issue I believe. It used to reduce time required for PPL if you had an FAI Silver C, though I do not know if that is still is any benefit. Whatever form of flying you want to try - go for it. You will never be able to look at a sky, and clouds, in the same way again. Nor at crops and fields either.... And you'll have the permanently light wallet to match, so you climb faster ! John B

Superbe indeed. Merci. How nice to see pictures of an Air Force still well equipped. John B

A nice replica Barney - though I'd agree that the canopy looks slightly overscale. I still have in store the old 1/32nd scale Matchbox Tiger Moth which also supplied the Canadian canopy, more accurately proportioned. Revell re-issued the kit, which I can recommend. It makes an excellent Tiger - and if they don't still provide the canopy parts, I have a spare set you can have, since the Tigers I flew were all open cockpit. That larger scale helps the eyes too ! John B

It's a long time since I read of this proposal, so I dont recall any precise details. However, some project type thinking should help. I'd not expect any arrestor gear, no. Runway lighting, yes, I'd think. The plan was to make this big enough to land patrol aircraft as well as act as a refuelling stop for transatlantic ferry craft. Since some melt was inevitable, oversizing at the start make sense. Likewise, I'd expect the beast to big enough to allow for unobstructed landing without derigging communications elements. As for anti fouling - why? The beast wasn't going anywhere at any speed. so anti foul would have been irrelevant. It is only applied to keep a smoother hull for minimum drag. Not an issue, so that cost would have been avoided. Yes , I know one version of the project plan envisaged external nacelle propulsion, but this never got beyond dream land thinking. More or less maintaining station in mid Atlantic would have been about the capabilty at best. It was a rather dramatic idea - good luck with the build. Sounds fun. You have a good deal of artistic licence, since it never progressed past concept stage. A great whiff opportunity.

Generally having the engine upside down also helps propeller clearance, since inverting the engine puts the crankshaft nearer the top. Especially in high power taildraggers with those large props every little helps. It's not especially obvious whether it helps in the 109G, more obvious in the E and other inverted inline engine taildraggers. Like the Tiger Moth, Stampe etc. It does mean you are dry sump, so separate oil tankage is a requrement. Not a problem withn high power engine since there is so much circulation of oil for cooling purposes anyway. John B

Beautifully done. I'm just finishing a Mustang myself - wish mine looked that good. A question (not criticism!) - I'm intrigued at the tailwheel interior area being zinc chromated while the main undercarriage bay seems to be aluminium painted or natural metal, possibly with zinc chromate around some edge areas. Is that from photo information? I ask because I always have debates with myself when doing WW2 USAAF natural metal machines. And some later postwar RAF machines. I tend to want to differentiate the undercarriage bays a bit, but I haven't seen much good evidence for colour variations- I have a suspicion the real machines probably differed quite a lot from batch to batch, depending on where and when they were built, but I don't know. (Yes I know that adding piping,wiring and light grime would help differentiate the bays, but that's beyond my current skill level!) John B

I bet it's Tigger ! Boing.