John B (Sc)

AArgh. Those first pictures were far too large.Will try again later today. Sorry. John B

Thanks Tony. Lots of useful information. Much appreciated. I didn't realise there were so many Chinook variants around, or so much kit out there. Silly of me, given how long the basic airframe has been around. Cheers, John B

Hi all. Help please, What detail sets and add-ons are available for the Italeri 1/48th Chinook kit? Or is that too simple a question, since I gather there are several variants of that kit around. The other question, which I'm sure I saw effectively answered somewhere quite recently. Are the Revell and Italeri kits different mouldings, or has there been swapping going on? Thanks - and sorry if I'm dragging over well known ground here. John B

Thanks Keith, and MOD. That is interesting. One of the fine things about this site - and modelling - is that you learn about real aviation & aeroplanes too ! John B

Thanks. John B

Is that up at Lossie for two weeks, mtd 350? John B

That is super stuff, Mod. Having had a try at Mach kits I am impressed - I'm not surprised you said it fought back! . That was a superb colour scheme. One query. Those very nicely painted props seem to have squared off tips. My recollection of BEA Viscounts from many years ago was of fairly rounded prop tips, whereas the Vanguard had quite markedly square tipped props. Was there a later mod on some Viscounts or alternate props, or is it my memory? Cheers, John B

Aye. Lightly veiled indeed. From what I saw it was all fairly well handled, after the initial oops - which does puzzle me a bit. Well done to get back down in more or less one piece from an awkward point. Let's hope the CAA treat it sensibly and that this doesn't put the kibosh on future events, for those as like them. I have to say as a pilot these things leave me fairly cold, but luckily, we're all different. At least it means some machines that otherwise just rot are kept ~working. It's not that easy to do thos runs of course - since presumably the specators want a full throttle start to the run. Then at what speed do you ease off, or go to flight idle ? - there will be a lag on the instruments as well as in reactions. Hmm. Even in my small steeds I dislike rejected take-offs.

Very nice pictures, thanks . Was that just before the Victor got airborne?

A friend of mine who was an engineer at a Wellington MU told us that they used to cadge air tests after aircraft Mod & prep and sometimes got a chance to handle the manchine from what he called the 'dicky seat'. He got quite a few handling sorties, ended up as a pilot himself later. He gave the strong impression, though I never asked specifically, that this was standard fit. I can't ask now , without a good oiouija board. He also said the most terrifying bit was testing controls & manoeuvring in a Wellington at near Vne. The fuselage flex was "impressive" apparently. John B

Most interesting. The German F4s appeared to be throttling both engines together on approach. I wonder why. The Buccaneer SMk2 and various other machines used to throttle alternately, to ensure at least one was always well spooled up for faster reaction overshoot. I think 'our' F4s did likewise. Can anyone confirm ? Maybe it is just that the J74 version is so smokey ! I liked the U-2 video. As with gear up/down landings , there are taildragger pilots who've groundlooped and there are those who - no I don't believe there are any who haven't ! Much sympathy for those trainees. Bicycle wheel gear and loss of rudder authority once touched down is tricky, especially if you touch still crabbed. I think the bicycle arrangement is the worst I've flown for crosswind challenge. But with that wingspan , wow what a rate of swing. Nippy little beast for climb away.

Magnifique !

Very nice work. So good it might deter me from trying my own one ! Are the seat belts an add on by you, or does the kit have them in? They look great. (Can't easily get at my kit for now to check.)

Robin, Glad you are proud to have been in the Force. I think the point was, what a naff attempt by the logo designers. The Red Arrows, most at least of the Shiny Fleet and almost all VIP transports have said Royal Air Force on their sides for years - and proudly. They didn't need an overpriced bunch of advert nerds to 'design' the name ! I bet if they'd had a competition asking for ideas from the Force they'd have had a better and cheaper result. Cracking photos.

Ah, thanks Dave, I'd forgotten about the Bloodhound 'Squadrons'. As a pilot, I feel that is cheating - you can't fly a Bloodhound !

Thanks XV107. Most useful. Especially the comments about no25. I wondered why it re-apperaed on Tornados, having (I thought) been dormant for some time. Since Javelin days? I'd expected other. apparently better known names to be kept. It would be nice to see the Tigers back again - and yes, I also hope for 43 on Typhoons. Nice markings. To the comment a while back about a defence review, and the Navy under political pressure since it is not 'playing such a big role in Afghanistan', - That would be typical political ultra shortsightedness and quite ironic, given that my memory is the first UK response after 11 September 2001 towards Afghanistan WAS from the Navy. A submarine against a land locked country. A cruise missile, don't recall any more than that. Struck me as really funny at the time.

Yes. Great pity it's 43. The Fighting Cocks have been at Leuchars off and on since they introduced the Hunter F1 to service and immediately brought them up here. I really don't understand the RAF's Squadron number plate policy. Lots of politicking I suspect. Famous Squadrons have disapperead while rather less well known numbers continue.

Always a pleasure to amuse. I shan't explain in detail now why I said all that - glad you liked it Roland. Let's hope your wishful optimism is better than my (admitted) pessimism. Given the way our 'lords and masters ' have screwed up so far..... A grasp of economics and political realities is what counts more, sadly, thanmidealised views of airpower, looking backward. Greatly though I like shiny aeroplanes (it's one reason I build models), the cloth has to be cut appropriately. No, I'm not an MP.(On that pay ? Ah, of course, the expenses make up for it I suppose ) I have been talking to one or two of them recently though. Strange creatures, but interesting. Not all as daft as the press suggest. Problem : We don't believe we can support the capability we have had in the past, and defence has to be cut to what is achievable. Concentration of force matters of course, as always. Do what you can do, well. So, the small number of Typhoons our political masters seem likely to leave you with on current plans are hardly a believable air defence against any significant threat. Then what? Why is that being allowed to happen? How low do you think the cut-off point is before the whole game gets changed? Laugh all you like, but ultimately we need PBI to hold ground and arguably a few ships to protect adjacent sealanes If that is all we can afford, other tasks will suffer. As the 'teeth' elements get cut further back, the RAF, already manpower intensive, may become too expensive a luxury to maintainin its present form when things are tight. It is perilously close now. Personally I'd rather see us cut the Trident replacement, but that still has an extraordinary amount of high level political push behind it. On both main wings politically , surprisingly. It may be that forming a Canadian style unified Defence Force will be the most effective way to keep some at least of the capabilities we need, even if only in reduced, cadre, form. Do you imagine the senior folk on the Defence Staff like to see these cutbacks? The RNZAF model probably isn't the one we'd like. It may be what we get. Heh - I hope you are right and I am wrong and all is rosy. That is not how it looks from here. Base after base has gone, capability after capabilty has been lost, year after ruddy year. Precious little is left, if anything, in reserve. Cheers, John

Could be, but another source is saying that both Squadron COs have briefed their folk. There had been some argy-bargy at high level about Harrier or Tornado early rundown. Rumour has it that some very senior officers with ex-Tornado force loyalties were pushing an agenda. If this news is correct it suggests the better aircraft is boeng retained. Good decision from that point of view at least. Navy was going ballistic. First you bin our Shars, give us mud movers for 'defence', now you want to ditch them too. Mutters about light blue perfidy in all directions. Not for the first time. The sooner we amalgamate the forces the better, IMO. Too small now for these turf wars. The RAF has served its purpose, time to return to a Flying Corps. The only true function they have is as support to the Army. The main debate would be how to integrate the Marines and Army. We are still an island so amphibious specialists are necessary. Marines & Para combination? Hmm. I am a keen pilot, and the Typhoon looks a very impressive dogfighter, but it is the wrong piece of kit for today's likely actions. Ruddy Airships still thinking about stuff that is pretty at an air display. Mud movers are required. Oh, and more attack helos. Ugly, but effective. High altitude air superiority is far all practical purposes irrelevant. Keep some Tornados in store as contingency since there is life yet in the airframes. They were only ever missile carriers anyway in the AD role. Heck, even as attack aircraft they leave something to be desired in range and speed. But they will do the job.

Hmm, Actually the F3s aren't doing a lot useful right now, however its the unknown you need to stay alert to defend against. So no Northern air defence at all - will we be back to air defence of East Anglia only soon? What against? Perhaps with all these cuts we should look at what Canada did 25 years ago. A unified Defence force?

Dylan, one thought. If you are doing that, can I suggest you duplicate them.? Like CDs and floppies before, DVDs may have a limited and unpredictable lifespan. Double banking makes loss less likely. They are fairly cheap now. Most frustratiing when your disk of favourite pictures won't open. Guess how I know. John B

Cheers JohnT. I can appreciate your feelings & certainly didn't mean to imply that all lawyers were of the same ilk. Generalising always runs that risk. It is an interesting thread, and a difficult quandary. There is a fine balance sometimes between educating folk to prevent further errors - when we mostly want full disclosure of what went wrong, so everyone else can learn, and heading for some form of punishment / deterrence as the only way to ensure compliance. On balance for both engineering & flying I've tended to incline to education and to encourgae open admission of cock-ups - mine and others - as being a good way to reduce repetition. It really only works with the willing of course. ( And our society seems to going in a different direction. I'm not at all happy with this idea of asking the victim if he/she is happy with the scale of punishment meted out. None of his/her business I feel. Once the 'justice system', whatever it is, has become involved, I feel the scale of punishment is a mattter for society as a whole, not for the individual to determine. Mind you , I believe in a rather more robust punishment than our current system seems to approve. The old IoM set up had something to recommend it, IMO. I don't feel that being grabbed firmly by the lughole and ticked off by my local policeman did me any harm. And I knew if I tried any silly nonsense I'd probably get a boot up the rear, Probably fairly gently if truth be known. It was the indignity as mauch as actual pain that did the job...) John B

John T, This is getting rather far from the original point of this thread. However - lawyer bashing. I will happily 'bash' any 'ambulance chasers - and there are far too many of that sort of lawyer popping up in UK now. The 'no win no fee' types who take on any case, for a carefully set sum so that it becomes cheaper to settle than to fight a spurious load of nonsense. We have several of those obnoxious creatures up here, and they do your profession no favours at all. They would claim what they are doing is for the good of all, in fact they are simply vampires working the system and lining thei rown pockets. To a large extent this is because of the flawed political and media circuses in this increasingly absurd country. Strange how many politicos are legal types, isn't it? You'd think the place should be much better run. I have worked with some very fine lawyers and QCs, have acted both as expert witness and an adviser to Crown Counsel before now, so I do know how impressive some of your profession can be. Fun folk too. My point in this case & thread follows from yours. Maintenance issues, yes, follow through. Failure under signature is criminal. Piloting decisions ? - If the Italian court had taken the opinion of pilot & training experts, I do not believe they would arrived at this result for the pilots. It does nothing for air safety at all. It is a classic example of how not to encourage safe behaviours. I teach on this topic. I am very aware of how much time, expertise & money is now wasted in this country acting 'defensively' to avoid litigation in all professions. As a very fine example, talk to any NHS doctor about that. Many millions are wasted solely for this. Litigation is largely down to you guys. And let us not have any more coroners pretending they know anything about aircraft design. That demonstrated he didn't know how to winnow what was said to him and apply basic logic. Regards, John B

I don't disagree but that the pilot demonstrated a level of incompetence I would find unacceptable in any pilot I trained Mattie. I would expect any worthwhile airline to fire him. My point is that lawyers, from the safety of a courtroom, should feel capable of judging this man's actions and view him as criminal in his actions. That to me is unreasonable and does nothing to advance air safety. While his actions were undoubtedly less than you or I would view as satisfactory, he did continue to fly the aeroplane and ditched it sufficiently well that most of the passengers survived. That doesn't make him a criminal. Saying the words of a prayer out loud while continuing to fly may have been his way of coping with the situation and avoiding freezing at the controls in a total panic. Is that more criminal than the more usual swear words we hear on cockpit voice recordings in extreme situations?