John B (Sc)

Agree. Both with SAMI and elsewhere I've learned a lot seeing what an editor cuts out. Usually makes things punchier. I like to see stuff cut back, some folk feel insulted perhaps. I know I have a tendecy to verbosity if not checked !

Wayne, Best I could do was scale off the excellent drawings from Frank Brown's 1/32 Hunter vacform kit. The 100 gal tanks work out as ~20" diameter and 128.5 ins length. (My precise figures were 512mm diam, 3,264 mm long - bet Hawker didn't make the tanks 200.15 ins diam, whch is the accurate conversion !) The 230 gal tanks show as 24" diameter and 196.5 ins long. I don't think any other tanks were carried as standard. G-APUX did have much longer tanks fitted. Not sure if diam was same - there was a discussion about that on here a while back. I didn't know RRhAF made up their own bombs - presume that wa s late on? My recollection is of seeing them loaded with 100gal tanks plus what looked like std 500lb bombs. Long time ago now, around 1970.

Yes, - I've only seen SAMI so far Mike. Your intake guards and Eurofighter APU look good and get good reviews. Shame about the A-10 stuff - though one set is noted as being a US Nationals special so likely to run out fast. The lead time on material for the mags is often quite long. Hmm, must look up your site, I have a Viggen or two in stock to play with. At least one will have to have the guards on ! Wez : " Unlike yourself Den I found plenty in all of the magazines to keep me interested - you failed to mention the articles on Norwegian F5's and German F104's in MAM which I find interesting however, you mention the Soviet Bostons which frankly I'm indifferent to - I don't think I'll be rushing to read that particular article It just goes to show that these magazines are trying to cater to a very diverse readership with wildly differing interests. I'd have been dissapointed if there was absolutely nothing in all three magazines but luckiliy for me this is not the case. Just go to show its horses for courses. Next month it could be the other way round and there's not much for me but plenty for you! Could be worse - what if there were no magazines? " I agree Wez - glad there is plenty of choice in mags, and its is horses for courses. That MAM will defintely get collared. RNoAf F-5s and Luftwaffe 1042, say no more. My favourite time period . Though I have a soft spot for the Boston, so...... I was rather surprised to see that no less than four reviews in SAMI were by the same person. Though that wasn't greed, just some juggling by the editor to meet space and other requirements. The reviews were submitted over a fair time interval. Guess how I know. Jonathan - I agree. I still get SAM, but the reviews have rather fallen away over the last little while. That's not digging up others, just my feeling too. Mind you , I do miss Tailpiece - and Mike's occasionally eccentric reviews!

Lovely stuff. Superbly done. A long time favourite aeroplane - and Squadron colours - of mine, ever since a cover of Flying Review International had two 20Sqn Hunters on the front. Did they use the MATRA pods in the Sixtieson RAF Hunters? My recollection is of overseas RAF Hunters being pictured using old style 3" RPs. First time I think I saw MATRAs on Hunters was when the Torrey Canyon was attacked

Nice work. Good weathering. Intrigued at that row of switches along the bottom of the panel. Or are they fuses/circuit breakers? I didn't know there were any USAAC P-40s in India. Were they protecting the Hump run fields?

All true, but just because the muppets at senior level don't know how to organise a p*** up in a brewery, that's not the fault of the boys at ops level ! That we now have RAF GA aircraft supposedly providing fleet cover is absurd. Yet again the senior folk - especially RAF ones I'm afraid, demonstrate short sighted folly and a love of internecine warfare. They seem more interested in doing the FAA down than in providing worthwhile defence. Their predecessors got that wrong before WW2, yet they go and do it again. Perhaps they are embarrassed at the FAA showing them up occasionally in the past? As for, say, the Falklands - the way some of the RAF PR folk bang on, you'd think the RAF won it alone ! That's not to criticise the folk at ops level in either the light blue or the Army- at that level our services work well together, it's just when the high level political guss starts..Aargh. Never mind, as befits the Senior Service, there is still some cunning left. I seem to recall that the first UK strike on Afghanistan in reposnse to 11 Sept was carried out by the RN. From a submarine, against a land locked country. Nice one guys. Haggo, I'm on for a group build & display to commemorate 100 years of Navy flying.

Goose, It may be worth looking around for another canopy. My recollection of the Matrchbox Phantom was of a rather flat canopy shape and possibly a nose section that was slightly undersize. I think Aeroclub do a replacement canopy Comments anyone?

Last time I saw an aircraft mixing it with cars it was in a car park at my gliding club. Visitor landed crosswind in the local car park having run out of height speed and ideas after his retractable engine went out and wouldn't start. As here, no-one hurt so we could laugh about it and rib the muppet mercilessly. Just bent metal and lots of fibreglass, carbon fibre debris. Expensive little hiccup - and as someone said, spectacular if you were in the building. In our case there were spectators in one car who hadn't seen the plane coming. Just a humongous loud bang and lots of white dust. Very surprised folk.

Dave, I think there were two distinct shades. The earlier paint was quite orange and as you said faded badly in sunlight. The later adhesive panels were a much brighter red in shade. I still have some panel material 'in store' which I use fr suitcase ID and for small emblems on cars and aeroplanes. Can send you a sample if you wish. Humbrol used to make a Fluorescent Orange, of which I still have a pot. They also did Fire Orange, equivalent to the later shade. Some of the spray cans available in hardware stores are a fairly good approximation of fire orange. Humbrol's Orange used to fade quite realistically too ! I found a website in UK recently for ac ompany that can supply fluorescent orange paint. It looked close to the 'old' spec. Needed a fairly large purchase, so I haven't gone ahead yet. Will have to hunt about for the name.

No surprise there. Sadly, too many Americans in power now believe in 'Not Invented Here'. Those are usually the first folk to scream about what they view as unfair behaviour from others - oh and who refuse to allow US service personnel to be governed by international law,and expect clots liek our Government to hand over our citizens to their dodgy legal system. There are nice Americans around , they just tend to be the quiet ones... Often nowadays pretending to be Canadians when overseas, so they aren't recognised as members of the world's most dangerous country ! It would be nice to see America return to trying to be part of the world community again. Ah well, meantime it looks like we are back to WIF territory with the tankers. I wonder - at what point is soemone going to sue on the grounds that the USAF is sending them off in dnagerously old design aircraft? I can see that being a sustainable argument soon, given the design age of the currenbt fleet. Must be quite a maintenance task

As David says. I had a few of their kits as a kid - though not the Cutty Sark - still have a couple tucked away. They did a Swordfish and Walrus in 1/48th. I think several other 1/48th biplanes may have been originally theirs before going to people like Inpact. The Gladiator and Fury for example. Solid bits of work with good detail and accuracy for the time. They also did Railway lineside stuff.

A fine aeroplane, for its era. I think it was Farnborough - the aerodynamics boys there, rather than the MoS, who had doubts, about sweep and especially about tail position. Hence the SB5. I recall seeing Lightnings 'in action' here in NE Scotland a bunch of years ago, while NATO exercises were playing. I was cruising around in a sailplane in wave around 8,000 ft. A Lightning appeared above me flying in a race track pattern, loafing along obviously checking for 'intruders'. Then I saw another to my South, below, also just loafing. Next thing the guy above rolled over and lit up - a gaggle of Buccaneers were dodging through the hills at their usual just subsonic hammer. The top cover Lightning accelerated fast to drop down behind them, then two Phantoms popped up headiung for HIS tail. The low Lightning joined in behind them going like a scalded cat. You could see his burners going. Last clear picture I saw, the Lightnings and Phantoms were pulling hard and heading down past Loch Muick while the Buccs exited in a fast weaving jumble to the NW. After that I saw occasional flashes from wings in the sun as the fighters had a mock dogfight up and down around the Muick area. Ten minutes or so later, presumably after a tanker visit, Mr. top cover was back overhead, flying lazy ovals again. Wonderful stuff to see. A Lightning take-off at night was something to see & hear - especially if the pilot did the accelerate then pull caper. Of course that killed at least one pilot - in Singapore. Needed care to avoid a stall & flick departure, when the aircraft apparently would go wildly walkabout.

And if you are American Airlines, you have the 'Great Shiny Fleet', which looks pretty, saves money, saves weight and makes corrosion and damage easier to spot. Downside is you have to clean them more - which again makes damge easier to spot.

Strange. It appears on a lot of F Mk 8 pictures - but not on any other mark that I can see, nor on the original prototype Mk8. It appears to have a spring loaded cover at the rear, so probably not an outlet (I first wondered about fuel dump for ventral tank - but why not other Marks?). Perhaps an access point for services - say ground electrics. If a later era I'd have suggested it was maybe a telescrambler plug in point, but not for Meteor timescale. Well spotted - I'd never noticed it before. Another thing missing from my models, bother.

Thanks StephenMG - I do recall reading of the tank separation problem, now you mention it. One of my books has some fine pictures of dented Hunter wings & tips. Those T8Ms must have been an inetresting hybrid.

Good grief - I'd forgotten about the 350 gal tanks on G-APUX, StephenMG ! No wonder my memory is of very long tanks. Good call on the engine. Interestingly almost all the UK Hunter two seater pictures I could find with the ERUs (what does the acronym mean?) were later models - at no 1 TWU, Brawdy, or as T8Ms with the FAA. At least one T7 with 4 FTS had them fitted, which would have been the Seventies. The one early exception I found was no 20 Squadron's T7 when they were Tengah based. That was long ago - early Sixties I guess? Were they rare because the T7s didn't often carry four tanks - given the lower thrust engine?

Bonny one Bill. A lovely scheme for the Hunter.

HI jollygreen. The Hunter two seaters in RAF service mostly didn't have the long tanks, so wouldn't have the flap cutout. I know that G-APUX, the famous two seat demonstrator did have long tanks - though how rigged I don't know. I have a suspicion she used slimmer tanks than Hunter standard during Bill Bedford's spin demos - perhaps forflap clearance reasons. Maybe someone else will know that. As for outer pylon ejection blisters - the answer is a maybe. I have not found a picture of XL620, either with 66 or 74, showing those. It seems two seaters could have those - some did, some didn't. Whether that was a fit fairly easily changed in service I don't know - it may have been. I suspect it became common later - possibly a later fleet retrofit ? I'm sure someone here will know. Interesting mod - grafting the Matchbox nose on. I thought the poorest part of the M'box two-seater was the nose area (spine shape really) I agree the Revell Hunter is better overall - I guess it's the best available compromise. Good luck - looks good. Two seat Hunters in silver were very pretty aeroplanes.

"hope that he is enjoying a well earned retirement in Malta" I think he is still running the Warpaint series - in fact isn't the most recent title, the Gnat, by him? Or is that another Alan W Hall? I met him year before last at Telford. Had I known that was the same man... I remember doing several conversions from those instructions of his - and plunge forming canopies etc. I did a Lightning T4 the same way. My dad eventually introduced me to bass wood. Yes - much easier to get a finish with that withouit all the palaver of round after round of dope talc and sanding. On balance I guess I got more satisfaction from those than I do from pre-moulded conversions. Much better finishes now of course. And much faster to do.

Yes. Skidding off the runway due to u/c collapse does make it difficult to use! I have a memory of an incident years ago just after emergency barriers became fairly common, - at Leeming I think? One of Leeming's JPs - it was that long ago - had brake failure and realised rather too late to be able apply power and go around safely. (the early JPs were quite marginal flying machines.) Cry from aircraft heading rapidly South was " Barrier, barrier", tower immediately responded "Negative barrier" (push button, oops no response) followed by a looong expensive graunching noise as the gear was retracted and the aircrft skidded off stage left, through the far hedge into a field. No-one hurt but a rather surprised pupil as they ended up 'aux vaches' - not quite the emergency response he had expected. Quick reactions from the instructor, though probably not the standard drill. General amusement afterwards. The microswitches designed to stop an on-ground retraction were apparently foxed by a quick heave on the stick, momentarily taking the load off sufficiently. They aren't a good thing to rely on anyway. The Cranwell pilots are lucky to get away with mild? back injuries. A last minute exit like that would be quite hard to brace properly for, especially if it is a command ejection system (I don't know if the Hawk has that, expect it will.). At least modern seats are a bit gentler that the early ones. It was said you ended up significantly shorter after each ejection, and three was the absolutely maximum to avoid terminal spinal damage - lack of clearance betwen vertebrae due to compression. So goodbye fast jets. Mind you you'd think after three you'd want to find another game anyway!

Fascinating stuff Les - thanks. I can imagine the tanks being a ****** nuisance. Whatever way things are set up, unserviceabilties and last minute changes are bound to mess it up. Sounds like ops have the same issues in any engineering game ! An old friend , now living in NZ, used to fly with no3 on Canberras, so the last one I made was in their colours to present to him. Must make another. He had some great stories of the Canberra days.

I'm intrigued they did remove them for the short range missions. I suppose there was some weight and drag saving - though not great. Tip tanks on would help the low level ride, and fatigue life, though only significantly when filled. How about that for an operational justification? The counter - Did the RAF worry much about airframe fatigue life in the Fifties - probably not. Night interdiction would generally suffer less from low level turbulence, so maybe that & load carrying limits explains the removal in may cases.

Thanks Mike, for interpreting. Sorry Dean if it upset you - I wasn't trying to be rude - simply that these things happen fairly routinely, especially in the military. Part of the risks of the game, which the participants understand and accept. It's a bit of an old story. All flying gets routine or even ~boring at times. then suddenly things go twang and it's all far too 'exciting', too quickly ! I do sympathise with the Hawk crew. Most pilots will immediately picture themselves in that pickle. (cries of Aargh, whoops, or oh s***, etc.) (Incidentally the tendency amongst many pilots, providing the crew survived, is to sound quite casual and even almost critical of the bad luck or errors of other pilots, then do the sympathetic bit! The participants usually also try to sound laid back about it all, even make it a joke. Silly?, but human nature.) I do get more than a tad irritated at media attempts to make a drama out of every crisis, which is probably what prompted the 'So?' comment. They, usually ignorantly, ask the wrong questions, don't listednto the answers (because they aren't dramatic enough), emphasise the wrong things, and as a result get our usually equally poorly informed political masters doing silly knee jerk stuff. One reason flying is becoming such a pain in this country is the combination of biased media reporting, and ill informed MPs / civil servants applying ridiculous so called Health & Safety rules to avoid absurd litigation claims. (A good clue - if ANYONE says to you 'Safety is paramount' - walk away. He's an idiot. If safety is paramount, don't get out of bed. Life is obviously far too dangerous. Certainly don't fly aeroplanes.) Bah humbug ...Soap Box off...... Old somewhat exasperated pilot who remembers the rather freer days of yore ! Cheers, John