John B (Sc)

Good point - not funny at their landing speeds & no brakes etc - Does Cranwell have a barrier? I guess it probably doesn't.

So? - A fairly normal hazard of military aviation, typically either due to mechanical or finger trouble. Ok, not as common as it once was, admittedly. Sounds as if the crew are fine. (Probably worrying more about the enquiry by now!) Normal habit to checka ndassess after ejection - it's a fairly major belt even if all goes well. Hawks had a problem with brakes in their very earliest days in service - I wonder if that is still an occasional weakness. Could the u/c failure be related to that - unlikely I guess. Getting quite long in the tooth those beasties now. Much more serious, a Spanair machine crashed on take-off at Madrid today. Sounds much worse - and no quick Martin Baker way out either!

" I never said the box art was wrong, I said it was an "interesting (surprising?) choice". Of all the gorgeous schemes the Lightning wore, they chose this one (but lets not have that Box Art argument again )" So true. 23 Squadron's natural metal with white spine and fin for me. With the large style Red Eagle ! Super contrast with the Tigers. Never really liked the two tone camouflage onthe Lightning. Overall dark green for RAFG , yes. Lightnings were MEANT to be brightly coloured !

Super stuff Bill. Go it. Many years back I did a full line up of Airfix Lightnings, including some home made 'orrible balsa and plunge formed canopy two seater conversions. That was way back when natural metal Lightnings were all the rage. Your line up when complete will be really nostalgic - for me and I bet for a bunch of other folk too. I've long meant to do the same again - maybe yours will spur me on. Didn't do 29 then, because they were still on Javelins. 5 Squadron were done, don't think 11 Sqn were (also Javelins ?). Had to have several Tigers of course because they in black tails, and 23 with white tails, were my 'local' F3 squadrons at Leuchars. A T4 with Tiger stripes and yellow T-bands had to be done, along with a red & white spine OCU beast. First F6 I saw was a 74 machine, just before they headed off from Leuchars for Tengah. Simple looking but v impressive when new and shiny, so that had to be modelled too. Nice large tiger stripes, nm spine and tail. Also had a 111 Sqn machine with the black and yellow tail, and of course 56Sqn's over the top checkered fin scheme which finally called a halt to the whole thing. Happy days.

" And I will be purchasing and building as many as I can afford to smuggle in to the house and fit on the shelves!! Oh HAPPY days!!!! " Likewise. And a 1/32 Swordfish to go with the 1/48th, 1/72nd and the 1/8th scale R/C one. Help - I need a bigger house and wallet. Not sure if I dare go to Telford this year. Could need a truck. Yep - it's a great time to be in this hobby, but finding time to build 'em all will be as hard as explaining this to my finance controller - oops , hello dear. Store, mull and winnow the excess I guess.

Thanks Leadsolo. That should be reasonably accurate ! Much missed, both the Hannas. Presumably removing the tanks would increase roll rate since there would be less roll inertia without them. That would also ease close formation flying. I wonder if any aerobatic limitation with tanks would depend on whether tanks were full or not. Quite a cantliever effect when full. Common practice in many aircraft was to flow from drop tanks first, then go to internals. If that was done first that would reduce loading during aeros later in a sortie. Again not uncommon to limit aerobatics according to fuel loadings. It wouldn't surprise me if that was what Mr Petter did, in his minimum fighter design. Quite a cunning engineer. Interesting aircraft. Compared to the Midge we thought it looked large ! Happy days.

Good heavens, I'm surprised that the tanks weren't stressed to the levels the Arrows were using. Their displays surely didn't normally take the Gnat close to its G limits except with the Opposition Pair - that wasn't the point after all. Hard enough for the outer guys to stay on board as it was without pulling to the limits as well, with the drag that causes. I always felt Gnat displays were a fine example of careful energy management, and good judgement by the boss keeping his power down to allow a maneouvre margin for the outers As small as those tanks were, that seems odd for normal service. As an advanced trainer you'd expect the students to yug the thing to its limits occasionally! I recall seeing a couple of shows with tanks on, because of the Gnat's limited range. I'd have thought the handling change was a big factor, given the tight spacings flown. I thought the aircraft looked better with them on. I don't remember seeing any eyes - what are Moon eyes? - but I think they had only just formed, or painted up in yellow, when I saw them. I hadn't recalled the blue serials either - thanks. I know that one aircraft had a black tail for a while. That was also later. Really must look out those potos !

That offer has been going for over six months now. The earlier one, which I think was a Meteor T7 and a night fighter Meteor IIRC went quicker. Surprised - they must have cornered the market in 1/48th Attackers! Both fair kits if you can deal with Classic's slightly awkward style.

Hmm. Could be good. What a pity it's not 1/48th. Aeroclub's moulds have worn beyond John A's limits .....

That seat looks fairly typical of the style designed for a seat pan parachute. Not especially comfortable, but that is because the 'chute is rather hard and apt to be lumpy ! Nice work, wish I coudl get to that standard

Yes, that was their original design Statement of Requirement, to be able to transfer V Bomber cerews to their dispersed readiness bases. Unfortunately, by the time the Basset got into sevice it couldn't manage to carry a fully equipped five man V bomber crew - or at least not for any significant distance. I don't know whether that was due to weight gain on the aeroplane due to design issues or Service equipment demands -always a headache with stuff to RAF specifications, or due to increased load of kit required by V bomber crews. Could be any of those. Not an uncommon problem. Design challenge to keep costs down, efficiency up, yet also a need to predict what additions will be required by the time service entry happens. On the other side of the coin, the service will add items it feels necessary (or nice to have). If there is not enough clear understanding of the costs and risks that involves, oops. I'd love to see the Basset re-issued. Super little kit of a bonny aircraft

Thanks Craig. I wondered if it was White Waltham, but didn't recall the bungalows being so close. It's been a while. White Waltham was the main base for the ATA ferry girls in WW2, IIRC. Nice field, though awkward to get to from the North - so much controlled airspace. That certainly is keeping on top of the cleanliness game - I guess the underfuselage gets the same treatment. Often a pain to do, with oil, grit, mud, grass clippings etc. The exposed pulleys and cables on the Tiger make the underside a bit of a dirt magnet.

Impressively clean under the cowling. Has she had a recent engine overhaul ? - Gipsy engines usually throw a fair bit of oil around. Lots of rags & cotton waste required. Where were you flying from?

Excellent idea, especially since the original RAF planned use for Jaguar was as a two seater to replace the Gnat. That was when future supersonic T-birds were all the rage.

Peebep, thanks for that. I'd forgotten all about the Matchbox Gnat. I didn't like it for some reason which I don't remember now. The original Airfix kit with the RPs and slippers was good. The later Red Arrows only version, without slippers or RPs I felt was a swiz. (Did anyone ever see a Gnat trainer with the RPs on ? Presumably that could have been during early trials only, certainly not at 4FTS. I don't even recall seeing the fighter variant with those.)

Ah - d'accord. Merci Sebastien Paul - I like that COD idea, for either the Aeronavale or FAA !

A bit of fun Paul. It appears that this was a genuine project. Andre's inspiration was a plan view and an article by Renee Lemaire, designer of the Dassault Mystere 20, in issue no.179 of 'leTrait d'Union', May-Jun 1998. These project concept studies were done at Dassault's Mariganac office. One Flamant replacement study was based on the Ouragan, another (this) on the Mirage 1, then just getting going - mid Fifties. Both high and low wing version studies done, with doubt about wing fuselage junction issues. It sounds as if one concept looked at burying engines in the fuselage. Air intake and other problems ruled that out. Engine failure concerns meant a solution was found in grouping the engines outside the fuselage at the rear, close together to reduce handling difficulties after engine failure. (Less yaw effect. Recall that early jets had high failure rates, piston engines had high failure rates. Much more of a probleme than today) Two and four jet options were debated. After that, the model is all speculation, based on extrapolation from the concept ideas described by M. Lemaire and the sketch plans. A bit of grey matter massage, not just leaning back twiddling the thumbs, eh voila ! I'm not quite sure what the 'Fou de Dassault' comment means - need to improve my colloquial or aviation history French I think. Literally 'Dassault madness'. It may refer to the spirit of the time - "heck anything is possible, lets' try it". France built some strange & fascinating concept aircraft in those days. After all the Mirage was the best aircraft we never built. It was essentially the FD2 miltarised. Dasault never understood why we let that wither. Between that and the SR53 we had a good start on delta aerodynamics and handling. (I'm ignoring the mighty Gloster Dragmaster which simply showed that enough brute force can make any horror fly ! It certainly taught us about delta drag if nothing else.) Fascinating stuff. A bientot, mes amis.

I think the Aeroclub canopy must fit the Airfix Gnat Derek. I don't know of another 1/72nd Gnat kit it could be for. Lovely scheme that. I was at Valley in 1964, saw the team working up under F/Lt (?I think) Lee Jones. It seemed quite a pale yellow, so a Lemon Yellow may be about right. Not sure why standard Training Yellow wasn't used. The Gnats looked tiny alongside the Javelins on APC - I think that must have been 23 Sqn's swan song on those. Have you got the Gnat kit with slipper tanks? The model looks much nicer with them on. (Attack of doubt now - I think it must have been '64, but when did 23 go to Lightnings? Must rake out some old photos)

I agree with Bill. I've built both and on balance I thought the Trumpeter kit the nicer one to build. My third, the Mk100, was also a Trumpeter version. Though for that I'd have liked to see the big Ekco radar pod to model the 101. Neither kit includes that! Again like Bill I do find Jules' kits quite challenging at times. Worth it, but challenging. Grr. For me the biggest headaches with the Trumpeter kit were the pen-nib exhaust fairings, because that's where the mould splits, and (I think) the slightly too long noseleg - unless the oleos have just been fully charged and the ammunition bay is empty ! That's arguable anyway, and easily & tidily sorted, with a cut and drill job.

Marty, the one you describe can sometimes be a problem on planes, although I'm not sure cavitation is the right term. It is not widespread however as depends on where the gun is. With an SUU on a phantom the heated air would disturb the airflow under the wings, so makes sense the plane would be disturbed. On other planes recoil is known to be a main cause of vibrations to the structure. Giorgio I agree Giorgio. It's largely vibration not cavitation 'eating the air under the plane' that is the significant factor. There will be some shock waves of course, but in most instances those just add to the general vibration levels. It's why using podded guns like the SUUs is less accurate that internal fit weapons - you just can't stop stuff jumping around. The amount of flex which goes on is impressive. I saw some trials film of gun pods under test. The amount of shudder, snaking and twist, especially in trials with a g load applied, was quite astonishing. Made you wonder when the whole lot was going to come off the pylon! Mind you, the vibration modes you can sometimes see on airliner tails even in mildly turbulent conditions at max cruise are something not to point out to passengers. It's a good thing they (and the aircrew) mostly can't see the back end well !

I think everyone claimed that firing 4 x 30mm Adens caused lots of vibration and slowed aircraft down - there is after all a lot of metal flying about. (including all the bits recoiling.) Now the idea of six Adens at once - that really would make your eyes water (on either end of the thing.) Hunter, Scimitar, Lightning - I think all tended to use two rather than four by preference, and tended to have either instrument, electrics or serviceability issues immediately afer heavy gun firing exercises. I don't recall reading of gun problems in the Sea Vixen and Javelin , though of course the Javelin had its guns wing mounted, unusually for a swept wing jet. Weird beast the Javelin ! The story I got from a senior ex-Lightning type was that given the tight firing envelope on the Firestreak missile and the relatively poor record of the Red Top, the RAF Germany squadrons, 19 & 92 at one time used the four cannon fit quite a lot for the alert aircraft. The E German border was only a few minutes flying time away. Any scramble going active - and a few very nearly did - would have been a fast and furious affair. Cannon was apparently felt to be a much better bet, more versatile in that case. It's easy to forget now how tight the West German sector was and how little maeouvring room was available. Hard to believe driving around Germany now - the contrast to (for me) the Seventies is fantastic.

Ouch. "There are those who have and those who will" - you are so right peebeep, "There but for..." Phil - I think a lot of Spitfire props were/are (?) composite - wood construction impregnated with a phenolic resin IIRC. I can't remember the name they gave that. Not sure if that is what is used now, but why change if it works. Nice low revs etc and with the wooden prop they should get away without shock load damage to the engine, though I exepct a check still will have had to be done. Expensive. I see someone at Perth tipped up a Gypsy Moth on its nose last weekend, forced landing in an oilseed rape field after engine problems. No injuries, just aircraft damage. Shame to have to damage a nice aircraft, as with the Spit, but again got away reasonably lightly.

That's absolutely right. Training with live weapons is always dangerous. It must be, and only rigourous procedures provide any real measure of safety. When (long long time ago) my Dad was doing his Commando training, they were told that the miltary (British Army in this case) had an "acceptable loss rate" during training. Meant to cover injuries rather than deaths, but that is largely a matter of luck. They were also told , part way through the course, that if they didn't improve, the acceptable loss allowance would be temporarily increased. During the later parts of training, some instructors were detailed to snipe at students who were not taking enough care. Most of the rounds were blanks, but live rounds were mixed in. That meant neither instructor nor trainee knew when a live shot might come. Dad said he never knew whether they really meant it, but it had quite a salutary effect on his course's performance ! You have to think that way, and practice that hard, to be any good as a military force. Very hard luck for both pilots.