John B (Sc)
-
Posts
1,070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by John B (Sc)
-
-
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.
-
I think Georgio has it nailed... when dealing with potentially lethal weapons, even in training, accidents will innevitably happen. Us civvies are sometimes a little hard on our forces when these things happen, as we have no clue what it's like, and the pressure that our fighting forces are under - even in peacetime training.
for the pilot.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.
-
Interesting - not boring at all., xv107
So the Flying Can Openers are coming up here. Excellent - a change from being GA.
I'm still hoping for a 74 Sqn revival ! (or 92 of course - Cobras if not Tigers)
-
It was for a directional-finding antenna, the exact details of which escape me at the moment.
Thanks XV107. That would make sense - possibly a motor driven D/F loop style arrangement you mean?
( Why XV107 as your online name - are you VC10 crew? )
-
Help folks. I am building a Bundesmarine Seahawk Mk100/101. (Trumpeter, 1/48th - nice kit)
I do like to know what the bits are that I am working with, where possible, because I am that sort of obssessive compulsive.
Does anyone know, or remember, what the large bulge on the rear dorsal fuselage area of the German Seahawks was? Could it be a radio compass housing - my current best bet?
-
Excellent pictures. Shame, another famous squadron goes into history. I did wonder last week why the Notams showed a nine ship formation wandering all over the place, as it seemed, on Friday morning - some of it almost the exact reverse of the track I was planning for going South (much slower!).
A question - how do squadron numbers for re-use /retention get selected?
For example, no.25 Sqn had not been heard of for quite a few years until the Tornado F3 came along. Why were they resurrected, not (say) the rather better known Tigers ? Puzzling - though of course irrelevant since they are disbanding now too.
Soon we'll have so few aircraft we can have one squadron marking per machine!
-
[/color]
Improvers John? I've been building my Echelon Lightning F6 for 3-4 years now - and I'm a fair way off finishing her off!! I'm in need of improvers sessions!!!
AND despite having another in the stash - I'm really confident that Trumpeter will get this one right! Hopefully its not just wishful thinking!!!!!
Yes Bill, but your results are way better than mine, even unfinished. OK then, maybe we should plan to take our respective builds along next Telford and have a 'Support Group' session for the perennial 'not quite finished yet' folk. There's always more detail.... Anyway it might give you a laugh.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one with two in the stash - though my reasoning was I'd hoped to learn enough from the first to do the second properly !
If Trumpeter do a good enough job perhaps I can use some parts to improve my vacform work - I did that with the Revell Hunter (which admittedly was available really cheaply for a while.) Could be pricey this time round.
-
Looks as though the bottom's falling out of the market; they were fetching £130-£140, last year.
Edgar
Some 'bottom' Edgar! That's still a high price for a kit, IMO. People do go a bit crazy. By chance at the weekend I found the receipt from Echelon for my first Lightning from them. A lot less than either of those figures.
It will be interesting to see if Trumpeter can make a kit worthy of the standard which Frank set then. And whether there is any truth in the rumours that Trumpeter came to an agreement with Frank. I do hope so - there is still room in my build plans for at least one more 1/32 Hunter two seater !
Meantime, I still need to improve my vacform building skills, to really do the Lightning justice.......
Bill Clark - do you think it's time for you to do an 'improvers session' at the next Telford show for some of us struggling types?
-
Weren't Brian Sheriff based in Aberdeen?
Always wondered what happened to them.
Don't know if they ever had a shop, but they certainly got a fair bit of my money via mail order!!
Mart
Yes they were. Real memory lane stuff. Very fine shop - my mainstay for radio control models mostly, not so great on plastic, when I was a kid. (This was back when Woolies did Airfix bagged kits for 1/11 and 2/11) Originally on George Street, then later on a side street.
They closed down in Aberdeen long time back - about 15 - 20years ago. They had shrunk a bit by then, then had a fire - a lot of stuff got sold off after that.
Their shop in Dundee lasted a bit longer, also now gone I believe
-
Hi folks. Does anyone know the origin of the Revell 1/48th Harier GR7? Is it a re-issue from another manufacturer, and is it any good?
Cheers,
John B
-
Interesting photo Bill, even at the poor quality scan as you mentioned. Hadn't seen that one before.
I guess that is the OCU once at Brawdy rather than Chivenor is it ?
A fun scheme to add to my old Hunter collection
Typically I have just seen, for the first time, the Revell Mk6 boxing, with the yellow spine of the Fighter Combat School. Doh! (Must pay more attention. ) Was that the follow on unit from the Day Fighter Leaders School, John ?
-
That's intriguing Dave, especially given that the Gnat, which the Hawk nominally replaced, was even smaller !
By the time the Hawk came in, there were as many Hunters in use at CFS as Gnats. The red/white scheme on AFS aircraft was kept on for some time. Camouflegd Hawks were used at Brawdy, which in its main history was an RN base, replacing (eventually) the Hunters there - formerly based at Chivenor.
I have found one yellow spine and tail aircraft so far, but it was an F Mk6 of the Fighter Combat School rather a long time ago. I'm still reasonably certain there was such a scheme used at Chivenor, which would be on the old style scheme with ~silver undersides. My memory is of spine only in yellow, not tail.
Most of the Chivenor OCU single seaters were Mk9s I think, though not all. I haven't checked references yet.
-
Will have a wee look in the 'stash' for you tomorrow night, David. I haven't drooled over the old Hasegawa kit stiock for a while - think there might be something useful there.
Until tomnorrow . (Can't go up now, otherwise the boss will get upset = she's already in bed ! )
John B
-
Not the Toy Bazaar? Was in there on Thursday. They were such a big part of my childhood, when they were in the little street below Union Street
Yep - that's the one. I was in on Thursday too - late afternoon - when I heard their news.
Shame.
John B
-
Hmm - Inverurie. Thanks Bob. I thought someone had mentioned a shop there a while back, wasn't sure. Must investigate. I know there is another up by the Moray coast - and one in Elgin.
Relish Models? That's Yorkshire isn't it - or do they have a place further North?
-
Oops - a sign of the times I guess.
The last model / toy shop branch I know of in my nearest town (Aberdeen) is closing, to become a coffee shop. Typical. At least the staff will be staying on, retraining. Will seem odd to get coffee & cakes from them instead of plastic.
Pity - they are nice folk, very helpful. Now where will I get paint and glue - kits at least can be ordered by mail, but paint and so forth - not so good.
My wife will be pleased, fewer drop in purchases to confess to.
Looks like more runs to model shows, or forays to Edinburgh, are on the cards - unless there are any wee shops tucked away here that I haven't seen.
John B
-
David,
I liked the pictures of your old Thunderchief kit with the ejecting pilot. Real memory lane stuff. I recall a Hunter in 1/48th with the same idea - great fun, and otherwise quite an accurate looking mould for forty years ago even though it was moulded as the trials F Mk6 which had reverse thrust side doors on the rear fuselage.
Are you still looking for a Hasegawa F-102? And what F-101 are you looking for?
Cheers,
John B
-
I recall seeing at least one Hunter with yellow spine and fin, used for some OCU work. My recollection is it (they?) did not have any yellow wing markings. That was long before the red spined 'instructor check / bounce' aircraft at Brawdy. IIRC.
Might even be back when Hunters started to reinforce the diminishing fleet of Gnats - late Sixties /early Seventies. ( That was good news for tall blokes, because guys with long legs couldn't fly Gnats, so it was Herky birds for them ! )
Will check my notes and old photos, records
-
I think part of the reason there aren't any other answers is that it doesn't 'look' like much in the cockpit.
That is, the projection gubbins & electronics taking data for display from the aircraft sensors and computer, radar system etc., is buried in the panel (The and all that shows is the screen and its supports. There will be an instrument somewhere - in older machines it was right in front top middle below the screen, to allow selection or variation of displays. Thta's my best guess, based on memories of panels from some time back !
I expect in earlier generations of fighters the re were fairly bulky black or grey boxes sitting at the panel top, housing what used to be fairly hefty kit (In order to ne reliabl under field conditions).
Of course maybe some of our current military chaps here feel they can't answer, if the stuff is sensitive. Maybe they will correct some of my wrong assumptions.
Does that help? I don;t think we were deliberately ignoring you !
-
Very nice one Bruce.
I agree with you about the canopies, and the gearbox section. I found the canopies slightly too narrow for a good fit. Most frustrating. An early test fit would have caught those easily.
I also thought it a shame that the props were moulded to be fixed in position- as with the Wyvern. Shame.
I'm very impressed at your shading/weathering. Very nice, subtle, and brings out the panels superbly.
(Just lightly green with envy at better skills!)
-
Lovely piece of work Bill, even I ( unlike some others here ) prefer the natural metal schemes.
Snag is I can't get them to look right - though I've not tried Alclad on a Lightning yet. Very complex scheme to do right.
That one looks superb - the LTF machines were often overlooked. I like the ladder - looks properly three dimensional.
How do you get the sealant around the canopy looking right ?- very difficult to get that straight, for me at least.
Angels 49 - I'm with you, can't help looking at aeroplanes with an engineering/design hat on. (the "why is it like that?" bit)
Of course the over-under engine arrangement was Mr Petter's plan to reduce frontal drag. The first design had the upper engine leading - wing position scuppered that, hence the odd top engine to the rear set up. Agree about the belly tank - horrible excrescence. For some reason our Air Marshals ('Their Airships' as Roy Braybrook or Bill Gunston used to call them) couldn' t see past point defence interceptors. Terrible Battle of Britain, doncha know.
That wing plan is a modified delta really - just with cut outs.
I wish our guys had thought like yours and built decent range in from the start. The Lightning could have been truly superb, instead of a cobbled together 'almost'. Good thing it never actually had to fight, lovely as it was. The only version worth a darn was the (rare) RAF Germany F2 variant with 4 by 30mm Adens.
It's very revealing that one of the early criticisms of the HS Hawk was that it had too much range for a trainer. RAF destructors felt that pilots needed to be worried about fuel state right from the beginning !
A BM Lightning line up - sounds good = what do we do?
for the pilot.
Yellow Jack`s
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted · Edited by John B (Sc)
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)