John B (Sc)

Thanks Geoff. I didn't thinkt he vacform would be easy - though looking at your pictures the front end shape looked better. Mine is from Historic Wings, the ex Contrail kit. I see it comes with etched brass airbrakes - very fancy. My vacform experience is limited and varied - actually my first was a vacform Vulcan, made just a year before Airfix brought our their one. So maybe I need to get on with this Valiant, then Airfix will do the honours! It sounds like I will need to PM you sometime to get a look at your build photos , so I can see how to deal with the intake exhausts caper. Meantime, good luck with that Mach2 beast - I have a Caravelle of theirs (yes, I know!) but haven't started that. I thought FM were dubious and variable enough- hmm. What is it about French cottage industry? Agree about the Valiant. Much under-rated. Did the job, well, efficiently with relatively straightforward development. Good solid journeyman aircraft - and the only one that really went to war. No surprise when a change of role caused issues. If they'd bought Vickers Mk2 offering, that would have been another story. Oh and ah, VC TENderness - bliss in the old BOAC days. Super design, strongly built. A great aeroplane - still is - and the fastest of its day. I understand that on detachment the VC10s cruisres faster than the Tonkas. A bit of a laugh when the tanker/transport has to slow for the'fighter' ! (Don't tell the tin triangle mob, but I always felt the Valiant and Victor were the nicer Vs. One bonny and straightforward to operate and the other really lovely to look at and very fast. Between Vulcans and Javelins the RAF went down a very strange road at that time - with handling difficulties in all directions!)

Geoff, I'm being immensely thick here. Is the Valiant currently under construction an injection moulded one by Mach2, or have I misunderstood ? I didn't know they made one - perhaps fortunately gioven your hassles. I have a Valiant vac form 'in stock' to build. My heart sank because at first I thought that was what you were building. Looks like the vacform is the easier option! That looks to be a huge amount of effort you are having.

Tis getting a tad worrying - it's hard luck that some sponsors have pulled back at this point. Glad they are being very cautious - much better to say no than try shoestring games. I'm disappointed but not surprised - it has always seemed to me too big a task to keep one of those going longterm outside the military system. But that's the pessimistic (realistic?) engineer speaking

Lovely piece of modelling. I've been wondering whether to put stripes on mine - and whether to fold the wings. Super shading & weathering work, wish I could that as well. Lights - usual habit is for all wingtip lights to show the appropriate side colour. So that the colour shows in an arc towards both front and rear. The White light shows in an arc around either side of the rear. If you can see all three colours you know you are looking at an aircraft from ~directly behind. Hope that helps. The rear light(s) are on the tail - there are two little lights low down on trailing edge, where that rectangle is (level with the elevators rear edge) though they don't show on my model, bother! Must have sanded mine off. The engine / gearbox housings mostly seem to have been either sky overall or sky/grey. (Looking at Mike Doust's "From the Cockpit") Some early ones apparently all dark grey. Still, fifty years on, who is sure - that aluminium looks good. I think it's a really mean tough looking aircraft. And huge. Hats off to Harald Penrose and the rest of the team at Westland. Quite a nightmare testing that one. Several pilots died - usually after gearbox failures left them in very high drag condition. Hard to forceland that beast.

That's an excellent picture OzH. Brings back memories! Hope you don't mind - I've saved that one. I see what you mean - looks like there would be plenty room for an old style radio set down the port fuselage side. Must check up to see what would have been used for Army co-op radio net. Would be one of thsoe old large heavy case jobs with bakelite knobs on no doubt ! What an interesting job, rear gunner in an Auster. Not sure which would be worse, the take-offs or the landings. Very cozy. It looks as if there is a wander lamp on the port side rear, so maybe the radio op had a table or just a large kneepad for note taking. It also looks as if there are two comms leads in a fitting on starboard side of panel - perhaps when radio op aboard, just one pilot - no need for another observer. That would ease space and weight. I note the starboard seat has a deep cushion while the port has none - I don't recall there being any seat adjustment in the Terrier. I did wonder if the starboard stick has been removed - you can see the top of the port one, but probably would sit just out of sight behind cushion. MODeller - there's always some BOF around who wants to be a nit picker. Shame. It's a lovely aircraft to have a swan around in. Old style military thinking, "hell for stout". A Dak is great if you do get a chance. Really strange to have to climb uphill to the seats. And the growl of Pratt & Whitneys.

That's a super bit of work MOdeller. I haven't come across the Sword kit - must have a look. I'd love to have one of those in my collection, if the conversion isn't too much of a nightmare. I'm intrigued by OzH 's comments about the Auster MkIII. A rear facing seat plus radio gear. That's quite a squeeze - presumably whoever was in the back had to be small, or had their knees well up, because there isn't a lot of spare space, or depth, in there. Rear facing would help. Even a good condition Auster (Terrier) with three up is not particularly sprightly off the deck. The prospect of getting a three seater with radio and military equipment fit off from an unprepared strips - hmm. Careful calcs required for T/O distance, I bet ! Angels 49 - A nice looking aircraft and actually quite forgiving and enjoyable to fly once you got around its odd handling characteristics. ( This was surprisingly common in older British aircraft. ) In thew case of the Auster, astonishing aileron drag and adverse yaw. If you came from flying a Piper (Cub and Auster have a common background) you'd wonder what on earth had gone wrong. The other fun bits of Austers - those flaps. Quite a low limit speed, so needed to watch out on gsuty days. The split flaps fitted to some variants needed a very hefty pull. Light pilots were known to tighten their lap straps before dropping flap - so that heaving on the lever put flap down rather than pull the pilot out of his seat. Oh - and landings. Austers have a bungey suspension system. So if the landing wasn't properly rounded out, all the spare energy went into a bounce which was apt to develop into a series of Kangaroo hops & leaps down the runway. The smart Auster driver would overshoot and have another attack. Luckily, Austers are also very strong " the all-steel aeroplane" was one of their slogans. Happy days.

That's a super bit of work MOdeller. I haven't come across the Sword kit - must have a look. I'd love to have one of those in my collection, if the conversion isn't too much of a nightmare. I'm intrigued by OzH 's comments about the Auster MkIII. A rear facing seat plus radio gear. That's quite a squeeze - presumably whoever was in the back had to be small, or had their knees well up, because there isn't a lot of spare space, or depth, in there. Rear facing would help. Even a good condition Auster (Terrier) with three up is not particularly sprightly off the deck. The prospect of getting a three seater with radio and military equipment fit off from an unprepared strips - hmm. Careful calcs required for T/O distance, I bet ! Angels 49 - A nice looking aircraft and actually quite forgiving and enjoyable to fly once you got around its odd handling characteristics. ( This was surprisingly common in older British aircraft. ) In thew case of the Auster, astonishing aileron drag and adverse yaw. If you came from flying a Piper (Cub and Auster have a common background) you'd wonder what on earth had gone wrong. The otehr fin bits of Austers - those flaps. Quiet a low limit speed,so needed tow atch out on gsuty days. The split flap

Ah thanks Peebeep, ou peut etre merci monsieur.. That makes perfect sense - Very much in the French way of looking at life, I think. I was speculating on it being like the smoke off a candle. Like several apparently simple maneouvres, it's harder to do really smoothly and accurately than it sounds (at least for someone of my stumbly level) Good co-ordination practice. Chariots of Fire - hmmm... Rather fits with the Lightning discussion above

QUOTE (Mish @ Feb 9 2008, 06:03 PM) I was doing some work in the tower at Binbrook many years ago when a Lightening pilot asked permission to "punch a hole in the clouds". The tower replied positively but added "those clouds are 5000 plus feet". The pilot came back with "60 seconds to impact!" 60 seconds - was that including start up ? At Lightning climb rates, 0-5,000 ft is around 20 seconds max ! The chandelle - I don't know why it is called that - though it's said to be a name given way back in air history by the French. Why would a climbing turn throygh 180 be aclled after a candle? Pass. That's what it is though.

Thanks Bill. Must have a closer look at my stock of old Lightnings - built and unbuilt! There are hopes for some better kits of the beast this year. At least one of them should turn out OK - fingers crossed.

Showing my ignorance here Bill - what is so badly wrong with the old Hasegawa F Mk6 kit - aka Frog and Revell beastie - compared to the other two ? Apart from having raised panel lines, which are definitely not appropriate for a Lightning, I thought it wasn't bad for the overall look of a Lightning. Shows how carefully I look at them I suppose. (I do hope any new 1/72 variant has a decent intake ducting and radome housing. The blank front totally ruins the whole appearance. I'm getting fed up modding those !)

I think it may have been earlier than the 1959 figures quoted. Some Sea Hawks in particular appeared in DS Grey/White earlier - the earliest colour Grey/White FAA photo I have seen is marked 1957. I presume that was for new builds, or aircarft just out of major overhaul. Of course the Navy did tend to be more enthusiastic & rigorous than the RAF about repainting in those days - not surprising, given the harsh working environment of their aircraft. I do recall seeing a mixture of schemes on FAA machines at Lossiemouth on early visits, which would have been in the late Fifties, though my memory says all the Sea Hawks were Grey/White. Need to hunt out some old slides ! ( By the mid Sixties, what was intriguing the 'hardcore' Lossie enthusaists was the question of grey/white demarcation lines on Buccaneer fuselages - lots of variation for a while, before they went Grey overall ! ) Cheers.

Yes - I'd buy two, maybe three sets at least. RAF roundels with white surrounds are hard to find. Both the Blue Diamonds and Black Arrows for me please. (And in1/48th too.......?)

I'm probably being immensely thick here Gary. I'd expect the rear surface of the fin, into which the rudder LE fits, to be a curved recess, probably clad in very lightweight dural. The hinges would protrude, within that area. The upper sloping sectiion will probably be flat. I have a recollection that part of the fin - presumably the trapezoidal LE section, was said to be wooden, presumably for weight reasons. That would comprise the main part of the sloping section of fin & hence I'd expect it to be flat, possibly with an upset along the edges. (No doubt John at Aeroclub could confirm that) That seems too simple an answer for this - which is why I guess I've misunderstood something. Cheers, John

MRF - Was that Met Research Flight perhaps? This discussion on Hunter undercolours is intriguing - it's long been a puzzle to me. I've long assumed that the uppersurface 'wrapover' on the wing LE was roughly coincident with the change to grey. Now I realise I probably wasn;t looking carefully enough. (The FAA used to wrap the upper surface colours over the LE routinely didn't they? I'm sure I have seen photos of Wyverns & Gannets with that - but on the other hand my memory of Seahawks is of no wrap around - hmm, another area to check on.) I'm rather pleased with the comment that it was hard to tell the difference in practice - because in exasperation a few years ago I mixed up a tin of light grey & aluminium paint for Hunter undersides. (Silver always looked wrong in model scale to me) It looked good - a slightly shiny grey or dull worn silver effect, which I could vary with a little buffing. I liked the effect - it made the machines look used -and maybe that wasn't as far off as I thought ! I've used it on early and late Hunters - the earlies got more buffing to bring out the metallic appearance.

Thanks Guys. I do most of those things mentioned, but not all. (When I remember!) Some good tips there. - I suspect that some occasional thinners jar 'scrubbing' may be part of my trouble. - I'll try that petroleum jelly trick - I've used soap as a way to hold a point when storing brushes, without much success. PJ may work better. - (Yes I always wash out thinners with liquid soap and warm w ater - helps a lot I think.) I don't think you're loopy) - Poking inmates in the eyes, hmmm. You need to get out more, chum ! I find old fine brushes handy for the dust cleaning which the delicate bits of models seem to need far too often ! Cheers all.

Help. Although I use both paintbrushes and airbrushes sometimes, I always hand paint my canopies. It doesn't seem to matter how careful I am about cleaning brushes in several washs of thinner and washing them out etc., eventually the tips refuse to hold a fine point any more, which makes them useless for canopy work. Better quality brushes may last for perhaps a year, cheaper ones maybe six months. The brushs are still in good condition, just won't keep the point. Most frustrating. Does anyone know of a way of preventing this loss of fine point happening, or am I just being a grippy Scot ? I mostly use artist's brushes; it doesn't seem to matter whether they are described as being for oils or not. Any suggestions welcome.

Very true. Nice that they are having a try. Fingers crossed !

Hmm. So Trumpeter are doing two 1/32nd scale Lightnings. Whee - but hang on. What chance they get these right? I've been alternately delighted and depressed by Trumpeter. They do seem to have carefully missed the target on several of their big kits. OK, mostly can be rescued, but... Seeing a picture of what purports to be the planned kit box of the Mk 3 with what is plainly an F1a doesn't bode terribly well. What do you guys think? Chances they get it right? How long before it actually arrives?? I'm still sticking with my just started Echelon Lightning of course - a wonderful piece of work I'm only now very slowly getting on with. (Really at my skill limit - Bill Clark I'm not !) It's taken me years to summon up the courage to start, in case I ruined it. Perhaps I should sell the spare, kept in case of disaster, to another enthusiast, now the ridiculous (collector mania ?) prices should have decayed. Incidentally what happened to the 1/48th Gannet I thought they were doing? It seems to have vanished - or was it always rumour?

Yep, I think Edgar is right. XL563 ?I believe? A T Mk7 of the Inst of Aviation Medicine would be the closest to all white. There was also a much modfied F Mk6 of the RAE which was mostly white with blue and red trim - not raspberry ripple, just cheat lines etc. It had a lengthened, quite rounded nose late on. Maybe that was the Llanbedr mavchine Tim mentions? I wondered if the prototype T Mk 7 might have been white at one stage - it looks it in some B/W photos. That's the only other possibility. Anyone know or have a colour photo somewhere ? Later Edit : Found it. WW598 was all white early in its career. As a P1109, it was first used for Firestreak trials, hence the lengthened pointednose, with radar. Two cannon were deleted. Later she was used by RAE High Speed Flight for tropical low level gust trials. It had a lengthened pointed nose at first, with a black anti-glare panel. Odd bulge in that - not sure what for, presumably an IR sensor to aid Firestreak or cross check on its acquisition capability? Later on it seemed to acquire the more rounded nose profile (maybe that's just my poor interpretation of old printed photo info.)

I think 'phatness' comment that pilots fall into either the Airbus or Boeing camp is very accurate. Quite different philosophies a few years ago. Much closer now that Boering is slowly coming t o true 'fly by wire' after years of sticking to good old trusty (hmm) hydraulics. Both have benefits & drawbacks. A lot of the early Airbus resistance from the 'Boeing forever' group was due to not understanding the philosophy - the Mulheim crash being a classic of its kind - the driver's failure to understand the implications of what he was demanding. Not surprising - no doubt could have been more clearly and forcefully explained by the designers and engineers. Worrying Boeing's reluctance to admit there was a rudder actuator hiccup, let's say, on the 737 was equally worrying. Deliberate blinkers? I hope not. Pilots do develop favourites - and are sometime disappointingly quick to believe crew room gossip, rather than the facts in the manuals ! Normal human tendency, alas. Two good aircraft companies with very different philosophies - that's got to be good overall. To say 'If it aint XXX I ain't going' is daft and illogical. I'm with Mike R - I'll be delighted to try both. Mind you , with older Russian aeroplanes serviced in more dubious parts of the world, that's another story..... I still get the shudders thinking of some of those. Crude, strong & they needed to be.

Yep, it's real. Have had the pleasure of being there. That youtube video from the cockpit actuaaly seems to have been quite a highish approach - note the auto callout when crossing the threshold. Of course a 747's size, height and landing attitude makes the aspect look awkward & the approach high - there's a point in that video where it looked to me like stopping might be a challenge. Looked fine once the nosewheel comes down & reverse goes in. Bet it takes a while for new 747 drivers to get the hang of that. (What is that radar height callout referenced to - the cockpit or the main gear? I presume cockpit , but don't know) Not a bad field really, no significant approach obstacles, even well off to one side, and a good clear overshoot.

Sweden does this very well - they have operating examples of almost all their post war machines. I guess we are too book-keeper driven in Britain. Given the challenges being made recently wrt the Red Arrows, presumably the BBMF must also be at risk, even though it costs very little. Would be nice if some of our politicians (and possibly Air Marshalls ?) understood value, instead of just price. You'd think the recruiting benefits would justify all of this easily. Re-activate Coltishall - now there's a real far-off dream! Nice.

Sorry Bill - didn't mean to sound touchy, or upset anyone's euphoria. It's just that if anything , even quite minor, does go pear shaped , we all know the b****y journos will be all over the place, sanctimoniously demanding that 'something should be done. That will mean ALL vintage aeroplanes getting a very rough ride with the CAA, or being grounded totally - they nearly did that once before. Incidentally I like the suggestion elsewhere on this site from ?Viggen? or similar about having a proper Historic Flught. Won't happen of course, this being book=keeper bound Britain, but works superbly in Sweden ! See you at Telford?

Thanks Len. Like everyone else, I'm delighted she's successfully become airborne again. Watching those beasts demonstrating serious back of the drag curve flying at displays was a highlight of the Sixties and Seventies at airshows. Not to mention darkening the skies with 4 x Olympus exhausts ! I expect some of the earlier exuberance won't be seen now, but.... Yes, those VC10 crews will have some fun. Now there's another aircraft which could display well, and did at old time Farnborough. Seriously overpowered at light weight. To Bill - ouch (miaouw - have another saucer of milk there, chum.) A wee bit of realism isn't really spoiling anyone's party. Euphoria doesn't replace engineering and careful thinking. Aviation is a great game, but it's totally b***** unforgiving of mistakes. I spent enough years as an instructor trying to get THAT idea across. ( Incidentally the (Sc) stands for Scotland, where I come from - because the name John B was taken - not on this site, but another where I occasionally post. Still - thanks all for the inventive and amusing alternatives. ) I'd guess Bruntingthorpe is specified as the only approved maintenance facility by the CAA, after all their rigorous demonstrations and inspections which went on. Wonder what Waddingtom has that B doesn't. Most fields have a compass swing platform somewhere. Maybe they specified it would be done to RAF standards, hence easier done at W. Better to stick to well known, good practice unless there is a good reason to change?