John B (Sc)
-
Posts
1,070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by John B (Sc)
-
-
It's time to ask for help from the 'bigger brain' of Britmodeller.
On the canopy - the sliding section - of the de Havilland Venom single seaters, there is a pale cream coloured section. It goes across the top of the canopy arch and back along each side, to about 2/3rds of the way back. Then it ends in a curve. On the canopy lower sides there appears to be a dark line, presumably the metal frame edge or a retaining piece for the sliding section, below it.
What is the pale coloured section ?
I wondered if it was a sealant piece, but it is rather thick for that and I can't work out how that would be part of a pressure cabin. On some photos it seems to be on the outer side of the canopy frame. It does look slightly bulged in some shots, in others it is almost as if painted on.
No doubt someone who can go have a look at a museum example will know immediately what it is.
( Having just spotted it, I shall have to modify my old Classic Airframe Venom build - rats !)
John B
-
1
-
-
Interesting ideas - the original, very expensive variants would no doubt work well enough for car simulators but I doubt would be worthwhile for flight sim. The snag there is simulating variable G loads, either in turns or in turbulence. Harder to do, though I know some simulators use tightening and slackening of seat belts to provide a pseudo G feed back effect. Combined with good visuals through the goggles that might be convincing enough for most purposes, You'll never simulate real G loads in any sim of course. Some military sims inflate/deflate the G-suits to add verisimilitude.
I like nick32's link - looks great for car sim stuff!
John B
-
2
-
-
My word - thanks Mr Bradley. Amazing.
That is a breath-taking level of brass neck !
I really feel sorry for any random newsagent buyer who may think he/she is getting a new production magazine. Stupidly, I feel that makes us all look bad!
John B
-
3
-
-
Thanks all.
So, no evidence of a DH 84 Dragon as a kit.
Thanks for the diecast info, CheshireTaurus.
John B
-
Hi.
Does anyone know of a de Havilland Dragon kit?
Or - has anyone managed to convert a Dragon Rapide kit to a Dragon. Not sure how much commonality there is - maybe the tail feathers , aft fuselage and engines?
(I know the Rapide was developed from the DH 86 Dragon Express not from the DH 84 Dragon. Did Aircraft in Miniature release a DH 86 kit a few years back, or was that speculation?)
John B
-
I don't think there are so many Typhoons or so many bases that any potential adversary would be at all confused. I think it is mostly that servicing is a central station function now, so Squadrons don't truly have their 'own' aircraft today.
It did strike me as curious that Squadron markings were mostly removed before Desert Storm etc., though that may have been to better reflect the use of pilots from several all Squadrons.
That 6 Squadron aircraft will have been flown by whoever was on Q, not necessarily a 6 Sqn pilot.
John B
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Des said:
Thought it might be No.6 Squadron , seems to be a touch of blue around the tail badge which would rule out No.1 or 2.
Thanks - I like the logic. Are they the 'Can Openers' or whatever they call themselves, after their Hurricane IID anti tan exploits ?
Probably can't be No 2 because I read that they are overseas just now.
John B
-
On 2/3/2022 at 2:11 PM, iainpeden said:
In Russian "At last they send one up with squadron markings."
Yes, but which Squadron is it? Can't quite make it out !
(How nice to see 'the other side' of these games/exercises)
John B
-
For a while, it wasn't even possible to write a message. Slight IT 'oops' again. (Ah, the joys of 'upgrades' )
-
My copy of PAM arrived yesterday, with a complimentary copy of PSM too - thanks David for a speedy sort out.
Quite cheering when all the power failed - at least magazines to read while the light held !
John B
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, PDH said:
That's very good.
As for me I ordered/paid for a subscription on 22nd December last year. No phone call for me and as of today no magazine either! See what the postman brings tomorrow.
P
Haha - I'm eagerly awaiting mine too - though if they went out on the 24th January, which is what was said earlier on in a previous topic, by second class post that could mean another day or two wait yet !
John B
-
1
-
-
I think Cmdr Ward also shot down a C-130 which was making a low level night departure from the Falklands heading W or NW? using a missile, presumably an AIM-9L .
-
1
-
-
Found it. The (usually) diagonal stress undulations you often see in thin skin structures under stress, are Wagner tension fields.
-
3
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Johnson said:
Thanks Corky. So is it like a deformation of the panel around the rivets etc?
It's not so much around the rivets as an effect caused by shear stress in the (very thin) sheet surface., There is a formal name for it which I can't recall just now. It is due to the diagonal shear forces being applied, typically.
Because it looks like the dimpling you get when using an old fashioned clink clonk oilcan, it was called 'oil canning'.
Cheers,
John B
-
1
-
2
-
-
Hi CT7567 (interesting title), I have sent you a private message, since the photo is not mine to use, Looking more carefully at it now, I think the aircraft shown are actually GR machines, not the F3 at all. Sloppy photo titling by the owner. Aircraft look too stubby and wrong kit under wings. Too much rush earlier, tsk, and I am not at all expert on the Tornado !
Cheers,
John B
-
The Tornado F3 was involved in the Gulf War, of course. No 29Sqn deployed with them to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. I don't know if they changed livery from grey to desert pink though; seems unlikely for air defence operations.
Edit : I have found a photograph which suggests some F3s were painted desert pink. Most handsome too, so that would avoid Ringo having to buy another kit at all !
John B
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ckw said:
I wonder if this is a policy to avoid upsetting manufacturers - i.e. to make the product look as good as possible
Cheers
Colin
In my limited experience, constructive criticism is not something an editor will object to, nor have I ever had any alteration made by an editor, except where poor grammar was concerned.
Something I have noticed is that occasionally both modellers writing for magazines and enthusiastic modellers in clubs demonstrate extraordinary gaps in their knowledge of real aeroplanes, That may explain some of the failures to point out the rare major errors which manufacturers have inadvertently foist on us. As a pilot and engineer, I try to look at my models and ask myself if things make sense. If not, why not. I've learned a lot about aeroplanes that way !
Personally, when I wrote reviews, it was the errors, commonly mine by not reading the instructions properly (!) or more rarely the manufacturers for not writing those correctly, plus the awkward bits of the build I had difficulty with, that I felt people would want to know about.
John B
-
Lovely. I wonder if there is any chance they'd eventually do an Aeronca Champion, or even an L-3? More light aircraft in that scale would be great.
The Champion has a slightly more rounded and friendly look - and a better undercarriage set up. A pretty aircraft that never gets the attention the Cub does.
-
1
-
-
My understanding is that the Phoenix Editors are aware and hope to feature smaller scale models in future, not just 1/72 but 1/144 as well. Graham Boak's observations are spot on.
Modern close up photography occasionally depresses me. What looked like a good result to my eyes looks poor when a real close up zoom in is done. I keep having to remind myself I aim to produce a model which has the right look and feel. That usually involves viewing at fair distance, not ultra close up. It is tempting to go up a scale to make things 'easier'. Silly, given I have so many fine 1/72 kits to build !
Actually, thinking about that further, don't look too closely at the real thing. Some have noticeable grotty bits; working aeroplanes develop
flaws. I can think of one I fly regularly which has a piece of fabric under the belly which keeps coming loose, another which has cowling panels which are heavily re-rivetted to deal with small cracks. I have flown on airliners which likewise have small patches and resprays where minor repairs have been done. Occasionally real life paint jobs look quite rough close up. That includes some military schemes; it's not just D-Day stripes that were hastily applied. (Sea Harriers in the Falklands are a classic example of that, Hand repainting on some while at sea,. Hard to get precision.) So maybe sometimes we modellers are our own worst enemies. The real thing ain't perfect, so neither is a replica !
John B
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, DOD said:
Hi John,
I believe it is a protective cover over the front of the aircraft. I think the aircraft were left out in the elements at Mount Farm airfield.
David
Thanks David, that makes sense. It appears to be a good close fit over the forward fuselage.
-
Most interesting. Looking at that picture of PL848, there is another Spitfire in the background with what appears to be PRU blue rear fuselage and tail feathers plus D-Day stripes and some dark almost mottled camouflage over the forward fuselage. Unless that is some sort of camouflage netting - any ideas?
-
Blimey - I hadn't realised that the Revell 1/72 Hunter was now priced at £18.00. I bought their (superb) 1/32 Hunter for less than that !
Clearly now time to build some of the saved stash; I don't feel I want to pay the depressingly raised prices now. Javelins and Victors at £70+ ; that is bad enough but at least they are fairly large. The Buccaneer is a deal smaller. Like Beermonster I'd be prepared to go £55 or so for the nice extra detail, not more. Sad, but it looks like I have hit my price limit.
-
2
-
-
Thanks Roland Pulfrew, some useful information there. I was aware that roles change, wasn't aware that 54 had been the 'ISTAR' OCU for so long. In such a small service now, I do worry about the diminished opportunities and options for personal development compared to the (relatively) recent past.. In that regard, I wonder whether a change from the long established two year tour system might be helpful. Is it rather too short in the modern world?
Agent K, on costs; really, that argument has been (mis-) used by the MoD for so long it has whiskers. As a taxpayer I have seen some of the cost excesses, embarrasments and silly cream-offs etc. Suffice it to say it is clear there are more efficient ways. Be efficient with the small amounts and it aids efficiency with the large ones .
The aircraft will all be pooled anyway, for servicing so any separate squadron identity is for 'esprit de corps' competitiveness or whatever you want to call it. I can't help feel it's a little pathetic with such a small force. Impressive/depressing how few Poseidons have replaced so many Nimrods - yes I know there were not many MR4As being built; the same argument held there. The oceans are still very large and nine aircraft must mean a large reduction in our intended coverages.
Ah well, enough of the real world angst.
I wonder how long before we get a mainline manufacturer 1/72nd Poseidon, 1/144 mainline injection kit should be straightforward and soon, but I bet we have to wait a while for the larger scale.
-
1
-
-
I like the way the modern RAF manages to make three 'Squadrons' out of nine aircraft. Is it only me that thinks this is a slightly absurd way to operate. Admittedly 54 Squadron, as the OCU, will mostly be operating the simulator(s) etc., and presumably 'borrowing' an aircraft when required.
Rather more admin and bumff than operational capability, and a great way to ensure more senior officers can justify their expensive existence.
And no 54 - once a great ground attack and fighter squadron. Hmm. At least 201 and 120 have long maritime histories.
-
4
-
de Havilland Venom, single seater, canopies
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted · Edited by John B (Sc)
Thank you James and John - most interesting. That makes sense.
I was wondering whether the pale strips were inside or outside the perspex, not that it matters for modelling purposes.
It is easy to forget how little was known at the time of the design & build of these machines, about so many factors, including the longer term challenges of pressurising ageing and frequently flexed fittings etc.
I was astonished to read that many Venoms were scrapped after 750 hrs, apparently as being life expired. The subject of my 1/48th build was apparently withdrawn from service after around 500 hrs because of 'loose wing bolts' ! Very low time.
John B