Geoff_B

Could be a Typo or translation error and we will have to wait and see what news actually appears on about this kit as it develops as the person designing the catalogue probably wasn't given a great deal of info about the kit at this time.

Is that length correct for a C-130J let alone a C-130J-30 ?

Have to agree with the above comments, started with a good premise of a genuine period piece rather than a modern interpretation only to find it ruined by BBC PC brigade trying to adapt it to our current snowflake era. Its a good book why the hell can't somebody do a genuine period adaptation, not a musical, not trying impose modern sensibilities on the period or moving the period to the current time frame because they either want to try and make it more relevant or too tight bottomed to create a genuine period piece. Surely we can have proper Cylinders that could actually accommodate a folded up war machine or two, have a proper heat ray, do a War Machine as described, etc. etc., its obvious that its what most people would actually like to see rather than the dross they keep trying to foist on us.

Looks like we will be getting another boxing from Valom with the later high demarcation 50s scheme, as not covered in these boxings.

That's crap as well, poorly done with little reference to the real ship

The Ju-88 A1 is a pleasant surprise, the re-boxing of the Italeri F-35A however is an own goal as its terrible and surely they could have got access to the superior Academy or Hasegawa kits. Nice to see Invincible re-issued again

It is with the F-35B because its not a Harrier, yes Harriers could do Rolling landings by the skill of the pilot and they throttle/nozzle control on land. The F-35B is done with computers they have managed to automate the process and to do so from a ship on a design that was intended to do either CTOL or STOVL. Of course it makes a difference, the Aircraft has to slow to a Hover then drift sideways before dropping onto the land spot which requires a fair amount of thrust to do so, with the short rolling landing, they don't go into the full hover and get the benefits of not having to do so. This not only increases the bring back capacity but also reduces the wear & tear on both the airframe and the engine.

I will need to check my library when I get home for Essex Class Carriers (Warship design histories) by Alan Raven and Aircraft Carriers of the U.S. Navy by Stefan Terzibaschitsch as these may cover what you are asking

Wish they had gone with the F-4K Fujimi kit as that still allows for 892 and 43 sqdn aircraft , but also the other FAA units and prototypes. The FG1 kit is on regular release from Fujimi themselves so would have been nice to see the Other F-4k kit without the RWR. The same goes for the F-4M/FGR2 as that could cover the various early and late RAF units and schemes, but is RAF only.

Yes Lidar is an excellent tool for the kit designer, but surely they need to do a bit more research and remove these late mods. Its fine if they chose to market as a Buccaneer at the end of its service with late schemes and weapons fit, but Like the Phantom they specifically targeted the FAA origins of the type but didn't do enough research which leaves feeling they were a bit half bottomed in their approach again. The engineering is interesting but I feel they should have included an inner score line for the lower wings, as it would be very easy for the less experienced modeler to make a hash of this. Despite hoping for a 10/10 kit, especially after they set the lead designer on it where they used a nugget to do the Phantom, I can't help thinking they have come out with an 8/10 kit. The limited armament options (why provide an open bomb bay when you don't provide bombs to fill it !) makes me worry about the RAF boxing, it will have the bulged Bombay door, the universal pylons and the RWR for the Tail, the streamlined upper drop tank parts and that doesn't leave a great deal of room for alternative stores unless its just going to be the Gulf War fit. Anything more would require an additional sprue which would then put it up in price. I still have 11 of the kits but some of these will have to await on the aftermarket boys to do the mods to allow an earlier S2, and a later S2D to be built along with expanding the armament options, just need somebody to do the decals to allow more of the 800 sqdn aircraft to be modelled.

Yes The later extra sprue with the Pylons and weapons for the Navy/Gulf War/SAAF options are quite usable, they can be used with the new kit, the decals are not to bad either. The original 1986 kit parts however have been pretty well superseded by the New Kit.

http://sandmmodels.co.uk/news/ That is incredibly short sighted to use only one airframe and a non-standard training machine to boot when most people will be wanting to do shipboard examples especially the Falklands ones.

Alley Cat do the Photo Pallet in their Odds & Ordnance range however that design is for the older Airfix kit and the new kit has the Bomb bay molded open so some work would be required to cut out the bay or adapt the resin lump to fit the bomb bay.

https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/new-for-2019/blackburn-buccaneer-s-mk-2-rn-1-72.html There you go

It would make an interesting gift set perhaps do a printed area of deck park as a base so you can pose them together folder and parked or unfolded and being made ready. I can't see them adding a Wessex, Seaking or Gannet as the two kits would put it to the £50 mark ! so I think they would hold at that.