Albert RN

"I do not like being told that I must toe someone else's line in order to comply" which implied you were forcibly being coerced, which you clearly aren't, that's just overwrought hyperbole. That's since been topped with "stand by and see their hobby driven in unwanted directions." Unwanted directions by whom? I wasn't aware there is a "proper" direction modelling should be heading.

Who is holding a gun to your head making you do that? Modelling as a hobby always evolves, as the guys who used to carve 1/72 aircraft from wood will remember. You either move with it or stay in your comfort zone but no one makes you do either.

Irony of large number of spelling and grammar mistakes in populist gripe about spelling and grammar mistakes from people who've never written a magazine article in their lives.

I didn't even insult you in Latin.

Enough said. Not so much Spencer's iffy research as your unfamiliarity of something before your time. Barba tenus sapients.

Spencer's Harrier depicts that aircraft around 1974/75 and you joined the RAF in what year?

And? Its a good job we don't rely on memories for facts and some people actually took photos otherwise we'd be awash with "iffy research" based on dodgy reminiences.

No one said it was common, though you said "The extended tips were never used". Photo proves they were and Spencer's model was correct for at least one moment time. Put the shovel down, you'll be digging to Australia at this rate.

You were wrong about the wingtip so maybe you're wrong about the seat straps too. Look forward to seeing your 1/24 conversion where you get them right.

Spencer's model is accurate, his T.2 being modelled following this image of what is beleived to be the only T.2 to have been fitted 'in service' with both extended tips and 330 Gal tanks, the aircraft beeing seen in 20 Squadron markings on its way to an exercise. His research is fully in keeping with this image and the details supplied during the six months of the build by the Harrier SIG. http://oi66.tinypic.com/spk8d0.jpg

And we wonder why we can't get more female modellers into the hobby.

IIRC they didn't Lidar the Blenheim.

A lot of people wanted a 1/72 British Phantom, a kit you don't think they should be bothering with.

You asked me to back it up. I've shown how the depth of the nose is off, closer to MR3 dimensions. I've shown how the fuselage is too long. I've dug out a small portion of example drawings to show the sort of data I'm using. The criticisms stand. I'm not bashing Revell at large, I'm looking at how off their Shack kit is if you know the subject and have good references. If you don't want to get "bogged down" then don't ask for examples and then ignore them or dismiss or belittle others who have also made solid criticisms.

No it isnt't. The Revell fuselage is too eggshaped and rounded. Fuselages, Revell right and Airfix left. 3mm difference in depth at nose. That's an MR3 nose. Revell fuselage is around 6mm longer. And a metric f-tonne of Shackleton drawings with all the data. There's no way you'd fit a V12 Griffon in the kit cowls and the spinners are undersized. The list goes on. Nice surface detail but even that isn't accurate. The Revell kit is a mishmash of variants, it's an approximation of an AEW and the criticisms are fully justified. RichW_82's posts have gone into great detail what is wrong with the Revell kit.

Fuselage cross section is too rounded, the rear fuselage is short, nose too deep and the engines are undersized. The criticisms are justified.

Airfix have confirmed an AEW Shackleton.

The Sea Vixen and Javelin aren't. SV was 2010 and the Javelin 2013. Fujimi weren't able to maintain Fujimi standards, their F-18 was a disaster and their recent F-35 is heavy handed.

A lot of business experts who know how to run a model company but not how to sand down a seam line.

XV107 is quite correct. As for other comments elsewhere about Tiger squadrons, we currently do have two - 814 NAS and 230 Sqn.

They did new schemes for the MiG-29 a year or so.http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/mig-29a-fulcrum-1-72.html

Game over then, everyone go home to your loved ones and turn the lights off.

Rory who?

That's exactly what you did when the Airfix 1:48 Me 109 came out and you were desperate to try and find something wrong with it and tell people who liked they the kit they were wrong.Now it turns out that the wrong wings, surface detail and fuselage cross section is OK, and 98% (random made up number that means nothing) is OK. You're 98% right.

The nose is stuffed though. Everything forward of the intake needs correcting if your are MiG sensitive.