tempestfan

Yes and no - early boxes have Hase plastic in them, later boxes contain essentially a carbon copy of the Hase kit from Frog's own mould. They copied the Harrier, F-4K/M and Lightning when their deal with Hase ended. IIRC the P.1127 is smaller allround (ca. 10%?), while the Kestrel is dimensionally close to the final Harrier. Possibly the original Hase kit would be the best starting point, as it has the unblended exhaust fairings.

To some extent it depends on what you're after - as you don't like rivets... 😉 Price may also factor in. If you have one or can buy a cheap 2nd hand kit, OK. If you have to buy it at full MSRP, I'd spend a few quid more and get a (newish tool) Revell. Basically wrong - well, it's not an A-4 in the first place, as it lacks the bulges under the cowling. Rear fuselage section also is a topic, if things like that bother you. Otherwise, I always liked it, and in particular the original Type 3 boxes are stuffed to the brim with plastic. It's Argus. The Italeri 88 was released in the (very) early 90s, so RR probably used a 188? The original Revell 88 is from the mid/late 60s. Not sure if it really offers any significant advantages over the Airfix. It is a typical Potter's Bar mould of the time, so slightly less obtrusively rivetted than the Airfix.

The stand base is the same as for the Dogfight Doubles, as an aside. The stand definitely was included up to at least the 1975 (C) Type 5 boxes - would have to check for T6; it may have been deleted (by) then as Airfix started to omit the stands around 1979.

Ehhh - not for her. The only obvious lack of (singing) talent coming close to "Joe le Taxi" is by Stéphanie - Ouragan (no, no contender in this thread)/Irresistible. In my very humble opinion.

The F.1 has pretty ugly legs. Like a cowboy. I never noticed that with Sophie Marceau, but admit I did not look at her legs. The IIIC is Brigitte Bardot in her best days. The F.1 may well be Vanessa P. as I don't recall the F.1 being able to sing ("Joe le Taxi"). If we stay with Marcel Dassault's products, then we should logically also take a look at the Mystère IV and SMB, which arguably are the only nose intake aircraft to get it right, apart from the F8U-1 of course.

? "Ground Attack" may be true for the 9, but all earlier versions were first and foremost fighters - and couldn't carry that much scary stuff for going low, if I'm not mistaken. The second one brings us to the philosophical question what makes a "fighter" - the F-4 also originated as a fleet defence interceptor, but could do a lot more. An interceptor would qualify as "fighter" for me as its purpose is to take on any type of enemy aircraft. You sound like you would only consider the ones that were purely made to take a dance with Charlie's fighters - "air superiority fighter"?

...but that's not real, it's a Hase Egg Plane - isn't it?

A nice subject! OK, I will carefully try to stay on the edge of this potential minefield - I'd say that if it was in DFS, we would see some OG segments standing out on the mid/rear fuselage, poor quality notwithstanding, in particular as there is ***something*** visible behind the spinner (and I think above the port exhausts). Moving into the minefield, I feel the lower cowling is too light for MSG - it appears to me about on par with the yellow leading edges. @ilj, I find your interpretation of the different colour behind the spinner as wear convincing. Stupid question - would an ENxxx serialled machine typically have single cannon blisters?

I was about to say Avro Bison.

Yes, all of us, and that's precisely why it has not been mentioned

Whirlwind, Sea Hawk and Mirage IIIC. If Hunter, then the early 1s. And if a certain brutish force may replace some elegance, then of course Tempest V and the earliest Crusaders.

Scale Models February 1973 (?), the one with the Arthur Bentley Tempest feature - I am pretty sure this issue has a review of the Airfix kit, and the pics include one of the window. @Richard Humm has an index, or possibly/probaby at Aeroflight.

They're on Village, whose security certificate has expired. I can see them, but only after a lot of clicking.

Ah - is it included in one of the "high tech" boxings? I had a look at the basic plastic parts from the Revell issue, but didn't saw anything close.

The 1973/4 Airfix for example had the u/c legs at full extension as the kit was apparently based on the data for the Superkit, which needed to have the legs that way to make the u/c retractable.

You're welcome! If you are looking for additional references, the May 1983 issue of SMI was a "SHar special" and included scale drawings; reprinted in one of the Aircraft Archive Post-War Jets volumes, as were the GR.1 drawings (I can't quote you issues of SM/SMI in which they were printed for the latter). If you have the Airfix GR.3 in 1/48 (which is their 1983 SHar with some new parts), you may be in for a culture shock compared to the Kinetics. The drawings may be useful in general if you want to rescribe, and IIRC the SHar ailerons had incorrect span. Just my 2p, and not "better", but hopefully useful. I had the great pleasure of being blow-dried by an RAFG Harrier around 1980 at an airshow somewhere around Cologne after a pretty atrocious downpour. To be honest, it would be rather cool if I could pin the airframe and pilot. I'll have a look and try if I can be more precise.

I think 1/64 has also been used quite a bit by Continental European die-cast cars, but indeed I have never seen any S railway stuff over here. IIRC the Betty is also 1/64 - and I was just too lazy to be bothered to type 1 ft= 3/16 in. Even though I'm a lawyer, I am pretty good at maths, and I can even convert an imperial scale/measurement to metrics; sometimes at least.

I don't think it was "true" box scale, but to the universally accepted 3/16 scale Lindberg in their wisdom chose for e.g. the He 111, Ju 88 and large B-58. Nominally at least...

I'd recommend the Aeroguide on the Harrier 3, both for details and the storyline of camouflage.

DO you also do the M35 and sponsons?

Short Sturgeon? Rather attractive as the PR version, but those TT's...

As this is about the Vampire, and the only other engine I'm aware of used in the Vampire would be the Nene as used in the Mistral and RAAF machines, "responsibility for the engine" implies the Goblin - or not?

"In the HangEr"?

Which Airfix - the recent big belly kit or the legacy F.1A/3? Probably the former? And SAM or SAMI? If the former, then they are probably the ones by Ian Huntley - I read (somewhere, someplace) that they have issues; there was also a set in the Aeromodeller range of the F.6 by C.J. Nicholls which IMHO looks good. But then obviously the Matchbox kit was based on it, and there seem to be few people who like that one (apart from me). The most recent drawings are in DaCo‘s „Under the Skin“, and I think I‘d go with them. You may have noticed I didn’t mention a particular set, and will continue not to mention it. If that makes sense.

My first thought was Gavin MacLeod, but it's not shown in his Airfix gallery. So Dave is likely right, and it has the same style as the TSR.