tempestfan

Great you dug that out, Rob! So it seems in 1979, all animals were Dangeroos...(or all production single seaters S's)

No, absolutely not - it's been a good 15 years that I had a look into the MiG-23, and not particularly detailed at that - my main reference then was the 4+ booklet, and IIRC the "S" drawings were more sketches than scale drawings (but again, this is only hazy memory). What stuck was that the nozzle appeared longer. Had I taken a closer look at the Airfix kit then, I would have noticed it isn't an S in the first place so the S drawings were irrelevant.

One curious question - why did they write "(T) Mk 3"? I can understand "F (AW)", even though I find the brackets somewhat awkward, and could understand "F (T) Mk 3", but a "(T) Mk 3" isn't any real variant - or what?

I can only add a few thoughts, not facts. Given that the mission likely was quite top secret, I doubt that those modified Invaders would have been allocated to a "regular" BG/BS, but that a small specialist unit would have been sent. Depending on how bulky the actual equipment was, the installation probably involved removal of the upper nose - you can't get anything bulky up that hole in the nose, and then space inside for assembling it would also have been restricted. Probably removal of the plexiglass would have been no issue on site, but my feeling is that the installation would have been done at a special facility in the US. In addition, November 44 appears to have witnessed the introduction of the A-26 in Europe, so the infrastructure for it probably was only developing.

An old school approach may be to wrap wet'n'dry around a suitable brush handle or similar, but it may be tough to exercise pressure in order to get material off. If you have a motortool with adjustable revs, you could use one of the conical sanders that usually come with them. An alternative filler for spots like this could be medium-consistency superglue in repeated applications; I used it way back when e.g. to fill the landing light in my Eduard Tempest. Which kit is this? The fit appears to be less than stellar (or the locators vague), as we can see the top edges of the u/c bay inserts at the front. But probably this is magnified too much by the close-up pic.

I have a very old German publication "Die Sturm- und Lastensegler" which has a number of interesting photographs showing some "group shots" in flight. No two patterns I saw at a quick flick were the same. There was one nice shot showing three or four, with one having a "Leopard" scheme (splotches) - the splotches look a lot paler than the lighter colour on the other machines in the pic. They may have been some (pale) sand. As regards to a darker brown, IIRC JG 54 (or some of its units) also used some brown paint.

Yes, they are called MLA in the article I linked to above, whatever the A means... actually probably not that much later than what is depicted in the kit, but I was led astray by Airfix calling theirs "S" which it isn't.

Indeed, or the 1979/80 edition of Green/Swanborough. Anyway, I guess it's generally better that Airfix put a wrong designation on an otherwise relatively accurate (IIRC) kit than if they had called it an M and completely messed up the shapes by using guesstimated dimensions and a a blurry overhead satellite photo...

I think the point to watch with all the Westland built Kings are the window positions. At least in some versions - that is the 41 and the RAF's 3 - they differ from the SH-3D, so Airfix did quite some retooling to their original kit when they converted it to 3/41 in the 80s. Not completely sure, but the 1 and 2 may have kept the SH-3D's arrangement. As the 41's original task was long range overwater SAR, it did not need (and have) the dipping sonar well and operator equipment, but a bench interior. So a 41 up to KWS would have a relatively sparse interior; the Aeroguide 10 should give you basically a good idea, even if it covers the RAF's. Not sure how much this changed with the KWS, but I think the equipment to operate the Sea Skua was added behind the cockpit, not in the main cabin. Airfix kit 4063 is for a 3 and 43, which should be a good basis for a 41 - and includes the 5-blade tail rotor for an original 41. If you intend to do a 41, I recommend the F40 booklet, even though it's in German - and probably not easy to find.

Looking at the built kit here, you are probably right - I think the nozzle stuck out quite a bit beyond the inner tailplane trailing edges on the S/Flogger A. Possibly only Airfix mislabelled what was actually a Flogger B as an A. It's been some years that I looked into building it (strange for how many types I say this... :-)).

As does the ATF. A September 1978 visit would tally with a 1980 release date, I think? However, IIRC the Airfix kit is very early production (S, I think), with the extended engine nozzle/longer rear fuselage - the visitors to Rissala and Reims apparently were later versions.

The 111 is interesting - it has an FF in the A-Stand, but apparently in the earlier Ikaria cupola, teamed with an MG 15 in A1-Stand.

I think Airfix based their kit on information gleaned from a MiG visit to France in 1978, but the pics here all show birds in camou.

Giorgio didn't claim anything else - his point was the fact a paint corresponds to a specific colour specification does not make it suitable for any application, in particular (military) aviation. @iainpeden - was that a Porsche paint/colour by chance?

Probably too much to not buy it on clearance... --- That's another aspect, while I do not doubt the builds are worthy ones, the balance seems to have been lost.

What I noted from the more recent MDF's is that the kit/build sections are along the "those are all old kits and not worth considering" lines that Detail & Scale introduced in the mid 90s. While I appreciate that the more recent 1/48 kits are likely vastly superior to e.g. the Monogram (and even more so to anything before it), there may be some modellers with sizable stashes (how can I come to that idea?) who may be interested in seeing at least a short review of the older kits.

Not sure if you've seen other footage, but actually it stopped moving right after the pilot left the pit, at least that's what I gather from the clip. I think he/she was afraid that it would nose over onto its back, with the seemingly uncontrolled forward thrust.

Alright Sir!

I wonder what you said when the USAF selected the KC-45...

Not sure if the Hornet ever was a serious consideration - agreed, our wonderful then-Minister of Defence insisted on more or less redeveloping Eurofighter from ground up to make it cheaper, which caused huge cost and massive delays. Not least because many of the capabilities stripped were essential and had to be added back over the tranches, IIRC. However, Typhoon IMHO is now a first-rate fighter(-bomber). With the end of Tornado's useful life in sight for some time, it would have made some sense to integrate B61 and certify Typhoon for the TacNuke mission, and I see no technical reasons why that should have been impossible. I think the economics of having a single multi role plane - albeit of rather different mod states - are somewhat self-evident. Instead, now a limited number of F-35s is bought, whose only raison d'aitre in the Luftwaffe is nuclear participation. And - as far as I've read - did not have to go through an RFP/tender process... F-35 may well be capable, but economically it's not a particularly sound proposition - again IMHO. ... Which would be pointless, at least as long Rafale was concerned - that would be another "2nd airplane" with similar characteristics to Typhoon.

Yes, I am aware of the two GR squadrons which kept theirs for a considerable time - there is one wonderful pic of (I think) a 13 Sq. machine on Malta, in Coastal Command camouflage, with a Saint on the nose: That pic woke my interest in the Baltimore in the first place - on the "to model" list for 25 years now... I'll have a look in Squadrons of the RAF later re 55, and thanks for rectifying my misconception!

What a terrific picture! The Baltimore is not really one of the best documented WW II bombers... Not quite sure, but were any RAF bomber squadrons still using Baltimores during the period indicated? IIRC they were rather extensively used by SAAF squadrons.

The earliest MB seats did not have seat pan handles AFAIK - the Martin Baker site has one Mk 2 with extending knee guards and single loop box handle without it, but they also show later Mk 2s with fixed knee guards, double loop head box handle and seat pan handle - all waspy. IIRC the seat pan handles were introduced due to pilots' problems to reach the upper one in high G conditions.

Andy Evans in MDF 17 states NATO Infrared-reducing green BSC 381C:285 over Medium Green BS4800.12B.25, but I am quite sure this is the same colour that was called "Lichen Green" way back when the first GR.5 kits appeared. --- This question made me look up "lichen" as in fact I never bothered to know - learn something new everyday, even at progressed age

Indeed - I have a TryAngle resin F-94C which has wire cast into the legs IIRC, and some high-end resin kits used the cast-in brass rods from some time in the mid/late 80s. I recall a review in ModellFan from around that period where this feature was pointed out (but regrettably not the kit...)