Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Good

About ho590hm

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

218 profile views
  1. Holding the plastic, the images above are correct. Both front and rear fans are mirrored - just look at the curvature of the blades. Both parts should be identical. They even have the same part number on the sprue map but are not identical. The front fan nearest the main gear on the sprue is correct. If the BR710 works like other multishaft engines, then the rear fan nearest the nose gear is correct, since it would rotate the same way as the front fan (facing the other direction)
  2. Thanks for the colour detail - although it looks closer to the Presidential dark blue....X164 Just noticed that the decal sheet does not match the box art. It shows 10065 for the USAF scheme, which is a C-37A, whereas the box is correct with 60500 as a C-37B.
  3. Amodel quote Humbrol 48 as a match for the blue - can someone tell me the FS number? Thanks
  4. Did I spot a mismatch between the box art and the painting guide, with the prototype cut-off fin rather than the square? I guess this upsets the cross kitting option proposed by Ken.
  5. As owner of the Primeportal image above (from the museum at Savannah) - I am happy for it to be used. There are several more in the sequence that confirm the view of the LE section change. The hanging example in SanDiego and the one parked in Seattle show the same feature - according to my unpublished images, as do the others on Primeportal. It is even visible on the J5s at the Chinese Air Force Museum at Xiaotangshan. Howard Mason
  6. Hannants have them, and I acquired the RAF example in a mixture of hope and curiosity. Following dremeling through the sprue gates on the major components in order to test fit the major components, I can confirm that the fuselage windows are a bit irregular as previously reported, and will need to open up some of the holes and shim the transparencies to a consistent height. One of the engine exhausts is solid as previously reported. The tailplanes have matching thickness, which is good. The intakes looked suspiciously deep, and I brought out an Airfix Nimrod for comparison. The shape of the engine fairings under the wing unfortunately seem to me to match exactly, although the Mach 2 kit has more engraved surface detail. The Nimrod of course had much deeper engine bays than the Comet, in order to accommodate the Spey engines, so some major surgery will be required to flatten them out. The wings also have a marked change of dihedral at mid-span which seems to be a bit exaggerated. Can anyone else confirm this? Will check references in the archive tomorrow. I suppose the alternative would be a "What-if" Comet 4D with Speys.... Howard Mason
  7. Concorde listed twice with two different numbers (A05170V and A05107V) with same dimensions and artwork. Unfortunately the quoted length of 431mm equates to the production model not the prototype. Are we getting both?
  8. Does this explain the earlier mention of a visit to the Museum of Flight in Seattle, perhaps?
  9. Two 1:144 Concordes listed - one identified as a prototype - with same prototype image, different kit numbers (A05107V and A05170V - anagram) and same dimensions in the technical specification. The quoted length is correct for the production version..... Does this mean Airfix is rerunning both of its tools? Confused of Farnborough BAE Systems archive
  10. Rereleases of Fi156, C-10A(Jetstream), Dominie. Prototype Concorde in BOAC markings.
  11. I have not yet found a 1/72 X-3 which reflects the discontinuity between the nose and the cockpit, which occurs at the line of the upright frame in the cockpit glazing. This does not appear to have the kink - but happy to be advised otherwise by someone who has the plastic in hand Walkaround at http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason3/x-3_stiletto/ See
  12. If one was looking for an accurate Concorde, the Airfix/Heller 1/72 monstrosity would be in the other direction, Dick Ward had to redesign the decals to fit as he made the error of basing his original work on accurate plans. BAE Systems has just recovered the original prototype drawings to its archive at Farnborough - approximately 8 tons of Mylar representing 200,000+ drawings which has been catalogued by a team of volunteers from Brooklands, Duxford, Yeovilton and Le Bourget. We also have a production drawing set on microfiche. I would therefore dispute the contention that there is a lack of line drawings of this iconic airframe..... There is nothing I would like better than to have an accurate representation in plastic - at either scale. Howard Mason, Heritage Manager, BAE Systems
  13. Very tempted by this even though I have yet to finish the An-124 (and Tu-144 and Il-86) One concern from the rendering is the new centre section which seems a bit too deep. Most frontal shots on airliners.net seem to show a horizontal line between the new inboard engines. Perhaps its just the angle. Cheers Howard
  14. Really good to have an early model of the original prototype. Waiting for the next iteration, like the J-20. Halfway through the build. Overall a reasonable representation, based on images available on the web. Key irritations to date are: Shape of the lower rear fuselage - tapers too much compared to available images Engine exhausts need grinding down to fit through available holes Nose gear door hung on wrong side, with three chevrons rather than two at front and rear Need to fabricate the prominent internal fairing behind the ejector seat - original has strips of tape which allow a good guess at shape Moulded limit of the nose radome needs rescribing in correct position Purists will enjoy adding some greeblies to the main and nose gear areas, and what I assume are radar reflectors on the wings. Oh that the original Airfix Jaguar had been this good....
  15. The Sinsheim Buran model (almost) represents the BTS-02 atmospheric test version that they exhibit at Speyer. You would need to remove the four jet engines and mod the rockets to represent the flight-worthy Buran. There is also a gear fairing under the nose to cater for mounting the nose leg lower to improve the angle of attack for runway takeoffs - but that is not an issue as it seems to have been missed. Not sure the BTS-02 was ever carried by the An-225? But happy to be proved wrong. Howard
  • Create New...