StephenMG

The early ones were red too rather than the later black/yellow stripes.

The Mk.3H seat started to be fitted with the F.6A and FGA.9 so for an F.4 or F.6 stick with the 2H. The two seats were similar but the 3H's seat pan lacked thigh guards. Later on, the RAF started fitting the 2H to FGA.9s again for some reason - possibly because the thigh guards were actually a good idea?!

This exactly hits the nail on the head. They've become good at producing kits of specific airframes rather than the type as a whole. The first kit that fell into this category for me was the 1/48 Hunter F.6. For example, the airframe they scanned had no blast deflectors so there were no blast deflectors in the kit, despite them being a very well known characteristic of the F.6. There were strange raised panels on the wings which never existed on the real aircraft yet, presumably because of some anomaly in the LIDAR process, these panels apeared in the scan (and hence in the kit) as raised 'plates'. And don't get me started on the nose gear. A 5 second glance at a real Hunter would have fixed all these things. The Mosquito, as others have already mentioned, is a classic example - it's a model of the specific airframe they scanned with, apparently, no additional research gone into the kit design. They seem to be relying almost entirely on the LIDAR results these days which, to my mind, should be used for overall shape and dimensions only and the details arrived at by proper research. On the bright side, I suppose we do now have models that are the right general shape and size, and it gives aftermarket manufacturers an opportunity to fix the details! 😁

As is often the case it's vague/inaccurate enough to represent any number of seats! Definitely looks like a MB Mk.3 of some sort though. Could be used as a 3H for a late Hunter or a 3B for a Vampire T.11 of a 3J for a Javelin for example.

An excellent choice T-21! Thats' exactly what I did with my Heller one (although I never did get around to finishing the base!) - my father was an airframe fitter on Hunters at Pembrey 1956-57. I also did some profile artwork for a D&V Tempest book a few years ago and made sure to inlcude a 233 OCU TT.5 in that too!

A couple of years I did the artwork for the Pen & Sword FlightCraft Hawker Hunter book. One of the subjects I was keen to draw was one of the 'PRU Blue' Hunters from RAFG but I'd also heard there was some dispute over their existence. There is anecdotal evidence from personnel that were there at the time that at least one Hunter was spotted with blue undersides. There is also a black and white photo of F.4 WT748 taken at Bruggen which appears to show blue undersides, albeit with the usual problems of interpreting colour from a monochrome photo. However, it does show very little contrast between the Dark Sea Grey of the camo and the underside colour - very similar to the level of contrast seen in photos of RAFG Swifts and much less than you normally see with Hunters. Handily I found a photo of a Swift and Hunter in flight together. That was useful in confirming the contrast between the under- and upper-side colours of the Swift (which matched the photo of WT748) and also showed the significantly higher contrast between the upper- and under-sides of the Hunter which had its usual High Speed Silver finish. The killer evidence for me though, and what convinced me that WT748 was indeed finished in PRU Blue, was found by closer examination of the Bruggen photo. Firstly, the main gear leg of a second Hunter was visible under the belly of WT748. This was crucial as it showed a second aircraft under exactly the same lighting conditions. The colour on those gear doors was very much lighter than WT748 and exactly what you'd expect to see for High Speed Silver. The difference was such that it can only be due to differing paint colours, especially as the lighting conditions were identical for both. Secondly, as was normal with Hunters, the gun pack had clearly been changed and a pack in the usual High Speed Silver had been fitted. This showed a very much lighter colour than the rest of the undersides. Also, it appeared that the radio bay doors had been replaced - they too showing the same difference in colour. Thirdly, the starboard link collector (forward section) although matching the 'blue' of the undersides had very clear scuff marks on it, as you'd get when the collector was removed and placed outside-down on the tarmac. That scuffing allowed a very much lighter colour (aluminium) to show through. Whether any other Hunters were finished in PRU Blue is anyone's guess (it doesn't help that 118 was such a short-lived squadron) but I'm now sure that WT748 was and so I based my profile for the book on that Bruggen photo. (Sorry for the novel!)

100% agreed. Don't do PRU Blue unless it's one of the very small number of 118 Sqn F.4s (e.g. WT748) that were finished in it. Earlier than mid-1960s it's High Speed Silver (I use Citadel Mithril SIlver, or whatever it's called now) after that, Light Aircraft Grey.

This where I got them from - https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/new-tooling-announcement-to-start-raf-centenary-year.

Yes, the outer pylon could be fitted along with RP rails but it gets complicated depending on what you want to carry! RPs could be added and removed as required up to a maximum of 3 per station (see below for complications though!) . The 4 wing stations were identified as A to D (outboard to inboard). At station B (where the outer pylon is) they were either added in place of the pylon, or suspended on an adaptor rail fitted to the pylon. Mostly though, if the pylon was left in place, it seems only station A, C and D were used. Attached is a scan from the "Armaments Notes for Pilots" which shows valid combinations of stores, although it is simplified slightly. Interestingly, the same manual says that 60lb heads could be carried as a maximum of 2 in a tier which seems to be at odds with the scan that canberra kid posted previously. Anyway, it gets more complicated if carrying tanks as well as RPs. If carrying 100 gallon tanks on the outer pylon the actual number of RPs allowed depends on whether you planned on retaining the tanks or jettisoning them. If they could be jettisoned (which had to be done before firing the RPs) then 6 (3 on each station D - the innermost RP station) or 8 (one on each station A and C and 2 on each station D) could be carried. If tanks were not to be jettisoned (which means firing the RPs with the tanks still on the pylons) then only 4 RPs could be carried - 2 on each station D. Sorry, I'm not sure if that helps or not!!! 🤣

There are some photos of an assembled test shot here - https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/first-frames-from-new-spitfire-vc-tooling. The track sag is much more apparent here than in the renders.

Agreed 100%. 👍

Yep, first new tool 1/35 armour from Airfix. The renders look very nice to be fair, https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/cruiser-tank-mk-viii-a27m-cromwell-mk-vi.html https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/cruiser-tank-mk-viii-a27m-cromwell-mk-iv.html I've just noticed the side-opening driver's hatch so, as you say, a later version than Tamiya.

Hi all, I seem to be a bit behind the times and have only just noticed the pair of new tool Cromwells that are due from Airfix this winter in 1:35 scale. I've searched on here but can't see that they've been discussed at all which surprised me. Do we know much about them? I've built the Tamiya Cromwell and found it a fantastic kit - what areas are Airfix able to improve on over the Tamiya versions? Thanks, Mark

DFLS aircraft are interesting as they offer a fairly rare chance for an F.1 with a smidge of colour. The DFLS comprised two Flights, ‘A’ (coloured red) and ‘B’ (coloured yellow), the spine and fin leading edge being colour-coded accordingly. This a profile of WT648 I crayoned for the recent(ish) Pen & Sword Flightcraft Hunter book (which I thoroughly recommend - shameless plug!). Heaven knows which flight WT680 was in, but you've got a 50% chance of guessing correctly! As @71chally says, colour scheme is gloss Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey/High Speed Silver with a hard edge to the camo pattern. Also of interest is the early practice of painting the individual identity code on the tailcone. This didn't last long as it was a pain in the ar*e when servicing as the (interchangeable) tailcone had to be kept with the correct aircraft or repainted if moved. Note, if modelling an aircraft without link collectors, the cartridge chutes need to be repositioned to their original, one above the other, position in the radio bay doors. I can also thoroughly recommend the Aerocraft spine correction. Mark

Many of the OCU F.1s were retrofitted and flown with them too.

I really like Humbrol acrylics (to brush) but I've had exactly the same problem airbrushing them. I normally spray Tamiya acrylics with my Neo CN (0.35mm) without any problem at all. However, that brush will absolutely not spray Humbrol acrylics. I also have a simple, single-action Aztec airbrush - with a 0.4mm nozzle fitted it sprays Humbrols perfectly well. So, as you suggest, I think they need a bigger nozzle.

Sadly there were actually 3 Mosquitos destroyed in the filming - HJ662, TA642 and TA724 scrapped in crash scenes. I believe another aircraft has the front of its nose sawn off for the cockpit interior shots.

Yes, it's a standard device I think - hence the need for the adaptor plates to fit it to the Hunter's bracket. 👍

I think what you've drawn there is just about right. The only additional equipment that is added to the Hunter for the target towing role is the fairing, tow bracket, 2 x release units, cockpit control panel and 2 x air launch containers. The cable routing is therefore as you have indicated as there is nothing else (such as cable guides) involved. A couple of minor corrections if I may, The total length of the towline is 850 feet - 800 feet of "treated nylon rope" plus a 50 foot "safety link". I believe the safety link is a length of the towline that is designed to break at a particular strain/aircraft speed. This is so that if the jettison system should fail, the aircraft can be accelerated to over 400 knots to break the towline (normal towing speed is a maximum of 250 knots). The target is a 6 x 30 feet radar responsive banner. The Pilot's Notes indicate that the port target should be launched first - exactly as you have illustrated.

Officially they are "9A/2286 Container, air launch Mk.4" or "RFD Banner Target Container". It's an oval container with an upper compartment, containing the towline, and a lower compartment containing the banner target itself. An electrical release slip allows a spring to eject the banner when activated. Here's a photo of one fitted to a Hunter F.6,

Glad to be of service! 👍

This is a diagram of the GA.11/PR.11 cockpit from the AP which may help to figure what should and shouldn't be fitted. The AP includes updates up to 1972.

Hunter target towing information is a bit tricky to come by, but this is what I know. When target towing is required, the fairing in your photos is bolted to the engine access door. Just aft of that is bolted the release unit mounting bracket - this is the 'plate' in your photos with two large holes in it. This is literally just a mounting bracket - two electrically-operated release slips are mounted (using adapter plates) onto this bracket (one either side, sandwiching the bracket between them) and the targets are attached and streamed from them via shackles on 800 feet nylon lines with 50 feet safety links. The Hunter is therefore able to carry two separate banners - port and starboard. For air-launching, these banners are carried in target containers which are mounted on the inboard pylons (ground snatch launch is also an option). In the cockpit, a removeable panel is attached to the top of the gyro gunsight. The panel contains two illuminated buttons, one each for the streaming of the port and starboard targets. When pressed, the relevant target is ejected from its container, the towline payed out and the light on the control panel illuminates. Ordinarily the streamed target is jettisoned using the bomb/RP release button on the control column, however a separate standby release button is fitted to the towing panel on the GGS if required. This is a drawing from the AP showing how the release units are mounted. You can see the fairing and the large T-section mounting bracket from your photos in the drawing. If it's any use this is a drawing of the bolt positions of the release units. It might help to show the shape of it better than the above. This is the control panel mounted on the gunsight, I hope that helps. Mark

There are two designs of airbrake found on Hunters. Although, overall, they are the same length the moveable part on later airbrakes was lengthened. This was done following the introduction of the more powerful 200-series Avon engine with the F.6 to provide a more powerful brake. See the photos here - https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235066138-airfix-hunter-f4/&tab=comments#comment-3557354 - to see the two designs. For the F.4/GA.11 you need the 'early' style, assuming that's what Airfix have provided (I haven't got the F.4 kit yet). Hope that helps. Mark

GA.11s were converted F.4s so you'll need the narrower tailcone and the shorter airbrake from the F.4 boxing.