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. :)

PeterB

Members
  • Content Count

    1,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,814 Excellent

3 Followers

About PeterB

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pontypridd South Wales UK
  • Interests
    Planes, trains, AFV's, warships and food.

Recent Profile Visitors

531 profile views
  1. Hi Dave, Apparently Grumman were fortunate in that engine manufacturers in the states had managed to aquire or build more powerful engines by the time they started work on the Panther - McDonnell did not have much choice when they started on the FH-1 Phantom and at one stage it looked like they might have to use 6 small engines. However they managed with 2 in the end, and when they scaled it up for the Banshee they stuck with 2, in this case 3250 lb thrust Allison J34's. Grumman had a choice - the home grown 4600 lb thrust Allison J33 or the 5000 lb thrust P&W J42 which was a licence built version of the RR Nene. (as used in the Mig 15). The F9F-2 used the J42 whilst the F9F-3 used the J33, but it was not entirely successful so the J42 was retrofitted to convert them back to F9F-2's. The latter versions used the somewhat more powerful 6250 lb J48 which again was a RR engine built under license, in this case the Tay. The Cougar was in effect a slightly modified Panther fuselage with an improved version of the J48 and swept wings, and was around 100mph faster! Being able to use one engine made the Panther smaller and presumably a bit handier, so the Banshees were mostly relegated to recce and ground attack in Korea I gather. I think it is rather a good looking plane, though the Banshee is not bad either. Pete
  2. Hi John, The Matchbox Meteor NF I am currently building has a wing to fuselage joint which looks decidedly vague as well and the undercarriage has no proper location, just a butt fit. Coupled with very ambiguous instructions I would suggest it may run your Norseman and He 70 very close! Makes the recent Frog kits we did look much better thought out and documented. Reminds me of a comment Serge (Aardvark) made about the designers of some of the Russian Frogspawn artwork - definitely smoking something peculiar when they thought up these kits. Good luck! Pete
  3. Just checked and as far as I can see Enzo is correct - the nose was the same for all S2 and probably the S1 as well. The S50 would have the same nose and the early style tail as delivered. Pete
  4. Needs a bit of touching up but looking a bit more complete. Should be putting decs on very soon.
  5. Not too clear but the early set is on the left and the later one on the right. The early set has the nose, probe and tail whilst the later set has what seems to be the same nose and probe and a modified tail with the rear of the fairing raised somewhat for the warning receiver I guess, and also contains the wing bullets. The late "bullet" at the back of the tail also looks thicker and blunter to my mind. As to which version you need for a SAAF one I have no idea. Pete
  6. Hi Enzo, As I recall Freightdog did and may still do 2 sets with nose, horizontal tail with upper fairing and refuelling probe. One was "early" and one "late" though I cannot now remember what the difference is - which did you use? Pete
  7. I have now put on all the decals I am going to and will finish it off fairly soon. In the meantime I have run into a problem with the Xtrakit ex Matchbox Meteor Night Fighter I am building for comparison. Whereas the instructions for the F8 said it needed 3g of ballast when in fact it needed at least 5g, the NF says 20g which seems an awful lot!. I doubt I will be able to get more than 10g in the fuselage but I was hoping the resin replacement nose from Freightdog would solve the problem. However when it arrived today I found that not only did it weigh only 6g but also that to fit it I would have to cut of the part of the fuselage in front of the cockpit which is where I was putting the other 10g of ballast! Fortunately there is a solution. I had read that the NF14 nose was too long due to an oft repeated mistake in measurement, but have now discovered on this forum that it was actually the same as the nose for the NF12 which is in the kit and can hold a fair bit of lead. So, although the resin nose if more detailed, I will not be using it - if anybody is thinking of building this kit wheels up and is interested they can have it for a couple of quid plus postage - cost me £7 with postage so a bargain!. More anon.
  8. Depending on which Mark you intend to build, I gather that the MkIII built by Boeing in Canada not only had the Pegasus like some of the UK build may have had, but also had a 3 blade (VP?) prop instead of a 2 blade fixed one..
  9. Hi Paul I believe the Canadian Swordfish trainers had a canopy to protect from the cold weather - looks like the Shark may have had the same but I presume it is not supplied in the kit? Later - just remembered I have Putnam's Blackburn Aircraft book and I see that the full length cockpit seems to have been fitted to the MkIII Shark whether a trainer or not. Also those made by Boeing in Canada were fitted with a Pegasus IX engine apparently, presumably with a modified cowling. Pete
  10. No pics at this time but most of the decs are now on - 9 to go. I have also built up the wings of the ex Matchbox now Xtrakit NF14 I have decided to build for comparison, so we can judge their relative "beauty" in view of the comments above! Touch and go whether the new kit gets finished before the deadline as I am waiting for a resin nose to arrive - fingers crossed, The F8 should be finished and in the spray queue before the end of the coming week with luck, with the Panther not too far behind. Pete
  11. Hi John, Look forward to seeing the D500/501/510 in the Classic Heller build - I was just telling Pat I nearly bought them and the Morane MS225/230 back in the early 80's when first I came across them - may buy some yet, who knows. I have a soft spot for the inter war French planes though I normally stick to WWI amd WWII onwards. I guess the only one I currently have that would qualify is the Potez 540 awaiting restoration though the Amiot 143 was pre war too I guess but did serve in the later conflict as a bomber whilst the 540 was relagated to transport roles.. Pete
  12. Hi John, Don't know if this helps. Mason in the Putnam book on Hawker says that in 1951 Hawker began looking at a version of the Hunter with a reheated engine and 50 degree sweep known as the P.1083. Work was well advanced when in June 1953 the Air Staff decided they wanted a larger more powerful engine rather than one with reheat so Hawker began a redesign to use the Avon 200 engine instead. By using the centre section of the P.1083, Hawkers produced the model P.1099 aka Hunter 6 quite quickly and the very first one, XF833 made its first flight on January 22nd 1954! Another source ( "The Hawker Hunter" by Bradley - SAM Publications) confirms this and says that a number of pre-production conversions from Mk1 started to fly in March 1955, with the first true production one flying in October of that year - Mason just says pre production aircraft started flying in March 55. Deliveries to the RAF began in 1956. It looks like Modellers Datafile is out-voted! Pete
  13. Hi Pat, I would treat white metal props like resin ones - put in warm but not boiling water for a minute then bend very gently. Warming it should reduce the risk of it snapping if my old metallurgy lectures were correct back in 1970! Pete
  14. Funny, When I set up my Flickr account 5 months ago it seemed happy with my 9 character password though it is a bit erratic at times, and seems to keep deleting some of my posted "free" images. Maybe it is a Win10 issue as I am using Win7 still. Good luck. Pete
×
×
  • Create New...