stew290

I see your point! I hope that the Thunder kit is more accurate. As one of the contributers said, it would seem that IBG have rushed the Pioneer to beat Thunder to it. We'll see, eh? Thanks again. Stew

Thanks for that Jack. The reason I asked is because they're both planning to release the same series of Scammell Pioneers, and I fancy the tank transporter and would like to choose the best kit. Have you any experience of either manufacturer?

Hello chaps. Quick question; are Thunder Models and IBG the same company? If not, would any of you recommend one over the other, with a view to detail and accuracy? Cheers Stew

Yep; does it for me. Good looking Toom. Stewart

Nice! Still hasn't inspired me to start mine yet though!

Phew! Thanks Woody; I thought it was just me! Looked like Canada's version of our Javelin in my opinion - a slab of solid metal with no aerodynamic finesse, which was only capable of flying due to brute force and ignorance. Sorry chaps. I, too, shall get my coat.

Hi Andrew. I got on fine with them. If you're worried about repositioning the decal, don't - they reposition easily and aren't fixed until you drop the water on. Also, bear in mind that you can see a "carrier film", so gloss laquer before applying the decals (as with normal water slide ones) is the way to go. Hope this helps. Stewart

Thanks Andrew. Yes, I did. How can you tell? Is it because they're translucent? You have to look hard though.

Funny you should say that. When I was on the Squadron back in those days, and the first of the Barley Grey ones started to arrive, I thought "Now our jets are starting to look cool". Now that I've, shall we say "matured" somewhat, I've come to the conclusion that they were much better days when our stuff was a mix of Grey / Green; Grey / White; Red / White / Blue; even Hemp(!), unlike today when everything is the same colour. If you can call it a colour

Thanks chaps - appreciate it. ForestFan; not sure what you meant, but the finish is lightened Mr Color paints, laquered with Artists Acrylic Laquer, and the weathering is achieved by post-shading with Tamiya smoke with a Paynes Grey oil wash. That help? Stewart

Here is my latest attempt at a Toom, in the good old days, when they were a proper colour. Aah, nostalgia Excuse the lighting - bit rushed! Stewart

Sorry Mike. 60s Royal Navy I'm looking for; in particular Vixens, Scimitars, Buccs, Skyraiders, Wessex. I know, I know; I'll be lucky, but it's worth an ask, eh? Stewart

Thanks Louie. I've got two choices it seems:- scratchbuild a 1/400th air group, or convert a 1/400th ship to 1/350th. Easy peasy!

Hello chaps. Do any of you guys know of a manufacturer of 1/350th and 1/400th aircraft, apart from WEM? Thanks in advance. Stewart

Screech. My "J" is on page 53 of RFI; posted 17th November last year. Stew

Yeah, you're probably right about the keel Jennings. The fuselage wasn't THAT much wider than a J79 engined cab, but the Speys (I think - I'll find out when I've measured them) were significantly largrer in diameter. So, you think that the intakes were just wider, and not bigger overall? Back to my question about the splitter plate then - do you think it was slightly longer in the fore and aft plane? Stew

Sorry chaps; I lied - I'm back. This IS the last time tonight. Jennings. I believe (and please feel free to correct me, anyone) that the keel on Brit 'Tooms was actually wider than all the others, due to the four million tons of additional titanium they had to stick in there to cope with the hotter Speys. Combined with the Spey's larger diameter over the J79, they had no choice but to widen (and, more importantly, deepen) the rear fuselage. Not by anywhere near six inches though. Oh, and; by the way - "burners" are things one has on a Camping Gas stove Trust us - we're British. We invented the jet, therefore we know about these things. Mind you - we invented football (sorry; soccer!), and we're not very good at that either. I like a bit of jolly, colonial banter Night night everyone. Stewart

Hello again chaps. Sorry about the consecutive postings, but I'm on nights and, consequently, bored sh*tless! Just thought - intakes. I was under the impression that they were 20% larger OVERALL, not just in width. Is that right? (XV571 - you'll know ) There IS a noticable down-turn to the lower intake lip on a Brit 'Toom, which makes me think that's correct. If that's the case, then won't the moveable part of the splitter plate also be bigger? Another bit that needs judicious measuring, methinks. Mind you, that will mean a trip to somewhere that has a J, for comparison. I think Duxford is closest to me. Bugger! That's a bit of a drag from here. If anyone knows of a J kicking around somewhere near Hampshire..................... Must write all this down so I don't forget it all, as I can't get down there straight away. That's it - no more tonight, you'll all be pleased to hear. Stewart

You're right, of course. Thanks for the advice. And thanks for the offer of one of your surplus vacforms. I should be ok though - got a couple of vacs in the loft that I bought for my long-term project years ago. Not really my subjects, but needs must.

And, by the way; I agree with XV571. All of what he said, plus the ILS antennae on the RAF jets were fitted when the RWR was fitted. No RWR - no ILS ariels.

John, at the risk of reopening old wounds, here are some comments I made when posting piccies of a J back in November; "Now, the bit I've really got the hump about is the rear fuselage, where the jet pipes fit. Every time I've seen this model finished I've been surprised to see a relatively large gap between the pipes and the fuselage, which shouldn't be there. No problem, I thought, the Aires pipes will rectify that. However, they didn't. At first, I thought that Aires had just based their pipes on the "inaccurate" Tamiya ones so, intrigued, I reached for the most accurate plans I have (FGR2) and overlaid the upper fuselage. Doing this, I have established that Tamiya and Aires have got the jet pipe diameter about right, but Tamiya seems to have got the rear fuselage wrong, as the width of this part of the fuselage is - wait for it - the same as a British Phantom. Oo-er, Missus. The bad thing with that is that you either have to narrow the fuselage at that point, or alter the construction method to push the pipes outboard and hope that no-one notices (I chose the latter, easiest option!). I think I got away with it Pike. The good news is that it makes my planned FGR2 conversion ALOT easier!! "I got involved in a thread some time ago about converting the kit to an FGR2, where I mentioned that I'd scaled up Richard Caruana's 1/72nd drawings (with his permission), which turned out to be something like 2mm out in length and about 1.5mm out in wingspan, after scaling up. That was way closer than anyone else's plans, which were miles out, even after scaling up from 1/48th. I need a jolly down to Tangmere to take some measurements of my own. "The wierd bit is that Tamiya's rear fuselage (not immediately adjacent to the jet pipes, but 8-10mm forward of that point) is exactly the same width as Richard's drawing, then the fuselage kicks in a bit where it (should!) meet the pipes. But, and this is the wierd bit, the depth of the fuselage at that point is correct for a J79 engined cab. Spooky. "There'd still be some work required to the bottom end, but not as much as I first thought. I'd like to know where Frank Mitchell got his measurements / plans from, because it's confusing the crap out of me! (not difficult). I'm pretty convinced I'm right though. "Of course, all of this doesn't detract from the fact that there will still be some not inconsiderable work to be carried out at the other end, as in intakes, cockpit (particularly rear - you'd get away with the front) and, of course, the jet pipes themselves." Now, I've still not been down to Tangmere to measure up their jet yet, but I am still convinced I'm right. What's wierd, is that where I mentioned the fuselage, at a point 8-10 mm forward of the jetpipes, is the same as a Brit Phantom, then it kicks in to meet (alledgedly!) the pipes, this shouldn't be the case. On any Phantom, the fuselage begins to flare outboard from the area-ruled coke-bottle bit, then runs in a straight line to the jetpipe oriffi. The fuselage does not curve in to meet the pipes. Also, if you were to hold the model at eye level, looking into the fuselage from aft, the fuselage (where the jetpipes fit) follows a constant (well, almost) curve to a point just below the level of the wing, and then makes a relatively sharp turn inboard to the keel, making the lower fuselage at this point almost flat. Inaccurate - jetpipes are round and so, therefore, should be their recepticle. Hang on; let me try to copy and paste a picture of mine. Hmm; doesn't show it as well as I'd hoped. Sorry. You CAN see, however, how thick the plastic is around the jetpipes. Bearing in mind that I pushed the jetpipes outboard to lose the gap around them; had I thinned the plastic to a more scale thickness, it would have left an even bigger gap, which, I think, adds more weight to my argument. Anyway, I WILL get down to Tangmere soon, armed with a couple of spirit levels, a long tape measure, and a couple of extra pairs of hands. I'll report my findings as soon as I can. Cheers all. Stewart

You're all very welcome guys. As I said to Anthony above, I'm just pleased to able to offer something useful to fellow modellers (no thanks to the Post Office, who keep changing their minds about how much to charge!). I just hope they meet everyone's expectations! Fmk.6john; no, it's not too late - I've still got quite a few copies, as I'm still waiting to hear from some of the chaps who showed an interest initially. No worries; I'm sure they'll get round to it. And besides, I have the originals, so can always get some more copies done, if need be. PM coming John. I expect to see a shed-load of accurate (Ooo; bit conceited Stewart! ) Lightnings in RFI in the next few months. Not from me, obviously. All this drawing malarkey may have got my Echelon Lightning juices flowing, but I need to take a brave pill first, as it will be my first vacform. Might as well cut my teeth on a decent quality one though, eh? Cheers all. Stew

That's looking superb Mike. I was going to ask why it isn't finished yet, but that would involve pots and black kettles! Just out of interest; have you compared the kit to any 1/48th plans at all? By the way; if it looks half as good as the one Matthius did, it'll be splendid. Stew

Hello again Gentlemen. Right; I've checked out Paypal, and it transpires that, once you've logged in, click "send money", then at the bottom of the box there are 2 options; Purchase and Personal. Selecting "Personal" means that there are no fees incurred by either party. Lovely So; let's get a plan together. If you guys could send me a PM with your requirements (number of copies; what scale [good idea John - I'm sure it wouldn't cost any more to reduce them], etc.), I'll get all of the copying done, and report back to you individually. Obviously, if you'd like more than one copy, then it will add to the cost for copying, but the postage should remain the same (I hope!). When I report that the copying is done (by PM), I'll include my e-mail address for Paypal purposes, along with the total cost to you. This will also give me the chance to package the copies for our overseas friends, and find out the appropriate postage costs. How does that sound? I thought doing it all by PM keeps it private, as there will be postal and e-mail addresses flying around, which we don't want distributed globally! Please DON'T tell me your postal address yet; all I need at the moment are precise numbers for copying purposes. Incidentally; I'll probably be going to Cosford next month, so any of you who are going and would like to save on the couple of pounds postage, I'm more than happy to bring the drawings up with me. That's it for now. Hear from you all soon. Stew

Hello again chaps. Sorry for the delay, but I've finally got my behind in gear and worked everything out for this task! The good news is that I've found the original drawings, which consist of an A1 (or A0, not sure) sheet showing side and plan views, and a smaller sheet showing the front view and overwing tank profiles. Frank and I thought it necessary to do the front view, as we wanted to show the angles of the main landing gear and overwing pylons, which would be very easy to get wrong, hence the second, smaller sheet. I'll produce a short written statement to go with the drawings, based on the notes made on the drawings in the kit; which, incidentally, only showed one side of the aircraft and half a front view, due to lack of space. Needless to say, I was a bit chuffed to discover that I'd drawn the lot (memory's not what it was!) I've already purchased 25 (yes, twenty five) cardboard tubes for posting purposes (it was cheaper buying in bulk), and I've checked out postage costs, which were less than I envisaged. That's the good news out of the way. The bad news is that all of the above adds up to a smidgeon under £10 a copy, so if you're all still interested we'll round it up to a neat tenner, if that's ok with you guys. The few pence I'll be making will go towards costs for the running around aspect (FUEL!). It won't cover it but, hey, we modellers are here to help each other, eh? Oh, and if any of you are from overseas, the cost of postage will obviously be different, which I would have to look into. The other bit of bad news is payment. I thought of using Paypal, but each transaction would cost me, from what I understand, so, if any of you have any ideas as to what we can do on that front, or can show that I'm wrong on the Paypal issue (which I would rather use as it's so easy), I'd appreciate it. So, there we are. I'll get on with the technical sheet, whilst I'm waiting to hear from you guys. Cheers all. Stew