Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NickD

  1. Almost looks achievable by us mere mortals. Not! Thanks again
  2. Wow, first i'd seen of this. Thanks for sharing
  3. XMald Thanks for sharing your build. What a beautiful, crazy machine. Not sure I would have wanted a ride though! Its all a bit too see-through! Thanks Nick
  4. There's a good series of videos about refurbing a more conventional 917. One episode showed the engine being removed. . It worked but it looked very tight. The other showed it being put back. Different car and engine. It will be interesting to see how the model compares. At least you wont risk your fingers. Regards Nick
  5. Hi Sohappy, Love the ambition. Harrier is a fav of mine too. "Annoyingly, despite the considerable size of the kit, all the controls have relatively restricted pathways as there are either gear doors or a turbine or other obstruction blocking most routes... Was quite a fiddle." The control runs on the real thing were not much better judging from some of the pictures. Nick
  6. Hi Steve, Looking good so far. I redid the valve springs with wire. Seemed to work well and looked much better. Not too much of a faff either. Keep up the good work Nick
  7. Hi Steve, Glad to see someone building this again. It is a great subject with loads of presence. Started building it ages ago, still not finished but that's down to me rather than the kit. The bits I have are great. The engineering is bonkers. Looking forward to seeing what you make of it. Regards Nick
  8. Hi Manu, Still looking great. The mirror is a great way to see both sides of the car at once. Very clever. Regards Nick
  9. Glad to hear things are getting better. All the best Nick
  10. NickD

    'Codger' R I P

    I'd just like to add condolences to all the others - a measure of the respect we had all seemed to have for him. I hope his real world family and friends can grasp just how much this community valued and will miss his contribution. For me, I always strove to be more Codger, without ever coming close to his elegant neatness. He provided masterclasses in things I had never even imagined were a thing - sorting out the doors on his Rolls springs to mind but there were so many. As @Coors54 said, if he commented on my posts it was like recognition by a King. Even criticism was somehow Ok, delivered in a positive well-meaning style. He made quite an impression for someone I didn't know. To his family and friends please accept my deepest regrets, my thoughts for what they are worth are with you. Nick
  11. Hi Tony, No worries, I know how it is, I did exactly the same on a thread I started recently - oops. As for the pipes, they do seem very complicated. None of the pictures seem to show the pipe from 6 (the one nearest the exhaust). At least if you can route it no one will be able to say it is wrong! Nick
  12. Hi Tony, Have you found this link https://forums.autosport.com/topic/208785-advantages-of-dual-or-triple-exhaust-on-a-bank-of-six-cylinders/ It suggests a firing sequence for the engine and a grouping for the headers. Hopefully confirming what you know. The most difficult headers seem to be 5 and 6 on each bank (numbered from the front), does that line up with your understanding? Nick (yes - yet another Nick - normally we are not this numerous!)
  13. Master class in accuracy and attention to detail, as always! Regards Nick
  14. Hi @tempestfan, While part of the motivation is just the challenge of drawing an accurate set of plans. Without a manufacturer drawing, the only choice is to use photos. An approximate set can be obtained relatively easily. The problem comes with camera characterisation. Focal length can be accounted for relatively systematically. Aberration is more difficult - relying on long straight features which may not be present. I have some of the spectacular drawings you quote above, generated at a time where tools were more rudimentary. A testament to the tremendous skills of the author. Maybe one day I will have a set I think is accurate. More likely, I will add another set to the confusion! Thanks again Nick
  15. Chaps, Sorry not to get back to this for a few days. Your comments are all excellent. Thanks tempestfan for the link, very helpful. A linear scale would be very useful to though in my case less so as I am trying to generate my own drawings. When I started this I had been fairly confident that I knew the other dimensions. How hard could it be. In practice all the dimensions are problematic, not least for a Tornado. What follows deals only with IDS. Not begun to think about ADV! Height. There is unanimous agreement the height should be 5.95m. In practice photos show aircraft at all sorts of weights. Looking at pictures of the aircraft airborne with the UC down show the legs are really long! So it is not clear what the height actually was on any given day. Wingspan. Again there is agreement, even though it is not constant, at least for forward and rear sweep. At least in principle they are known. In practice, max sweep is different depending on what type of tanks are fitted. Top views usually have max sweep because the aircraft is low flying somewhere so good top views with forward sweep are quite rare. On the ground the reverse is true. It is difficult to find max sweep shots. Finally, aircraft are often shown in 45 sweep configuration, for which I have not tracked down a dimension (though only because I don't need the extra confusion of having 45 sweep in the mix). All told a simple question became complicated as it usually does when I try compile some drawings. Part of the fun really. Thanks again for all the help. Nick
  16. Wow! Looks fab. Lots has been written about this car on this forum. I have been guilty of some of it. As a result, a number of great models have been built which accurately depict the little cars lines. Yours is one of the most dramatic and a fabulous demonstration of your skills. Bravo. Thanks for sharing, Nick
  17. The body makes such a difference even when it is incomplete.
  18. Unbelievable patience and eyesight! Outrageous! Thanks so much for sharing and making me feel both unambitious and inadequate. Regards Nick
  19. Manu, in that last shot the bonnet looks amazing. Really captured the feel of the piece. Nick
  20. As the others have said, fabulous. It really brings home, though, what an untidy bit of engineering it was. Bits and bobs stuck on all over the place. The rather beautiful bodywork hid all manner of scruffiness. So different from today. Or from some of the immaculate cars of earlier years. Thanks for sharing Nick
  21. Hi Giorgio, Perfect. Thanks for that. Digging round this morning I was beginning to come to the same conclusion. But I could not find a good source. Yours sounds perfect. It also sorts out why BAE Systems (who should after all know) quote both values. Thanks to all for your contributions. I'm happy now! Nick
  22. Just found this site: https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/luftsysteme-bundeswehr/pa-200-tornado. The german's think it is 17.23m!
  23. Hi Pete, Thanks for getting back to me. My problem is slightly different. There seems to be consensus on the length of an ADV. IDS not so much. All my books at home give 16.7m. Wikipedia gives 16.72m and BAE Systems unhelpfully give both 16.7m and 17.2m. Unfortunately I could not find the info on the Panavia site. Measuring proportion of pictures (always a difficult process) suggested 16.7 wasn't right compared to the span so I wondered if one is with the pitot and one without. What I've struggled to find is a manufacturer supplied picture with the lengths drawn on, like you would get in a Flight Manual. All the best Nick
  24. Hi Paws4thot, Thanks for responding so quickly. I'd seen the Wikipedia article, the 3 view being particularly convincing. Unfortunately it doesn't say where the 16.72m dimension comes from. I did wonder whether the length of the pitot probe accounted for the difference but I could do with documentary proof which I haven't been able to find. Regards Nick
  25. Hi, This feels like a dumb question. How long is a Tornado IDS. Surely there is no ambiguity here. Its not like a 1927 FIAT racer but... BAE Systems produced leaflets (link here: http://www.tornado-data.com/history/pressreleases/bae.htm) which cite the length as 16.70m or 17.20m. Not very helpful really. Everywhere else quotes either one or the other. Panavia don't provide a definitive view on their website. So does the assembled might of the Britmodeller hive mind have a view. Has this been asked and solved before? Does anyone have a credible reference source that is more definitive than BAE Systems managed! Regards Nick
  • Create New...