Work In Progress

That's a lovely moody model. The Rotol prop would also have helped to offset the CG problem to some modest extent. But even so I imagine it was a sod to fly, requiring a well above-average degree of skill and experience. Hurricanes are weak in longitudinal stability to start with, and notoriously badly behaved if the CG moves back for any reason. But of course if you're on Malta, anything goes if it serves a good military purpose and someone can be found to cope with the disadvantages which offset the practical benefits of the modification. Any pics of the underneath? It would make a good colour scheme for indoor free-flight, being simple and achievable mainly in dyed tissue. But I'd like to get the camera ports right.

Profiles and scale drawings are definitely double-edged swords. In plastic scale modelling competition we are quite lucky that accuracy of the model and the colour scheme are not taken into consideration. Ony the quality of the craftsmanship in construction and finishing. In flying scale modelling competition I have to provide a 3-view of the type and documentation of the specific airframe I am modelling: either photos or a colour profile. And the model is judged against those. This has two adverse consequences. 1. you can't compete with a model of a poorly-documented aeroplane, so we get the same individual examples of a given subject modelled tme after time after time. One bloke I know has done the same SE5A about eight times in various classes, because he has excellent documentation for it, and the documentation is a bigger hurdle then building and flying the model 2. you are obliged to follow the errors of the documentation, and this is an issue with many published 3-views. So, ironically, in plastic modelling I can build a model that's accurate, but the judges don't care. But in flying scale, I have to build a model that I know is wrong, to match the available scale drawings, and the judges do care.

There is a wishful and somewhat idealistic notion amongst modellers that the information available on historical events generally becomes more detailed and accurate over time, whereas overall it is the opposite in the long run. To quote Clausius, in relation to the second law of thermodynamics: "The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum". Eyewitnesses die, Physical evidence is mostly destroyed: the relics fade and discolour and are 'restored' according to the popular theories of the day. Records are lost and deteriorate. Conspiracy theories and speculations gain ground, becoming as widely-percieved as whatever the facts originally were. People start to use other people's models, or paintings, as sources for each other, each used to prop up the next, and the snowball of assumptions and introduced errors rolls downhill, growing bigger than the actual objective evidence available, and cascading into things that "everyone knows". Like the perception that Romans and ancient Greeks had a lot of white marble statues around the place, because we see them today in museums without their paint, or that the interior of a mediaeval stone castle was stone-coloured, and lit by torches attached to the walls, because that's what is easiest for the film and TV industries to film.

1/32 https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/HB83211 so 41.25 inches wing span. Which, personaly, is not a problem for a flying model which disassembles for storage, but well beyond my limit for a one-piece static model. Nice for those who live in barns, though.

Someone has in both 1/32 and 1/48. The PCM Spitfire XIV in 1/32 was a good effort, while the Airfix 1/48 PR.XIX is superbly accurate and easy to build .

Aalso, it creates an effect which is not seen on full size aircraft, only on small plastic models. Still, if there's a deman then you can't blame them for supplying: good luck to them!

The Fly kit means no-one else needs to do it now. It's not just the best 1/32 Hurricane kit, it's the best Hurricane kit in any scale.

It's several years since I had my head in one of those cockpits but I would not be surprised to find them using the Z type harness in blue, as fitted to a lot of Chipmunks. MH434 had a *very* vivid blue harness a few years ago.: I suspect that may have been a Hooker after-market one. https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1954/1954 - 1451.PDF

There is a tremendously fat one for Seafires

Anyone interested in the Bond-style Skyhook,, properly the Fulton Recovery System, if you want the ten-dollar name for it, will find a rather good article here: http://www.robertnovell.com/evergreens-b-17-james-bond-fulton-recovery-system/

You're thinking of the same one as I am.

Yep, the Falcon set is good in 1/48 though, and if you only want the Meteor canopy off it then I'm sure the rest will sell on easily in the Sales and Wants section - there's a lot of useful stuff there for most RAF 1/48 modellers.

I'm very pleased to see it too as it belongs in one of my gliding dioramas alongside a Cub, a Tiger Moth and a variety of gliders vintage and modern (well, ones which were modern in the 1980s anyway!) There is a lot of Super Cub DNA in it: conceptually it's basically a low wing single seat Super Cub with a big engine. They are terrific machines to fly at light weights, something like an aerial version of open-top lightweight Land Rover with a big V8 in it, and reassuringly strong.

It is a nice kit, and the aeroplane itself is rather pleasing: it's a very practical four-seat tourer. While you can go faster for less fuel burn these days, you can't necessarily arrive in more style this side of a Beech Staggerwing. If I had the money sitting around I'd be rather tempted by this lovely restored example for £100K, and the pics might be useful for some detail shots (it's pretty much the same aeroplane as the kit version, just with a different radial engine) https://www.ataviation.uk/listings/stinson-v77-reliant-gullwing/

It's not really about insurance, I suspect that was a metaphorical comment about personal risk rather than one based on financial risk. It's about how much personal risk of injury or sudden death you're prepared to run. A PR.XI or PR.XIX in wartime RAF service didn't spend a lot of time between 100 feet and 2000 feet where most of the birdstrike hazard is. An aeroplane on the modern display circuit spends most of its flying time in that height range, and frequently at speeds which would make the impact of even quite a small bird against the unbraced perspex windscreen unsurvivable. It's one thing at 80 knots in a Super Cub or 100 knots in a Bulldog and another altogether in a Spitfire at 250 knots* plus Of course all flying carries certain risks, all display flying carries certain additional risks, and I don't criticise anyone who personally finds the risk of a birdstrike against a non-armoured Spitfire windscreen acceptable. I have often been known to fly aeroplanes at low level in the 150-200 knot range with non-armoured windscreens, preferably polycarbonate rather than acrylic, and would not turn down a go in someone's PR-windscreen Spitfire if they offered, though I would be very mindful of birdstrike risk. But if I owned one, I would make the change to the armoured windscreen without a minute's thought.. *there is in principal a 250 KIAS speed limit for VFR traffic below FL100, but that's really intended for straight line speed in transit, not a situation where every airshow has a radar gun trained on every Spitfire or Mustang running into the display line