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. :)

Work In Progress

Members
  • Content Count

    6,367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Work In Progress

  1. Probably one for here? https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/91-bargains/
  2. Presumably looking for something similar to the missing Airfix decals https://www.airfix.com/media/wysiwyg/Airfix/PDFs/A05007-Painting-Instructions.pdf
  3. Looks more like an attempt to create the illusion of something than an actual something.
  4. If the magnet and the stand are separated by a layer of plastic then it all depends on the separation, and the only way to find out is to test with a component. Magnetic strength drops off dramatically with distance. Really you want the magnet flush with the surface of the model. https://www.intemag.com/magnetic-frequently-asked-questions#strength
  5. Informed speculation, unless and until someone else digs out the actual Q.19/45 specification and/or OR.204 which fell out of it: Unlike all other Mosquitos, including the conventional-looking TT.35, the spec which resulted in the TT.39 required a full four-seater with observer permanently in the nose and a target winch operator in the rear fuselage looking through the dorsal cupola. So the nose needed to be a lot bigger for permanent occupation, including during take-off and landing. I believe there was a requirement to be able to film through the nose, thus necessitating it to be big enough for someone to operate the movie cameras of the day, and speculate that the cine requirement may also have mandated a greenhouse of optically flat panels to be used to fair in the enlarged nose position rather than a conventional moulded perspex affair. As stever219 has mentioned the Lincoln, I suspect it may not be co-incidental that the Lincoln's nose position is also made of flat panels, unlike the Lancaster's bomb aimer blister.
  6. What's you problem with the highly acceptable-looking Potex 630/631? Nothing eye-straining about the Breguet 690 series either, it's a French Beaufighter, but a year earlier.
  7. Not necessarily records relating to flight performance at all. Could be related to any aspect of an industrial design and manufacturing programme they want to claim. The whole thing is rich with the odour of spin over substance though. From the first line... because the Air Force definitely hasn't built anything.
  8. Bomb doors: eliminated completely and the lower fuselage continuously skinned over? or some different arrangement of opening belly doors? And if skinned over, what was the access to the underfloor fuel tanks / baggage stowage (which of these a given airframe has apparently depending on long range or short range fit, looking at the two AVRO drawings in post #4 above).
  9. You;re absolutely right that changes in power unit technology have been the main drivers of airframe design for airliners over the years, and that if we move to fundamentally different forms of power that will have wide-ranging impacts on airframe design again. But that has no bearing on this design because it is predicated on current engines.
  10. If those were what the OP wanted, then he wouldn;t have asked about the kit in the context of the Airfix and Revell ones, though
  11. There is already a thread running on this
  12. Yes, that yellow tail in the illustration is hard to justify. Your decals are here https://www.fantasyprintshop.co.uk/shop/prototype-ps-aircraft-30-36-fp807-1-48/ and here https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/AOD48C05?result-token=ZBAq5
  13. There's really no point comparing it iwth the Britmodeller logo, which has no claim to be any kind of authoritative reference and was never intended for that purpose. Can you not try it with something of known referential significance, like the chips in the RAF Museum paint guide?
  14. The issue is not the G in the steady turn, but in the G variations experienced by outboard passengers when rolling in and out of the turn. These would be substantial effects, by the standards of what airline passengers expect and are capable of tolerating without becoming upset.
  15. You might want to ask this on the forum created for such questions https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/18-other-tools/
  16. No, that is a reference to a totally separate and unrelated design: this
  17. There's an Xtradecal sheet for 1/32 Tempest V https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X32061 Other than that there are of course many decal sheets produced for the various boxings of the kit by Special Hobby, whose plastic it is. They don't normally sell those separately but it would not hurt to contact them via https://www.specialhobby.eu/index.php?cur=1&lang=1&cl=contact and ask nicely: it's possible they might make an exception.
  18. That sounds positively ancient. I always used TTMPFFGHH as a starting point for powered types, along with a left-right flow check. But never had a set of words for it. The ones most etched into my central nervous system though, reflecting where I started, were CBSIFTCB for launch vital actions on gliders and UFSTALL for downwind.
  19. It's one of those cases where "it all depends". The terrain, the distance to target, the nature of the target, the type of ordnance you're delivering, the capabilities of the oppo air defence system, the capabilities of your own supporting assets.
  20. Both, in essence. Ride quality is a very real consideration at low level, not only for the comfort of the crew but also for the life of the airframe. For a given speed and assumed degree of low-level mechanical and thermal turbulence, ride quality is heavily influenced by wing loading, but also by the positioning of the cockpit in relation to the other major masses and some other factors. It's not just a "nice to have". If you are going a long way at low level then it may well be the difference between being fit enough to function at the other end of the leg, or being so beaten up that you're exhausted, and failing in your mission. No doubt there are some fancy Panavia metrics being used here but yes, you would expect a high-loading type like a Tornado or F-104 to give the crew a dramatically easier time down in the weeds than something with a big wing designed for high-level turning performance, which the F-15, F-16 and F-18 all were in their origins. I would have instinctively put the Phantom perhaps somewhere in the middle but I haven't really gone into the numbers, and there may be other factors affecting that in addition to wing loading. Some aircraft have artificial measures built in to their stability augmentation to improve gust response, and maybe the earlier generation Phantom is less clever in that regard than the newer-generation teen fighters.
×
×
  • Create New...