Jump to content

Work In Progress

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Work In Progress

  1. Interesting premise, and an interesting premise is always the heart of a good WHIF for me. First thing I'd consider is "why did they not actually do this?" to which at least one answer is "fuel". A PR.XIX carries 254 gallons internally, an XIV only 109 gallons, the man difference being that all of the wing leading edge D-box on the XIX is fuel, so a PR.XIX can't have guns and ammo in the wings and still get where it needs to go. This of course also prohibits an alternative solution to the problem you postulate, which would be running an accompanying XIV escort fighter a mile in trail behind the XIX. Both the XIV and XIX could and did carry slipper tanks (90 gallons or 170 gallons for the XIX, 90 gallons or smaller I believe for the XIV). So obviously you can award your hypothetical project a version of the 170 gallon tank if you want, but to accommodate guns and ammo you still need to find some extra fuel capacity from somewhere, ideally at least 130 gallons-worth. Perhaps with additional drop tanks out under the wings, or even some kind of winged trailer-glider configuration to be jettisoned before reaching heavily defended areas. Such things were experimented with, though I can't find any pics at the moment
  2. Not really. If you want to make one of the five Mustang X airframes, there is a High Planes limited run kit in 1/72, or in other scales you will need to undertake some scratch-building. The XP-51B nose is much closer to that of the production P-51B than that of the Mustang X
  3. Just popping in to sign the visitor book and to correct a mis-conception which seems important. It is quite correct in general to point out that individual engines and airframes have production tolerance variations even when new, and that their variations widen as an aircraft is used and abused over its operational life. But that general case is inapplicable to this test. This was not a test of three different examples of the B-17G. It was a test of THE SAME AEROPLANE in three different conditions. It was first tested as delivered in natural metal, and then refinished for the other tests as described. This is clear from the front page of the report, as seen in the video, which names the aircraft as 42-97656, and the remainder of the report which describes the refinishing work done on the aircraft at each stage before re-testing. Those who wish to read the rest of the report may find it here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_42-97656_Eng-47-1722-A.pdf
  4. Why not just use Halfords white primer in the first place, that's what I do
  5. Currently on YouTube, but almost certainly shouldn't be, so jump in quick if you want to see it
  6. This is indeed my preference. But the other way can work well, is worth a try, and even if you don;t like the result you're no worse off, just a bit more to remove before you repaint Doggy, if you repaint instead, no, whatever you do don't try to scrub the existing paint off with thinners, it will tend to go everywhere. Sand it off gently with 600 grit or finer wet & dry, much easier to control
  7. I have not seen any credible report of a closure plan for the LWH, meaning one based on information from someone who might actually be in a position to know. What is your source for it, and what evidence was provided?
  8. You are thinking of the wrong film. This is the original film and is definitive as a source of accuracy https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036152/
  9. I prefer doing yellow tips first, as yellow over black is not easy covering, esp if you are brush painting. One easy way to do it without brush marks letting the black show through: Poke a little impression in a piece of plasticene or blu-tack or whatever, fill it with yellow paint, then and dip in each tip to the required depth (about 1.4mm in 1/72) letting it dry with the blade still hanging vertically down before you do the next one
  10. No, that's because the starter kits are limited to a small number of paints so they simplify the painting instructions on those kits. Yellow prop tips, for sure
  11. The way everyone's ignoring this is classic Britmodeller
  12. If you want to do this with Tamiya paints then everything you need to know is in this thread. The underside colour you want is Sky. "Type S" is not a colour but a surface texture, S for Smooth (small particle size, not rough to the touch, but not glossy) For a potted history and debate of the origins of Sky, try this thread as a starter https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/7791-sky-type-s-whats-the-deal/
  13. Why do you think that those are the 50 vehicles concerned?
  14. My view is that it's not a documentary, it's a work of fiction, just like Where Eagles Dare or Kelly's Heroes.
  15. Oh yes please!! These are really helpful, thanks for going to the trouble
  16. It's possible worth a try but the kit is still in stock at Airfix so your best course would surely be to get a spare from them. Ask VERY nicely and they might even let you have a freebie, but they don;t usually charge much for small spares https://support.airfix.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360019394159-Spare-Parts
  17. Yet was never authentic to how that actual airframe served in its military ownership, having never seen a theatre of war, let alone fired a gun in anger. It's hard to see anything it ever did in Canada as historically significant. Complex issues indeed, there is no answer which will suit every interest.
  18. One of the factors which I think people under-estimate is the economics of keeping an aircraft like this going in what is now largely a post air-display world. Once upon a time it was possible to keep an aeroplane like this going from display work, even to earn a living at it. That is vastly harder now and we aren;t going back to the glory days of the '80s and '90s. There have been successive large reductions in UK flying display volume, starting with the large scale reductions in flying from UK RAF basis in the 1990s and 2000s, and then the withdrawal of the USAF-occupied bases from public display activity post 9/11. Post Shoreham, the economics of privately-displays have been further badly affected by insurance costs, and then COVID has been a further blow. In the last 25 years the availability of film and TV work has also been affected by the rapidly reducing cost of CGI. And then we have a missing year, probably two years, from COVID. If you set aside the BBMF and the work they commission from the private sector to maintain their aircraft, then really the sort of business that the two-seat fighters have been able to drum up is really the only income that most of the warbird operators and support industry have had in the last year. The number of people who have the combination of financial wealth, willingness to shovel it in, and the appropriate skills to run these things purely out of their own pockets as weekend toys is extremely small in the UK. If we want to see them in the skies at all, rather than exported or permanently parked in museums, we have to accept that they need to bring at least part of their costs back in.
  19. Ah, I took you literally, but now understand your point of view. I think the bigger picture is an interesting debate with respectable arguments on both sides, especially in the cases of airframes whose recreation has for legal reasons required the excavation of archaeological scraps mined from 70 years of jungle decay or deep holes in the salt-soaked sand. My understanding in the case of BE505 though is that it's never had to be dug up, having always been largely intact and not crashed. It's not a Russian steppes example but went from CCF delivery to military use in Canada, then straight into private Canadian collector hands before eventually coming to the UK as an extensively weathered but comfortably upper-tier restoration project.
  20. Yes, that's a good thread. It's a big job to do properly, even out of a fabric-wing Hurricane I kit, and it's DIY territory. See also:
  21. I've never owned any actual Future but I have many models using vac-form canopies and original Johnson's Klear with between a 20 year and 25 year track record of not yellowing. I've never seen a Skybirds, Aeroclub or Falcon / Squadron canopy go yellow in all that time, only ones from Czech manufacturers, in my case Special Hobby. If it's a couple of decades old and still OK, it's not going to go yellow in any relevant timescale.
  22. This is an unfortunate choice of word IMO. No airworthy historical component was damaged in order to convert, and nothing removed was historic, being merely the wooden doghouse components and a few fittings which were all completely new in the 2005 restoration done by the same company, Hawker Restorations, which did the recent work. As I said earlier this is a 100% reversible mod enabling any future owner to convert it back over a winter of easy work. It is a MUCH lighter-touch change to the airframe than any two-seat Spitfire or Hunter.
  23. Dunno, but nobody made him do it. He's the one who oversaw the contract: his employees sold them, built them and took the money.
  24. No they weren't, apart from the Sea Furies which is why I didn't mention Sea Furies in my list. All the Spitfires and several of the two-seat Hunters were originally built and sold to their first customers as single-seat airframes, and later converted into two seaters after re-purchase by the factory. Many of the factory TP-40N were converted from single seat airframes and most if not all of the TF-51D were converted by Temco from P-51D airframes, from design work done by North American. The Iranian Air Force Hurricane two-seaters were post-war factory conversions from surplus Hurricane IIc airframes.
  25. Was it blasphemy when Hawker did it with Hurricanes and Hunters? or North American with the TF-51? Curtiss with the TP-40N, or Supermarine with the Spitfire Tr.IX
  • Create New...