Eric Mc

.

Quite correct Voshkod was a lash up using Vostok technology hurridly adapted.

As far as I am aware, ALL spacecraft that have used an air mix atmosphere have ALWAYS used an airlock system to enable EVAs to be performed. The first spacecraft ever used for an EVA was Voshkod 1 in 1965 - and that used an air mix and sohad an airlock (an inflatable one that was jettisoned once it had performed its function). Since Voshkod 1, the only Russian EVAs have been performed from various versions of the Soyuz spacecraft, the Salyut space stations and Mir - all of which use(d) an air mix. The Americans performed their first EVAs from Gemini and Apollo. Both of these spacecraft had a pure oxygen atmosphere only so no airlock was carried. More recent EVAs have been performed from the Skylab space station, the Space Shuttle, the ISS and the Chinese space station. All of these spacecraft use(d) an air mix and all have (had) airlocks.,

Both the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft used pure oxygen atmospheres set at 4 PSI. This made the design of the spacecraft much simpler (and lighter) than if they had used an oxygen/nitrogen air mix. The other reason why a pure oxygen atmosphere was used was because it meant that it made EVAs a much simpler proposition. As stated, all that needed to be done was for the crew to don their spacesuits, start breathing oxygen through the suit system and then completely depressurise the whole spacecraft. Once the pressure in the cabin had reduced to zero, the hatch could be opened and the person/people performing the EVA (whether in Zero G or on the lunar surface) could exit the spacecraft and get on with their work. The oxygen vented overboard was lost. There was no system for "capturing" it and re-using it in any way. Again, this was done for simplicity and lightness. Neither Gemini or Apollo was fitted with any sort of air lock. Once the EVA was over, the astronaut(s) would get back in, close the hatch and then re-pressurise the spacecraft. Russian spacecraft have always used an oxygen air mix so they have always made use of airlocks for EVAs. Modern systems as used on the International Space Station (and previously the Space Shuttle) are more akin to the Russian system because they also use an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. This makes EVAs a lot more complicated. Firstly, even though spacecraft no longer use pure oxygen atmospheres, the EVA spacesuits still do. This means that it is not possible for an EVA astronaut to jump into their spacesuit and go outside in a matter of minutes (as depicted by Sandra Bullock in "Gravity" - although at least we got to see her in her undies). An EVA astronaut has to spend some time (usually around an hour at least) pre-breathing pure oxygen to ensure that they purge nitrogen from their system. If they went straight from the spacecraft atmosphere to the suit atmosphere they would most likely get the dreaded bends - which could be fatal. And, of course, they exit the spacecraft through an airlock as it would be impossible to re-pressurise large spacecraft such as the Shuttle or the ISS every time an EVA needed to be carried out. Coming back from the EVA is easier as their is no need to spend any time purging gases from your blood as you switch from pure oxygen to air.

Welcome from an Irish Ex-Pat. The Irish Air Corps have operated a varied bunch of aircraft over the decades so an Air Corps project would make for an interesting collection.

Looks lovely. I'll have to order one of those.

Great work. Looking forward to seeing it for real. I have the ICM version of this in the stash and would like to build it in parallell with a Concorde and display it much like the pair at the Sibsheim Museum in Germany.

I'm not into arguing on the internet - it's a waste of time and effort to no purpose. So I will make no further comments on this topic save to say I have always liked the Whirlwind - an aeroplane that could have been great but which fell just short.

Indeed. Not a great experience for the RAF.

I never said the Welkin was revolutionary. In fact, by the time it flew, it wasn't , and, more importantly, it was not needed. But it showed that Petter's original concept was OK. It was just that it wasn't realised in the Whirlwind and by the time the Welkin had arrived, it was not required. The Whirlwind was a small twin because it had small engines - the Peregrine.. Which, as we have discussed, Rolls Royce discontinued. When a bigger engine (the Merlin) was used, the airframe necessarily had to be bigger to accommodate it. But by then, we had other aircraft that could do the same job and the jets were coming along - so it was not pursued. As for the P-38, the RAF never really wanted it so not really relevant to this particular discussion. The RAF's short experience with the P-38 was less than satisfactory although that was as much to do with the fact that the version they were given didn't have all the attributes of the USAAF versions.

I built the original Airfix kit way back around 1972 and finished it in the Silver City civil marking provided. My brother had a go at it a few years later when it was re-issued as the AC-47. Unless one is really after a nostalgia hit, I would leave that old Airfix kit alone. Someone already mentioned that the nose profile isn't quite right. The other significant fault is the lack of wing dihedral outboard of the engines, a very distinctive feature of the DC-3 (and DC-1/DC-2 as well). Any of the subsequent 1/72 DC-3/C-47 kits (Italeri, Esci, Airfix) are better bets than the ancient Airfix 1960 tooling. I built an Esci C-47 a few years ago in NASA markings and was pretty pleased with the result. It even got its picture shown in an Airfix magazine show report where it was mistakenly described as being the Airfix new-tool - which I take as a compliment.

And what about the Welkin? That showed that Petter's concept was sound - but rather unnecessary by the time it arrived on the scene. I was reading a book on the Whirlwind not that long ago and what did emerge from the book was the lack of confidence the Air Ministry had in Westland's ability to mass produce. At the time the Whirlwind was entering production, Westland were already struggling to meet their Lysander targets. Also, Supermarine were also showing that some of these small, southern based, manufacturers lacked big enough factories and a large enough skilled workforce to mass produce on the scale required. The Spitfire was saved by the decision to concentrate production at the new Government built factory at Castle Bromwich - although that took a lot of sorting out. It is likely that something similar would have been needed to build the Whirlwind in large numbers.

Question on an Irish radio phone-in quiz back in the early 1980s - Question - What was Hitler's first name? Answer - Heil

Very, very nice. The neatness around the flight deck windows is impressive.

Yes, I have read and seen (on You Tube) that the propellers really were the main problem with the Whirlwind rather than the Peregrine per se. Like the Typhoon later, which also floundered at altitude, the Whirlwind found itself a very effective niche in the ground attack role where the compressability issues were not relevant. However, the Peregrine itself was a problem too in that the Air Ministry told Rolls Royce not to spend any more time and effort on a number of their engine projects - which included the Peregrine and, even more infamously, the Vulture. Because of the pressures of wartime production, Rolls Royce had to concentrate on the Merlin and Griffon. There had also been misgivings about Westland's ability to mass produce complicated and advanced aircraft like the Whirlwind so, in many ways, the Whirlwind battled to enter production at all. It was always fighting an uphill battle.

Russian by any chance?

Nice line up.

I'll wait for the DVD.

I'm trying to finish my Hampden at the moment. The only really obvious inaccuracy (to me) is the wing tip shape which is too rounded. It's very easy to fix. I also added clear wing tip light housings which were omitted (as was normal back then) in the original kit. At the end of the day, finish the kit to the accuracy level you are happy with. I would love to just finish mine.

Long since stalled, I'm afraid. The paint scheme didn't go on too well so I lost the urge to finish it. I might resurrect it at some point.

More likely to be the Tornado F3 or even Typhoon.

Revell and Monogram issued two distinct and different 1/72 Space Shuttle kits. Of course, Revell and Monogram eventually merged so it's never clear which of the mouldings is now being issued by Revell.

You might be surprised how often rudders, trim tabs etc need to be swapped about. I know a few people who worked in BA maintenance in that period and they were universally loathed by the maintenance staff. And I also know some (now retired) ATC people who said that they were a nightmare at busy airports, especially Heathrow and Kennedy. Telling a taxying aircraft "You are number three behind the departing BA 767" becomes very difficult for the aircraft getting the instruction when they cannot recognise the BA 767 that's being pointed out to them due to it carrying a tail scheme that does not readily identify it as an actual BA aircraft. This was no laughing matter and caused serious confusion. The REAL reason the schemes were dropped were safety and cost.

Looks good to me. Yes - a new tooled Halifax would be very welcome.

Lovely build. But I hated the whole concept of the World Tail. Apart from the aesthetic mess - it also caused all sorts of maintenance headaches as well as confusion for taxying aircraft and ground controllers. It was s dumb idea which was conceived for the wrong reasons and cancelled for the right ones.