Feisty Midget

Thanks Alt-22 . I stand corrected. :-) Something I didn't think of. Thanks for enlightening me. :-)

The phone number of the phone was independent and the card was a pay-as-you-go type, so probably no, but I see where you're coming from. 🙂 As far as I'm aware, the company (Three I think) don't recycle pay-as-you-go numbers, only the ones issued out on contract and only after the contract has been terminated (obviously), but I stand to be corrected on that. Anyway, the calls she was getting were from people trying to sell her something; also a lot of 'silent' calls where there was no-one on the other end. All a bit suspect. ...but you could be right. Either way, it's always best to preserve one's privacy where one can.

A friend of mine bought a new galaxy phone thingy about three years ago along with getting a new phone number. One of the first things she did was to change the number on the Amazon site. Within two weeks, and without supplying her number to anyone else, she began receiving spam phone calls. There is no proof that Amazon passed on her phone details to anyone, but you know, bit of a coincidence. It may also be a result of a minor hack of course, which Amazon felt they dd not need to inform the public about. Larger data breaches, like the one last year, are a little more difficult to sweep under the carpet. Just saying. I have never given my phone number to Amazon, and have all my extra checks go to email. I've never had a problem. Having said that, I use Amazon much less than I used to after I heard about how badly their workers are treated, and after they put me on their Amazon Prime without informing me and stealing £70-something from my bank account without my knowledge!! (Yes, I got my money back). I also have an intense dislike of Bezos, but I guess that's a personal thing based on his awful treatment of people and his incredible greed. With such sneaky and possibly illegal tactics, it would not surprise me that Amazon sell on details to third parties.

Need more info'... When you say "log in", do you mean into your account or as verification to continue with your order (if the latter, Dave has given the answer)? As an aside, to anyone else who uses Amazon, but doesn't have a £1000 super-duper-phone-computer, don't provide a phone number, even if they keep asking you for one (click the 'do it later' each time). That way, the only way they can ask for verification is via your email where they'll send a passcode. Even if you have a super-duper-phone-computer, I'd advice disabling/deleting it from your account as they will sell it on to third parties.

Some interesting comments here. I had the usual emails/messages from Ebay saying that I must update my account or my ability to sell on Ebay will be hampered. This sounded like scare tactics to me, so I completely ignored it (they're not getting my banking details). 1st June has come and gone. My (only) two items for sale are still up, and they still have the 'payment by Paypal' still up. By the way, I don't think they can really drop Paypal as it's the main way to buy/sell. Also, the buyer/seller has a legal right to choose the way they wish to pay/be paid (don't qoute me on that with today's lack of consumer protection, etc.). Secondly, I've now had an email from Ebay stating that they will put me on their God-awful Global Shipping Programme, but they will email me giving me the option to "opt-out". Hey Ebay, how's about assuming I won't be interested in your little scam (sorry, scheme) and just give me the option to 'opt-in'??!! Oh wait, that's how scams (oops, I mean schemes) work by forcing customers into doing something, if they remember a month from now, or maybe not even tell them at all (like what Amazon did). Regarding this shipping programme, please don't use it. Google it if you don't know about this horrible, potentially fraudulent, scheme (sorry, scam). The customs charges seem to be a blanket 30-35% even on items that do not attract stuff like VAT (e.g., books), which vary from country to country (for example, VAT on a book to France from the UK [now a third country] is 5%. Ebay are charging 20%!!!). This is fraudulent, and needless to say, illegal. The 'extra' money 'collected' from you will not go to the HMRC (which would then be in receipt of illegally 'collected' money), but into the deep pockets of Ebay, and their third party partner Pitney Bowes. By the way, the package is unpacked at the latter company's facility and then repacked (badly), so they know exactly what you've sent. Finally, I strongly urge everyone who has been 'messed around' by Ebay (where they think their country's law has been broken) to contact their local version of Trading Standards, HMRC (if relevant regarding customs charges), and your local MP (yes, I know. Some of us have an MP that doesn't actually work for us, but some do. They're also law makers, albeit some in the UK have taken to breaking it recently). If you don't contact them, they will know nothing about it and will not be able to investigate, and people like Trading Standards cannot bring charges. If enough people kick up a stink then things will start to happen. I know it's difficult to do if you've had the stuffing continually knocked out of you, but please try and fight. It's good for you and it's good for all of us.

Thanks Overscan. I have an interest in all Russian mil aircraft. I have both volumes of Plunsky et al's Su-27. Yep, the impression I get is a well researched tome(s). I thought Fomin's book was the best until those volumes came out. I gather a third volume is planned (I hope). Cheers, F.M. Thanks Serge 👍 I have quite a few PDFs of История Авиации, Мир Авиации, and Авиация и космонавтика. Time to sift through them rather than just 'collecting' them. 😁 Will look out for the others too. Спасибо, F.M.

I'm not familiar with his "new line" of books but all books on the same aircraft by the same author but by different publishers will all be a rehash of the same information. The condensced versions tend to miss a lot out and generally aren't worth the bother. Regarding the new edition for the Famous Russian Aircraft series, I won't go into a detailed comparison so I'll keep it short and sweet. The new edition is largely a re-jigging with new information added here and there (if we exclude the info' on the new aircraft). The main text in most places has been reworded/rewritten. The second edition has allowed the author/publishers to thin out the grammatical errors and remove pointless suppositions. Of course, there is the additional information on the new aircraft since 2006. The photographs are still there with many additional ones while a few have been removed. One thing I've noticed is that unlike the earlier edition, the photo's in the new edition are lacking attribution (which is an issue for the newly presented photographs). Also some of the text to the photo's has changed. Again, just a re-jigging in most cases but in some cases different information has been presented. For example, on page 39 of the first edition, the text to the middle plate reads "A rare in-flight shot of the first prototype MiG-29 during an early test flight" changes to "'Aircraft 901' seen during its maiden flight on 6th October 1977" in the second edition. Presumably the author found/recieved new information on that photo (which is in his collection). This is just a random example. The line drawings and art look like it's mostly new with a few hold-overs from the first edition. I can't comment on the accuracy of what's in the book. I'll leave that to those who have been involved with the aircraft, its development, maintenance, and deployment. One thing that annoys me, and always will, is the complete lack of references. There's no way that anyone can recheck any information to see if there have been any mistakes or misinterpretations, but that's normal for the Famous Russian Aircraft series, and most others. We have to take the author's word for it which... ...erf, well, you know. I've just ordered, very cheaply, Mr Cooper et al's series on Middle East and African 'MiGs' so I'll have fun comparing information to see how much has been 'borrowed' from that series, if any at all. Despite what I wrote in the last paragraph, if you can find it cheap enough, it's worth having alongside or instead of the first edition (and I believe first editions still fetch a fair penny on a certain auction website). Cheers, FM.

Thanks Serge. Yes, that is good criteria. Thank you for your thoughts. 🙂 As an aside, what Russian periodicals do you recommend for such information? Cheers, FM.

The silence speaks volumes 🤨 😁 Okay, this is for newcomers wanting to know what books are reliable. For those not new to the subject, I'll be more or less repeating what's already known. I've done a little forum research and directly contacted a few people. This is the general concensus... Books by at least Andrei Fomin, Sergei Moroz, Dmitry Khazanov, and Piotr Butowski are generally considered to be at least reliable, if not excellent. Multi-authored books are also deemed reliable but most of these are in Russian, e.g., the 2 (3?) volume work on the Su-27 by Plunsky, Antonov, Zenkin, Gordyukov, and Bedretdinov (hope my transliteration is okay). These are true multi-authored books, not those that list an author and artist. There will be other authors out there that are just as reliable but I have no feedback on them either way. Books with heavy referencing are also likely to be legit'. Those that have no references at all are more likely to be collections of other people's work, or at the very least, have used very little or unreliable primary or secondary information which, if those references were published, would highlight the shortfalls in said author's research methodology. It seems that many aircraft books suffer from plagiarism, and this is common to a lot of aircraft books across the board by many authors (dead and alive) located around the world, probably not helped by publishers seeking to cash in. This is of course different from repeating obvious facts, e.g., a Fw-190 A-8 has a radial engine. Like copying someone else's homework at school, plagiarism repeats the exact same errors. It's obvious and embarrassing when it's found out (and can throw the whole book into question), but if it's not and it's repeated enough, it becomes accepted 'fact'. The problem is knowing what is fact and what is fiction. Unless the reader has other access to or been provided with indisputable primary information which backs up unreferenced statements, they should not take such unverified information as granted and should use their common sense. I should also add that primary information on any subject can also be incorrect, particulalry if it has any political influence, but can be as simple as a typographical error. By the way, camouflage and markings of Russian-made aircraft are a minefield, so be very aware. This is mainly due to a lack of solid information about the air forces that deploy them, or/and a lack of accessible historical info' for older aircraft. I won't mention books and authors that are dodgy as that would be unfair and not constructive. Suffice to say while these authors have indulged in less than thorough research with some of these repeating other author's errors, there is still a lot of useful factual information presented by them, and not all their books will suffer the same. I should add that I am not lambasting any of these 'dodgy' authors that have actually done some research, although one or two nameless, but minor, authors are apparently awful. Some are doing, or have done, original research on subjects that are still shrouded in myth, propaganda, and secrecy. While some of this research could be better undertaken (holes in history aside), they are nonetheless humble enough and very open to correcting any mistakes they make. New editions of such books from these authors render the previous edition obsolete, as it should and hoped to be. Anyway, hope this may be of some use to someone. Cheers, FM.

Howdo, This one is a big ask. As you all know, since the 1990's, there has been an explosion of books on Soviet/Russian military aircraft. However, findng one with accurate and factual information with original research seems to be a little difficult. Some authors are prolific but quantity does not necessarily equate to quality. I can think of one or two books that have been greeted with approval and have stood the test of time such as Andrei Fomin's 'Su27 Flanker Story', unless someone out there knows different. Excluding official manuals, and avoiding hearsay and rumour that can't be backed up, what books would you recommend for accuracy of content (text, photo's, artwork, etc.) and original research, and which ones to be wary of (with reasons given)? Disclaimer: I come from a scientific background so this thread is intended to establish a list of literature that can be trusted for content. It is in no way intended to be a judgement on the quality of an author or authors, good or bad (although it is relevant of course). I'm only interested in the quality of a book's content. 🙂 Cheers, Feisty M.

Yes, that indeed helps. Thanks John 👍

Howdo, Thought I'd have a go at a 1/32 Stuka, probably one based on the Eastern Front where, on muddy airfields, the wheels spats were often removed and this is how I would like to depict one (without the wheel spats). I don't have access to Hasegawa, 21st Century or Trumpeter kits so I can't find out directly. My question is, did any of these manufacturers supply the undercarriage with the kits or did they all decide that it would be hidden by the wheel spats and not bother? Cheers, Feisty M.

Howdo all, Disclaimer: By asking this question I could be missing something obvious thus making a complete fool of myself. If so, please feel free to mock me, and apologies for the extreme nerdiness and seriousness (I'm usually not at all serious) My first post so a quick intro. After many years I've come back to aircraft modelling where I scratchbuild in metal (not plastic) in quarter scale. To help with construction I pick up the most accurate kits I can find and use those as a base reference but then use billions of photo's and confirmed measurements to get to the end result. I've been looking at my Academy Su-27 1/48 I bought about 20(?!) years ago. I had heard about the inaccuracy issues, in particular the length where it is said that the model's length included the pitot tube, when it shouldn't have, hence it appears short, i.e. 1/50 rather than 1/48, plus other issues. Here's my question... I have been trying to find the primary source for the length and width of the Su-27, especially with or without the pitot tube. The earliest, and only reference I've found to the 'length without air pressure receiver' is Andrei Fomin's early Polygon (1992) publication where he states "Длина без ПВД - 21.935(m)". All other 'main' publications I've managed to consult, mostly Russian, and including Fomin's later Airfleet book, have just given the length (21.935) although Moroz et al (2004) gives 21.835m which may be a typo'. There is no mention of 'length without pitot tube'. Width is given as 14.7m (without missiles attached) although Gordon gives the seemingly more accurate figure of 14.689m. None give a primary reference for this info'. Is there irrefutable proof that the length (21.935m) of the Su-27 excludes the pitot tube? The reason I ask is I checked photographs of Su-27 (and Su-30 - same length and width) in planform. My theory was that length divided by width will give me a ratio that can be used to determine if the length given includes the pitot tube or not. The ratio of published measurements is 1:1.492 (21.935m/14.698m, assuming these measurements are correct). The photo's I found were far and few on the interweb thingy but I did manage to find a few Su-27's and Su-30's to check (please note I don't have the links as I wasn't expecting to find anything but these can be refound if required). This was done in Photoshop using the 'ruler' to measure from the outermost part of the wing (without missiles) and from the tip of the tail boom to the tip of the cone and again to the pitot tube. I only chose photo's that were as close to planform as possible, of sufficient resolution, and were apparently free of distortion. The margin of error is difficult to determine but needs to be borne in mind. I found 6 images and the results were... Width to Length (tail boom to nose cone tip): 1) 1.437 2) 1.449 3) 1.455 4) 1.442 5) 1.432 6) 1.472 Width to Length (tail boom to pitot tube tip): 1) 1.493 2) 1.496 3) 1.506 4) 1.487 5) 1.489 6) 1.525 The difference between these ratios in length is about 70cm (the length of a pitot tube?) on the real aircraft so quite significant. What is interesting is the consistency of images 1 to 5 and how close the W/L ratio is to that of W/L ratio of published measurements, 1.492. Number 6 is a little bit off either way it seems but not sure why. Obviously more images need to be checked to see if this was a pure fluke or not and ideally someone with a tape measure on the real thing. Maybe others here who have their own Su-27 images in planform can check? Before taking this further (it has ramifications on the Academy kit build in ways not considered before), am I talking rubbish or is there some merit to the above? That's if that irrefutable proof isn't presented of course. PS. I didn't add this to the above at first but might be worth it, so... I did check the multi-authored Истребитель Су-27. 'Начало истории' and 'Рождение легенды' (which appear to be the best books on the Su-27) and there is a scaled factory drawing of a preliminary Su-27K on page 446. Careful measuring puts the aircraft at 21.5m (give or take) but obviously take this with a pinch of salt, being a copy of a factory drawing of a preliminary design which may or may not be drawn accurately to scale in the first place, hence my original reluctance to mention it (but it's the closest I've come to an original document). Unfortunately I couldn't find anything on the dimensions in these tomes unless it's buried deep in the text somewhere (me not fluent in Russian). I'm sure someone has original info' out there. Cheers, Feisty