Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by huvut76g7gbbui7

  1. I asked a simple question. I fully realise that the owner of the site is not obliged to reply. Hardly a state secret is it? I ask a question and get a pretty prevaricating series of replies. Why? An outright 'I'm not telling you' may have shut me up. If I was still in the business of interrogating I might be digging deeper but as it is I can see that I am wasting energy on a lost cause. Strange how much silence there is around though apart from the usual suspects. I had hoped things here had got better..ever the optimist me. I'm not you but I'm going to 'park it' anyway.
  2. Let me be clear. I have never suggested any wrong doing. I have no idea what that is about but would state for all to see that I asked what I thought was a straightforward question as an individual. I am not part of any conspiracy ,real or imagined. Seems to be a default setting! Perhaps you could explain to me why when I ask what I consider to be a straightforward question, I am then accuse of being a troublemaker. Dozens ,perhaps thousands of people have donated to this site. I am not interested in how much money was raised or how much is in the bank. That is none of my business. By asking the question 'How much does it cost to run the server' it appears that I am being tarred as a trouble maker or part of some conspiracy theory allegedly connected to something from the past which I know nothing about. I am not interested in the legal definition of 'member' or in any of the matters involving ownership. That is immaterial to my question really I am a bit surprised (no..I'm not really) that the thread has turned to a thinly disguised attack on me and wonder why my question cannot be given a straight answer. It is a well known fact that I have disagreed with the moderators over the culling of one of my previous threads. That was a couple of years ago. Trust me,if I had wanted to stir up trouble, I could have done so long before now and probably ended up being banned. That's not my nature though. This question has nothing whatsoever to do with the past.
  3. My sentiments too. Given that there was a recent push for donations and by all accounts it looked that that went very well, surely there must be more than three of us who are interested in the cost of the server? Why the silence from the powers that be?
  4. Not really,but appreciate your work. This tells me that we start at around £100 and whatever permutation of 'a few' then gives us is the monthly running cost of the server. Doesn't answer my question does it? Why can't I just get a straight answer? Surely it can't be secret as the membership is paying for it. (granted I haven't donated for a while but that is for reasons outwith this thread).
  5. That means nothing to me as I never buy 1/32 scale , rarely Tamiya and waht is 'a few' so my original question remains unanswered.
  6. All of the computer stuff just floated over my head which perhaps is a good thing. As a matter of interest what does it cost for the current server and would there be any benefit of going upmarket? If so is it worth doing some fundraising?
  7. The rocket packs are easily reproduced in the closed position by scribing and drilling a hole in the ensuing panel. The larger Doppler box came later in its life so is not essential. Remember if you are doing an early one that they didn't have the fairing at the intakes or the reinforcing panels on the air brakes and the aerials on the spine were different from British ones. When flying from Lossiemouth in 1965 they rarely had the tanks fitted. Photos of them with the tanks were either just before they left or the much published ones of them on leaving day. I never saw them with the refuelling probes either. Four distinct colour schemes too throughout their life (except 417 which was lost on delivery)
  8. Neither had I until I realised the WC-121s visit wasn't at the same time as the Karel Doorman was in the Moray Firth. I've edited my post accordingly.
  9. I cannot think of an operation British aircraft which didn't visit Lossie. Equally so I think the Austrians and Swiss were the only countries with an air arm this side of the curtain which didn't visit. Rarest visitor in my opinion was a Mirage IVA which diverted in with an engine failure. That generated loads of French stuff for a few weeks. The shame is that none of us 'spotters' could afford a camera back then.
  10. I've seen this film on other forums but still never tire of seeing it. I was 12 when the film opens and spent nearly all of my free time on the pillbox at the 23 end so remember the many visitors. The Trackers and Seabats were detatched from the Karel Doorman. Note the 'Hurricane Hunter's' WC-121N in the shot with the Trackers coming down from the 05 end The Hunter GA11 with the prsctice bomb carriers on the belly was not seen very often My cousin was the nav on the B(i)8 Canberra and nightstopped from Germany. The noise from the Belgian F-104s was wonderful!
  11. @jyguy has basically answered the question..they didn't have their own training aircraft. My friend joined them after leaving the RAF and had to pay for his own Commercial Pilot's Licence and Air Navigation Certificate whilst being paid a token retainer by BEA. PM sent with more detailed info.
  12. Yes. They were fitted with the door tank later in service. At the end of their service,apart from the external RWR pimples and chaff/(or flare ? ) dispenser to the rear of the radio bay,they looked just like the RAF ones.
  13. Note that the natural metal strip (marked 53 in John's drawings) was left as such and not painted yellow like the British ones.
  14. I completely forgot to say that the fuel dump pipe was moved from the position as per RN aircraft to under the port engine , just forward of the exhaust. Moved because of the rocket motor. There is a small hole on each rocket motor panel which I also forgot to mention. Interesting to note that photos of S50s on the production line show the in flight refuelling probe fitted. They did not have them when they were at Lossiemouth or on their delivery flight.
  15. Yes. A small batch of RAF S2Bs were built as such . They were fitted later. Somewhere in here there was a lovely build of one such machine. Brain dead tonight so can't remember the modeller but he gave good information along with the build. I'll leave you to do the search
  16. Yes with varying work needed depending on whether you're building an early,middle or late service one. Early ones didn't have vortex generators or the fairing between the intakes and fuselage. Spine aerials were different..simple fix there. Rocket motors fitted but their position can be easily scribed in as thy retracted and doors closed. 2 obvious strakes on early flat bomb door. Long range tanks were totally different from British ones. No in flight refuelling probes fitted when they were base at Lossiemouth. Mark 4 ejector seats with the single 'D' style face blind handle Not a difficult job to do any of them and if you have an original Airfix kit you could use its bomb door tank if building a later one.
  17. That's what I was trying to get but kept getting this http://www.avcollect.com/blackburnbuccaneer.html
  18. No apology required. Rather than bin it why don't you experiment on it? Try superglue to put the exhausts back in perhaps with a stronger plastic backing (fed in from the bomb bay?) Sound advice there. At least you noticed the difference in the exhausts. When I repainted my 40 odd year old build and added the new transfers,I didn't (emojis not working so imagine a sad face)
  19. I just looked at the photo again and its of an HR5 so my question of whether the colour change happened when they were converted is no longer relevant. I wonder if the change was notified to the factory and production blades then became all black with yellow tips? Cost saving perhaps? Mine are long gone! Have to disagree as I think it is lighter than DSG. Even allowing for the sunnier place :
  20. I've just received an e-mail with a colour photograph of an operational Royal Navy Dragonfly. The tops of the blades are grey. Medium Sea Grey I would suggest. Sorry I can't show the photo.
  21. The pylon has the twin carrier as mentioned by @YK GOH above. The perspective makes it look like three pylons are fitted. I wondered if they could carry it on the outer pylon and found this photo showing they can. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Buccaneer_Eagle_1971.jpg It appears that that Buccaneer has 4 twin launchers fitted hence the 8 bombs mentioned. I wonder what was in the bomb bay? If you can make out the code on the original,let me know and I'll get a serial number for you.
  22. Can you scan and show us the photo please? As far as I know,Buccaneers only had 4 underwing pylons,2 on each side. At HMS Fulmar it was not common to see tanks fitted,usually just the 4 pylons with either bombs or rocket pods. If tanks were fitted then there were only the 2 outer wing pylons available for weapons (I'm not counting the internal bomb bay in this conversation) There are photos on-line of a trials aircraft with triple ejector racks on the pylons. There are also photos of late 809 aircraft with an extended rack on the inner pylon (for 2 bombs ?) I can't access www.buccaneer.co.uk at moment. It's an excellent site.
  • Create New...