Dave Fleming

There is a rumour about a second OCU to cope with the volume of training needed for the Saudi contract

Anyone spot the (not-so-deliberate) mistake on the props?

If they weren't added in trials use, I'd say it was when it was used at Yeovilton as a GI airframe before being sold to a private collector. It certainly had them before 'Royal Navy' was added to the fin (I have a photo showing them circa 1989) which would be before it left Govt ownership.

Was the RAF Camera different from the one carried by US Phantoms?

I have a walk round of this at home, and have researched some of it's history. I also had some correspondence with the former curator at East Fortune and John Farley about it. This irframe was used for a lot of the more interesting tests. For example, it was the airframe that carried the mock up 'mini-Blue Parrot' radar nose as part of the Sea Harrier sales pitch, it is currently on it's third wing (at least) and it still carries the original GR1 auxilliary Heat Exchanger outlets on the top of the engine access bays forward of the wing. It also carries an anti-spin parachute in the tail boom and has 'Royal Navy' on the fin. The airbrake is also the original Kestrel style One point is that I think the 'fairings' are actually wood rather than GRP - check out the grain and chisel marks in the head on view. I had thought the fairings were related to the LERX trials, but I'm not so sure - I need to check the dates of some photos. BTW, if any one can measure the intake sizes of XV279 at Wittering or the XV278 in Germany.........

Not the strike camera, but the recce pod: http://www.spyflight.co.uk/emipod.htm

Yes, and bigger than I expected!

That's what they did in the Action figures range - and a clever outside door with a star map on the outside of the 'roof' of the Tardis. We have the whole set......

The Oberstauel (sp) on the DR1 was a copy of the Le Rhone, so pretty close.

The Italeri kit went through a number of iterations (at least 5 not counting the F3) each of which had different plastic in them. I've got a couple somewhere. The ESCI kit also appeared in a Revell box in the mid 80s.

Yes, classic example is that the wing root gloves are lower than the fuselage top, rather than slightly higher.

Mmm, it might be LACG then.

Now this is interesting - grey legs and wells, but white door edge (suspect ex-Marineflieger) http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Tornado/1295.html A couple more http://www.internetmodeler.com/1999/march/...nd/walk_012.jpg http://www.internetmodeler.com/1999/march/...-walkaround.htm

Chris Gibson also has an interesting website about the Uk colour code names http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/start.htm

IIRC it's BS381C 631 Light Grey - grey with a blueishtinge.

Not that I've seen. From memory, those were merely one of many errors on those sheets

Need to look it out, but the SAM profile on POst war RAF Fighters had pics and a later edition of the magazine had the confirmed colours

The purchase agreement means that the US has the say in how they are disposed of. This means that they can only go to National Collections once disposed of by the RAF (The septics are paranoid about Iran getting F4 parts). So Czech Museum can get one, but Newark can't! And you get the situation that the Museum of Flight in Scotland has an ex-USN F-4S on loan from the FAAMuseum rather than an RAF or RN example (Black Mike would be ideal!!)

Many of the substances we work with are harmful to one degree or another - a side effect of a hobby that is primarily based around organic chemistry. For most solvents for glueing etc, using a well ventilated room is sufficient - and stop if you start to feel dizzy or get a headache. sanding brings it's own risks - the particulates generates when you grind things into oblivion are an irritant, and if they get in your lungs can be problematic. I have heard an 'urban rumour' that resin dust is more of a risk, but frankly the idea of getting any irritant dust in my lungs is a bad one! I use a simple disposable face mask of the type sold in B&Q. It won't stop solvents but stops dust. Spray painting brings it's own hazards - two big ones in particular. The release into the atmosphere in vapour/fume form of the solvents in the paint and the particles of paints themselves. Both are potentially harmful. The vapours obviously give a risk of intoxication, and depending on the solvent, other complications caused by ingesting organic solvents (many are carcinogenic on ingestion over a period). The paint particles present a similar hazard to the dust mentioned above, with the exception that they are much smaller and in a greater quantity (look at overspray and imagine that on your lungs!!) To prevent that hazard you need a proper fume/spray extractor and/or a suitable respirator - beware that not all those that exclude dust will exclude solvents. Obviously some acrylics (being water based) don't present the same solvent risk, but not all acrylics are equal! You get 'hot acrylics' that have a cellulose base, and those that you thin with alcohol etc are obvioulsy more risky than H2O. Just in case you are thinking I am a bit paranoid, remember the late Geoff Prentice (Icarus of Scale Models) - he was convinced his (lung?) cancer was caused by his long-term exposure to some of the hazards mentioned through his modelling. It wasn't the sort caused by smoking. Things have improved as the more dangerous solvents have identified and eliminated, but a risk still exists.

1/144th - Dragon, Revell - new Revell kit is much better, older Dragon OK (and in at least one Revell box just to confuse!) 1/72 - Italeri - AV-8B Super harrier Old, best avoided (Available as GR5, GR7, NAV-8B and TAV-8B as well and GR5 from revell) - ESCI - a Travesty after their original Harriers - poorly moulded - Airfix/Heller - pros and cons but overall on a par with Hasegawa in many aspects, especially for the British versions - Hasegawa - generally OK, missing some strange parts (airbrake for example, ESM mods on RAF examples) - AV-8B+ nose looks strange 1/48th - I know little of this scale!

As Bill says, there is no visible external difference between a late GR1A and an early GR3 - the cockpits are very different. Radek's site has a list of features which he gives as Gr3 but they are all on GR1As as well: http://sepecat.info/photo-sp4.php

yes - a little chunky and with raised panel lines, but generally pretty good. Nose on the AV-8B(NA) is wrong IIRC, but apart form that it's good.

Yes, and little merlin engines if you look closely enough - far left hand side

Which always struck me as kind of bizarre - I do recall it being menti0oned pre-Hasegawa thay it had the best rendition of one of the intake standards. I did always wonder about an EF-111K.....

Yes, and Heller stole the tooling budget for the Etendards in 1/48th. The Airbrake was separate in the ESCI kit