Jump to content

Seahawk

Members
  • Content Count

    5,679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Seahawk

  1. Ah, you're telling me wholesale consumption of virgins is rife throughout the Channel Islands except in Jersey?
  2. I stopped reading after the first 5 words and began to wonder if there was a whole darker side to the Channel Islands that Bergerac never even hinted at.
  3. A good one-stop-shop reference on the Stanier Black 5 is Locomotives in Detail 2 – Stanier 4-6-0 Class 5 by Jennison and Clarke. (Ian Allen). Not only does it have 4mm drawings by Ian Beattie but the book takes a modeller's (or anorak's) view of the subject, pointing out and illustrating details and variations in a huge class produced over many years. Not long ago this book could be found cheap, remaindered. If you were interested in the BR Standard 5 (which you aren't), there's Clarke's British Railways Standard Class 5, also published by Ian Allen but not in the Locomotives In Detail
  4. Welcome! Have seen that M8 HMC diorama on another site: superb modelling!
  5. Not a name I was familiar with, but a belated thank-you to the late Doug McHard. I recall reading that article in the library of my junior school (I would have been about 8-9) and it, together with similar MM articles like building a Mistel from the FROG Ju 88 and Bf 109, opened my eyes to the wonderful world of kit conversions. My parents and girlfriends might take/have taken a different view. PS I see he had quality support from JWR Taylor with the historical blurb and Ian Stair with the drawings. PPS Is this the first attested literary reference to the use of monofilamen
  6. ISTR an article a few years back, probably in Scale Aircraft Modelling, when some brave masochist had a go at correcting the errors in the Italeri B-25H/J, complete with fuselage splice, but my indexing is not good enough to find it. More recently @Brian Derbyshire had an article in the Feb 21 Scale Aircraft Modelling (pp.68-70) in which he improved the Italeri kits, not with the goal of producing a 100% accurate replica but of producing a better B-25 from Italeri kits already in the stash but rendered redundant by the Airfix kit. Still includes things like deepening the forward fuselage and
  7. Or was it security? I understood that the air tail was considered a bit sensitive so efforts may have been made to ensure it didn’t appear in photos intended for public consumption. PS I hope people haven’t forgotten the old Ian Allen book Beaufort Special. I’m sure there’ll be loads of useful photos and info in there. (I’d check if I wasn’t marooned 200 miles away from my books.)
  8. O/T: one has to feel sorry for those trying to make a go of print magazines when such skillful modelling, learned contributions and excellent reference are available in a thread like this. Thank you, everyone.
  9. Yes. When people say, "There is no such thing as a perfect kit," this is one of the kits that immediately spring into my mind as evidence for the defence. Especially if you get the F4U-1A boxing which will give you some spare goodies like a prop for tarting up the products of lesser manufacturers. Mind you, I did read somewhere that the seat is 1mm or so too far forward. And the fuselage spine behind the cockpit needs fitting with care for a perfect fit. And it doesn't have a droptank of the pattern almost invariably used by FAA Corsairs. And....
  10. That’s the nub of it. We are ditching real extant kit now (Type 23s, Typhoons, Hawks) now against vague promises of vapourware projects, which may or may not work/be affordable, at some point in the future.
  11. Yes, I got that. I was hoping to help others find the articles for you with the minimum of effort.
  12. Simple. For most of the Great British Public the Red Arrows and the BBMF ARE the RAF. They don’t know or care about the rest. And so no politician wants to be remembered as the person who got rid of either. Getting rid of huge swathes of operational capability gets you far fewer hostile headlines.
  13. It’s a sad story, I think. The ambition was there and, if the dice had fallen slightly differently, we could have had a kit nearly as good as the Tamiya one for about half the price. But the product was compromised at both ends of the process: by poor initial research which gave us a kit with a mixture of features from various variants and by poor mould making, which meant an unnecessarily complex breakdown of parts which don’t fit together without a lot of fettling and filler.
  14. I'm with you. In my experience the kit being "replaced" disappears overnight but its replacement perpetually recedes into the distant future: the requirement gets reappraised (=cut or descoped) or even dropped when they think no-one is looking. I foresee long "capability holidays" until someone is able to say the capability is no longer required anyway. And what use are 3 Wedgetails?
  15. There's some logic to that, in that it's a very significant type not in the current Airfix catalogue (see also P-47) and Airfix have been replacing their obsolete tools. Commercially, however, there may be more lucrative subjects for them to choose: even at their best, Airfix aren't able or apparently aiming to compete with Tamiya at the top end of the market and Revell have spoiled the market at the other end with their offering.. Its quality is irrelevant, it's a Corsair kit there on the shelves and by the time the customer gets home and realises what it's like (errors, difficult assembly
  16. Afraid I am separated from my references for the foreseeable future but I can tell you where you will find some of what you are looking for. Swordfish II: Air International Mar 1979 pp. 136-7, Air Enthusiast 40 pp. 62-3, Brown: Wings of the Navy pp. 8-9 Walrus II: Air Enthusiast 17 pp. 22-3 Fulmar I: Air International Aug 1979 pp. 78-9, Brown: Wings of the Navy pp. 72-3, Fitzsimmons: Fighters of WW2 Part 1pp. 26-7 Martin Maryland: none? Sunderland III: Air International Sep 1981 pp. 128-9, RAF Yearbook 1980 pp. 66-7. PBY-5A Catalina: Air Enthusiast 38 pp -
  17. Anyone curious to know what the plastic looks like without pigment has only to look at an old Skybird 86 kit. I think that on at least some of his mouldings Mike Eacock used a fair bit of regrind and no pigment because the quite psychedelic patterns in the plastic drew comment at the time
  18. You have to go back to the envisaged role for the Sea Harrier. During the Cold war it was initially intended to knock down Soviet shadowers or missile carrying aircraft, so up to the Falklands they are usually seen with tanks on the inner pylons and AIM-9G Sidewinders on the outer ones. They might well have been plumbed for 2" rocket pods on the outer pylons but I don't recall ever reading of Sea Harriers carrying them in the early stages of the Falklands conflict, only bombs. Once the RAF Harriers arrived in theatre, the Sea Harriers left them to get on with the ground attack role and reve
  19. Not sure it works that way. They had a perfectly respectable 1/76 Cromwell and a 1/32 polythene Cromwell they could have pantographed. Or, more seriously, at least have taken a look at before cutting the moulds.
  20. Sandy Johnstone (Spitfire into War, p163) recalls Jeffrey Quill visiting 602 Sq at Tangmere on 19 Nov 1940 to demonstrate a Spitfire with metal-covered ailerons. On 23 Nov 1940 Johnstone's own Spitfire (LO-J, no serial given) was written off by another pilot: Johnstone was especially displeased because it was one of the few on the squadron with metal ailerons (p.166). NB 602 Sq seemed to have a very cosy relationship with Quill so may have been early in the queue.
  21. I've read that the Airfix 1/32 polythene Cromwell issued in the 1970s as a wargaming toy did as well. And had the rivets around the shell ejection port.
  22. I'm sure the RAF would have been very grateful for Thunderbolt IIs in 1942 but I think 1945 is a far more likely date.
  23. Warning: O/T for Mohawks! I am with Geoff Thomas and, I think, you in believing that in those more authoritarian times officially promulgated instructions were far more likely to be followed than not. But my belief that ALL Thunderbolts were in DE/DG was rather dented by a clip of colour film in which at least one Thunderbolt II was in grey/green. Other Thunderbolts in the same clip are definitely in DE/DG. NV-coded, so 79 Sq. An anomaly maybe but I'm persuaded it did happen. Edit: here's the clip, with thanks to @canberra kid whose thread it was and @epozaror find
  24. And here it is. Well worth a read. http://web.archive.org/web/20030202224021/http:/www.navismagazine.com/demo/nicki/story_of_nicki.htm
×
×
  • Create New...