Wez

Not that I know the difference but either way it looks good to me - just got to love that splinter pattern especially with the dayglo - top notch Thanks for showing Wez

Actually, the Navigation/Attack system on the Jag was relatively sophisticated - it was used as the basis to train the RAF's Flight Systems technicians (like me) during the eighties and nineties and was held up as a good example of a combined nav-attack system. Certainly the Tornado system is a more sophisticated refinement of the Jaguar system. The Jag NAVWASS (NAVigation Weapons Aiming Sub System)/HUD consisted of an inertial platform, doppler based navigation system, LRMTS, PPI (Pland Position Indicator - essentially the moving map display), weapons aiming computor and the HUD itself. The original Tonka system was similar (albeit updated) and included radars and a flight control system into the mix. I'm in no doubt that these sytems were developments of the systems originally proposed for the TSR.2. The things that hampered the Jag's ability to penetrate deeper into enemy territory were i) lack of range, ii) lack of radar (thus limiting its all weather capability), and, iii) lack of an on-board ECM suite. The Jag had to carry its additional ECM and fuel on its external pylons thus limiting its war load. I'd agree that the Jag was best suited to a close support role but its Nav-Attack System would have allowed it to hit targets deep in enemy territory (in good weather that is) - it's the other factors that limit its ability. Wez

My understanding was that the TSR.2 was intended to replace the Canberra NOT the V-Bombers - although it was recognised it could have taken on some of the V-Bombers tasking. The jibe of MRCA = Must Replace Canberras Again is a reference to the cancellation of the original aircraft intended to do just that the first time namely the TSR.2! I was unaware that the TSR.2's radar signiature was greater than a Vulcan's although that could have been mitigated by operating down in the weeds amongst the clutter where Soviet radar's were not so good. I know the Vulcan used to loom rather large on Western ground radars as revealed during Red Flag exercises but the Vulcan had to have flown at a higher altitude than a TSR.2 would have (I know the Vulcan is an incredibly manouverable aircraft for its size but it still has a much larger wingspan than a TSR.2 and would thus have to fly higher to provide clearance for the wingspan during turning/banking manouvers). Wez

Everybody keeps on about the relinquishement of the "bucket of instant sunshine" role. Whilst the STRATEGIC deterrent role was handed over to the Navy with Polaris etc, I'm sure the RAF retained the TACTICAL nuclear role with free-fall WE177 bombs - this is after all what the Bucc's and Tonka's were retained in Germany for. Therefore, had TSR.2 entered service surely it too would have fulfilled this role? Or am I missing something here? Wez

Tornado64 The Lightning was an older airframe than the TSR2 The Lightning never had any real money spent on updating its technology - yes the instrumentation set was upgraded as part of the change from Mk.2 to Mk.3 and subsequent, but the radar was essentially the same as it ever was, piecemeal tweaks here and there do not amount to a major change in technology. The radar and fire control system on the Lightning was at best, 1950's technology - and that was in the case when it retired. Yes the TSR.2 was stuffed with avionics - it needed to be to carry out its role however, those avionics were a quantum leap from thos on the Lightning - micro valves etc in lieu of normal sized valves yet delivering more capability than previously. The change to solid state and thence to digitisation would have freed up so much space that could have been used for enhanced capability/more fuel/both and don't forget, this is the technological advantage that led to the Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon. Regarding the political perspective, it's all too easy to blame the Labour government because after all, they are the ones who ended up cancelling it however, given the economic situation at the time (nation living on extended credit - not that that could happen again ), had the Tories had won the election they too would have probably ended up cancelling the project anyway! Counter briefing by a certain VERY senior officer and biased civil servants wrecked the project. Wez

I'd buy one, by the time I'd get around to it someone is bound to have produced a replacement undercarriage - that's IF there turns out to be a problem with the production kit - it'd still be cheaper than buying the Tamiya kit. Wez

They were OK earlier this morning (about 0845). Tried them again at lunchtime with no luck and the same since. Wez

I only build bigger scales 'cos that's what's being forced upon us by the can't see/fingers don't work as well as they used to brigade I'd much rather have a 72nd scale kit but I buy the bigger ones 'cos to offer a little encouragement to the manufacturers. Wez

On the other hand, I'd buy one of the big version but about a dozen or three of the true scale version Wez

Modeldecal did the Super Mystere on a couple of their sheets (No 32 and 46). The camouflage colours they quote are: Dark Green FS.34079 Medium Green FS.34102 Tan FS.30219 Quite what the Humbrol refs are for these I don't know. On sheet 46 Modeldecal state "Camouflage colours approximate to those used on USAF tactical aircraft, colour reference numbers being FS595a." The numbers certainly equate to the USAF Vietnam era colour scheme. On sheet 46 Modeldecal quote matt dull silver for the underside colours whilst on sheet 32 they quote Light Grey FS.36622. The grey on the undersides certainly looks like it matches FS.36622. HTH Wez

Nick, It would be a better starting place than the old Hasegawa kit for sure however, IIRC Fujimi also did an AV-8A which would be an easier starting point. Personally, I prefer the Esci kit as a starting point 'cos I think its easier to work with (although it's many long years since I made either). Just my two penneth worth. Wez

Nick, Link back to your second request for information link I agree with Peebeep although if you can find an Esci AV-8A it'd save you the hassle. Wez

Nick, Here's a link back to your original thread in the Cold War section link, as Dave says in his reply this is a seriously old kit that dates back to the late sixties/early seventies. It's got raised scribing and some tricky engineering. If I was you I'd try and find the Esci AV8-A kit if you really want to make a GR.1 - that would probably be the best alternative. If you can't find one of those then get hold of an Esci/Italeri GR.3 (same kit) and backdate it (I think somebody has either brought out a conversion to do this or will be soon but I can't recall whom - others will know). HTH Wez

Wow! I'm equally inspired and depressed - got a couple of the Tasman boxing of this kit in the stash (with the extra white metal and the vac-form canopy). Inspired 'cos it just goes to show what can be achieved with these kits, depressed 'cos I know I could never reach that standard - superb work! Where's the engine from BTW? Wez

Bex, Nice build, well done. Can we have some more please? As to Merv's question, they certainly had white tails by 91 when I arrived for tour 2/5. I've got a photo I took from the window of the Britannia 767 I flew down in (the RAF's Tristars were... ...otherwise engaged - it was during Gulf 1). I shall have to dig the photy out and scan it in. Bex again well done, I might even dig one of my Fujimi 'Tooms out of the stash at this rate... Wez

Steve, I'm with Pat C on this one - FAA Sea Venoms were indeed painted EDSG over Sky until later in their career when they went over to EDSG and white. Dunno whether the Revell colours are a good match though. HTH Wez

Thanks Derek, Got any useful links or google search tips? Regards Wez

One of my old bosses was an OLD Lightning hand, he'd worked at Leconfield, Gutersloh and Leuchars on just about all of the marks. IIRC he said one time that the 300 series Avons in the later marks were a different length to the 200 series in the earlier marks but the access panels were retained in the original place! He said that you always needed somebody with slim arms on the team in order to reach through from the access panel to the gubbins safely in place behind the skin. I definitely remeber him telling us about his last tour on Lightnings which was at Gutersloh after the conversion of the fighters to F.2A standard - he was pleased to find that they'd retained the old 200 series engines and everything was easily in reach! So on that basis I'd say the panel lines for the F.2A and F.6 should be identical! (You watch - somebody will prove me wrong ) Nice work Drewe - keep it up! Gene - interesting method (although I'd probably bollix it up). HTH Wez

Ale, As I thought, the Pakistani Shengyang F-6/MiG-19 were fitted with the type of seat as fitted to the early Hawks at least as late as the year 2000 - this shows up quite well in the photos in the 4+ book on the MiG-19 (invaluable reference if you can find it). The early Martin-Baker Mk.10 had a bigger head box with fairings on the side of it, if you follow this Linky you can see the two seats and you'll get what I mean - the ones fitted were the ones referred to by Neomega as Mk. Xb. HTH Wez

Actually, i believe the Pakistani's used the earlier Mk.10 seat with the big head box which isn't that one shown by Giogio. I won't be able to confirm until I get home but the 4+ book on the MiG-19/Shenyang F6 shows this. Hopefully others will be able to help out. Wez

I think it's in the markings of the Defence Academy (or one of its predecessors) at Shrivenham. It was probably originally an RAF aircraft that had become a Maintenance airframe and allocated to Shrivenham but "parented" (owned and maintained), by RNAS Yeovilton - hence the VL tailcode. Hopefully somebody will be able to confirm. Wez

You know what to say to that though dontcha? "Tough titty fish-face" Wez

Likewise the Chinooks when they deploy onto the carriers - they retain their usual colours. The helicopters like the Apache and Chinook are not for want of a better description, permanent members of the air group, they are temporary residents and can be drawn from anywhere within their respective fleets. Repainting them just to go to sea is not a viable option. Anyway, green is a fairly good camouflage colour against the sea anyway. Wez

Hari, The current issue of Model Aircraft Monthly (Vol7/Iss 10 - Oct 2008) has an article on modelling these aircraft by Ernie Lee - it has side profiles but no top and bottom views, it does howver have two top views of Ernie's model from which you may be able to deduce something. HTH Wez

Anti erosion tape is more likely given that a large proportion of the airframe is composite. We used to use blade tape on sections of Trabant (sorry Puma) blades for that purpose and it had a brownish hue. Wez