Wez
-
Posts
8,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Wez
-
-
Anybody got any poop on this one?
The Eagle Strike Decals show it with the spiral, MDC for their 1/32nd scale beauty show it with the forward part of the spinner. Who's right?
Wez
-
If I remember correctly there were a few RADAR bits still used to train us Avionics Technicians a few years ago
Danny
Danny,
Like most military aircraft, there would have been a few radar bits such as RadAlt, Doppler and RWR however, the Jag lacked a ground mapping and Terrain Following Radars - the Tonka had these. I would suggest that a ground mapping radar and TFR would have been required for deep penetration in all weathers into enemy territory.
The TSR.2 would have had these and I'm pretty sure the systems developed for the Tonka's were a continution/refinement/development of the system originally envisaged for the TSR.2.
Sorry, no photos of a TSR.2/Jag/Tonka next to each other although the latter two really are much smaller than the TSR.2 - I recall being gobsmacked at the size of the beast the first time I saw it at Cosford back when I was a sprog airman. I think the Tonka seems big 'cos of the fin and the Jag 'cos of its stalky undercarriage - it's all allusory I'm afraid.
Wez
-
Derek,
Just had to go up to the loft to get some paint and actually managed to find the Magna pods.
The first thing I noticed is that they're perfectly circular in profile with no flat on top and they lack the strakes/hinges.
The pod is 8mm in diameter and is made up in two sections with a combined length of 35mm.
The pylon is attached to the tank and is 17.5mm long x 2.25mm wide. The aft end of the pylon is 3mm high rising to 4mm at the forward end - the top of the pylon curves to match the wing profile.
I also dug out the Mark.1 volume on the Gannet which has some 1/72nd scale plans of the rotary dispenser (which is what I believe the baggage pods were made from) as well as the Universal Wing Carrier - pylon to you and me. In these drawings the pod is 7mm in diameter, the flat section on top being 3mm wide, the pod itself is a gnat's crotchet over 29mm long. The pylon itself measures out at 22.5mm long x 2.25mm wide. Aft depth measures out at 2.75mm, forward is 4.5mm. There are two sets of sway braces - the first set a 5mm aft of the pylon leading edge, the second set at approximately 11.25mm from the leading edge.
I'd scan this section of the plans if I could be sure that my scanner wouldn't shrink/expand them.
HTH
Wez
-
Hi all,
I'm thinking of doing this Typhoon for the D-Day GB, it was based at Holmsley South in the New Forest around D-Day and was flown by the CO Sqn Ldr "Jack" Collins.
The question is what was the colour of the spinner and how was it divided up?
In Squadron Signal's Typhoon/Tempest In Action the spinner is shown as being medium blue and sky with the nose cap (forward half) of the spinner in blue.
In the Warpaint volume on the Typhoon, the same colours are used but the division is in a Luftwaffe type spiral.
The only picture I can find of this aircraft is in Chris Thomas & Chris Shores book on the Typhoon and Tempest. The aircraft is taxying at Holmsley South but the spinner is in shadow and it's difficult to make things out.
Does anybody know for sure what things should be or where there's a good photo of this beast? I've tried googling but so far drawn a blank (although that could just be down to my search criteria).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
TIA
Wez
-
Derek,
This is good stuff - Magna did some underwing pods for COD Gannets some years past. I know I haven't fitted them so they must be lurking somewhere up in the loft.
I'm pretty sure they came with the pylons moulded on, the next time I'm up there I'll have a look for them if it helps?
Wez
-
Due to lack of interest, model companies are to be discountinuing all their 1/72 models.
'Taint lack of interest - at least not this side of the pond
The trouble is, there's all of these people telling us we should be making 1/48th scale kits only they're too short sighted to see that the one true scale is 1/72nd
Being in my early forties I'm not so old and infirme that I need large lumps of plastic to stick together in order to make a kit
I know - I'll get my
& on my way out of the door - at least I won't have to visit Specsavers before I do! Wez
-
Looks good Ian Is that the old Viggen splinter pattern, or the Swedish Army M90 disruptive pattern transferred to an aircraft?
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
-
Tornado64, a Jag or Tornado can carry a WE177 Externally, the Jag would only be capable of hitting targets close behind the front line as being single seat and minimal avionics it would struggle to penetrate and hit targets much deeper, its role being much more beneficial in using convential weapons iin close support of ground forces alongside the harriers.
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
-
The point is it was originally designed with strategic strike in mind, to replace and Canberra and as previously mentioned reduction of the V Force. I'm sure it would have provided some tatical nuclear capbility. Although the RAF were muttering about it survivability in its intended role given its profile it would have been more radar visiable than Vulcan.
Marty...
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
-
lets be honest i was talking to a lighning pilot once and to quote him at the time of lighnings retirement " the airframe is too old and can't keep up with modern technology much the same as the tsr 2 would have been if you look at it realisticaly instead of with rose coloured spectacles it would have if gone into service retired about the same time as the lightning and it was a big if if it would have ever been taken on in the first place
it had a very small wing area limiting loads plus a lot of the interior was taken up with avionics it was always going to be a white elephant and a dream ........
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
-
So having read this thread should I still just keep my Tamiya kit?? Its such a great one to start with.
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
-
Just tried your link and it's not working, tried Hyperscale direct and they seem to be down at the moment. Any body else got trouble finding them?
Paul Harrison
They were OK earlier this morning (about 0845). Tried them again at lunchtime with no luck and the same since.
Wez
-
Do people still build 1/72 these days?? I thought it was old skool!!
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
-
Get in the queue....In want a 1/48th B2.....I've been waiting longest!
I'll still buy an ickle one though.....
On the other hand, I'd buy one of the big version but about a dozen or three of the true scale version
Wez
-
I've started the Airfix Dassault Super Mystere but I'm a bit stuck with the colours, but I am colour blind too.
This kit has two airforce (French and Israeli) and four colour options. Two options are BMF, and two are camouflaged.
I want to do a French camo scheme but I'm not convinced of the colour call outs. The instructions are old and use the Airfix numbers which convert to ;
Upper Surfaces: H72 Khaki Drill, H75 Bronze Green, H30 Dark Green.
Lower Surface: H71 Oak
Looking at photo's of the real thing these don't look right.
I've looked at the IPMS Stockholm site and they only show French Airforce colours up to WW2. I've also browsed Google and a few model sites but havn't come up with anything.
Does anyone know if the above colours are suitable or are there better ones? I'm really after Humbrol numbers as I don't really want to buy a load of Xtracolours I'm only going to use once.
I want it to look something like this...
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Ai...tere/1364474/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Ai...stere/1192418/L
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Ai...tere/1154744/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Ai...stere/0191588/L
Any help appreciated
Cheers!
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
-
That's the beauty of this site – instant, helpful advice – thanks all! And apologies to admin for posting twice.
I have, I think, a Fujimi GR3 - perhaps that would be the better option to back date?
Nick
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
-
As Dave says, a product of the sixties lacking in cockpit detail and with fine raised panel lines. I recall the basic outlines as being OK, but that was a long time ago! I bought an early Frog boxing, which for some reason came in white plastic. Later Frog boxings were from Frog's own tooling and the panel lines are heavier, so if you do decide to build a Frog/Hasegawa the Hasegawa original tooling is the one to go for.
For anybody wanting a GR1 the problem is that there is not much to choose from. Probably your best bet is to go with an ESCI/Italeri GR3 and do the necessary surgery to get it back to a GR1.
peebeep
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
-
Anyone have any info on it? Recessed or raised panel lines? Accurate? etc . . .
Nick
(I thought I'd posted this once, but seem to have 'lost' it. Apologies if its gone awol!)
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
-
These "up and under" rails were designed by Malcom...he of the bulged hood. There are pics of Mustangs flying around on test with these.
Derek
Thanks Derek,
Got any useful links or google search tips?
Regards
Wez
-
Coming along very nicely - love the way the rear rings were formed - don't forget that there's a triangular wedge to take out on the top and bottom though......... Now, my understanding on the vents and intakes is this...on all marks they were in the same position, however on the earlier marks..The F1, F1a and F2 (and T4?) they were flush or more accurately they were "V" shaped NACA ducts. On later marks (F3, F3a, F2a, F6 and T5 - don't know about the F53) some - not all though of the NACA ducts had forward facing scoops fitted over them - no doubt to force air down into the ducts more effectively. Take a look at photo's of the intakes either side of the fin on the F6...In this respect Airfix's 1/48th kits seem to be spot on (apart from solid NACA ducts which aren't that easy to ream out......
So if my understanding is correct the F2a and F6 (and F3a/F6 interim) SHOULD be identical.......(he said waiting for someone to find some pic's to prove this wrong!!!!)
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
& 
on my way out of the door - at least I won't have to visit Specsavers before I do! 
Is that the old Viggen splinter pattern, or the Swedish Army M90 disruptive pattern transferred to an aircraft?
)
Aeroclub 2 seater Lightning
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
Windy,
The man is clearly a charlatan - let me rlieve you of your burden...
Wez