Wez

Deffo - bought some at Farnborough on Sunday. Wez

Thanks again Joel, Could be #777 then although the skull of the VFA-151 tail marking is striking even if it's not colourful. Wez

Thanks Mike! Very helpful. Wez

Thanks for the tip re airliners.net - I hadn't thought of that! Don't know about jet photos - never heard of that one, I shall google it. As for looking at the decal placement sheet - why didn't I think of that? Oh, I know, because I learnt long ago that some decal manufacturers are more diligent in their research than others (Modeldecal for instance), others merely provide the sheet as a way of showing you where to put the transfers - Superscale always used to have a disclaimer on their instruction sheets that their instructions were only for this purpose! Having been an aircraft engineer for over twenty years I know that certain modifications appear on the aircraft but might be missed by the decal manufacturer. I therefore learnt that lack of information on the decal sheet does not necessarily give a hard and fast indication of the modification state of the aircraft. The decal sheet I have covers four options from the 1995 - 2004 timeframe, therefore, from Joel's information above I know that two of the options can't possibly have had the "bird-slicer" IFF aerials as they are too early for this mod. The decal sheet makes no mention of these aerials however, there's a fair chance that the options from 2002 and 2004 MAY have had this modification but then again they may not have. Hence the question. Also, not being an authority on F/A-18's I was unaware of which BuAer number the stiffeners at the base of the fin are applicable to - I now know that thanks to Joel's useful answer. I now know that these stiffeners apply to one of the options on the sheet but again, there's no mention of this detail on the decal sheet instructions. Perhaps you've always been lucky and only used decal sheets that provide such detailed information I'm glad I asked the question, I now know more about the F/A-18 and it helps inform which option to choose from the four on the sheet. Thanks for the reminder of airliners.net and the tip about jet photos - I shall have to check them out Regards Wez

Hi Joel, Thanks for this information, I'm planning on doing one of the two options from CAM-pro Sheet P72-003, one is 164897 of VFA-151 from 1995 whilst the other is 163777 of VFA-146 from 2002. The CAM-pro sheet doesn't mention any of the information you've given me so it's very useful indeed. I don't have much in the way of references for the F/A-18 and I thought the "bird-slicers" were an obvious gotcha as I know they are relatively recent but I just didn't know how. Thanks again Wez

Mike, When were the seats changed (as in approximately what year)? I guess the question is "if I'm modelling an F18C from XXXX year what seat would it have? If I was modelling one from 3 years later what would it have?" From what you're saying early F/A-18C/D's had the SJU-5/6 but later ones have SJU-17's but at what point did they change? Thanks Wez

Right, against my better judgement I've gone and bought an Academy F18C in the proper scale (that's 1/72nd for those that need glasses) The question is, what time-frame does the kit represent? I have some transfers that I want to use instead of the kit options but I need to know whether option A is correct or is option D more appropriate. The question I'm asking really is when did mods like the IFF aerials in front of the canopy come into effect? Stuff like that really. TIA Wez

Now I'm not a huge fan of 'Lectric Jets but I've got a transfer sheet with some relatively colourful options on and I want to know which ejection seat is apropriate to which mark of F18 and when was the change made? The reason I'm asking is 'cos I understand that the type of seat fitted changed at some time - does anybody know? TIA Wez

Would it? Only for that particular jet!!!!! My old Warrant Officer used to say that no two were alike - working on Chinooks reminded him of his younger days - we had 40 chinooks in the RAF to 40 different build standards. He used to say it was the same on Lightnings (he'd served on both 19 and 92 Sqn's both in the F.2 and F.2A days). Working on Wokkas reminded him of his youth! Wez

The only part of the DAS fit that applies to BN in the Falklands is the RWR fit - there was some discussion about ZA718/BN recently on BM follow this Linky If you're gonna do a Granby cab there's a whole host of different DAS and aerial fits you need to be wary of, each cab was different to one degree or another. Get several good and contemporary photos of the particular cab you're modelling from both sides as references. Also, a mistake to make with RAF Chinook's is to assume that because you've got a picture of a particular cab earlier or later in its service career a particular fit/mod was applicable to it at a point in between the photos - chances are it won't. Another mistake to make is to assume that if cab "A" had this fit, cab "B" will also have this fit, again chances are it won't! Regarding painting of the beasties, all of the cabs deployed including the SF ones were initially painted with ARTF desert pink overall, it was only in theatre that the SF cabs got their black undersides back and their "interesting" disruptive patterns. When these aircraft were prepped for painting they had to be washed to remove any grease or oil that would prevent the paint from sticking. At the time Odiham (where the mods and painting were done), didn't have a proper aircraft wash facility, aircraft washes were done with soft brooms, buckets/drip trays of detergent and lots of nice cold water from fire hoses - oh, BTW it was winter and time was tight. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how thoroughly the job was done! Chinook's and the Mk.1 in particular leak oil heavily. There were four particular areas that oil accumulated, one was on the underside aft of the doppler aerial, there were a couple of drains here and oil used to weep back from here leaving a nice oily smear going backwards. The second is underneath the engines at the quick disconnect shelf - oil leaks down and aft from here. The third is from the drains either side of the ramp opening and finally, the area between the engines and the aft pylon. ARTF didn't stick too well to these areas! It didn't last very well around the work platforms, access panels and steps/handholds either! The ARTF was painted over the dark sea grey/dark green/black camouflage so you could replicate that and strip back the ARTF from the areas I've mentioned. HTH Wez

Could be green, then again my colour perception could be out and its actually orange! Don't know about the main scheme but the standard for Toom's was Dark Gull Grey for the cockpit with individual control units in black or grey - you need to find pictures. Wheel wells were white - usually gloss white, very good for showing up hydraulic leaks! The Toom was very much a "if it ain't leakin' - its empty" sort of aeroplane. Undercarriage legs were white too! The German coulours will be to a RAL standard, not sure which but I'm damn sure I've seen them posted on the web - maybe Cybermodeler? I Like the look of the Revell kit, got a couple of the F4F version in the stash so I'm keen to see how this turns out. Best of luck! Wez

Although I can't help thinking the item on the Hasegawa kit looks a bit long. Wez

I only need 70 Lightnings to cover all the marking options I want to do... ...when do we get these? Sooooooooooooooon please Wez

As promised, somebody posted this on Hyperscale a while back when I looked into it - hopefully I can make this thing work As you can see, the turret has .50 cals in it but it isn't a Rose-Rice turret so I guess its an FN turret with .50 cals in it - dunno what model number. The picture of the camera fairing/flare chute isn't very clear but at least you'll get an idea of the shape. HTH Wez

Top Man Jabba! Seeya Sunday. Wez

I've just been up to the stash Dave and by thunder - you're right! Correct for chord - composite but profile of the metal blades! Old age don't cher know! I hadn't looked at one of these in donky's ages. The MH47E blades look correct in profile - hopefully they are correct in chord. I've got the Matchbox blades so I'll be using them, if Italeri have changed it top marks to them ! Aplogies to all for any confusion caused. Regards Wez

I think I've got a photo of this area on a French Lanc somewhere at home - I'll have to find it although if somebody's got a left-over part from their post-war Lanc that might help you in the meantime. Wez

Thanks Andy, those were the pictures I'd seen. I'd guess you could've taken the turret out of the Defiant and dropped the Transmitter in that space but there'd be no space for an operator or his displays, the undercarriage would collapse and you'd need another Merlin just to power the Jostle equipment never mind getting the thing off of the ground! Now there's a Whif... Wez

At a guess I'd say it folded flush either controlled by a lever and lock or Bowden cable and latch, the aerial cable would probably have been kept taught by a spring tensioning mechanism - wouldn't want it flappin' about now would you? Wez

I haven't seen these but as I said, the Italeri ones are correct in profile for a composite blade (applicable to a MH47E), but are incorrect in chord - too narrow - for a composite blade. They may well have revised the blades for the MH47E release but I doubt it Wez

I'd concur with your comments Graham, also, the Defiant fit would only be limited to a certain frequency band within the spectrum whereas the 100 Group heavies (not forgetting the USAAF Lib's either), had multiple Mandrel fits to cover a wider frequency range within the spectrum and would therefore require multiple TR's. Jostle WAS huge and by all accounts filled the bomb bay of the B17's - I should think it would dwarf a Defiant! Regards Wez

The issue with the blades is that they have the correct profile for composite blades but the chord of metal blade (six inches narrower) so the blade is neither fish nor fowl , and I'd say it's pretty much impossible to correct it either way (it just gets too messy)! Your easiest option is to use the blades from the Matchbox kit if you can find it - these are correct in chord and profile for a composite bladed aircraft (of which BN was one of). Dunno about the recent Trumpy CH47D - that may have the correct blades but then you'll need to do other stuff to make it look like an HC.1 - which BN was at the time of the conflict. HTH Wez

Haggis, You are so quiet, humble and unassuming! You need to shout from the highest rooftops that your heavy-lift capability is provided courtesy of the RAF (the mighty Wokka) and that the really serious attack capbility is provided by the Army (Apache) from your grey funnel line cruise ships Seriously though, the FAA desreves to be celbrated just as much as the RAF - hopefully it'll happen. Best Regards Wez (ex Junior Service and extremely proud of it!)

That'll be why I couldn't tell the difference then! The only pictures I've seen of an MR Lanc with .50 cal's were French MR7's and even then I wasn't sure Regards Wez

Good idea... ...wonder if he's lurking Wez