JohnT

Thanks Bill for the advice. Much appreciated. Normally my skills don't extend that far but there is a first time for everything! As a novice to vac forms I guess I should have a go as otherwise its a write off anyway so nothing to lose, which takes away any pressure. Unlike the Echelon Lightning I have had sitting untouched but admired for some years. I bottle it when I think about screwing it up given what I paid for it ! regards JohnT

sorry if this has been asked before but are they "fixable" ? I have an old 1/32 primitive Hawk vac form and the canopy has been stored in the dark since Victoria had an Empire. Had a look and the canopy is a uniform yellow tint all over. Is it totally screwed or are their any ways to remove the offending discolouration? Thanks JohnT

I reckon its horses for courses if you excuse the pun! I'd say the Mustang was undoubtedly the best escort fighter of the war - no question. Whether that makes it the best interceptor is doubtful and by no means was it anywhere close to being a good ground attack fighter, far too vulnerable to ground fire. The lovely Spitfire had the same problem. Also its very difficult to fairly compare a Mustang with any of the aircraft developed and put into service pre 1939 as she was at least a half generation onwards in design tech and the operational requirements at design were totally different. The point made earlier re pilot quality, war situation and tactics all mean we get a skewed view of any aircraft and its worth. A good example is the Zero. Quite feared early in the war when up against a Brewster Buffalo but not big issue when being bounced by a well trained USN pilot in a Corsair. I think that rather than say what the "best" aircraft was its maybe better to note aircraft that "made a mark in history" whatever their qualities and honour the guys that flew them whatever their nationality

Reading this I have just remembered from the depths of my memory getting a model of Fireball XL5 and a badge from cereal - I think? You had to collect tokens and send them off. At least I think so. I remember the front capsule part came off as per the tv series. Anyone else get this? John

I didn't build my first models myself as I was only about 5 or 6. My two uncles started me off with an Airfix Hurricane in the early 60's along with an Airfix Me110 and the black arrows hunter. My uncle also did a great job on the Airfix Lancaster, Sunderland and Bismark when they came out. I can just remember him coming round on Saturday nights, working in the garden a while then coming in and putting the Lanc together while a programme called "Ghost Squad" was on the box - anyone remember that? My first own builds were probably the 1/72 Revell fighters as the local paper shop got them in at pocket money prices - Me109e and Me262 with moving cockpit canopies, Mustang, P- 40e, Tempest V, Hein, FW190, and the WW1 Camel, Albatross, Spad 13, Fokker D VII and for ships they had a small waterline or full hull Eagle Warships - tiny size and can't recall scale but HMS P of W, KG V, Cossack. Turning full circle I have recently come back to the hobby and have been putting some ideas together but not started off yet. Except my three year old spotted an Airfix Concorde when we visited East Fortune on a day out and we built it together. No paint, glue everywhere, small parts broken and sticky fingers all over the thing but its right there in pride of place top of the drawers next to the bed. He reminded me why I really like this hobby so much. John

Theres a Jag just been added to the Museum at East Fortune. I am stuck for time for a few weeks as busy the next 2 weekends then off on a fortnights hols but if you can wait I could pay a visit with the camera when I get back and let you have any shots of anything you are coming up short on. John

111 flew just about everything so plenty of scope there and some cracking colourful schemes too

Thanks Rich really appreciated - pm sent John Thanks Julien thats a big help much appreciated John

Have been doing a bit of research on the Lockheed C2 ejection seats fitted to the Canadian CF 104's for a 1/32 build on a model delivered today courtesy of a great trade with Zero (Brian - many many thanks by the way) Found this site - see link http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104c2.htm Can the seats really be this blue? Or is that a product of the flash photgraphy? Looks a bit wild either way Quite an interesting site though and the anecodotes section worth a read John

Hi Nick I have bought a 1/48 civil version in an ancient Revell boxing on a whim as I bought some 1/48 decals for the Scimitar and they are a non type specific sheet covering all types off a carrier so you get Sea Hawk, Sea Vixen, Gannet, Skyraider etc. Anyway the decals are for a whirlwind circa 1950.s. You come across any reference material in your searches as there does not seem to be that much on the net? I guess whirly things are not so sexy? I will bear your post in mind and write you if I find anything that answers your question - Good luck. As for tinting I suppose it might depend on how opaque they were? Some thing tells me that I saw some pretty dark coloured windows on one at Leuchars way back in the mists of time but I could just be talking nonsense and have it totally wrong John

Slight aside for which apologies but anyone else think we are tempting fate by calling one of the carriers "Prince of Wales"? The last PoW didn't exactly cover herself in glory, admittedly through no fault of her own.

saw this on BBC news. Sorry for those who have seen it. Lends a whole new meaning to super detailing the interior ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8164639.stm

All good points guys Isn't the essence of the problem summed up as "too little, too late"? Now where have I heard that before? In an ideal world the answer should be yes - to 3 carriers with proper air assets and naval support groups to act in areas where the RAF can't provide air support. But as we are seemingly unwilling to spend the cash then frankly I think to go half way is a recipe for disaster should the carriers ever be called to act inshore against someone other than the Taliban. John

Very true and Hear hear One wee point though What about Sandy Woodford's argument that you can't land your Harrier when someone has torpedoed/ exoceted your carrier to Davy Jones? I posted a comment on another site having this discussion to the effect that, if we are being serious about naval aviation are 2 carriers enough? The Falklands campaign was conducted one hand behind back in case we lost one carrier out of two. Woodward makes it clear it would have been all over then as one deck is not enough to carry out operations. And if he is/was correct what happens when one goes for re-fit? Are we buying all the vessels needed for carrier support groups? Or just making do with a 1 destroyer escort? And what is the foreign policy going to be that requires the projection of such naval and aviation power? Personally I'd have them but I am not sure that the arguments have been fully made for them. Would love to hear comments. John

Great photos. Especially like the Gnats and the Hunter. Was there with family and can honestly say East Fortune might not be the biggest show I've been to but its a great afternoon out, especially when the weather is like it was. No hassles getting in or out. If it did get bigger it might spoil things ! Maybe a lesson there? John

Thanks Guys much appreciated Have placed an order on net for the Hasegawa one and also found courtesy of Google a True Details set in the US going for $11 so have used the card for it. I'll order the Aires tailpipe too which Hannants have in stock and looks very nice. It never ceases to amaze me the breadth of knowledge that you guys have on Britmodeller and how willing you are to share it Thanks all Always liked the look of the F104 but it beats me how it ever flew with those wings - er winglets, microwings, wingettes? whatever. And the sound of that engine howl when it was in circuit was pretty unique too Have a good weekend guys John

Thanks for the info guys - its much appreciated. The decals say its for the "Last Starfighter" scheme - an F104 S ASA (whatever ASA stands for!) with the tiger painted so its "Bursting" out of the side of the aircraft. I guess the Hasegawa offering which says the model is the G/S version would be the best to start from. Looks like I'd better bone up on the S version for starters ! I also have 1/32 decals from Belcher which can do the CF 104 in those crazy all black and yellow tiger meet markings and thought the two together might make a nice pair. I saw the topic on the bang seats being different on Canadian a/c - at least for a while. I'd better look out some F104 references and aftermarket stuff. I have seen some resin tail pipes but can't see any cockpit resin in 1/32 I have the small "In Action" book but not sure how far that will take me. Any must have references that anyone know about? Again all help gratefully received and will be used ! John

I have inherited a set of really nice decals for an Italian F104 but don't have a model to attach to them. I see that both Hasegawa and Revell make one. Can anyone say which is best or is the Revell a re-box of the Hasegawa offering or a pretty old kit thats not worth it? thanks for any info in advance John

Hannants are listing the Special Hobby Beaufort as a future release but I don't know if that is now compromised by any link Special Hobby has/ may have had with or whatever with Classic Airframes. A real pity as I took my hat off to them for their choices of subject and have several unmade models in the stash. Hope its just a temporary shut down. John

Thanks for advice guys. Lovely Skyshark Mike and I can see what you mean re stencils. I guess that means I try being subtle and discreet - well I can try !!!! John

I'd like to get the opinions of you guys on something that I have wondered about for some time. It all started several years ago when I bought decals for a 1/48 Phantom I no longer have. I bought the after market decals and saw a huge stencil sheet. I built and painted the model and applied the first sheet for the aircraft and got to town on the stencil sheet. Trouble was the more stencils I added the worse I thought the model looked. The aircraft started to look like a kid with a bad outbreak of acne. I thought about this and realised that you don't see the stencils on the real thing until you start to look for them. I guess they should be on a model to be accurate but at the expense of the model "looking right"??? - whatever "Looking right" may mean ! Any thoughts or opinions to guide/assist/help - even argue !!! John

Brill I have the aeroclub Grebe waiting in the wings so I am up for a first edition copy !! Let us know when its available please? JohnT

Thats very naughty and also a criminal offence ! Do they realise that ? I take it that there is no doubt thats correct? I ask cos I just bought one to do a 111 Sqn FG1 in 1/48 and now will have to back track and compare pics to what I have bought to see if its any good/useable? Can the phantom experten out there comment? regards all John T

I can remember being at the Queens Silver Jubilee display with 4 Vulcans simulating a scramle take off with a start up with their rears pointing at the crowd line for full effect. Couldn't hear my girlfiend nag me for a week ! Oh Happy Happy Days

I saw a kits release table on Cybermodeller Web Site saying that the 2 kits are scheduled for 2009 but not when in 2009 and they give a ref of 80355 for the "ADV" and 80353 for "IDS" whatever that may mean ! I have no idea if 2009 can mean "maybe" or "for sure" !