bentwaters81tfw

^ RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge twin base complex 81st TFW http://twinbases.org.uk/

Slime Lights. A quick rule of thumb. F-101A/C no slime lights RF-101A/C slime lights fitted only after being repainted in SEA colours for Vietnam use. F-101B slime lights as standard RF-101F slime lights as standard in SEA scheme RF-101G/H (converted F-101A/C) slime lights fitted on conversion and repainted into SEA scheme.

The grey anti corrosion paint only appeared with the late scheme as shown below. It covered the spine and the centre fuselage above the engines. One or two complete airframes were painted grey. It was also common for late scheme a/c to be NMF all over (Bottom shot)

^That I can't say. My tip off was BCWM and MHAS, I presume Carolyn or Richard will use their contacts elsewhere.

^ Probably her down trodden husband. Apparently 'Mike' was on the local radio over the weekend. He likes the sound of Merlins, but it is the faceless woman who is making all the noise. Years ago, they wanted to use Bentwaters for airfreight. She put out that there would be 96,000 flights a year, and a non stop convoy of trucks down the country roads. The surrounding area is populated with 'money' and blue rinses. Woodbridge (pop 12,000, 3 1/2 golf courses), the nearest town houses the District Council and it's purse strings. It's the tail wagging the dog. Where I live Felixstowe (Pop 30,000, 1 golf course)contributes much to the District purse and is treated as third class. Where does all the 'regional growth' have to take place? Everywhere but Woodbridge and Aldeburgh. It's not just the airfield, it's keeping the 'public servants' at the Council in check. Many thanks to all of you who have lent support. I'll keep you posted.

I wouldn't stock up on paint or decals just yet. It's future is still in the balance. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234961126-raf-f-35-lightning-in-the-bin/

My letter. Planning Application C10/3239 18.5.14. Dear Sir, I am writing in respect of the above application to vary the numbers of aircraft and flights from Bentwaters Parks Ltd and Carolyn Grace. I am broadly in support of the application, and believe that the benefits outweigh any detriment by a large proportion. Bentwaters supports a sizeable contribution to local employment through diversity, and it's former primary function was directly aviation related. The use of Buildings 668 and 669 are historically directly aviation related, being two of the four shelters used by USAF aircraft standing Nuclear Alert. As such, these buildings were fully equiped to store, handle and maintain aircraft at a high state of alert in an environment of security and secrecy. These buildings would be equipped with all the necessary support and environmental facilities required for such an activity. It is difficult to imagine any buildings anywhere in the world better suited to storing and maintaining operational aircraft. The aircraft in question have considerable historical significance, both the Bentwaters and the Nation. Spitfires flew from the Base in defence of the Realm, indeed ML 407 took first blood in the air on D-Day, and the Piper Cubs have a military lineage, being flown by British and American pilots over Europe in support of gound troops. If we did not have these aircraft, and those that follwed them in our skies, would could well be speaking German or Russian! Aircraft, by their very nature, need to be based on an Airfield, and the number of Licensed airfields are diminishing; only last week we lost Manston Airport. With the Government's expansion programme for large commercial airfields, the small aircraft become displaced into fewer and fewer facilities. It is not proposed to apply for any sort of commercial aviation activity at Bentwaters, merely to operate a handful of aircraft for display purposes around the country on selected weekends throughout the summer display season. The figures quoted for these 8 aircraft relate to an average of less than 3 flights per day. Hardly a massive impact on the environment in any shape or form. The mention of possible future air displays at the Airfield would only aid tourism and the associated spending, therefore boosting the economy. This can only be seen as a good thing. Any form of organised activity causes disruption to some, even if only on a temporary basis. It's called life. Visiting flights from aircraft in relation to other business intersts on the Airfield are incidental to this application, and as they have taken place on an ad-hoc basis over the past few years, and I understand no complaints have been lodged in respect of any flying at the airfield since it recommenced following the sale of the land by the MoD. It should also be noted under CAA regulation, any suitable runway may be used by any aircraft in an emergency situation, so an unplanned landing could occur at anytime, especially as we live beneath a commercial airway! I do not have any connection to either the applicant, nor any compaign or pressure group, but have lived under the relevant local flight paths for the past 62 years, and I am familiar with all manner of aircraft 'noise'. This matter was brought to my attention by the existance of a 'pressure group' website. I believe the driving force behind said website is making a concerted effort to provide 'misinformation'. It contains an outdated photograph of the airfield prior to the removal and recovery of the concrete taxiways and runway extentions, and makes out the airfield looks like a modern airport. She also provides images of aircraft which will presumably appear at 'future airshows' I somehow doubt that single seat , aircraft on the American, German and New Zealand register will be making trips all the way to Bentwaters. Perhaps the pressure group aught to be reminded that without the Aircraft proposed in the application, they might not enjoy the freedom to protest against their future existance and operation. Incidentally, an airworthy Spitfire on the open market would set you back about £2 Million. The applicants have already put in a very substantial investment into these important historic airframes for the enjoyment and education of future generations. I am certain Suffolk Coastal District Council will see the merit in granting this application. Yours faithfully

Very nice job of a difficult kit.

I refer my learned Gentlemen to a prediction I made some time ago.

Yes, a camera pod under the c/l of a Harrier. Difficult shot to capture because of the speed differential. Key Publications sold the posters some years back.

Amazing work as always. To think you started with just a shell.

They wanted to do that. The MOD would not agree sale until Russian elections were favourable, then told the developers not to rip up the original runway as there were 'buried demolition charges ' beneath it. In effect, it could be re activated with comparatively little work. '

The F-4 wing was 72 strong, the A-10 package was 6 full squadrons, plus the 67th ARRS and the Aggressors with F16's Would she rather hear a Spitfire, or MiG's ?

Very nice work. I think 'Winkle' Brown's condemnation of its flying characteristics and carrier suitability would not be printable here.

As many of you may be aware, since Bentwaters closed in 1993, there has been a small aircraft presence on the base. We still have most of the infrastructure in place, including 6000 feet of runway in excellent condition. Carolyn Grace keeps her Spitfire there, and also a Yak, 2 Pitts Specials, a Tempest V and 3 others. Unfortunately we have a loud mouthed woman protestor who prevented the airfield being used for commercial flying. Carolyn has planning permission to fly the Spitfire, but has applied for permission to fly other types, and to attract income to support the operation of ML 407. http://www.ml407.co.uk/ Said loud mouthed woman has set up a protest group to drum up support to have the planning permission refused. http://www.bentwaterscampaigngroup.org/ You will note there is a link direct to the local Planning Department. Please use this link to write in support of Carolyn and her application. There is also the possibility of the occasional airshow being staged, but only if the Application succeeds. We don't need to lose another facility to a busybody with no interest in avaiation except to swan off to the Riviera on holiday. Many of you will know the history of ML 407 and the efforts Carolyn made to keep this a/c flying. We don't want to lose her to another airfield. As a point of interest, the protest group show a photograph of Bentwaters saying how much like an airport it is. This is deliberately misleading as the runway has been shortened, leaving only the 6000 foot tarmac strip. That is an historical photo over 20 years old, and the place does not resemble that now, much of the technical site is given over to industry and business, but the hangars and buildings are intact. Please help, and spread the word. The more e-mails and letters of support we get, the better our chances. This woman already stopped the annual single aircraft flypast at Martlesham Heath museum Thank you all in advance.

Thank you George. As concise a description of business as I have read.

My tuppence worth would be - fight with it first, paint it when you get chance. If it was needed in the air, the paint could wait for another day.

Be aware that if you look at the gear for the BBMF Lanc, it is off a Lincoln. A bit stronger I think. I can't vouch for WWII colours but the BBMF is black and aluminium. I examined their spare gear when Hawker Restorations were overhauling it.

I have a Monogram D model that is up for refurb and fitment of Hound Dogs. There were 3 available at Southern Expo from one kit dealer alone, though I can't remember who it was. He was in the corner diagonally opposite the entrance door if anyone else knows who he was.

Available from Hong Kong at under £40 delivered. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Kitty-Hawk-1-48-F-101-A-C-Voodoo-KH80115-/251530182943?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item3a905e011f Although they are £28.70 + £10 postage, there is the risk of getting done for VAT £7.74, and £8.50 handling fee. Potentially £53.94 Although Hannants don't have them yet, they are as far as Italy, so probably now in the UK awaiting Customs and delivery, and Hannants have been knocking out KH 1/48 at £42.50 or thereabouts, and I don't have to wait on overseas delivery again. It won't be long now before I get my grubby mitts on some.

I will admit to having second thoughts, not because of all the flak, but as I said, I would not get round to building it. I already have the 1/32 Revell offering, and that will be quite adequate, and I have a bubble top and rocket rails for it as well. In consequence I cancelled my order with Amazon, and unless at some future point that I am offered one at a silly price, I won't bother with it. I didn't buy the big Mossie, but turned out a reasonable Revell 1/32 effort. Plenty big enough for me. I have a 1/24 Zero built, A P-51 to build that has been in the stash for 20 years maybe, and a Mk V Spitfire, that probably won't get built. They are too big for me to display. So Amazon = Nil Airfix = Nil LMS = Nil Whingers = Nil

The intakes on the KH kit are for the B model, and are swept back in planform and side elevation. For the A/C the intakes are much squarer to the airflow, and the l/e of the splitter plate is more vertical The areas shaded red should be removed. Side view of correct intake. Hopefully just some judicious work with a file and a knife will cure it. Until I can check the parts, that is my opinion. I don't think it is necessary the extend the intake to remove the sweepback, but again I need to check the parts with the drawings. Oh, and the Slime Lights need to be removed altogether. Never fitted to an A/C. Again they were told, but I suppose it's easier for us to sand them off than supply thin parts for the B model. I will check mine against the Monogram + C&H conversion to see if anything else is amiss.

^ Ah, sunrise over Woomera again!

Misterkit postage is prohibitive though. £28 for 3 kits to the UK. I'll wait and see how much Hannants want.

I've had one sitting in the stash for over 20 years. I don't know the naval term for the chap who was in charge of the loading dock, but one of these guys in the Falklands lives a couple of miles away, and he gave me some of the 'extras' info on board when she was down there. His daughter used to work for me for a couple of years. That's a nice job, I must get mine done, I have some WEM goodies for it as well.