The original Kit Builder

Thanks for the reply, Paul. I may well be in touch soon.

Hi, all. Having successfully broken my 0.3 and 0.35 mm drill bits recently, I am now left with an incomplete set and, of course, they are the most used. Does anyone know of a supplier of individual sub-millimetre bits, or am I going to have to fork out for a whole replacement set? Thanks.

With that nose, I always thought it looked much like Mussolini himself. Didn't know it was available in plastic.

Well, that's sorted. Great service from Colin at Frieghtdog.

Thanks JackFlash. I'll give him a shout. It's difficult to believe that with almost the same level of mystique as von Richthofen, Voss is so poorly covered.

Hi all. I've just got back into the hobby after a three year lay off brought about by being demotivated to mask the transparencies of pretty much anything. I've come back in on the dark side with Revell's 1/48 boxing of Eduard's lovely little Dr1, which, as many will know, includes F1 tailplanes and elevators and early ailerons. I've been fascinated by Werner Voss and his machine since Revell released their very first kit of it back in the early 'seventies. Given the joy to build that is Eduard's kit, I'd really like to put the two aspects together, however, I can't find a set of decals for Voss's kite that don't come as part of a conversion kit, which would be a waste of limited funds. Does anyone have a handle on any such decals, please?

Tim, if your comment re the Mustang turning within its own span is based on the scene I think it is, it actually did. Technically, the aircraft was flown outside its control envelope in a very risky manoeuver, by a desperate pilot with little to lose. It was something he'd been trying to perfect and would only have been considered by a very skilled pilot with the utmost confidence in himself, even under dire circumstances. I can't recall which of the pilots did it, but he described it during an episode of "Dogfight" on the "Military" channel shown about a year ago. The programme gave a much truer view of the actions of some very brave individuals than this remake of Star Wars ever could.

Very nice. Extremely well turned out.

I've looked at these shots for over an hour now and using what I know from well over 40 years of modelling, 32 years aerospace engineering, interspersed with photo analysis for a large national "company" and 35 years taking my own photo's all over the world in all climes, I am satisfied enough to believe, on balance, that these shots are real. They appear to have been taken on ektrachome or Kodachrome filmstock. These were both widely available around the world, especially after WW2. The dryness of the air in the Libyan Sahara would account for the slightly overexposed, too clear impression given by the distance shots, whilst the stops have been opened to compensate for the relative darkness of the interior, which is why the view through the windscreen is obscured by glare. The propellor and reduction gearing appear to have gone under the nose at an angle of about 30 to starboard of the centreline axis of the aircraft, severly damaging the lower cowling, radiator housing and starboard wing indicating a probable slew. The ammunition bay access panel has been punched up from below, as have the trailing edge and the inboard section of the aileron. The reason that the prop and gear seem to have changed position is because the camera angle has changed by roughly 40 degrees between the first two shots. The cloudscape is exactly as I would expect it to appear in relation to the changes in camera angle between shots 2 and 3. The fuselage and cockpit structure and construction are beyond doubt real. There are techniques used in them that cannot be replicated by any method other than actually doing it full size and for real. There are also engineering conventions visible to a level of detail I have never seen even the best museum quality model makers pick up on and which I doubt are technically possible if not dealing with actual aviation alloys. The skin on the fuselage looks to be about 19 or 21 swg, (the Americans use odd gauges, while Britain uses even eg. 18 or 20 swg). It may even be as thin as 23 gauge, though I don't think so. In terms of the canopy being closed, this was something that pilots were and still are taught to do after leaving the cockpit, assuming they haven't jettisoned it, in order to protect the interior for possible salvage/recovery. It occurs to me that the propellor was turning when it hit the ground, judging by the way the blades have bent-they seem to be distorted in the torque plane axis, but they don't seem to have been developing much power, as successive blades are progressively less distorted. It was probably windmilling, in which case the throttle position is irrelevant. The throttle could also have been thrown forward by the impact, or moved by something being displaced by physical damage, it could even have been pushed forward by the momentum of the pilot's hand during sharp deceleration. As has already been pointed out, this aircraft could have been covered and uncovered dozens of times over the years and there is, infact, quite a bit of sand in the cockpit, visible beyond the instrument panel and rudder pedals, though it is difficult to know how much. Fascinating images leading one to wonder what has become of the pilot and latterly, the aircraft.

Always used MSG on Harrier cockpits in the late '90's, as I recall. It didn't look any more different than could be accounted for by use to the original paintwork.

Erk (party), a Muslim socialist organisation active in Bashkiria, Bukhara and Turkestan from 1919 to 1921. From Wikipedia. Given the RAF's presence in the Middle East during the period, is it possible that the expression derived from here, do you think? Incidentally, it seems to have been applied originally only to AC2's.

That's a mod known as KT510, which I spent quite some time at St Athan incorporating into the fleet. It is fitted to all UK Harriers and consists of a butt strap, which is the big plate at the bottom, covering the cut line in the skin and a re-inforcing skin, where all those lovely rivets and Hi-Loks are. The skin behind it was cut away and replaced, the frames re-inforced with doublers and additional stringers fitted, as well as the original stringers being doubled. The doublers were all steel, the additional stringers were aluminium alloy and the overlay was titanium, as I recall. The butt strap was al-al. The whole thing came as an ill-fitting kit, which needed hours of fettling and in some cases, replacement parts making by workshops. Drilling the overlay skin was a less than straightforward task due to the compound curve of the fuselage and the hardness of the material and when drilling the steel parts one had to be very careful that they didn't move and result in an oval hole in the alloy stringers they covered. All this had to be done due to fatigue cracking caused by the combination of heat and vibration from the hot nozzles. Repainting the interior structure was done by the riggers, with very stringy acrylic paint and disposable brushes. The paint, which stank, was often thinned with MEK, which stank more and the resulting fumes were unbelievable. The heat resistant sealant between the skins was to be as free of voids as possible, to ensure that the expansion of trapped air didn't cause problems and the whole thing was x-ray tested to ensure that voids were within limits. If it failed, it all had to come off, be cleaned and re-fitted with fresh compound, which was keyed to a special plastic mesh.

Lucky no-one told that to de Havilland. They had to actively conceal development of the Mosquito from 'offical recognisance' in order to get the job done and not be prosecuted for wasting war materiel.

The convention for fasteners is similar to that for screw heads in quality carpentry, to whit, the slot is aligned with the edge of the panel they hold and these evidently don't stick to that. Very prominent in that photo are the supposed "fastener locked" marks. I say 'supposed' because just as many fasteners were not locked properly after the marks came into use as before. I'd agree about them likely being Amal fasteners, rather than Dzus, too. Amal fasteners were not notably better and didn't really stay in use very long, as I recall.

Nearly right, though 100% LERX was never universally adopted, for various reasons, with some aircraft retaining the 65% until the end of their lives. In order to change from one to the other, the engine doors had to be modded, or replaced and the leading edge intakes had to be moved to the Mickey Mouse ear type on the upper surface of the wing. Most of the 65%'ers were GR5/5a aircraft when built, with most of the GR7/7a's built with 100%. If you are looking to build one, it's best to aquire images of the real thing, just to be sure.

But wouldn't they have had 'C' type roundels?

As I recall, the tailplane was different and the bullet fairing was much smaller. I think the nose was different, too.

Many years ago, when I lived in Australia, I heard the tale of an exchange between the RAF, US Defence Department and the RAAF. It went like this. A squadron flying Vulcans on an exercise in the US in the 1960's had requested permission to overfly Washington DC in order to photograph the White House, or Capitol Hill. Permission was denied, so they did it anyway. Some time later, the squadron received a photo reportedly taken by a U2 of the Vulcan over Washington DC whilst taking its own image. This was mentioned during a tour of Australia, who had also been involved in the exercise, at the home base of an RAAF Canberra squadron. The Australians claimed they knew about it, as they had heard what was going on and had photographed the U2 taking its image of the Vulcan and had sent a copy to the US Air Force. The photo was reputedly shown to the Vulcan crews as proof. I was never able to get anyone to vouch for the veracity of this tale, but it was quite well known in certain circles.

It's also on the fin. It reminds me very much of anti-erosion tape, similar to that which was used on Wessex rotor blades.

Started mine this time last year, got it to the masking stage and haven't had chance, (or the inclination) to touch it since. I might just finish it this holiday... It was definitely worth the money, though.

That's looking good.

Not personal experience at all. I took first in the only competition I have ever entered, though that was many years ago. I do believe, however that many aspiring youngsters give up the hobby due to misplaced or overstrong, (and not necessarily, constructive) criticism of their work. I think there's also an element of not contributing because they see the level of over critical crap sometimes levelled at the work of modellers who are submitting models of such a high standard, that youngsters feel that it isn't worth the effort. I suppose they lose confidence and there's no-one to give 'em a boost. As we more experienced hobbyists discuss ever more prosaic aspects of the devil that is detail, we sometimes forget, I think, that sometimes our hobby is no more than a fun way to kill a bit of time for a kid and we can be guilty of not spending enough time discussing that aspect of it. It's not so bad here, but there are other places where the 'conversation' becomes rabid and that will only serve against the hobby in the long run. For my part, I enjoy these topics at many levels and apply documentary accuracy and best guess in roughly equal measure to what I build, though don't submit often enough, perhaps. The attitude you and I appear to share in respect of having our mistakes pointed out, however, is one borne of a degree of maturity and confidence, which many kids getting to grips with their first pocket money kit won't likely have and it's important not to forget that not all modellers are past their teens. I actually agree with much of what you say, in relation to adults, though criticism must always be constructive if we are not to be accused of snobbery.

And accept them, warts and all, if they are publicly displayed in anything other than a scheme for which documentary proof exists. I believe that quite a few new modellers have been put off, or have lost interest after having their latest effort dismissed as wrong, or in some way lacking simply because someone who has rigid views has been overly critical. Perhaps if the rot hadn't set in back in the late '70's and early '80's in this context, then we would have a much richer hobby with vastly more local suppliers than we do today.

I suggest that this aircraft is in the DE/DG/Sky finish for a number of reasons. First, it is an airframe that is being used for training and therefore is considered obsolescent. The re-painting of an obsolescent airframe would not be considered a priority. Second, the paint is too badly weathered to be a recently repainted finish. Also, if you look closely, there appears to be a small patch of overpaint on the oil tank panel, indicating the likelihood that the lighter area has been brush painted. Although I have no direct evidence to support this, it might be an indication that the aircraft is for ground training purposes, in the same way that RAF currently gives instructional airframes training numbers.

The tarp, more properly a cover was fitted by means of a pair of straps at each side. These came together low on the (usually) port side where the free ends of the starboard side straps were threaded through buckles on the other pair. These were then simply cinched up. There was a small pad attached to the buckle end, behind the buckle, to prevent damage to the skin of the aircraft.