The original Kit Builder

Alclad is very good. Not titanium, though, as this was very expensive and only produced in the USSR at the time, which is why the CIA arranged to buy it vis shell companies so that Lockheed could build the SR71. The material used was actually what's known as actinic steel. This is an alloy of iron and nickel like all steels, but with the addition of chromium and other minerals to allow it to withstand heating and cooling without cracking, or oxidising. I'm not saying don't use titanium for effect, but base it on steel.

Jack, given everything else that induced drag on an early airframe, such as struts, wires, fixed undercart and so many other bits, a few minor wrinkles would be of no concern or detriment.

Jack G, many thanks for picking up on that question re: liquid poly. Kit

SE5's in particular were prone to wrinkling at the forward end of the fuselage, at the bottom, where the fabric joined the metalwork. Bristol Fighters also showed this tendency. Rather than being a sign of unservicability, it was a symptom of the way the fabric was laced along angled structures. Wrinkling at spar or logeron attachments was, however, cause for concern, especially in conjunction with slack wires. Wrinkling can be replicated by applying sprue dissolved in liquid poly. The thickness of the mixture can be adjusted by adding either more plastic, or more liquid poly. Because it is essentially a styrene putty, it won't peel or flake and it can be sculpted and sanded exactly as any other plastic piece.

I know I'm mean and contrary, but i have perversely built many rare/ very rare kits that collectors have offered much for. It's what they were meant for, after all.

Don, re: BuNo's, I know these are for USN, but couldn't remember the term for those of the USAF. I haven't made a comparison to the Monogram kit, as i have't seen one for years. That said, by comparison to photo's available, notwithstanding the slight differences between A's and B's, it looks OK to my eye. The cockpit is a little basic, especially given the size of the canopy and Eduard's etched set is an excellent investment. The seats are a little below par, too and are based on those fitted to aircraft operated by later users, particularly South American airforces.

Thanks chaps. Russ, given the paucity of decals for A-37A's, I'd like to stick to the Trumpy sheet as much as possible,(if you'll pardon the pun). This depicts 510. I believe 359 was a B model Dragonfly, which as you rightly point out, was coded EK. I have seen a number of images of 359, as I have quite a few B's. Unfortunately, there are apparently few images or options for A's, so if I can get away with new codes and adjustments to the colour scheme, it'd work for me. Giorgio, i'll certainly look those up. I live quite near Fantasy Printshop, so I might call in.

I am building Trumpie's quite reasonable Dragonfly in 1/48 scale. As boxed, the markings are those of a restored machine flying in the USA, though the Bu No is actually that of an operational aircraft. The restored machine is coded EK, but the only photo I know of shows the aircraft from the stbd rear quarter, with the code clearly displayed as CK. The lettering is the standard squared corner style. Does anyone know of a suitable decal sheet that I might be able to use, which offers US style code lettering? Thanks all, Chris

Incidentally, when attaching etch, pieces with a decent contact area and no significant stress, or tension on them can be attached using Klear, (or Future, as it's called in some countries) or a similar substance.

If you use the pilot figure, don't use the etched belts as the figure will have belts moulded on. With careful painting, the moulded detail will be fine, but the etch won't conform to the complex shape of the figure.

Etch can be a pain a times, but if you take a measured approach, do a bit at a time, without rushing it, or forcing it, it can be well worth it. In a sense, it is for more advanced modelling, but how advanced depends on the extent of the etched medium you are working with. In this case, it will serve as an excellent skill-set expander and with patience on your part, should result in a model you can be proud of. We've all had to work with it a first time and there's no substitute for doing it. There's also no way to practice for the first effort.

Really well executed. I notice though, that you have posed both ailerons deflected in the same direction. Ailerons actually move in opposite directions.

What hope for 1/48? I really like that. Very nice.

The new Kinetic kit has them.

Well, I did say it was near 40 years ago. I may well have seen the one at Cosford, then, just after i came to the UK.

I'm pretty sure that, when I was a lad, the museum at Point Cook had a 410. Mind you, that was 40-odd years ago...

Namao was also a USAF base until 1946, as I recall and remained active as a USAF detachment destination until the late 60's or so.

See you tonight!

I don't think that this would have been quite so clearly a Canadian officer on exchange. The Gazette is quite specific that the event occured near Edmonton, whilst the aircraft was on an acceptance check. Such a check is only carried out on delivery of an aircraft from manufacture, or major maintenance. Note, too, that the witnesses also hold ranks within the Commonwealth airforces structure, rather than the USAF structure that would be the case if this pilot were on exchange. We have a Canadian pilot, operating a newly delivered aircraft in Canadian airspace deadsticking an aircraft into a Canadian airfield with Canadian witnesses. The above says to me that this F-84F was, if not a RCAF machine, then at least being evaluated by that airforce. I'm going to have to try to find out more about this intriguing history.

Sweaty, no problem. As I said, it's a super build. Kit

The E model is around 15 percent larger than previous models, so I doubt it wouls be possible. Sorry for the redundant post, which i'd delete if I could.

Truly superb. I've a real soft spot for the Hunter and you've really captured the character of the machine. I hesitate to mention it, given the obvious quality of your work, but as a small point, the canopy has no rear frame. There is an internal doubler made from perspex and glued into place. as I said, a small point.

One of an MU's main responsibilities was to carry out acceptance checks on aircraft delivered from the factory, or post major repair. Such checks were to ensure that the machine met the required standards and to make minor adjustments after things had been given chance to bed in. Some factories had an inspector assigned to them who undertook such checks on behalf of the authority. In such cases, he oversaw the adjustments necessary at the factory with the machine then being ferried directly to the squadron. The squadron would then, if possible, carry out its own acceptance checks before the aircraft was put on the line. During this time, squadron codes and other specific marks were applied by the dopers. It is still done in a similar way today, even on aircraft being returned from MU's post major maintenance cycles. You'd be surprised how many defects and other issues have to be addressed before the aircraft is declared serviceable. I have known Jetstream, Nimrod and Bulldogs returned for rework during my time in the mob.

As far as i know, Mariners were inerior green throughout, with black instrument panels, coamings and electronics. Seat headrests were red/brown with buff or khaki drill cushions. Unfortunately, there are very few colour images of the interior. Mariners were never glamourous enough to attract very much attention from many photographers.

Seats are interior green with red/brown leather head rests and buff or khaki drill cushions. The main instrument panel and internal structures are grey to around FS 26440, though that is an estimation. All instruments and electronics are black, as is the instrument panel coaming.