Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

John R

Gold Member
  • Content Count

    1,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,423 Excellent

About John R

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 03/09/1941

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Sussex
  • Interests
    Jets - Experimentals and prototypes

Recent Profile Visitors

2,640 profile views
  1. Really nice job. I wrestled an Amodel version to the ground several years ago and it generated a lot of interest because almost nobody else managed to finish one. I hope yours was a lot easier. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234914842-tupolev-tu-128-a-model-172-scale/ John
  2. John R

    pitot tubes

    For tapering I coat the tube with a CA/talc filler and sand it to shape. Tedious, but if it's the only way... John
  3. The Ye-2 was the first of the series that evolved into the MiG 21. It had a swept wing but MiG changed to the Delta wing for the subseqent versions. The Ye-2a was very different, actually a version of the Ye-5, the first MiG 21, with a swept wing. I have finally finished this model after it has been sitting 95% complete for over six months because it was so much trouble that I could not find the motivation to finish it. It is one one of those kits that sucks the joy out of modelling. Zillions of tiny parts, many of which don't quite fit. The final straw was that after shaving the cockpit so that I could get it into the fuselage I then found that the canopy was too wide, suggesting that the fuselage was too narrow. Another major problem, which seems common to A&A, Modelsvit and AModel is the way the wing is assembled. The underside is fitted into a space in the underside of the top surface. This gives a nice, sharp trailing edge but the underside piece is too thick and requires a lot of scraping and fiddling about to get it to fit. I have a Ye-5 to do and now they have brought out a kit of the Ye-50. Am I strong enough to continue? Rant over. Everthing is straight from the box except the nose probe. I modified it by fitting a piece of 8mm tube between the front and rear sections as the original did not look good and looked like it could be easily broken. The finish is Alclad Aluminium. The kit specifies gray for the canopy but I have my doubts. John Here is where it has been since last September!
  4. I am on the same position as klubman01 as having the Revell kit and the PJ nose. Where was the 1.5mm added? Super job, by the way. John
  5. There are some very sad people out there!
  6. Leave it as it is. It is an historical artifact and an example of its time. It would take an enormous amount of work only to produce an inferior example of a Valiant. I wish I had kept some examples of my earliest kits which were built to the same standard as that one and which I was very proud of at the time. John
  7. Pedant - It was the length we were interested in! Does this look better? I squashed it and the white Bucc until the wheels were round and the white squares square. John
  8. The perils of perspective. The forward fuselages correlate with our thoughts...but look at the back ends
  9. I have just revisted Davids post #42 and if you line up the fuselages so that the main gear doors are aligned then the wing root and intakes also line up whilst the front fuselage, canopy and nose gear are moved forward about the amount we suspect. The black lines are David's, the red ones are mine. John
  10. The plot thickens/unthickens... now where do we go? I tried emailing the FAA Museum but it (surprise) is closed For those interested Roy Boot's book 'From Spitfire to Eurofighter' is available cheaply (£0.81 upwards) from https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/author/BOOT,-ROY?cm_sp=brcr-_-bdp-_-author John I do not remember what they were but there was at least one, a date, that presumably could be verified. There are always 'typos', slips of memory and unverifiable details as evidenced by threads like these on BM. However I do agree that reviewers can be subject to the same human failings as the rest of us. John
  11. What is 'Friends & Family' please? I googled it and got something to do with the NHS John
  12. I have just read the Flight article referred to by Mike. It does not mention the fuselage extension and it is such a very comprehensive description of the Buccaneer that I feel that it could not have been written without the cooperation of Blackburn. It does, however, show those drawings with the 6th and subsequent a/c having longer front fuselages. This seems to be the earliest reference to them and it would appear that they were used in all subsequent publications. John
  13. I found this in Boot's book. "As a result of the outcome of trials and also pilots' comments a new standard of Buccaneer had been designed and was to be introduced on the eighth aircraft. The build of this aircraft, XK 524..." Not XK 534 as shown in the diagram. He then when on to describe the changes, none of which mentioned the intakes or fuselage length. Regarding the 6th & 7th a/c he mentions the changes to the a.c. system and autopilot development but again no mention of the intakes or fuselage lengthening John
×
×
  • Create New...