John R

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

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

Another picture added John

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!

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

There are some very sad people out there!

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

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

The perils of perspective. The forward fuselages correlate with our thoughts...but look at the back ends

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

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

Post #74 corrected John

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

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

Just to confirm it was those in post 55 John

The side view drawings are those used in Roy Boot's book published in 1990. So where did they originate?

Sorry - I did not know that. I looked at the drawings referenced above and the S2 intakes are where I think the NA 39 intakes are. Thanks Chocolate Crisps.

Another thought. Can anybody please post a picture of the fuselage of the latest Buccaneer from Airfix showing the relation between the fuselage and engine nacelles?

I have the book and have seen no references to changes in fuselage or intake length except for that series of drawings which only appeared as part of the description of the planned development program. However I will have another look. Regarding Roy Boot as 'the authority' may not be entirely sound as I remember a reviewer remarking, when the book was first published, that there were a number of errors. Is Roy Boot still around so we could ask him?

Here's a thought. If more powerful engines were installed then the intakes might have had to be enlarged to cope with the increased mass flow. The simplest way to do that would be to shorten the nacelle which some might interpret as lengthening the nose. Dennis - That drawing shows the relationship between the mid-cockpit frame and the intake to be very like the real thing. Talking with my friend, Chris, yesterday he reckoned that if there was a change it would be almost indiscernible on a model and the only thing that really was bugging us was not knowing the answer. Infuriatingly there are enough Buccaneers still around to be measured if only we were not prevented from doing so. Why do we do this to ourselves? The only consolation is in 'Catch 22' - as long as know what you are doing is crazy then you must be sane. John

I wouldn't want one from an Everton fan so there!

I would have given it a 'like' if it had taken off from Anfield instead of Goodison... John

I think that those drawings are the same as those which appeared in Roy Boot's book 'Spitfire to Eurofighter'. Which came first I wonder and where did they originate? I would like to have shown them here but there might have been problems with copyright. I drew the same conclusions as you when I first saw them. The frustrating thing is that in less restrictive times there are actual examples in existence which could be measured. John

Have you seen this collection? There are many 'almost side-on' views and it only takes a small amount of angular difference to make the intake look in a different position relative to the cockpit. There does not, to me, look like there is any difference between the various versions of the Buccaneer. I think that I would go with the first picture from the Yeovilton museum as the definitive version. https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/search/30/?q=buccaneer&f=type&exact=1&type=&registration=&operator=&code_number=&construction_number=&airport=&country=&photographer=&date_taken=&airshow=&military_unit=&information=&exact=1&search_type=simple Something like this makes you realise how inaccuracies get into model kits. John

John, I have seen that one in Francis Mason's book but not such good quality. It's really the other version that interests me.