Jump to content

John R

Gold Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,631

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by John R

    Mikoyan Ye-2a A&A Models 1/72

    in Ready for Inspection - Aircraft

    Posted

    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

    p?i=6d07e60d52b7e172eedf568312ba1cde

     

     

    p?i=d27cba84a2a8f80bc80e1c78e235b2c7

     

    p?i=01395570d62ebc1cffbd2e6b72ede61c

     

    Here is where it has been since last September!

     

    p?i=394199afb2f57e8c3cee478c994dc7dc

    • Like 11

    He who would Valiant be (Or Not)

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    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

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted · Edited by John R
    error corrected

    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

    p?i=a1a5a620302aadff7d6c11bddba7de57

    • Like 3

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    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

     

    2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

    Depends on the reviewer.  Do we take his word over that of a Brough design engineer?  Are they genuinely "errors" or just not what the reviewer expected to read?  I've no horse in this race but there are a number of people on this site whose opinions I would esteem over those of most reviewers in the aviation mags, let alone modelling mags, nowadays.

    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

    • Like 1

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted · Edited by John R
    Correction of a major error

    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

     

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    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

    • Thanks 1

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    1 hour ago, David Womby said:

    Does anybody have a copy of Ray Boot's book to check his text, please?

     

    David

    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?

    • Thanks 1

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    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

     

     

     

    • Like 1

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    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

    Blackburn NA39, intakes, length and radome questions

    in Aircraft Cold War

    Posted

    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

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...