John R

I think that these paper aeroplanes should be subject to a review by a design team familiar with modern aero and thermo dynamics to see how practical they might have been! John

try here http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Phantomtoo/library/F-20%20Tigershark?page=1 John

Thanks Tommy. That build link is incomplete - did the guy ever finish it? I also found your tailhook topic interesting but also depressing as I wanted to build an early version John

Does anyone know if the 1/72 Pavla kit is the same as the Admiral version? John

Impressive job. John

Not the first, the Republic P84 and North American FJ-1 preceded it, but did you mean the first Russian? John

Not the most interesting a/c, aesthetically or for aviation significance, but it fills a gap in my collection of early Russian jets. The kit represents the second prototype. First flown in January 1947 this was the first of a new generation with the engine amidships instead of the earlier ‘pod and boom’ layout. Unfortunately it was handicapped by being powered by the RD 10 engine, a derivative of the Jumo 004 and this, combined with other problems, made it unfit for service. Ironically the later Yak 23, which retained the ‘pod and boom’ layout, but which was powered by the Russian version of the Derwent, went into production. I got this one off ebay fairly cheaply to see what A+V kits were like . Not a particularly brilliant kit but it went together fairly easily except for the canopy which was somewhat misshapen and a devil to fit. The finish is Alclad Dark Aluminium over Alclad Black Base. The aerial is elastic thread from Aeroclub; the first time I have used this and am not 100% happy as I think that it looks more like a rope then a wire. One problem is 'where to put the noseweight?'. I packed some lead under the cockpit and behind the seat but it turned out to be not quite enough so I drilled through the tailcone so that I could drop some more lead in from the rear and filled the (sealed) cockpit with resin swarf! I managed to shift it by turning the airbrush up to maximum pressure and blasting air through the intake whilst giving the model a good shaking - a narrow escape Warning! I ordered a Yak 25 direct from A+V last year but it has yet to appear and I doubt if it ever will so I would advise against trying to get anything from the manufacturer. John

This shows the difference between new and faded Dayglo John

Nice collection from a man after my own heart. They look well built especially as so many are Mach 2 kits. I didn't realise that the X2 and X3 were made by Mach 2. On first sight I assumed that they were the Maintrack Vacforms. John

'but I made a mess of the Cranwell blue fuselage stripes' My hero - a mistake - Oh Chris, say it wasn't so! More seriously do you flow the paint into the panel lines before or after painting? I thought that if you do it before, it will get covered up but if you do it afterwards it could get rather messy. Or have I missed the point? Is the paint there to give a smooth finish to the line? Nice job John

Not exactly definitive information but they may help John

Thanks Aerofan - you made me pick it up and start work again and guess what - another discrepancy and something to look out for on the updated kit - the canopy is completely wrong! The glazed panels should be flat and form a 'V' shape which blends into the rounded section above the observers cockpit. John

I had dreadful problems with the top coat not setting and the undercoat bleeding through when using polished aluminium over Alclad basic black. I was advised to let the undercoat dry for a few days. Also I think (I'm still learning!) that you need the nozzle adjusted to give a very fine spray. John

I've seen the actual model and it is admirable but I think he should have described the fun and games involved in assembling the engine nacelles and intakes! John

I started a thread about what to fix on the 1/72 version and this is how far I've got. It's a long slow job and I keep stopping until I have regained the will to live! I had a chance to make a quick comparison between the latest 1/72 version and what I believe to reasonably correct drawings and it looks as if the shape is right but there is a problem with the markings of the glazing on the canopy. If the 1/48 version matches it you should be able to make something that closely resembles an Arrow John PS the original thread http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234918500-correcting-the-hobbycraft-172-cf-105-arrow/ generated 3300 hits so there must be a lot of interest in a decent Arrow.

Cutting Edge Modelworks did a set for 1/48 and 1/32. The Falcon conversion, by the way, is for the Italeri F4B John

The Falcon kit does not have the earliest nose with the flush inlets. Something I discovered when I went to fit it. To add to my frustration I have just found that the decals I got for the prototype are 1/48 and not 1/72 so if anybody needs them... John

I've just taken a look at the uncropped version of the heading picture and it looks as if the panel is, at that stage of construction, solid. It's not easy to see as it's where the pages join. I've also taken another look at the top view, this time at the cockpit forward of the pilot, and it looks as if all the instruments are exposed. How do you model that! The more you look the more trouble you find. I just noticed that there is something odd about the markings on the nose probe. They make it look as if the probe is bent upwards. In fact the probe is aligned with the fuselage but the markings at the tip of the nose appear to be aligned with nose axis whereas the markings on the probe are aligned with its axis. Painting the probe markings looks to be tricky. Does anybody have any bright ideas? John

A bit of Photoshopping gave this You can see the ejection seat rails Is that panel over the ADF transparent? John

Thanks Tailspin. I had previously made good use of your blogs and the latest answered one of my questions. The question now is, what was in the rear cockpit? A blank sheet of bare aluminum (aluminium to us Brits!), or was it painted black, or were there empty instrument racks and what was the colour scheme of the rear hole? John

I'm trying to convert a Fujimi RF-4B into the XF4H-1 and have a couple of questions. That section between the pilots' seats. How solid is it? The kit leaves it open. Some photos appear to show that there are openings between front and rear sections. In the photo of the prototype in the workshop it looks pretty solid. Also what does it look like from the rear seat? In the intakes there are what appear to be horizontal stiffeners on the splitter plate but in a colour picture of it, when painted, the surface looks plain. Did anything stand proud of the surface? Any help would be appreciated. John

Will these help? It was the best Hawk scheme. John

There is this thread... http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234925729-something-that-might-interest-hawk-fans/ I could probably find a few more if you are interested John

Thank you but you have not seen it close up! According to the drawing I have in 'Soviet Heavy Interceptors' the fuselage datum is level but the drooping nose makes it look as if the a/c is nose down. If you you at the nosewheel the the angle of the assembly holding the wheel is not right. If that was corrected to match the photos I think the attitude would be OK. Can you help with a question about the missiles. The kit missiles have a nose probe wheres those in the pictures, painted black and white, do not appear to have them. Is this correct? John

How about the prototype in 1/72? John