John R

I have built the A-Model version of this a/c but ran into trouble when I came to mount the missiles. The plans show this whereas the photo and the drawing from 'Red Star Soviet Heavy Interceptors' shows them mounted much further forward with a missile wing attached to the underside of the 'bullet' on the leading edge of the wing. [ Inboard of the 'bullet', on the underside of the wing is another fitting which looks as if it should fit the opposite wing of the missile. However there are several problems with this arrangement. First of all the inboard mounting does not line up with the 'bullet', it is behind it. Secondly, in the kit, the missile wings are not wide enough to fit both at the same time even if they were in the same longitudinal position. Finally the kit has the missiles mounted much further aft. there is only one support and that is the rail which apparently supported the rear of the missile on the second prototype. Does anyone know which is the correct configuration? I am beginning to wonder if there were several different configurations as there was much trouble with the missiles and as the fourth prototype was only used for aerodynamic testing, carrying no radar and only dummy missiles, does the mounting method used in the kit represent one of these experiments? One final point - the colour of the missiles is given as white whereas in the photos they are chequered. Is this correct and is it because they are dummies? John

This was the original version This was the second. Identical to the first except that the Elevon actuators had been moved to the underside of the wing A completely new and much better version has been issued but I am not sure if it is available in the UK John

David - Sorry, I only went as far as the first page of your website. I also forgot that in an earlier reply to this post you mentioned the availability of the 1/72 version. (it was a long time ago!) This is as far as it's got. It is suffering from a spell of 'getfinisheditis' so I could take it to my model club meeting. The u/c needs attention and some other fettling is needed before it's 'ready for inspection'. John

Unfortunately they are for 1/48 scale. I did not have a happy time with the Arrow Graphics decals. They were very thin and had a tendency to break up. Photos of the decalled model will appear very soon. John

It's been a long time but it some progress has been made. Gloss white finish is Alclad white primer sealed with Alclad gloss kote. The easiest way to get a gloss white finish that I have found. The latest unforeseen problem was that the masking tape, a Tamiya lookalike from Tristar models, left a gooey deposit which needed to be removed with white spirit. Next step decals. I do believe the end might be in sight! John

If you have the stamina you would probably do a lot better financially putting them on ebay. John

I often wonder why this business of plans/models and the accuracy thereof causes so much grief. In my case, at least, the completed item is only going to sit in MY display case. As to viscount806x's comments. First the Olimp kits. A couple of links showing the ones I have built along with the problems. An FD 1 is in here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/43527-my-prototypes-post-war-british/ A Boulton Paul P120 is in here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/70325-boulton-paul-p111-p120/ Secondly I am the guy building the P1052. I have seen the actual a/c at Yeovilton and the fuselage shape in Barrie Hygates drawings looks closer to the real thing than that in the Maintrack kit. The fact that Hygate gives the a/c as a reference made me trust his tailplane shape. Incidentally the tail in the Maintrack kit does not quite match that given in the Maintrack instructions. Having tried to work out from photos how to correct inaccuracies in various kits I can appreciate the kit manaufacturers problems. John

Next step the u/cbays. I decided the easiest way was to get the shape of the cut outs by elongating the plan view of them and to cut this out of a sheet and then glue it into position. It did require a putting a slight bend into ithem. Since starting I discovered that the tail size was incorrect. I considered reshaping it but decided that the fitting and alignment would be easier if I made a new tailplane in one piece and fitted into a slot in the fin. I cut off the rear of the fin so I could make the slot and slide the tailplane in and then glued the rudder back on. There will now be a pause whilst I smooth all the filler and tidy up the front end. John

I never did get the pictures from Yeovilton and whilst waiting I was sidetracked by other projects but after much studying of my pictures from Yeovilton I think I have found enough of what I needed to know to get on with it. As an aside this a/c was built when CAD didn't exist and all these parts were 'lofted' ,i.e laid out full size on the floor. considering the complex shape of the underside that must have been quite a job. Anyway I decided that the shape of the fuselage around the jetpipes was wrong and the fuselage around the pipes needed to be a greater diameter so new bits were made from 1/4 tube and fitted. This was interesting as there was not much to fit them to after hacking the originals out. They were tacked in place using CA and bits of plastic added to pack it all out. When it all seemed solid Milliput was added to get the shape. As I said the shape is complex and much affected by the angles of the pipes. I still think that it is not quite right due to the shape of the fuselage but correcting that was not an option. Left side shows the insert and the right side shows added Milliput John

viscount806x said You might like to look at the Olimp models website where he has one listed in resin as a 'future project'. I am in occasional contact with Oleg (the owner) and keep chipping away at him to get on with it. If others did the same, it might move up his 'to do' list a bit quicker! I don't know how concerned you are about accuracy but I am struggling with a couple of the Maintrack kits, P1052 and X3, and they lack that certain something. It is alleged that the Olimp models are derived from the Maintrack kits so beware. I have built a couple of the Olimp kits and am reluctant to try another. Perhaps my concerns could be passed on to Oleg John

Thanks for the compliments. Kit used was an EOS1D Mark 3 with 100-400 IS Canon lens. You can do very well with a 'lesser' camera. I used an EOS 350D before this and it worked well. The main reason for the camera change was to see if some more inertia would help compensate for the lack of smoothness in my movement caused by my advancing years. The Canon 75-300 is a pretty good alternative and easier to use. I'm not sure that the IS function does that much. John

Bit of a dead loss this year. Many a/c did not come near us and there was a lot of low cloud in the way. During much of the Red Arrows display we only knew where they were by seeing their shadows on the water in front of the display centre. I will be interested in seeing Sunday's pictures taken from the promenade as it seemed to be bathed in sunlight all afternoon. Highlight for us on the Head was Johnathan Whaley in Miss Demeanour very fast and very close. Almost impossible to track. Most of us got her approaching and going but only bits of wing or tail as she went by. Next year I will just watch. SWIP team. 2 Silence Twisters P40 Dassault Flamants Rv8ators Tucano. Rocked his wings coming and going - nice man Sabre Jonathan Whaley came very fast and very close in Miss Demeamour and scared the wits out of those who did not pick her up when approaching! John

Just got a book 'X-Planes of Europe' in which there is a picture of a Javelin, XA552, fitted with a pair of Gyron Juniors acting a test bed for the Bristol 188. Colour is given as Deep Blue. Does anybody know anything about it and are there any drawings? John

Sad to lose one of the brotherhood. It puts our daily problems into perspective. Best wishes John

This was roughly the equivalent of the F86D Sabre as both were radar equipped single seaters flown in 1949. Although about the same size physically it was much lighter and had less power, having the Russian equivalent of the Nene. Performance was quite good but it was let down by handling problems at high speed, landing problems in a crosswind and by the radar. Two prototypes were flown, this represents the second, but no production orders were placed. The kit went together quite well, not quite as easily as the other Prop & Jet kits, with some fiddly bits associated with the landing gear. One retraction strut for the main u/c could only be fitted (by me!) by tacking it to a toothpick and inserting it into the depths of the wheel well. Once glued the toothpick had to be broken off and the rough bits attacked with various implements. The outrigger wheels look very fragile and easy to break off. The kit is no longer available from Prop & Jet but Linden Hill still lists it (as of Sept 2013). A-model have produced a plastic version. It would be interesting to compare the two John

I do like that and I WANT ONE! It would go nicely with my collection of oddballs. Whether I could do such a good job is another matter. John

Saying that though it might be an interesting correction project..... I went, and am still going, down that route with their 1/72 Avro Arrow. Basically you use the kit components as rough cut blanks for a scratch build! Be warned John

Well done on getting it finished, let alone doing such a nice job. I started one of these a couple of years ago and after spending a couple of evenings putting the jetpipes together put it aside until I have the time to try again John

You might not like to hear this but... At the Shuttleworth airshow yesterday there was this chap selling a book he had just written about the Northrop flying wings. I told him about the discussions in this thread and he said it was WHITE. Apparently he got this from someone at Northrop. Have you started painting yet? The book is Northrop Flying Wings by Graham Simmons John

I've got a Matchbox one in the loft - started but if you are interested drop me a PM and I can let you have the details John

That must be a TINY model and very nicely done. Here's the real thing for comparison. Seen at Old Warden. John

One of the problems you get with a long timescale project like this is that you keep noticing things that really ought to be done and would have been a lot easier if they had been done at an appropriate time like providing an u/c bay instead of a door shaped recess and providing some way for the boundary bleed air to escape I have just noticed that the base of the fin needs cutting back and the rudder needs rescribing. And so it goes on... John PS. Bill said 'None of this, of course, has anything to do with the utterly fantastic job that John has done with the old kit. Bravo!! A superb display of scale modelling!!' If you saw the actual hardware you might be less impressed. I always have the feeling that with the amount of effort you expend on something like this you should end up with a gem instead of what looks like a reasonably competently assembled kit.

This what appears at the bottom of the 'Avro' drawing. It makes it look like a bootleg version. I think that in those days many manufacturers did not have accurate 3-views. Drawings for the hardware was 'lofted' - laid out full scale on a large flat surface. [/url Regarding the latest kit. I learned of its existence when starting out on this project but was horrified by the price but I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have paid up. The decal sheet I have was produced by Arrow graphics. Jessica - did you build the Astra version? It is reckoned to be the most accurate. John

After building a 1/72 scale Hobbycraft CF 105 Arrow and discovering at the end that the decals were not too good I posted a question on Britmodeller asking if anybody made a decent set. This opened a ‘can of worms’ as the discussion shifted to the kit itself and the lack of accuracy thereof. I had corrected what I believed to be the only major error , the actuators being on the topside of the wing instead of the underside, but it turned out that almost nothing about the kit was correct. What should I do about it? One of my fellow club members suggested that ‘it looks like an Arrow so leave it’ but somehow I couldn’t. As a kind soul in Canada donated an aftermarket set of decals and whilst wondering whether or not to rip apart the Arrow I had just built Chris Tyler said I could have one that he had started but given up on. ‘Navy Bird’ sent a copy of what were alleged to be Avro drawings. Having been given these it seemed impolite not to get started but I told the donors not to hold their breath…I toyed with the idea of doing a WIP thread but was afraid the lack of ‘P’ might invalidate it. Anyway after a year of stop/start it has reached the stage where it looks as if it might be finished. Using the Boston Mills book, ’Arrow’, and the ‘Avro’ drawings I produced a thread on correcting the errors which has so far collected over 3500 hits so there is a lot of interest out there. It is http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234918500-correcting-the-hobbycraft-172-cf-105-arrow/ So we start with a pan of ‘Arrow soup’. The parts were warped and the only way I found to cure this was to soak the parts in a pan of hot water to get them thoroughly warm before attempting to straighten them. Wing. The wing planform is incorrect Bits were added to give the correct sweep of the inner panel and the outer panel sweep wass increased. Reshaping of the leading edge was needed to give the drooped LE. Aerofoil section was too thin at mid-chord but it was decided to live with it. The wing, when attached to the widened fuselage, gave the correct span so no correction was needed. Fuselage. The fuselage is too narrow and too short. There are strange ‘area rule?’ bulges aft of the intakes which need to be removed. ( How did Hobbycraft get that wrong?) The fuselage was widened by inserting spacers. The lower gap was filled with a strip of sheet. The upper gap was covered by the wings and spine so was left open. The intakes were widened by inserting spacers. They were also reshaped to make them less rectangular. They were then glued to the front fuselage after fitting new boundary layer bleed panels. (no picture - sorry). The front fuselage width was about right so it was unmodified but the nose shape required some correction (more of this later) The section between the nose and the rear fuselage was built from scratch. The back end was built from scratch. This was not easy and should have been done at the same time as the fuselage widening. The engine nozzles were made by using a Dremel tool as a lathe. A blank was turned out of balsawood. This was planked with plastic strips and roughly turned to shape with sandpaper. It was then coated with Milliput and turned to a final shape. The nozzles were then fitted to the fuselage. It is important to note that the engine thrustline is canted two degrees up. It doesn’t sound much but if you don’t get it right the back end looks completely wrong. Guess how I found this out! The kit spine was used except for removing the bulges alongside the cockpit and correcting the exhaust outlet The fin was modified by inserting a section at mid chord and adding a section at the base The next step was to make a new canopy. I thought that I might get away with reshaping the original but transpired this was not possible as the front windscreen was wrong, not being a straight ‘V’ shape. This caused much grief and I am still not really happy with it. One detail that caused much difficulty was the shape of the fairings over the transport joints that run chordwise aft of the notches on the wings as I could find no definitive information, only general indications of size and shape. I had sanded down the ones on the kit then realised that I had gone too far and had to make new ones. One area on contention is the shape of the nose in plan view. The received wisdom was that it is narrower at the cockpit than at the radome. The drawing from the Boston Mills book do not show this but the 'Avro' drawings do although they look as if they have come from the same source. I decided to go with the slight taper as it seems to fit the shape of the radome rather better. This is where it is at the moment. I hope this is of interest. Someone commented that it would be like scratchbuilding using the Hobbycraft bits as rough blanks and I would be mad to try… John PS. The 'Avro' drawings have a note that they were traced from Avro drawings by a Mr Stroomenbergh so it would be interesting to know their exact provenance

All - thanks for the kind words. Mike, Beware of the A-model Anaconda. I 'finished' one of these a while ago and for a number of reasons it sits in disgrace at the back of the cupboard until I can face sorting it out. It wasn't an easy build! Melchie - hesitant as I am to correct such a valuable source of information I think that you will find it made twenty three flights before its demise. The pilot who pranged it was on his fourth flight in it John