Dave Swindell

There isn't a black version, that's the shadow stand for the model.

There's a 2 Sqn FGR4 on this sheet https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X72230

Stephanie de Monaco - Ouragon Dassault MD450 Ouragon - Brigitte Bardot MD.450 Ouragan n°328 “BB”, 2e Escadron d’Instruction en Vol “Henry Jeandet”, Ecole de chasse à Meknès, Maroc, en 1957. Avion décoré et piloté par Paul Barland

Now less than £3k to go..

Maintrack did this in 2 flavours, a simple back end for the Airfix FAW9 kit and front & back for the Heller T3 kit. Whirlybirds re-released one of these (the one for the Airfix kit IIRC) which migh have been passed on to Heritage in their recent takeover of Whirlybird kits

Sticking with the Queen theme:- Fairey (Flash) Gordon Douglas DC-7c (Seven Seas fo Rhye) Douglas Stiletto (She Makes Me (Stormtrooper in Stilettoes)) Christmas Bullet (Thank God It's Christmas )

Hi Troy, it's not clear (to me) whether you are implying the star adjuster is part of the rudder trim, my understanding is that it's not. It operates a scissor like mechanism that moves the rudder pedals closer to or further from the pilot to suit leg length and seat position. The rudder trim is in the same position as that shown in the earlier photo you posted of the MK II pilots notes position 23, just inbd of the elevator trim wheel and forward of the front left corner of the seat.

Nearly there! less than £4k to go (though I guess they'd like more, as the £60k is just to get her to the Museum)

Both of Pascal's models are outstanding, but for me, if i'm going for a realistic weathered look it needs to be in a realistic setting as well (full hull - drydock, or waterline - sea scape) I'm fine with a pristine full hull on pedestals as per builders models as there's no attempt at realism, it's a style of presenting a model.

As the Rolls Royce Exe(moor pony) was prewar I presume you're talking about the post war Rolls Royce Dart(moor pony)....

The problem with that is you're not taking perspective into account. A relatively short focal length and a close-up shot will make 1 metre on the plane of the wing leading edge close to the camera look significantly longer than 1 metre on the plane of the tailplane. Or put another way, objects closer to the lens will be much bigger than the same object further from the lens. You can't compare tailplane span against wingspan with a head-on shot, you'd need a top down shot where both are the same distance from the lens, and preferably a long focal length lens at that. Better still, if you can still get access to the airframe in the Berlin museum, take a friend, a couple of plumb lines and a surveyors tape and measure them. Most museums are pretty accomodating if you ask nicely.

Don't paint them! they won't work otherwise! (sorry, couldn't resist, spent too long in the dock bottom checking anodes were fitted and masked correctly before hull painting)

The tailplane was on a fixed pivot position on its front spar, and the rear spar was mounted on a vertical screw jack just in front of the rudder, so the whole tailplane could be pivoted up or down about its front edge to trim the aircraft in flight. Thus the gap between the aft fuselage and tailplane, and tailplane and fin varied depending on the trim set by the pilot.

4) Port Authorities - it's exceedingly difficult to get permission for "over the side" painting in most ports these days, even for legal requirements like draft marks, ships name, port of registry and IMO number. NOt a problem in Rodney's day, but increasingly so in the last 20 years. The plus side is paint technology has improved significantly and a correctly applied paint film will last well in excess of normal docking periods unless there is mechanical damage to the film. 5) Piracy - yes seriously - the state of the paint shown below iss entirely due to 4) and 5) Jervis Bay (and sister ship Maersk Dalton which I was on, but didn't look anywhere near as bad as the hull was painted black, the rust didn't show up!) were trading almost entirely in the Indian Ocean piracy area, none of the ports visited permited any over side cleaning or painting in port. At sea in piracy areas watches were doubled up, so there were no dayworkers available to do any maintenance, and access to open decks was restricted to absolute essentials only. Add to that the sides of the deck festooned with razor wire and fire hoses operating at frequent intervals to deter boarders, superficial rust on the maindeck area lead to the extensive streaking down the hull sides and local rust stains around mechanical damage from the anchor and chain, tugs, pilot boats and quay fenders for 2-3 years and you get the above result. The vast majority of the paintwork was sound, it just looked awful!

Mr Alan Kidson [email protected]

Isn't that the definition of flying? The art of throwing oneself at the ground - and missing?

Right position, wrong wing, it's on the port side. Difficult to make out on most photo's, but here's one of G-STRX in Aerosur livery where you can see it, position didn't change. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/4/5/1/1742154.jpg?v=v40

50K raised, only 10k to go! https://www.facebook.com/reel/762172405876378

There's some shots of the rear cockpit area in this video

Guitar stashes - much worse than model stashes - they usually come with strings attached

Whilst I'd say in general that you are correct in your conclusion that there has been a simplification trend with Airfix's Hawk kits, your reasoning and kit description isn't correct in some respects. I'd also suggest a trend towards an easier build is a more accurate description of your point, rather than simplification. After having all my Airfix Hawk kits out of the stash and doing some research I've come up with 4 different Airfix 1/72 Hawk kit toolings from 3 different kit designs, described as follows:- The original 1975 kit was released before the Hawk entered RAF service, and the design and tooling was therefore based on preproduction developement airframes which resulted in some minor differences in the kit from the production/service airframes, notably around the airbrake and rear fuselage/tail area. The kit was old school tooled by hand, with very fine raised and engraved surface detail, a pretty good cockpit for the day (though lacking side consoles) and a pretty good weapons loadout of 1,000lb bombs, Matra rocket pods drop tanks and a gun pod, total 95 parts. Apart from the noted changes to the airframe after it's release, the kit was regarded as pretty accurate and well detailed, and wasn't a particularly difficult build. The Matchbox kit, also released in 1975, had half the parts (mostly from fewer stores) and some simplified detail, but wasn't a significantly easier build. The reduced part count and simplification was driven more by price point than ease of build. The latest 2020 starter set kit, on the other hand, is a complete package designed for ease of building by the young novice modeller with only 22 parts including the stand. There has been quite a lot of simplification or omission of smaller parts, but the finished result is still a pretty good representation of the Hawk, especially if built wheels up/in flight. It's aimed at a specific market, and isn't intended to replace the family of Airfix Hawk kits that came between this and the 1975 kit. I say family of kits, as the 2008 kit to which you refer, but isn't the one you describe, was the first of several kits using one original design and at least 2 distinct different toolings made from this design. As such the design, rather than being a simplified version of the 1975 kit it was to replace, was in fact much more complex. The first tooling produced from this design co mprised of 8 sprues, A to H, which were used in various combinations to kit several versions of the Hawk. These sprues are identified on the frame as "Sprue A" etc with no identifying tooling number, and the first issue in 2008 consisted of sprues A, B, C, D (for the basic T1 airframe and Red Arrows centreline pod) and H, the clear sprue with a 3 part canopy (windscreen, blast screen and opening canopy) as a series 2 kit. In 2009 sprues A, B, E, F, (for the 100 series airframe) G (stores) and H (clear sprue). This was followed in 2010 by the T1a/Mk51 version using sprues A, B, C, D, G & H. These two series 3 combinations have been re-released with new decals in 2020 & 2018 respectively In 2012 a new T1 kit was released using a completely new tool from (mostly) the 2008 kit design. The parts from sprues A - D were redistributed across 4 new sprues which now included a tooling number "sprue A ATML 00186" etc. The 3 piece undesized pilots were replaced with single piece pilots more to scale size, and the separate wing fences were incorporated into the wing uppers with a corresponding notch being added to the lower wing leading edge, but the rest of the parts are identical to those of the 2008 tooling. A new E sprue with a single piece windscreen/canopy and no gunsights replaces the H sprue, but the single piece windscreen/canopy is from the same design as the 2 part version. This tooling has been re-released in different Red Arrows boxings and a couple of special schemes, plus various gift and starter set boxings, and it appears from your description above to be one of these boxings that you have. There has definately been an attempt in producing this tooling to simplify this kit slightly, I'd guess partly to ease construction a bit for the modeller, but also I suspect to reduce the cost of the tooling a bit. I can't say for sure the reasons Airfix produced this tooling, but I'd hazard a guess that they saw the Red Arrows version being a sure fire long term seller and could justify investment in a new tool for just this slightly simplified version (possibly tooled for higher production numbers?) whilst keeping the older tooling for producing the other two versions with the added benefit of extending this tooling's production life? These versions of the kit, although being more up to date with CAD design, engraved detail, and correcting some of the inaccuracies of the earlier kit, aren't that much different in ease of build apart form the reduced part count and slight simplification of the 2012 tooling. Although some areas were improved, other areas, notably cockpit, airbrake and wheel wells/doors could have been done much better. As you say, in some respects the older kit is a better bet for a good mode, especially if you're happy doing a rescribe. Personally I prefer the new Revel tooling, though that's not without it's faults - I've a stalled build of XX154 using this as a base

Is your local hobby shop printing them just for you or do they intend to sell them? Check the terms on which the models were offered on line, most are for personal private use only irrespective of whether free or paid for. You would need a commercial licence to sell copies.

Porte boats, Felixstowe etc? Short & Saro flying boats? All the rigid and some of the non rigid airships?

Back home and I've found and scanned some correspondence "from the horses mouth" so to speak, albeit quite some time after the events. Nothing new, but I thought some folks might find it ineteresting, and para 2 of the CAFO is very interesting in conjunction with your comments above!

The link posted went to an edit page, the thread is here