Jump to content

Max Headroom

Gold Member
  • Posts

    9,826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Max Headroom

  1. Small and perfectly formed! Excellent build. MH
  2. Thanks Dave! I got the impression that there was a really serious problem. I think I can live with this error! I must admit that I hadn't noticed that there was a similar problem with the XIX and I don't recall any adverse comments about it except for the incorrect upper aileron hinge line and over zealous panel engraving. MH
  3. Gotta be 457 Sqn - look at the Sharkmouth. Someone's already converted the Hasegawa Vb. See here on Hyperscale: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%26tbs%3Disch:1 Still Can't afford one though! Ho hum. MH
  4. Does anyone have a comparative side-by-side picture of the new Airfix wing as compared to another which is 'right'? I am curious to see the extent of the chord problem. MH
  5. I think the Italeri Vb is much maligned. I have it and the Airfix Vb and in my opinion neither is perfect. A short list of plus and minus point would be Italeri plus points engraved detail throughout cockpit detail three piece canopy internal detail nice transfers minus points prop/spinner looks odd oil cooller oversized aerial 'blobby' Airfix plus points fine raised detail simple to build minus points no cockpit detail incorrect wing plan view - incorrect aileron hinge line - sweep starts from wing root making outer wing too narrow open wheel well crude/incorrect windscreen (incidentally their Vc is worse) I would use the Italeri kit and use the prop/spinner, aileron and oil cooler from the Airfix kit. The Airfix kit was ok in its day but Italeri has more right with theirs. MH
  6. Intruiging! I too googled R5727 in pictures and came across this: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%26tbs%3Disch:1 most of the way down the page there she is, flying over Montreal........camouflaged. A repaint? As to the Liverpool connection, yes it was home to the Roots shadow factory bulding Halifaxes (GR.V's I think) and was the home to the UK operation of Lockheed. Originally set up for receiving Lockheed Hudsons shipped to Liverpool docks, it ended up being a facility for all US built aircraft shipped to Liverpool, both for UK and US air arms. I'm struggling to think why it should be Liverpool and not Woodford where they were built. Maybe some American/Canadian equipment fit perhaps? Interesting also that it appears to be an inbound flight from Prestwick, so obviously it had come back from Canada and was on its way back somewhere? Have you tried the FlyPast forum? MH EDIT Re reading the memo, it states that the fuselage is black on both sides aft of the roundel. The fuselage was modular and was comprised of 4 interchangeable parts. (Nose/cockpit/forward fuselage/rear fuselage). Could it be that it had a replacement and camouflaged Canadian built rear end? It is also interesting that it is referred to by (part) of its serial rather than its subsequent Canadian civil registration. Still all speculation though.
  7. Give 188 Squadron a chance! http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/h188.html MH
  8. I thought the Finnish aircraft were ex French examples captured and reconditioned by the Germans? I believe they also re-engined their Cylcone examples with Twin Wasps. MH
  9. I've just dug out Air Enthusiast 23 - it's the one with the Chino Zero on the cover. It has an article "The RAF's Little Indians" a nine page article including a cutaway, of RAF use from initial acquisition but concentrating on use in the Indian theatre. Some nice shots of 5 Sqn machines, BB975 OQ-X is the only one with a full code/serial tie-up. If anyone wants a copy PM me. I also recall Brian Derbyshire doing an in-depth rundown in an IPMS magazine 10+ years ago (no idea where I put it). As far as I recall he concentrated on the Wright Cyclone engined variants, which is what the RAF and Commonwealth had most of anyway. MH
  10. Max Headroom many of Lindy`s (the Victor) have been videoed by staff so i`ll ask and see if anyone plans to do a video of this and if they`ll post it on the net somewhere for eveyone who can`t attend to watch. James Excellent! MH
  11. This month's Air International (p.7) also reports that two of the pre production MRA.4's, ZJ516 and 518 have been retired and are now at Woodford "awaiting disposal". It begs the question why? Would it not be cheaper to bring them up to full spec and put them into service and save the bother of modernising (ie rebuilding 90%) of two other MR.2's? If that was not practical then surely they could be used as engineering aids/spare parts sources with whatever squadron is due to get the production examples. In any event there is no way either would be preserved and will more than likely end up either scrapped or as fatigue test specimens or whatever. More MoD procurement stupidity. Shame. MH
  12. I came across this http://www.skyraider.org/skyassn/memberpic...well/cowell.htm Unfortunately the only tie up is WT121 MH
  13. For those of us unfortunate to be on the wrong side of the Pennines will YAM be videoing the arrival and posting it on YouTube? PLEASE!!! MH
  14. Lovely job so far. What markings are you using? MH
  15. ooh! That's nice! 1) who will be first with the stickies? 2) how much decal softener will you need to bed them down wth? MH
  16. Nice build and welcome to the forum! Must get my Revell FGR.2 out of the loft sometime................. MH
  17. I believe that Uruguay is buying some examples. Why not wait to see if theirs are simpler? or Nasa............. http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3_4.jpg MH
  18. Disbanding the Arrows (or BBMF for that matter) is a non starter. Can you imagine the headlines in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph? There is a theory in economics whereby you make a high profile but not necessarily economically effective 'cut', as in "look we're so committed to cuttting and making savings that we have no choice but to axe this". The idea is that the proposed cut is so repugnant that it makes other options look more acceptable. Of course the fact that those wielding the axe knew this all along is pure coincidence..................... It's not the Arrows or BBMF you need to look at but somewhere else. Typhoon, CVA, or whatever maybe? MH
  19. That would be XX262 in 1980.................... http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/PROJECT...s/Johnson_S.htm as to Red Arrow losses generally, I came across this site (it's where the above piccy came from) http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/AEROBAT.../RED_ARROWS.htm MH
  20. After you have masked the canopy leaving the frame exposed, first paint the frame in the interior colour and then the outside colour depending on which scheme you choose. MH
  21. here's the BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8580266.stm and here's GD UK's info http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/FRES/default.asp Not being an AFV person to me it says 'tank' cos it has tracks? Is it any good? Do the US use it? MH
  22. Just a thought - why give the FAA seconhand aircraft when Cosford was scrapping delivery mileage newbies? MH
  23. Yes to the above. I tried this myself and quite frankly abandoned the thing. I cut out the ventral fuel tank and surrounding area from the Matchbox kit - ditto the Airfix Mk.1. They don't fit eachother I think one fuselage is wider than the other. Also the area at the rear of the Airfix cut out bears no resemblence to the Matchbox kit. The wings swap easily enough though. To the above, there may be missile, wheel and cable duct differences, but my project never got far enough for me to find out. Pray Academy brings out a T.4/5. MH
×
×
  • Create New...