RichardH

I can add: Breguet Mercury (Air Inter Paris-Toulouse) Vickers Varsity Chinook Bell 206 Sikorsky S76 Wessex Beaver (On floats) CSA 235 (might have been a CN 235) Harrier T4N Hawk TMk1 Beech 300

There was a definite change in blue when the gold speed bird scheme was introduced. When the tail markings of two parallel white stripes was in use the shade of blue was very dark (in poor light it was almost black, not dissimilar to the “navy blue” used in RN uniforms, so midnight blue might be a good choice for that era. When the gold speed bird logo came into being, the shade of blue was noticeably lighter - I think USN sea gloss blue would be close. Have you tried contacting the BA heritage people?

Although considerably later than the Corsair the oxygen bottles on the Boeing 707 were dark green (not as dark as Brunswick green). As the design/specification of such things tended to change slowly in those days, there is a reasonable chance that Boeing were just continuing with an existing standard.

From memory, the blue used changed when the gold Speedbird logo was used on the fin and midnight blue would be a good starting point. But prior to this, when the two horizontal white stripes were used on the fin, the blue was much darker (almost black). Neither colour was glossy, varying from satin to matt according to age. As a thought the British Airways heritage centre may be able to help.

Considering the lack of cockpit space, the age and capability of the aircraft, I would suggest that one of the Ferranti ISIS series of gunsights may have been fitted (but be careful of what you search for!!!). There was also a similar gunsight made by SAAB, but both my memory and Google fail me in providing any further detail.

That would be good if you can find them.

Not wishing to hijack the thread, but as apprentice I never heard the term "Appo", and even when I went back to work at the Apprentice Training School I didn't come across the name. As for the APs, I wouldn't know because, in HMS Cranebank terminology I was a "greenie", . Any way let's hope the markings are for LHJ, if only to mark its contribution to aviation training.

Oops, that should have been "apprenti"!

Please make it LHJ. A note to BZN20, whilst we were called many things, "appo" wasn't one of the them. Of the more printable names, a common collective term was "apparenti"

All this got me wondering what my replacement was like. The original was cracked, the replacement isn't. As for optical distortion, whilst neither are optically perfect (was the full size one?), the distortion level is on-par with the acceptability of the panel lines (don't get me started!).

Emailed Airfix yesterday for a replacement canopy, got a prompt reply saying how the problem is being addressed and a replacement canopy today - now that's service!

If you are talking about the square holes that are just forward of the upper antenna and visible with the canopy closed, these are the cabin pressurisation outlets.

Thanks for the information everyone. I rummaged through the stash and found the Vb Trop kit with the IWG markings and yes it does have the internally framed windscreen - one job less!

OK so I'm about to undertake something that is probably beyond my capability - conversion of the Airfix 24th scale MkVb into a Mk9 using the Heritage conversion set. I can probably cope with adding cannon stubs, making a round rear view mirror and maybe changing the cannon bulges to slim ones, but the bit that is going to stump me is how to convert the windscreen to an internally armoured one. Does anyone have any ideas on how this can be done, or is there an after market one (and for all the other bits as well)?

from both the plans and the picture it does look as if the whole engine moves. On the drawing the engine bearer appears to be bolted to the bulkhead to the right of the engine through which the prop shaft passes. That's an awful lot of ironmongery to swing about!

Thanks Carlos

The whole thing seems to full of problems. Was the technology of flexible joints up to handling the power/weight/torque of the driveshaft? Was the prop shaft moved prior to engine start - moving the prop when it was running would involve dealing with the gyroscopic forces of the prop itself - but then again the same problem would be apparent when moving the props back to the in-flight position. Anybody know how to correct the topic title?

Thanks Carlos, just noticed my mistake.

As A Model have announced the release of this model, it got me thinking about a non-modelling question. The pusher engines (or the prop driveshafts) could be inclined to keep the props clear of the spray - but how was this done? Was it; an electric motor (unlikely considering the stage of electrical system development at that time), a pneumatic system (would it have enough grunt?), a hydraulic actuator or mechanical/manual system? Anybody any ideas?

Only yesterday my wife asked me what I wanted for Christmas - Airfix have provided the answer!

Sorry I couldn't tell you the project number. It was in the early days of the GR5 project and it was all to do with; was a "Tin Wing" as produced by BAe better than a "plastic" one produced by McD?

From memory, the "Tin Wing" did get produced as an incomplete mock-up but was only mated to an incomplete fuselage (front and centre section?). As far as finish was concerned it was just natural metal

The static plate is always unpainted, corrosion free natural metal. I've no idea if, on the Tempest if this was aluminium or steel - hopefully someone will have the data. As for the plates being fitted on both sides, again someone may have the data. But having two plates (interconnected) overcomes the problems in pressure reading errors caused by the A/C yawing.

Ben Yes I was referring to the experiments of projecting the aiming reticule directly onto the windscreen. I don't know about Tempests having a non-gyro gunsight without the reflective glass, if they did how would the aiming reticule be presented to the pilot (unless it was part of the aforementioned experiment)? FYI, there is a short article on the gunsight on Wikipedia (look for Ferranti ISIS gunsight).

First the gun sight: By this stage in the development of aircraft armament systems Gyro gun sights were normal. The problem with the gun sights was (and in some instances still is), is that the aiming reticule is projected onto a piece of semi-silvered (semi-reflective) glass. This glass caused visual obscuration to the pilot and, due to the technical limitations of the era, was dimensionally small which limited the "off bore-sight" (angular displacement from the A/C and gun harmonisation) and hence reduced the lead (deflection) angle firing opportunities. To try to overcome this, experiments were conducted to project the reticule image directly onto the flat portion of the windscreen. These were not that successful due to: windscreen distortions/deflection causing sighting errors and the problems of projecting a sufficiently bright image of the reticule onto the windscreen. Second Pitot and Static systems: As gingerbob correctly says; the static plate is an area of the airframe (normally the fuselage) where the ambient pressure in its vicinity is as close as possible to the atmospheric pressure at the altitude that the aircraft is at. This static plate (and there are normally two of them, one each side of the fuselage are interconnected to eliminate pressure variations due to A/C yaw) is connected by a pipe to at least; the Altimeter, the Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI) and to the Airspeed Indicator (ASI). The Pitot system uses the Pitot Head to measure ram air pressure due to A/C forward motion - the location of the head has to be chosen to ensure that the air pressure it senses is that due to A/C motion and is not influenced by any oddities of local airflow. This Pitot pressure is piped to the ASI to give a differential pressure within the ASI which equates to Indicated Airspeed. Differential pressure within the ASI is necessary to correct for the fall in Ram air pressure at altitude (lower ambient pressure). Right back to the delights of a big Tempest!