John Aero

I can supply Martian with the Aeroplane article which also runs into the November issue.and AFP plan as we are already in contact. Comparing the drawing to photos the tail rib spacing is wrong as are the fuselage side stringers and I do know that the kit was in all probability made by Gordon (Sutcliffe) to the AFP plan. Cheers John

I will look out what I have There is a very useful cutaway in Aeroplane by Frank Munger. The only published drawing I can think of is in the revised Vol 2 of Aircraft of the Fighting Powers. I have the former stuff and a dimensioned drawing of the Condor engine (Janes 1919) as well as the attached sheet from the AP. I do have a photo of the fuselage Blueprint somewhere. Frankly I'd sell the Horseley to Jonners and demo something simpler. 😉 Note the offset cockpit. John

On the O ring tyres subject, This little exercise has just taken me about 15 mins. The donor ring is on the left, second left is a same with a segment cut out. Next two identical rings but now joined with Cyano but not yet sanded down. The hub is just a ring cut off a length of tube which needs a couple of concentric tubes to fill it down to the axle diameter and a facing piece. These are for a 1:48 Auster IV. The ring on the right is a standard O ring but perfect for such as early Spitfires. The Lledo Taxi has my O ring tyres on my cast wheels missing their hub caps, which replaced the horrid undersized gold wheels, as bought. I'ts 1:48 by the way.

I think that I would find out what their favorite plane is or the era they most like or as it would seem if they like modern airlines stuff, go with your suggestion. John

Hi Dave, I have bought the nitrile cord separately but I find that making small O rings with thicker cord it's very difficult to make them circular so I find that using a pre-formed ring of a suitable close size is easier to keep the shape true and has less resistance to being re-shaped. Been there with the bonding.. Cheers John

A suitable tyre for the Berkeley and my box of O rings and Tyres for Diecast stuff. The shine can be taken off the O rings by just lightly rubbing them with abrasive. Another trick is if you can't find a totally suitable O ring but a slightly larger one meets the tyre thickness requirement, just carefully cut a segment out, so as to reduce the overall diameter to the wheel size then super glue the two ends accurately together. You should get an instant bond. The join will be visible but if you have put the ends together properly a light rub with a sanding stick will make the join disappear and when it's totally dry, you can still spring the tyre over a hub rim. I've made a simple Jig by sawing a piece of suitable brass tube length ways to produce an open ended trough, of which one half is soldered to a small piece of flat brass sheet so that it won't roll. A lightest smear of soap will act as a release agent. Apply cyano to one end of the cut O ring and push both ends of the ring together in the trough by applying the lightest pressure and allow to set. Any slight skin of cyano is just sanded off. John

Jonners, If it helps there is no dishing of the wheel covering. It's simply a flat fabric disc laced to the Palmer wheel tyre hooks. Even the wheel rim will not show, as in the picture above. look on line for Nitrile rubber O rings, there are simply thousands of differing sizes. Most of the sites such as Simply Seals have charts so you can choose OD, ID or section size. My Moth uses O ring tyres. You can scuff them but you don't need to paint them. I have various cast metal hubs but they can easily built up from laminations in Plastic card. O rings are ideal for Silver inter-war stuff. Berkeley = 10 mm ID x 3 mm section. From Simply Seals. I'll append a photo when i get back from my dog walk. John

Tom, I will dig out a couple of documents I have, (if you need them) from my library which are fully dimensioned GA's of the Hispano Mk 2 and Mk 5 20 mm guns. I'll need to reduce them for transmission. I think that I have more on the Bristol Turret somewhere. I also have the Bentley Hispano gun drawings. John

This info on the Bristol Type B.17 turret might be of use. John

Yes there was a gunners seat. (31) It had a square cushion and folded up, on the port side wall at the centrepoint in the gunners cockpit. Here is a detail from a drawing by the late Frank Munger, looking forwards. You can position it on the fuselage by reference to the elevator bellcranks. which are roughly in line with the forwards rim of the gun ring. 36 /36 are the fire steps on which the gunner stood to fire the gun. 37 is the gunners sliding floor through which the gunner reached the bomb dropping lever (40) The floor slid forwards. John

Vaugham Williams, Sinfonia Antartica. 🤓 John

The name has slipped I'm afraid, but it was at the DH Moth Club Charity event last year. A privilege and a pleasure. John

Lovely to see, I was fortunate to be able to fly in KIN last year. The Messenger has always been one of my favorite aeroplanes. John

Here you can see the topside. This modern restoration doesn't have the top registration but it does show the difficult to see cabin to wing fairings. Both my pictures at Old Warden. John

This is a pretty standard layout. John

I used to love standing on the QRA park at the end of the runway at Ballykelly, watching and hearing the Shacks leaving for a patrol, (only a wing span away) going off in the twilight. They'd taxy onto the runway with the Griffons popping out orange flames. They would anchor up directly opposite me and then slowly start to move with the engines bellowing up to take off power. The noise was incredible and the exhaust colour would change from red to blue then to an incandessent purple white light as they climbed out into the last of the light from the west. John

Heather. the Port under and Starboard upper plus tail (in lieu of fuselage letters) would be mandatory and required by Air Law. The P Ud & S Up, replaced the full span plus fuselage sides, registration requirement. John

I would suggest the aircraft carried the required Port under and Starboard upper wing registrations plus the vertical tail.. John

Your Auster was in truth a bit of an odd bird. It started life as G-ALUE the final production Autocrat. It went to Kenya as VP-KKG and later returned to UK where it was converted as an Auster J1S by the fitting of a Chipmunk Gipsy Major 10 engine, whence it became G-AMVN. Heather, I might be able to help with suitable letter decals from my personal stock if you would like to contact me. John

I note that your Auster spent some time in Kenya and met it's end in a mid-air collision with a Forney F.1A Aircoupe in 1969. A sad ending. John

I totally respect Heather's right to do as she wishes to achieve her goal. The following is in respect to Post 38. The canopies can't just be exchanged beteen a III and IV or later derivative . To modify the III canopy, the plastic has to be slit part way up the canopy top and the resulting tab bent down and triangles of material removed on each side X. Similarily the fuselage top needs to be lowered by again removing slim triangles of plastic from the sides, Y. Once the top is lowered the "Taylorcraft curve" along the underside of the fuselage needs to be built up on the IV to a straight line and then the bottom edge near to the U/c fairing squared off. My modified and polished canopy will be used to make a mould for a vacformed item. The near fuselage is the modified one. The lower edge of the canopy sides on the III have a curved dip at the door area towards the windscreen. The IV onwards frames do not have this so it needs to be painted fuselage colour or filed flat and the top edge of the door area built up. To be clear the Autocrat uses the basic Mk IV frame. The only later Austers to use a Taylorcraft type frame (IIRC) were the Atom and the Arrow. John

I'm trying not to be a pain here but for information the Auster III is the wrong version to make an Autocrat. The fuselage geometry and shape, though similar looking are actually quite different. The better starting point would be the Airfix Auster AOP 6. as this has the correct lower rear fuselage. The Auster III was the last of the original Taylorcraft derivatives and the Auster IV introduced the new fuselage frame which then changed little for the life of the breed. My abiding Auster memory is being flown at a very, very low level by a Lincolnshire farmer down an endless potato field towards one of the farmers hapless employees, who was so used to the experience, he carried on hoeing, he didn't even look up! John I've been doing a similar exercise in 1:48th. This I hope will illustrate the difference. Foreground an Auster IV and behind the Auster III. Windscreens also can vary as the screen on the Autocrat is more rounded.

In America and France there were a number of aircraft 'Fit the box scales' by Aurora, Comet, Kleeware, Lincoln and Revell including the ridiculous1:28. Lindburg even tried 1:64 scale ( half 1:32). These faded out quite quickly as more people wanted uniformity in their builds. In the Metric countries such as Germany, France and Japan, 100th and 50th scale initially enjoyed a limited popularity with Heller, Faller, Tamiya and VEB being the most notable. In the UK only one manufacturer used 1:96 (half 1:48) for aircraft and that was Vulcan/Eagle. Frog did some large aircraft in1:96. The success of Airfix and Frog with 1:72 set the trend for most production, so more foreign makers went over to 1:72 and 1:48. Soon 1:32 (3/8ths" to the foot) became the norm for the "big scale market"), with Airfix choosing 1;24.. I have often thought that had 1:36 (2 x 1:72) been chosen over 1:32 then the Japanese military scale of 1/35 would have been virtually compatible for dioramists and almost full circle. The imperial Model Car kit scales were 1:32 and Airfix plus some USA manufacturers produced vehicles in this scale with as discussed previously the 1;25 and 1:24 tending to take over the market. Renwall in the USA did a fairly large range of Historic and 1960's cars in 1:48. some are a little out of scale such as their Bentley 6 Litre. I have a few of these and they're quite nice little models. In my opinion the most irritating scale is the diecast car world scale of 1:43. It's a nonsensical scale based on nothing but a slavish following of early model railway practice in the UK of O gauge 7 mm to the foot. American railroad O scale is 1:48 or (6 mm to the foot-ish). Ahh, I hear some say, but Dinky toys Car models were made to that scale! No they weren't. Pre-war Dinky scales vary, but post war they are so unsteady as to be almost drunk, In the 40's and early 50's many are 1/4 " to the foot, yes 1:48 as were all the Super Toys commercial vehicles. In the later 50's they varied from 1:46 or 1;45 to 1:43 where due to competion from other makes they settled. The company who deserve the prize for ridiculous non-conformity are the Matchbox Yesteryears with their scales often hovering around 1:48 but seldom ever getting near. Most Corgi Collectables Commercial vehicles are to a constant 1:50. John

Model aircraft scales in the UK were started by a young James Hay Stevens. He owned a number of Britains model soldiers. Keen to make some scale model aircraft to match his soldiers he made some out of wood and bits of odd wire etc. He scaled up his plans from drawings in such as Flight and Aeroplane. Britains Tin/Lead figures were designed to be 2" tall. This made them 1:36th scale, so this was the scale of his aeroplanes. The interest in the aircraft out grew the soldiers and soon his 1:36 models at an average wing span of 12" out grew his meagre shelf space. Keen to build more he halved the scale to 1" to equal 6 feet. Soon his plans were being published in magazines such as Aeromodeller. and the scale became established as the average span was a neat 6". James H Stevens published a book of plans and instructions in 1933 called Scale Model Aircraft. I have an original copy. Stevens then collaborated with a chap called Holloway and the kits they produced were the famous Skybirds. These kits comprised of some pre shaped wooden parts, a plan and some thin fibre board for thinner aerofoils. They later had some items such a propellers stamped out of tin sheet and engines ect cast in a Lead material. Skybirds Clubs were formed and the company also produced accessoies such as refuelers, searchlight crews, vehicles and pilots and mechanics. Other companies also produced ranges of mainly military aircraft mainly in Balsa wood or Obeche, as the War loomed up. They were known as Solid models because they were carved from solid wood and not light, hollow and fragile like the contemporary flying scale models. Frog (Flies Right Off Ground) a flying model company started to produce models also to 1:72 scale but now made of injected Cellulose Acetate. These were the Penguin series, (They weren't made to fly). Some companies chose 1:48 or 1/4" to the foot for their"solid models". 1:96 or 1/8th" to the foot, was popular for larger aircraft especially in America. 1/144th (12 feet to the inch) supplanted this scale in the UK. The modern age is well known. John

I've just spotted this thread and on a quick check I find that I have a 1:72 plan of the machine in the Harboro The Book of Bristol Aircraft (1946). Similarily there are plans for the Braemar and Pulman. Too late now though, but contact me if needed. John