stever219

I visited Coltishall in spring 1976 and the Jaguars were in the process of swapping over to the wraparound scheme: 41(F) Squadron’s XZ385 was the first jet I noted in the new scheme and she also sported toned-down squadron markings. XX144 of 54 Squadron still had a Light Aircraft Grey belly and full size, full colour squadron markings.

If it's the RAF boxing it's only got the pregnant one.

What about a 100 Group boxing as was done with the B-17?

I think not, but I'm not near my Victor references just now. They are the boundary layer bleed duct outlets IIRC. On my Victots I've opened out the front "wall" at the bottom of the ramp and inserted a length of appropriately-sized square section tube to represent the visible section of the duct inside the wing root. I stand to be erected........

Got it in one sir! Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to work out how to install two tiny, forward-facing floodlights in those fairings if you ever decide that you are going to do that last southbound refuelling of XM607 on Black Buck 1.😂😂😡

This evening (23.00 Zulu/GMT) it has been reported that Untied Airlines has grounded a number of 737 MAX 9s as loose bolts have been found around the plugs. There’s no indication of hours or cycles on any of the aircraft involved, but some, at least, must be older than the Alaskan Airways incident aircraft. My thoughts are that this is a further manifestation of the QC issues that have plagued Boeing in recent years. What must be cause for concern for the international aerospace community is that Spirit are also major sub-contractors to Airbus and Bombardier amongst others, so are their products similarly affected? As for “warning lights” reported for the incident aircraft there are reports of it having suffered pressurisation problems in the two or three days prior to the incident itself. Depending on how serious the crews involved perceived these incidents to be would it not have been prudent to take the aircraft out of service at one or other of those points to investigate the problem? Sadly all of the CVR data from those flights, and the incident flight itself, has been lost (why did the incident flight crew not pull the CVR circuit breaker(s) after landing?) More grist for the NTSB and FAA mills I fear.......

XM715 was repainted in a colour very close to, if not in fact, Desert Pink some time after her retirement. You would, however, need to source her “Meldrew 1” artwork for the starboard side of the nose to be fully authentic but you could say she’s part way through her repaint . I’m off to count some more rivets........

@Navy Bird I have another snagging item for you. The Blue Steel Victors lacked the floodlight fairings under the rear fuselage either side of the tail bumper so they’ll have to come off before you start redistributing gallons of white paint. Thanks for the pointers on all of the sink mark filling that litters my future though!

For some time now Boeing have had their 737 fuselages built by Spirit Aerospace, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing. The fuselages are then transported by RAL from Spirit’s plant to Boeing’s final assembly plant. Spirit have been under the microscope of late for quality control issues, most notably fastener hole drilling in aft pressure bulkhead components and some tailplane structures. As the incident airframe is less than 3 months old fatigue is likely to be ruled out very quickly. What little imagery has been released shows a remarkably clean edge to the aperture and the brackets to which the plug panel is bolted. Could those four bolts have been inadequately torqued, undesired, omitted altogether or any combination of these and other factors? It could be possible that repeated pressurisation cycles (but so few?) have distorted the plug sufficiently for it to have been distorted enough to force it from its location? I’ve not seen any installation drawings or imagery but it beggars belief that the design would be a flush or external mounting with so few mechanical connections between plug and structure. Older images of the incident airframe (and others) show a noticeable outline to the plug, indicating that its outer face is not flush with the surrounding structure. The outcome of the NTSB’s investigation is going to be very interesting reading.

The S.2A and S.2C were not equipped to carry Martel ASMs whereas the S.2B and S.2D were. The underwing pylons on the ‘B and ‘D are further apart to give adequate clearance for the Martel, and later Sea Eagle, stabilising fins.

Not quite; they’re footrests that are only used during ejection and are part of the seat itself, rather than part of the aeroplane.. As the seat travels up the guide rails the leg restraint cords, which are anchored to the cockpit floor just in front of the seat pan and secured to garters on the occupant’s flying clothing, pull the occupant’s legs back so that (usually) his heels are drawn into the rests. Along with the high thigh guards on the front of the seat sides this prevents the legs flailing outwards and upwards as seat and occupant rise into the air stream around the cockpit. I think that Airfix moulded them a small part of the cockpit floor as a convenience whilst providing as much detail as possible. I’ve an idea that the seat in the 1/48th Hunter should also have the footrests but I need to check.

How about choosing an unarmed subject? Post-WW2 Lancasters were often seen without guns, particularly those originally destined for Tiger Force in the Far East, or Coastal Command. You also get away from the standard Bomber Command colour scheme. There are also the PR/survey Lancasters of 82 Squadron, including BBMF's PA474, in their bare aluminium or High Speed Silver colours.

I've recently been gifted the Black Buck boxing of the Airfix Vulcan and I think I've decided to depict XM598. I could go the easy way and depict her as prepared for her abortive rile in Black Buck 1 with the AN/ALQ-101 pod, but I've recently been reminded that she was the airborne spare for Black Buck 5 and 6. That being the case I assume that she had modified pylons fitted with launchers for the AGM-45s but I cannot find any images to support this. Does anyone know if this was the case and/or have any images to support it? Thank you all.

Mine was apparently in the warehouse yesterday awaiting preparation for despatch. As I'm still working on the RN version and won't be at the delivery address before Tuesday that's fine by me.

The new-tool Vulcan uses the Blue Steel sprue from the Victor kit, but has Vulcan-specific Blue Steel fairing/bomb door parts.

I think I’d like the AAR probe to be a bit longer or mounted on the nose Buccaneer-style but that’s a good result for one of Airfix’s not-quite-finest.

I‘ve always preferred the DC-8 to its competitor from Seattle since seeing an image in, of all things, the Daily Mirror of one of the stretched Series 70s (I think) on its first arrival into Heathrow in the late 1960s. This colour scheme really suits the aeroplane and @NorbertBu you’ve done a splendid job on it.

OK: goldfish bowl canopy, “short” fuselage, small-bore Avons, early wings and main wheels gives you a B. Mk. 2. Add a new nose, revised cockpit floor, canopy and instrument panel, additional ejection seat and control column and you’ve got a T. Mk. 4. Add a new sprue to the B. Mk. 2 kit with either or both of two new noses, one with a pointy end and the other with some warts and a few extra bits and you’ve got a T. Mk. 11/17/19. There are are plenty of interesting colour schemes here, Night and Medium Sea Grey, High Speed Silver (with yellow T-bands for the Mk. 4), Medium Sea Grey, Dark Slate Grey and PRU Blue, Dark Green, Dark Sea Grey and High Speed Silver, Hemp/Camouflage Beige and Medium Sea Grey, Light Aircraft Grey and Dayglo Orange/Red and that’s just the RAF jets before you get to the specials, trials and exercise markings. Add to that non-UK users from Australia to Zimbabwe, Sweden to New Zealand France to Florida the long way and the possibilities are legion. Come on Airfix, you know you want to!

There's less commonality between various marks of Canberra than you'd think. The wings on the Mks. 6, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 22 differed from those of the Mks. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 19, as dd the main wheels. Then you have the different fuselage lengths between the bomber/trainer/interdictor and PR variants, and that's without taking into account the odd noses of the Mks. 4, 6(RC), 11, 17, 19 and 22. The PR. 9 is an almost entirely different aeroplane altogether, so where would you like to start?

It's a lovely little kit: it was issued not long after I'd been on annual camp at RAF Cranwell with the CCF and I'd spent 3 happy half-days down on the JP line, full of still-young JP5s and more mature JP3s. The kit cockpits not too bad but the floor's too low; there was an article in the long-gone PAM News recommending the the seats need to be jacked up by about 6 thou. The worst aspect for me is the raised outlines for the ailerons, especially around the horn balances at the outer ends. Quite a lot of bad language has been expended on remedying that bit of toolmaker's nonsense!

The Americans found that out the hard way with at least one of the early X-planes. They'd used some form of leather in the LOX system and any form of knock, bump, minor impact or pressure change could (and did) produce some spectacular and fatal results.

Yes, the RPs weren't type-specif8c for different aircraft.

Not in 1/72th they didn’t/don’t.

There goes my "quick and simple" (whatever that is) fix then! I'll have to borrow one of my pal @avro683's CA kits to plagiarise the tips.

It makes not be the tanks that are the issue: I have long held the opinion that the chord of the outer wing panels on the Airfix Canberra is too great. On the real aeroplane the trailing edge is a straight line from the junction with the jet pipe fairing to just outboard of the ailerons. However on the Airfix kit the trailing edge has less forward sweep for about the first half-inch outboard before adopting the correct sweep angle. Ironically the older Airfix, FROG and Matchbox kits all got this right. I’ve been trying to devise a neat and, preferably, simple solution for some time but haven’t quite got there yet. The moment I do Airfix will release a series of blindingly accurate, LIDAR-scanned, impeccably researched and shockingly reasonably-priced Canberras in 1/72th, 1/4th and 1/24th scales; I suppose I’d better crack on with it🙄🙄...........