Le Taureau Qui Rit

Hi Marc, I have to admit I had a kind-of gut feeling that the mid-fuselage insert for the Lincoln might be a sticking point with the HK Lancaster. Thanks for confirming that. It seems to me that (perhaps counterinuitively given that one needs to change the number of engines) the Manchester is actually less of a drastic conversion than the Lincoln! As you say, I'm probably better off keeping the HK Lancaster as a Lancaster, and use the (slightly cheaper) and more basic Tamiya Lancs as donors, particularly seeing as they are the kits that Paragon had in mind when they produced their conversions. It seems quite odd to think of the Tamiya Lancasters as being relatively "basic" or old fashioned as I can vividly remember as a youth looking up at the big Tamiya Lancaster boxes that would always be stood quite prominently in model shops, usually fairly near the ceiling and always positioned with their box tops facing into the room as, to my mind at least, the ultimate model kit to aspire to build!

Good Morning all, I have both the Paragon 1/48 Manchester conversion and the Lincoln conversion sitting in my stash. I picked them both up back in the dim and distant past when they used to only cost about £50 each, but they've stayed on the shelf awaiting a time when I would become brave enough to risk attempting a couple of conversions that have become increasingly rare to the point of being borderline irreplaceable if I were to make a dreadful mess of them. Before anyone asks though, I'm not interested in parting with them either! 🙂 My question is whether the HK Models Lancaster 1/48 is a possibility to use as a donor kit for either of these conversions? Also, if a conversion using the HK kit with either of the Paragon sets is do-able, is there any particular point or advantage to choosing the HK over the Tamiya one they were originally designed for? I built a Tamiya Lancaster back in about 1995, and I enjoyed it a lot but even back then it seemed a little long in the tooth. I haven't yet seen the HK Lancaster "in the plastic", so I would be interested in any thoughts anyone has on the matter. 🙂 Daniel

Hi all. I've got the 1/48 scale Alley Cat Vampire Mk.I in my stash and I'd like to back-date it to represent the first production Vampire TG274 as it was in the summer of 1945 when undertaking trials at Boscombe Down. The most obvious thing that would need to be changed is the canopy, which is the later bubble canopy in the Alley Cat kit. Does anyone know where I can find the early type canopy in 1/48? Would the canopy from the old Hobbycraft Vampire I be an option, or is it as flawed as most of the rest of the kit? Also, does anyone know if any other changes would need to be made to the Alley Cat kit to make it into an early Mk.I? Thanks, Daniel 🙂

Excellent! Thank you very much!

Thanks

That's fantastic. Thank you very much. The Air Kruise Dragon Rapides look like they were silver overall (as far as I can tell from the photos I have seen), but I imagine the blue that Air Kruise used would probably have been constant throughout their fleet.

Thank you. I can't seem to find an image anywhere, but at least I've now got another direction to go to investigate.

Hi all, Does anyone have any ideas of the actual colours of the livery worn by Dragon Rapides employed by Air Kruise on their cross-channel service during the 1950s. Pictures here I've managed to find a few photos but only ever in black and white. The best clue I can find is on a postcard which features a cigarette-card style painting of an Air Kruise DC-3 (see here) which (in combination with the black and white photos) suggests something like an Oxford Blue cheat line and Navy Blue lettering but I'm not sure that was also the case with their Dragon Rapides. Any information or information gratefully received.

Based on what I've read in Martin Middlebrook's excellent books about Bomber Command (eg "The Peenemunde raid", "The Berlin Raids" and "The Nuremberg Raid") as well as other sources I can't quite recall at the moment, it's always been my belief that the Mk.I and Mk.III Lancasters had significantly better performance at "high" altitude ("high" in Bomber Command terms ie at around 20000ft) than the Hercules-engined Mk.II Lancasters, both in ceiling and speed. It appears that the Mk.II Lancasters had better performance at lower altitudes (presumably due to the Hercules engines producing significantly more power at lower altitude than the Merlins the other marks of Lancaster employed). On the Peenemunde raid (which was flown at a much lower altitudes than was normal for Bomber Command raids at the time, with some aircraft bombing from as low as 4000ft) the superior low altitude performance of the Mk.II was illustrated by the fact that the first heavy bomber to return from the raid was a Mk.II of the Main Force, which landed back at its base eleven minutes before the first of the pathfinders, having been flown back from Peenemunde in only three hours and ten minutes by a crew keen to get home quickly from the last mission of their tour. With regard to the bomb-doors fitted to the Mk.II, in addition to allowing carriage of the larger types of blockbuster, they also allowed for a smooth fairing between the bomb-doors and the belly or "mid-under" turret that was originally fitted to Mk.IIs. These "mid-under" turrets were for the most part removed to save weight (both of the turret and of the gunner necessary to operate it), which was to prove unfortunate when the German nightfighters started utilising the Schrage Musik upward firing weapons, which would have not have been nearly as effective had the British bombers not had a blind spot directly beneath them. Martin Middlebrook observes in "The Nuremberg Raid" that although the majority of Bomber Command were unaware of the nature of Schrage Musik, the Canadian squadrons operating the Mk.II Lancaster must have had an inkling because by that time (March 1944) they were refitting the belly turrets as quickly as they could.

The point is that the Javelin didn't actually NEED the afterburner on take-off, and it was only there to provide a bit of an extra boost when it was required when a bit higher up, so the lack of afterburner at lower altitudes really didn't matter much. In contrast, the afterburner installed in some versions of the Supermarine Swift wouldn't light above about 20,000ft, which would have been a massive problem in the aircraft's original role as an interceptor, but mattered less when the Swift Mk 5 was was used in the fighter-reconnaissance role which was primarily carried out at lower altitudes where the afterburner deficiency was not such a problem. Most of the early jet aircraft were somewhat restricted on how they could be used operationally (although the Javelin had quite a lot of restrictions, and not just limited to the engines).

Definitely early. It had the early tail and ailerons. I don't think (though I may be wrong) that any Snipes with the revised tail or longer ailerons made it to France before the Armistice, although others may know more. D.

If you can get hold of it there's a Cutting Edge conversion kit for the B-26K (or A-26A as it was renamed during Vietnam) that is a lot more extensive than the Ozmods version, as it provides the modified tail already alluded to, in addition to the wing pylons, a replacement for part of the fuselage top (where the turret originally was), replacement engine cowlings, all sorts of antennae and replacement mainwheels (for some reason the Counter Invader was given new mainwheels which were apparently also used on C-135s and DC-6s). Although all of that is provided, it's still down to the modeller to convert the cockpit to dual control (as is appropriate for the Counter invader) and what changes were made to what was originally the gunner's position seems to be anyone's guess. The instructions of the Cutting Edge set admit that the original Monogram kit is dimensionally dodgy, but take the view that it's something you more or less have to live with and that they did the best they could with a rather sketchy donor kit. All of this said, trying to find this conversion kit is awfully difficult. They come up once in a blue moon on a certain well known auction-site and when they do they usually go for silly money. D.

That is truly one fantastic "Fee". I've got one sitting in the stash awaiting a time when I feel confident enough to give it a go. If mine turns out anywhere as near as nice as this one I shall be extremely happy (not to mention surprised!) Great work. Really superb! D.

Yep! When I was growing up near St Austell the buh-boom that rattled the windows in the frame was how I knew when it was 10pm each night without looking at my watch. That said, the boom we used to hear in Cornwall from Concorde was definitely being made over water. The sonic boom you could hear from Concorde if you happened to be out in a boat and closer to the source was something in a completely different league. I heard it a few times while on a boat and each time it made everyone who hadn't heard it before run up on deck in a state of near-panic as they initially had no idea what had made such a loud bang. D.

I'm not entirely sure that the down-turned wingtips on the TSR2 were really designed to reduce induced-drag due to vortices. An awful lot of the pictures I've seen of the TSR2 in flight shows it with visible vortices trailing back from the wingtips, suggesting that the vortices are pretty intense and powerful (a result of the fact that fairly obviously a pretty big air-pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing must have been required to allow such a heavy aircraft to fly with such a comparitively small wing). In addition, the first aircraft to appear with winglets explicitly stated to be present to reduce drag didn't arrive on the scene until at least a decade after the TSR2 (and the first really well known application, the 747-400 didn't show up until two decades after the TSR2). I'm in agreement with mrvr6's suggestion that the downward turned tips are stability related. For various reasons, an aircraft with high wings (eg the TSR2) has greater stability in roll than an otherwise identical aircraft with low wings. Also an aircraft with swept wings tends to have greater stability in roll than a similar aircraft with straight wings. As a result, an aircraft with high-set swept wings will tend to be pretty stable in roll - often too stable in fact, for a combat aircraft, which requires a little less stability in order to allow a rapid and dynamic rate of roll. A solution to this is to give the wing anhedral (a downward tilt), which for various reasons reduces the stability somewhat and counteracts the excessive stability effects of the combination of a high and swept wing. The Harrier's wing is a very good example of this. An alternative to giving the entire wing anhedral is to give the majority of the wing zero anhedral or dihedral, but give the outer wings severe anhedral (as in the TSR2), which achieves the same result. I may be entirely wrong about this being the reason for the TSR2's wing form (particularly when you consider that the XB-70 also had downward-tilted outer wings but due to much more complex Mach 3+ considerations) but that was what I've always thought was an appropriate explanation for it. Daniel

I can't really believe the government can seriously be considering this one. Speaking as someone who works at a small airport whose very modest expansion plans (a new terminal building and our runway to be extended from 1505 to 1799 metres) have been delayed for the lasty few years by round after round of legal wrangles and public enquiries, with a number of stonewalling tactics being used by the opposition, primarily so-called "environmental concerns", I think it beggars belief that the government can whoelheartedly throw its support behind what must surely be potentially one of the most environmentally-damaging civil engineering projects ever considered in this country when much smaller projects are continuously delayed by what is often (but not always) thinly-veiled nimbyism. I strongly suspect that "environmental concerns" are something that will be taken into account when considered voteworthy but conveniently ignored when something more sensational comes along. I'll get back down off my soapbox now, but for legal reasons I will just also add that my comments should in no way be construed as the opinions of the company for which I work. D

I'm really not sure whether questions regarding Air America belong in the Civil section or the Military section but I decided to put this one in here as it was (in theory at least) a civilian outfit, regardless of who actually owned and ran the airline, and the fact that they flew in support of military operations. I was really wondering if anyone knew the correct colour to use for the blue trim on Air America's smaller aircraft. The blue on the decals in Roden's Air America Pilatus Turbo-Porter looks way too light a shade to me, and the colour pictures in Terry Love's book "Wings or Air America" make the blue look very dark (in the pictures of Porters, Hueys and Beech 18s) but glossy. In fact, in the pictures I've seen, it looks like the blue should be a touch darker than the blue used in the corner of the little American flags painted on the aircraft. Beyond having a vague idea that it should be a "glossy dark blue", I'm pretty much flummoxed. Does anyone have any better ideas/information? Thanks, Daniel

Apart from the mention of RAF-marked B-36s, this source also contains an error in that the overflights of the USSR by British crewed and marked RB-45Cs actually took place in 1952 and 1954 as part of Operation Jiu Jitsu. More information is available from Spyflight. Details of the British RB-45C overflights were released by the MOD in 1994 (and I remember watching a BBC documentary on the subject around that time but I don't recall what it was called) and although RB-36s based at Sculthorpe did make overflights of the far north of the Soviet Union in the early 1950s, I've never seen or heard any suggestion that any of them carried RAF markings. Incidentally, one of the markings options for Collect-Aire's 1/48 B-45 an Operation Jiu Jitsu RB-45C with RAF roundels and fin flashes. Daniel

Just to muddy the waters, although Italeri's U-2R/TR-1 is an completely different kit from the Testors U-2C, Italeri also released their own re-boxing of the Testors U-2C. I have one of them in the stash myself, and considering the fairly extreme age of the original kit it's really not that bad at all, although obviously there's a fair bit of work required.

No, Special Hobby kits are injection kits almost always with resin accessories. Think Classic Airframes and you won't be too far off the mark (in fact some of their kits use moulds shared with Classic Airframes) Daniel

I think was a different sort of vehicle wasn't it? At least one of my previous cars was an old Bangor

Hello Edgar, Thanks very much for that. I'd be really interested in seeing those pages. Daniel

Cheers Nick. Sounds like FV944 is definitely the right serial for Mitchell "F" then. Many thanks, Daniel

Thanks very much for your replies. Edgar - Thanks very much for the offer. If you could have a look in the ORB for 98 Sqn for me at some point that would be absolutely great. Nick - Thanks for that about the serials. Just a little confused though, does Air Britain show FV944 ditching on 21st September 1943 or 1944? The aircraft my great-uncle was in definitely ditched in 1943. Graham -Thanks for pointing me toward that site. I have now registered there and posed similar questions on there as I have here. Thanks again, Daniel

Hello all, I'm trying to find some information about Mitchell "F" of 98 Squadron RAF which ditched in the English Channel west of Berck-sur-Mer after having been damaged by FW-190s, during a raid near Lens on 21st September 1943. I'm not sure of the serial but I think it may have been FV944, but the ditched aircraft is of particular interest to me as the navigator/bomb-aimer on that day was my great-uncle, Arthur Digby Burridge (who survived, as did the rest of the crew, although both gunners were injured), and all I have to go on with regard to the identity of the aircraft is the entry in his logbook, which identifies the aircraft as Mitchell "F". This website states that on the 21st September 1943 "FW-190s damaged FW674 and FV944 ditched in the Channel but FL683 went down with its crew", leading me to believe that Mitchell F was probably FV944 but this is by no means definite. As an aside, my great-uncle's logbook states that he was rescued from the sea by Air Sea Rescue Launch 2547 (skippered by P/O Clayton), flown back from Hawkinge to their home base (which I think must have been Dunsfold at that time) the same day in an Airspeed Oxford and the next day was airborne again on a 25 minute "local flying" sortie (possibly an air test), this time in Mitchell "A", flown by Flight Sergeant Davis, who had also been the pilot of Mitchell "F" the previous day. I've wanted to build a model of an aircraft he was flying in on that day for a very long time now, but it's only very recently I've had any clue of any information about the identity of the aircraft. Although I knew he was a Mitchell navigator, I didn't even know what squadron he'd served on, and I'd always imagined the crew bailing out from a reasonably high altitude rather than making a desperate attempt at ditching the aircraft in the sea with wounded crew members on board. My great-uncle died a few years before I heard about his time in the RAF and unfortunately I was never able to find out much at all about his service career, until having seen his logbook just recently which has filled in enough gaps to at least start looking. I'd be grateful of any information that anyone can provide me with regard to Mitchells in 98 squadron during this period. As far as I know, they were Mitchell IIs with Medium grey undersides and Olive Drab or Dark green topsides (I've seen disagreeing sources on this one), and I would imagine that these would have been stock USAAF colours, but I'd be really pleased if anyone could confirm this (or put me right if I'm horribly mistaken on this one). I also think (though once again I'm unsure) that the Mitchell IIs operated by 98 Squadron at that time would have had the retractable belly turret in place during this timeframe. In terms of the kit I intend to use, I have a 1/48th Accurate Miniatures B-25C/D in the stash which should fit the bill very nicely, though I'm not sure of any mods that might need to be made to change it to an RAF Mitchell II in the standard that would have been appropriate for September 1943. Any ideas/thoughts/assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Daniel