Selwyn
-
Posts
4,209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Selwyn
-
-
Its a Detonation CORD, there is nothing musical about it at all!🤣
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, NG899 said:
Thanks Selwyn!
A link to the instruction sheet pdf: https://www.pdf-archive.com/2020/04/19/airfix-72-raf-nato-weapons-set-05041/airfix-72-raf-nato-weapons-set-05041.pdf
Which is a useful crib sheet, I've now got a cunning plan...
Cheers
Nick
Just remember the Sea Eagle in this set is innacurate as it does not have the jettisonable air intake cover, (It's depicted as a missile after launch), and there is no such thing as a CPU123 bomb (its actually called a 1000lb Paveway II (UK).
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, NG899 said:
@Selwyn One for your memory banks... "The live rounds were overall matt EDSG with a 2"Golden Yellow And 1" wide Black band over the top half (only) of the warhead section (top of conduit to top of conduit)".
Please can you clarify if the black band was in front of or behind the yellow one?
Many thanks
Nick
P.S. From speaking with several ex-Bucc and ex-Phantom pilots who flew SHARs during the Falklands War, they operated in sea conditions on many days when Buccs and Phantoms on Ark would have been deck-bound. All aircraft have their capability envelopes and limits!
if I recall the black (AP) band was the front band. IIRC the ancient and rare RAF/NATO Weapons Kit, Airfix 05041 (1992) had the correct missile markings.
Selwyn
-
6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:
As I understand it, the problem with the Falcon was the long time taken to cool it down compared with the short time it could stay there. Something likely to be much more suitable for a bomber intercept than the rapidly-changing conditions of fighter-fighter combat.
The Sidewinders had a similar problem with cooling although probably not as longtime to cool, but it also had limited cooling gas. The Main problem with Falcon was the lack of the proximity fuze, Robin Olds reported several instances of falcons near missing targets , it would probably have a better success rate if it had proximity fuzing.
Another telling factor is the fitting of the 20mm cannon on the F106, a tacit admission of the Falcons deficiencies?
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Troy Smith said:
AFAIK not made by any of them.
A Tamiya mix is this
BS381C: 1930 COLOURS.
Deep Bronze Green BS.24
Mix: 6 x Humbrol 3 + 3 x Humbrol 10 + 1 x Humbrol 2.
Tamiya: 8 x XF5 + 5 X XF63 satin over.
In use: 1934-39 then post-war from 1948.
It was used on British vehicles, but the armament colour was not gloss.
There is a Vallejo which is very close.
https://alliedarmour1940.wordpress.com/vallejo-paint-mixes-for-british-armour/
Vallejo Model Color
24 (Deep Bronze Green)
70975 Military Green is just slightly lighter than the BS.381 standard (Mike Starmer, 2019)
Description: Very dark yellow green – a rich black green.
Same as the tank colour? BS 24?
Yes. Now Bs381c 224
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 1/31/2024 at 1:00 PM, treker_ed said:
I think it will probably be standard MAP Dark Green. So Tamiya XF-81 RAF Dark Green 2, from the top of my head. Don't use the other paints so can't tell you those sorry.
The colour used in British Deep Bronze Green
Selwyn
-
7 hours ago, scautomoton said:
Hello all,
I'm soon going to start an F.53 export dio based on the various images from airshows in the late 1960s. In the well known photo on Wikipedia (as shared below) there are a couple of bits of kit (labelled with red letters) that I just wanted to clarify:
A - the smaller bomb next to the 1000lb. Is this a 500lb? Or is it a Firebomb? (as listed in the F.53 cutaway diagram from Flight International September 5th 1968) Or is it something else?
B - Is this grey/cream item a drop tank? If so there is no mention of potential use of drop tanks from the underwing pylons and it can't be the overwing tank since there are other images showing both of them together.
C & D - I assume these are 2 of the 3 cameras that can be fitted to the reconnaissance pack (maybe Night and Linescan cameras?)
Thanks in advance,
Stuart
A is a British 540lb bomb (RAF did not use 500lb bombs in the cold war)
C is a Carrier Bomb Light Store (CBLS 100) practice bomb carrier.
Others I can't see clearly enough
Selwyn
-
On 4/9/2024 at 10:12 AM, TeeELL said:
I’ve just looked in my 1:48 kit and I see that the intakes are separate units. If you are interested, I could have a go at designing and printing smaller intakes.
A few other things to remember - the turbines of the Airfix kit have the reheat petals - if they fit the aftermarket part then don’t fit the ‘petals’.
On the ground the Javelin ailerons both rest ‘up’ ie the trailing edges of the ailerons sit a width above the adjacent wing trailing edge,
It is very, very unusual for the flaps to be ‘down’ or the airbrakes to be extended when the aircraft is parked.
The tailplane at rest generally sits at a ‘nose up’ attitude - not level, and the elevators sit trailing edge down.
Wing vortex generators, the FAW2 doesn’t appear to have been fitted with them - just read that the vortex generators were retrofitted.
Pitot tube - only one fitted on the port side.
You queried the way the radar option is fitted on the kit - the fuselage isn’t circular at the forward end of the cockpit it is a rectangle with very rounded corners. It is one reason why I’ve not yet plucked up the courage to cut the front off a 1:72 Airfix Javelin in order to create the replacement AI-22 nose.
Tony. I would be interested in 1/48 early intakes if you made some.
I have just finished a 1/72 FAW8 conversion on the Frog/Novo FAW9 kit using the Frieghtdog nose and it was a pretty painless experience. The cut is not made at the radome angle but at the frame in front of the canopy so no funny angles to cut.
Selwyn
-
On 4/8/2024 at 6:42 PM, Selwyn said:
Contacted the "Gloster Javelin a Reconstruction" on facebook to see if they could help about the FAW7 Fairing. The admin there John Keen has come up with a AP image showing the method of removing the FAW7 fairing, it does not show any shaping underneath the jetpipes, just a flat plate. I have asked if it was OK if I can repost on this site, awaiting a reply.
Selwyn
As stated it looks like its flat. AP drawings are invariably accurate especially as below they are showing the removal frame installation and fastener positions
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 4/6/2024 at 4:29 AM, Walter said:
After either Airfix or Italeri
Post to Australia
Thanks
Walter
Got one Airfix going spare but the decals may be a bit shot. The cost will probably be more for shipping to AUS though?
Selwyn
-
Contacted the "Gloster Javelin a Reconstruction" on facebook to see if they could help about the FAW7 Fairing. The admin there John Keen has come up with a AP image showing the method of removing the FAW7 fairing, it does not show any shaping underneath the jetpipes, just a flat plate. I have asked if it was OK if I can repost on this site, awaiting a reply.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:
Which meant that the pilot had to fire from a fairly limited width of range in order to get that productive cluster with multiple light guns. The Browning had a fair cone from a single gun, so getting in close (always a good idea but generally only the best pilots could manage their patience) was needed, Then there was the problem that when in a turn the wings would twist so that the outer guns on a Spitfire would be pointing in a different direction from the inner ones.
The pilot had to fire from a precise distance to achieve concentration at that point, which was indicated to him on his gunsight range ring. Slightly twisting wings wasn't a problem with the Hurricane.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 4/2/2024 at 6:36 PM, PatG said:
If the UK had obtained a license to manufacture the .5 inch Browning early on and then opted to use it instead of waiting for the Hispano cannon to become effective then it's quite possible that Spitfire and Hurricane 1's could have had them in the BoB even if it was one per wing along with two .303's, but as I say hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As for Mr Holland's belief that the 20mm cannon in the Bf109E was a 'major advantage' I'm now even more disinclined to agree with this notion as a wide spread of fire from 8 mg's gave the average pilot far more chance of actually putting a hole in something, particularly as pilots on both sides were 'average' in the main with only a small few mastering deflection shooting. As such the usual pareto law would seem to apply where by the majority of aircraft shot down were done so by a relatively small percentage of pilots on both sides.
Pat.
There was not wide spread of fire, the guns were harmonised so the fire from all 8 guns, and the gunsight pipper converged at an imaginary point in front of the aircraft so providing a killing punch to the target aircraft.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TeeELL said:
Whilst it was clearly a trials aircraft it was a FAW7 with a refuelling mod, can’t see any reason why Glosters would do anything to change the rear end?
Yes I agree.
Selwyn
-
1 hour ago, TeeELL said:
Further to my last. There is a photo of a FAW7 refuelling off a Canberra - it is from the official ‘Gloster Aircraft Company’ files. I believe that TJAM may have a copy so I will ask if I can view the original. The photo is taken from behind and below - so if the original is good quality it should provide a definitive answer.
I will ‘reach out’ to my contact there and I am going over on Sat 27th.
Obviously a trials aircraft shot as the production FAW7 wasn't capable of AAR.
I was thinking of contacting the Gloster Javelin Reconstruction on Facebook to see if they had anything in their archives on it.
Selwyn
-
1 hour ago, NG899 said:
For the curious, the text of my reply to Paul...
A very interesting question and one that’s hard to answer 100%. Finding photos of either type carrying anything but test or drill rounds is almost impossible. Where you see them at an air show’s static park, I’d always take it with a pinch of salt as to whether that was an operational load. This is my best shot...
FRS.1 - It was envisaged that Sea Eagle would be carried in pairs (on the inboard pylons) giving the FRS.1 a range of c.280nm radius from the carrier; the Sea Eagle has a range of c.70nm. Whether 9Ls were carried as well would depend on the threat expected from an enemy air arm and fuel capacity! Examples used in trials...
XZ438/38 in testing, during 1982-3, Sae Eagle was carried on both inboards with either outer pylons removed or AIM-9L test rounds carried.
XZ440/40 in trials, 1983-4, carried a camera pod on the centre line - modified from the GR.1/3 recce pod and a 190-gal tank on the starboard side. This would make sense if it was being used for anti-shipping strikes - the FRS1 had limited range and, if you’re going to use Sea Eagle, you want to be attacking ships well beyond the range of any shipboard ASMs being carried by the fleet.
XZ450/50 was used in the 1982 trails and was sadly lost at Goose Green - with the Argentines finding the Sea Eagle controls there, their inclusion had meant that the rear RWR connections were removed which probably led directly to it being shot down with the loss of Lt Nick Taylor.
XZ497/4 was flown by Mike Snelling (BAe test pilot) with twin LAU-7A rails outboard and test rounds in July 1982; this was also testing the twin LAU-7A rails developed based on the lessons of the Falklands War to carry more AAMs. Whether this would have been a war-time load out remains conjectural, considering the SHARs limited range already mentioned. Had it been fitted with an AAR probe too and there been a Fleet tanker operational…?
FA.2 - While focusing on air-defence and ground attack, the FA.2 was cleared for Sea Eagle and the controls remained in its cockpit after the missile was withdrawn as a cost-saving measure. The only operational photos I have are of two 899 jets - ZD615/723 and ZD608/717 in 1994 during flying (dropping?) trials, both carrying two Sea Eagles on the inboard pylons. ZD615 had strakes fitted, empty centre-line and starboard outboard pylons and an AIM-9 Acquisition round on the port outboard pylon. ZD608 had gun pods fitted and the same starboard side configuration with, presumably, the same port side load out as ZD615. Both jets carried air-to-air refuelling probes and I’d work on this being the standard FA.2 configuration. Both FA.2s are in the overall Medium Sea Grey scheme with Doppler panels under the nose and no GPS aerials; white side codes and Royal Navy titles on the fins which are without 899's winged fist insignia.
The Sea Eagleslook to have MSG bodies to the front fins then Dark Sea Grey bodies rearwards to the tailcone which, with the fins and conduits down the missiles' sides were daylgo red. The intake underneath and its jettison-able cover look to be DSG. These are probably test rounds, i.e. for carrying and dropping but not for use against a target. AFAIK, live rounds were overall grey; I’m seeking confirmation of this.
Hope that helps
Nick
The live rounds were overall matt EDSG with a 2"Golden Yellow And 1" wide Black band over the top half (only) of the warhead section (top of conduit to top of conduit) The Air intake was covered by a pointy cap that was explosively ejected after launch. The drill rounds were gloss DSG with Oxford blue bands. Don't ask me why they were different overall colour, We often wondered why!
Selwyn
(Once upon a time a Sea Eagle instructor!)
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, scotthldr said:
The Red band would have indicated incendiary ammunition or indicates the presence of highly flammable material. Which was used on Torry Canyon in order to try and ignite the oil.
Sorry you are wrong!
In the UK Explosive marking system used since Victorian times the red band indicated a live fill (HE). Post 1964 when the UK changed to the NATO common marking system red then became an Incendiary marking. It took over 10 years for the NATO marking system to be fully adopted by the UK. The bombs dropped on Torrey Canyon were used to open up the ship to release the oil which was then supposedly to be ignited using Napalm. Dont think this worked IIRC!
The Reference to Napalm caused a bit of a stink in UK press as this was the time when napalm was getting a bad name due to its use in Vietnam. The RAF/UK MoD issued a statement that they did not use this stuff. In line with this, a very old RAF friend of mine told me that he had a job to go around the stores and paint out the word "Napalm" on the tanks they had in store and stencil on the word "Firebomb" instead. Such are politics and politicians!
Selwyn
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mikey-1980 said:
Thanks for the words of encouragement
Much appreciated as this will be the most ambitious project I've undertaken, and I have a 3 year old! 
Well, last night the cockpit was finished off and buttoned up. really nice fit from Airfix too. Cant really see all that much now though.
Now as for the conversion kit, @Selwyn there are no smaller intakes included in the kit. Something I need to find. What is included is this little lot. Now all washed in warm soapy water, ready to be trimmed and "fitted"
For some reason the nose cone is cut at a 30 degree angle(ish) which will cause a rather nasty seem line to smooth out.
I compared it to the FAW.9 cone and forward section and it is about 1.5cm smaller that the FAW.2 nose cone. What puzzles me is that why doesnt the conversion kit just have a smaller nose cone that would fit directly onto the existing Airfix kit forward section?
The wing tip section on the right of the picture are the FAW.2 cannon sections and the leading edges that do not incorporate the underwing hard points. Lots of cutting and filly to be done.
The photoetch parts are templates to ensure the vortext generators are then place back in the right place on the wing surface. however, from looking at the upper wing surface of the Cosford museum Javelin, there doesnt seem to be any? Its all lovely and smooth?
However, XA801 in guard duty, does have some slight little nubbins there that I may be able to get away with perhaps?
The FAW2,6, 8 had American radars fitted and the nose was destinctly different wth a much larger and fatter radome that had an angled attachment as demonstrated in the conversion kit. Look at pictures of the FAW9 nose in comparison to the image above. Check the gap between the windscreen and the radome and the roundel position.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 2/20/2024 at 9:46 AM, Mikey-1980 said:
Morning all!
My first memory of pretty much any aircraft as a child was seeing the odd shaped Gloster Javelin that was the former gate guardian of RAF Stafford. My dad was stationed there from 1982 - 85 before demobilising. The airframe was then later scrapped due to poor maintenance in 1994, as seen here in the video below
My plan is to build XA801 and convert the Airfix FAW.9 to the FAW.2. Problem is, I cannot find the conversion kit needed to do so.
I know there are only a few slight changes between the FAW.2 and the FAW.9, the most notable is the engine exhaust, as well as the FAW.2 did not have mid-air refueling.
I know that a conversion kit exists, but I cannot find it anywhere, if any one is able to help point me in the right direction, or knows someone who has one that are willing to part with it, I would more than interest.
Thanks all in advance
One of the things missed is the smaller intakes and different profile on the Mk 1 to 6 javelins, not sure the conversion kit covers this.
-
1
-
-
Used your burner set on my Frog/Novo Mk 8 conversion, tIt came out really well far better than the kit offering I reccomend the parts to anybody!
I don't think that there are any Javelin under wing drop tanks in existance now, they must have been relatively rare anyway as they were only carried on the FAW9 (R) variant. Certainly the only surviving FAW 9(R) at Flixton does not have them fitted.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
Question of the Day.
Why are they doing all this academic work on Artificial Intelligence, but nobody is researching natural stupidity?
Selwyn
-
12
-
-
On 3/25/2024 at 9:32 PM, scautomoton said:
but wait, there are more!
Two Irishmen throwing stones at the floor.........one missed
Like the Irish parachutist who jumped out of the plane and missed the earth...................
Selwyn
-
2
-
-
Bit more work, Airframe is together and Im prepping for paint. All the parts fitted beautifully, I only needed a thin smear of vallejo Acrylic on the wing fuselage gap to fair in the join, so little in fact that it was shaped with a wet cotton bud, no sanding required!
I have not fitted the missile bay yet. I will probably get it all painted and insert it nearer the end. The AIM 4 Falcon missiles in the kit are a bit of a dogs dinner, there is no gap between the wings and the control surfaces which was a feature of the prototypes and very early rounds, but the wings extend forward onto the forebody which is a feature of the very last operational missiles! I have sourced some acceptable alternatives out of the Hasegawa AA weapon sets I have in the stash, which should make everything look a lot better.
Selwyn
-
6
-
-
Bit more done, I'm using this build as a bit of a try out on paint fading and dirtying. The French Super sabres were originally silver but they were repainted in what was supposed to be in the standard US camoflage scheme for the F100. However they were repainted in french manufactured equivelent paints which when stationed in Djbouti in the horn of Africa faded badly. There was also the heat effects to the rear fuselage colours as well. I looked through my paints to match to my eye the faded colours on some Photos I had. I used Halfords grey primer as a base. The upper surfaces are painted in the german greens RLM 71 and RLM62, and the "Tan" is US desert sand FS30279, and the undersurfaces RLM 65. So here is a WIP of my paint with the decals on to get the effect. I will probably be touching up and correcting the paintwork a bit more before I am completly happy.
Selwyn
-
6
-
Real Bacon Sandwich
in Chat
Posted
Why would you want Clonakilty imitation Black Pudding? The only black pudding I have ever thrown away!
They tried it at my local cafe here in Manchester and they were inundated with complaints. They had to go back to using proper Bury black puddings pronto!
Selwyn