Selwyn

Selwyn, All I can say is simply this: You stated that the Hunter used the system as described in Edgar's post i.e that the lower RP was attached to the upper RP by means of a coach-bolted attachment. You stated that the Hunter did not use a rail as the 'coach-bolt" system was standardised. You said that the Hunter never used a rail!! A The Hunter Did not use a rail what you see "The Towel rail" is a structural bar. the rocket did not run down this rail when launched off a Hunter! Stephen has posted photo's where this 'coach-bolt" arrangement is noticeable by its absence on the Hunter!! Not the best photo in the world granted but Its pretty clear that the lower rocket was attached to the upper rocket by this 'lug" arrangment. Later RPs seem to have an elaborate triangular arrangement - clearly NOT the "coach-bolt" brackets! The Hunters RP is fits into the pronged arrangement at the front of the rocket rail - exactly as described by Stephen earlier. Its nothing like the fit on the Firefly - not by any stretch of the imagination! A. I know it looks different on the pictures but I assure you it is the same attachment! Stephens picture is unclear. and a shot from a better angle would show this. The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly A bit contentious I know - given your statement that the 3" rockets didn't change in their lifetime - but there you have it. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. Those on the Hunter have a strange double triangular fitting. These are being loaded onto the front of the rail. These look as if they are actually part of the RP!!! What are they then Selwyn and where would the coach-bolt brackets fit on that? A "The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly" Yes I know! I stated as such in in my post. but the firefly rockets would fit on the Hunter! The Hunter rocket motor is a later Mod standard with integral hangars. but the means of suspension and launch of both rockets are the same. A. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. No they are not! if they were they would not come off the mounts! the bolts you see are holding the mounting onto the stub.the RP's are held in place by a shearwire arrangement the same as the Hunter. You do not seem to appreciate that the rocket only has to move forward about 2" to be free of the aircraft mounting on both aircraft. it is a zero length system. Selwyn.

!.Look at your picture of the rockets on the zero length stubs on the firefly. 2 Imagine taking off that rocket taking iit to a Hunter aircraft as in the picture 3 That rocket, previously on the Firefly would fit the Hunter rail. The ROCKET Habgar system is standardised! 4 The rocket fitted to the Hunter is a later modification state with the Hangars not bolted on as in the earlier firefly rocket but with them built into the rocket motor tube structure. 5 This Hunter rocket as it is now would would fit on the firefly! the Hangar system is standardised. 6. If you wanted to fit a second tier on the Hunter you would have to fit a bolt on brackiet to the hunter rocket. because as you can see it does not have built in bottom hangers. This additional (optional) hangar this si the same as your brackets fitted to the firefly rocket. tts design never changed in the operatuional lifetime of the 3" RP. After WW2 they had thousands of these of brackets in stock and they basically used them up rather than design a new one! Selwyn (thirty two years in the aircraft weapon business and apparently knows nothing about rockets)

I can see I am not getting my message through, so I will try again. The 3” rocket was originally a ground launched rocket developed for the British army as an air defence weapon to suspend long wires in to the air so a low flying enemy aircraft would fly into it and hopefully crash. The RAF took this rocket motor, fitted a selection of tactical warheads to it and used it as an air launched Rocket Projectile (RP). Long launch rails were designed for aircraft use (as seen on Typhoons etc) and to allow the rockets to fit a bracket was designed that clamped around the rocket motor that had fittings on it to allow the rockets to be suspended on, and slide down the rail when launched. Space was limited on most aircraft fits, and allowed a maximum of four rockets on each wing. Someone then had the idea of double tiered rockets in that you hung a second rocket from the first doubling the load of RP’s carried. There was no way of attaching another rail below the first rocket so a Zero length launch design was adopted for the second rocket. This worked very well, and soon the question was asked if they actually needed the large rail launchers (which caused a lot of drag and were heavy) so the double stub mounting was adopted using the zero length launch attachments. A new design of rocket mounting bracket was adopted, to fit these zero length launchers; they also had the facility to suspend a second rocket in a second tier. (Edgars Drawing type) After the war with the introduction of much higher performance jet aircraft, it was found that the existing stub pylon mountings could not take the much higher aerodynamic loads imposed, so they were redesigned to be much stronger. These new launchers looked a bit like a “Towel Rail” (See the Hunter pictures) but were still “zero length,” and were compatible with the rocket suspension bracket type illustrated in Edgar’s pictures. Sometime in the 50’s the 3” RP was redesigned with the zero length launch brackets built into the motor rather than a separate bolt on bracket, and with smaller fins. (See RP in Hunter pictures) If you were carrying single rockets (again as in Hunter pictures) this was fine, However if you wished to carry further rockets in two or three tiers, you first added a “Half bracket” to the first (top) rocket allow a second tier rocket to be fitted below it, then a “Edgar drawing” type bracket to the second (middle) rocket, which would allow a third rocket to be fitted below that. My point is that the bracket shown in Edgars drawing was used all the way from the introduction of the Zero length launchers to the end of 3” Rocket use. It was not exclusively used on Hunters, it could be seen on any aircraft equipped to fire 3” RP in multiple tiers. The reason it is not seen on the Hunter pictures is that they were only single tier RP so did not need the optional bracket for the second tier rocket. Selwyn

All I can see are pictures of zero length rocket launchers! A rocket rail is about 10 feet long, just look at a typhoon or Mosquito or Swordfish for pictures. Edgars images are of the bolt on clamps to allow a rocket to be suspended below another rocket. These are standard fit items used on all UK aircraft of that era. they would not be used if you were only fitting a single rocket to the launcher as the pictures show. Selwyn Selwyn

Many thanks! Selwyn

Im afraid you are wrong, The only major change in 3" rocket mountings was made when they moved from rail launched (WW2 ish) to zero length in the early 1950's? the standard hanger system remained the same until the 3" was out of use. Selwyn

can anybody tell me the cockpit colours for these two aircraft? Selwyn

Wez this image is the same for all aircraft that carried 3" Rockets! Why would they be different for different aircraft? The watchword in the military is standardisation. It would be rediculous if the 3" rockets used on Venoms were not able to be used on Hunters. Selwyn

Very difficult! The best way to describe it is that only the Wings and undercarriage are common. The Cockpit is different as it has a ejection seat fitted, the canopy is different because of this, the Fuselage is longer and it has a completly different tail unit. I can't remember if their was a 1/48 Meteor F8 Kitted. Selwyn

I think I knew her. Didn't she hang around Barry island in the 1980's? Selwyn

Lovely kit but a few constructive comments for modellers in the future: 1.The RAF does not use GBU 10 LGB's 2.They are painted Practice bomb Blue but have Yellow (High Explosive) Bands on them 3.The AMRAAMS have practice weapon blue bands on them and a red (incendiary) band as well! Selwyn the nit picky armament person (who is now ducking for cover!)

Doesn't mean a lot, all BS381C colours used on RAF aircraft have NATO numbers anyway! Selwyn

If you think that is fun try this: If an American asks you to name a Famous Englishman, Just answer George Washington. It always gets them excited. Selwyn

Are these 1/144 scale? If they are I will see you there! Selwyn

Does anyone know of any decals for the C9 Nightingale I would like to build a military DC9 Selwyn

A good site to look at for London Buses Ians Bus stop Just look up RM and RML classes for more info! Selwyn A good site to look at for London Buses Ians Bus stop Just look up RM and RML classes for more info! Selwyn

Two comments. 1. I trust you to have spelt that correctly! 2. I would have really loved to see the makers plate on that aircraft! And for our non British Britmodellers, you may not believe it, but "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" is the name of a town in Wales. I think it has the only place in Britain where the railway station sign is longer than the platform! Selwyn

Unfortunately the Routemaster did not feature in "On the Buses." The TV series used Bristol FLF buses, and the Films used Bristol K6G, but there was an early Leyland Antlantean in the film "Mutiny on the buses" if I recall correctly. Sorry to be so terribly British Bus Anal! Selwyn "Decisions, Decisions!" Selwyn

The F1 did not have any cable ducts. The F1A, F2, F2A, and T4 had cable ducts that stopped short of the missile pylon. F2A, F3, F6, and T5 had cable ducts that extended to a point level with the Missile Heads (when they were fitted of course !) Selwyn

The reason for the difference is down to the different ways the missile seeker heads were cooled. USAF AIM 9 missiles were cooled using Argon gas in a small globe shaped high pressure vessel that was inserted in the head of the missile. the US Navy did not use this, (it was the same missile) as it did not give a long enough cooling period when on a CAP over the ocean. They used a much larger Clean Air or Nitrogen filled bottle that was located in the launcher that lasted much longer, and fed through the missile umbilical connector to cool the head. The Navy launcher (LAU7/A) was a very different shape to the USAF type because of this. The RAF & RN used the US Navy system, and these type AIM 9 launchers were used on all UK types, athough modern aircraft types have a on board gas generating system which has effectively replaced these gas bottles. Selwyn

As a bus enthusiast as well as a Aircraft Modeller I am more than happy to see the Routemaster, but in fact the model is of a Variant, being a Long Routemaster (RML type ) as opposed to a standard Routemaster (RM type). The main visual difference is the central little window on the bus sides. There is an amazing amount of conversion potential for this kit as you can use it as a basis for all the other Routemaster types (RMA RMF RMC etc) and there is a multitude of colour schemes as it was used by many different operators and carried lots of advertising schemes. I can see myself buying a lot of these kits! Selwyn

Spike The Typhoon is not cleared to fly CBLS.

Which kit is this? You don't say . I do like that colour scheme! Selwyn

I wish to build a Danish Draken (from about 1980 time period) in 1/72. I have the Revell kit, but is this a good basis for the model? If so, what mods are needed (pylons etc) to this kit. yours in anticipation. Selwyn

The 4 Sqn Flash has been presented many ways over the years I have seen the red portions painted on top and on the bottom, I remember a Harrier GR3 which had them presented diagonally! You might just find that the flash is correct for that aircraft. I would check photo references before you started scraping off decals. Selwyn (ex 4 Sqn)