Selwyn
-
Posts
3,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Selwyn
-
-
Are these colours cleared for Aircraft use?
I know some colours in BS Standards are not cleared for Aircraft use.
So it could be that the numbers you refer too do exist but may not be for Aircraft.
Derek
I work for BAE Systems They are definately for aircraft use!
Selwyn
-
Here we have the problem that a lot of unreliable information regarding vixen floating around and even the Airfix become part of this. So, the information I have is that, besides some tests, FAA has never had in its inventory Matra launchers and never approved for use the same. The launchers in Airfix kit were intended to be RN 2-inch rocket pods but are badly molded as you can see on the photo.
Having had experience of 2" rockets the moulds look very accurate to me . 2" rockets are not pointed, and do have rounded heads so the moulds are correct!
Selwyn
-
Here we have the problem that a lot of unreliable information regarding vixen floating around and even the Airfix become part of this. So, the information I have is that, besides some tests, FAA has never had in its inventory Matra launchers and never approved for use the same. The launchers in Airfix kit were intended to be RN 2-inch rocket pods but are badly molded as you can see on the photo.
The FAA did use the 68mm SNEB pod, there are many pictures of RN Hunter GA 11 aircraft fitted with them. they were just not used on carriers.
Strictly speaking SNEB pods (155) could and were fitted to Vixens, I know because I personally did it! But before you get excited this only happened because the Sea Vixen aircraft in question were used by the RAF as load training aircraft at RAF cosford they never to my knowledge ever flew with SNEB rockets.
Selwyn
-
I think Matador still exist , but the best way is to deal face to face with them at Telford . Even if you DO contact them , their mail order service is hideously slow - think months , not weeks !! Also , their quality control can be a bit variable , so it's a big help if you can inspect their product before you hand over your hard-earned
Just type Matador Models into google and it will get you to their website in a flash!
Selwyn
-
I have been noticing the more frequent use by kit manufacturers and decal manufacturers referencing the White used on British aircraft as BS381C #302 WHITE.
Where has this number come from, I have various BS Colour charts including an early version of 381C, nowhere in the documents is this colour mentioned.
The only number listed for a white is in BS4800 as 00E55 White.
In the British Colour Markings document recently made available through BM, seems to confirm that White and also Black have no specific BS381c numbers.
Has any other member found this situation, and can anybody clear up this confusion.
Derek
Derek
Where I work we use BS colours and we on occasion paint some of our equipment in white and black to BS standards. I have just looked at the our latest edition of BS 381 C (1988) and white and black are not listed and the listed colour numbers go up to 799.
However on several our drawings, black and white paint is specified for use and is listed as being BS 381C 801 Black and BS381C 802 White. I assume that these are new allocated colour numbers (post 1988) and will appear in the next edition. When we order paint using these code numbers we do get black and white paint delivered.
It seems that your BS 302 colour number is probably a misprint.
hope this helps
Selwyn
-
Thanks for the information! So my Flightpath pods would fit -for example- a GR.1 Harrier or a GR.3 (non-Corporate).
Ingo
Ingo,
You are correct, the SNEB pod was a standard fit on GR1/3 (and T2/4 Harriers) usually on the outboard wing pylons
selwyn
-
Hi there,
I think I read something about the Airfix kit's rocket pods somewhere - but do not remember where or what it was.
Question: Are the four rocket pods suitable examples for those used by the RN? Or are -for example- the Matra rocket pods by Flightpath (looking slighty different) a better option?
TIA
Ingo
Ingo
The pods in the Kit are correct. The RAF used 68mm SNEB rockets, but the Royal Navy used 2 inch rockets. The reason was that it was found that SNEB rockets were vulnerable to the power put out by ships radars on Carrier decks and were likely to fire on their own from an induced current from the radar system. 2 inch rockets were much more resistant to this by design.
If you look at pictures of RAF Harriers used in the Falklands they also used navy 2 inch pods not SNEB. There is a famous picture of a crashed Harrier GR3 showing a 2inch pod on the outboard pylon.
Selwyn
-
The very end of Mirage IIIC in the French Air Force was about 1988, in Djibouti. These last aircraft weared brown/tan camo and they were wired to carry Magic II under outboard specific pylons. Typical load was 2 Magic and 2 800l superstition fuel tanks
many thanks
Selwyn
-
I always thought it one of the weapon systems etc (quad Sidewinder fit, bigger tanks) for the Harrier/Sea Harrier that might really have made a difference in the Falklands: Sea Eagle armed Harriers could have taken out the Veinticinco de Mayo and/or its escorts, if the political will had been there. Alas, the politicians didn't let our subs torpedo the carrier so maybe Sea Eagle would not have been employed anyway. Not sure whether Sea Eagle actually got into service with the Sea Harriers - I know the project was under way prior to the Falklands crisis.
Tony
In actual fact the Sea Eagle did play a part in the Falklands campaign even though it was not there or operational!
When the crisis erupted the Navy took back the SHAR that was involved in Sea Eagle trials, as it was needed for operations (XZ450?) As it happens this was the first SHAR lost over Port Stanley in the First R N bombing raid.
When the Argentinians examined the wreckage they found the Sea Eagle control panel, which the RN had not bothered to remove (this was the only jet so fitted) and naturally they had to assume that the Missile was operational and all SHARS could fire them.
This may be the reason that the Argentine navy ships rapidly returned to home waters within the range of land based air cover.
Selwyn
-
I'm making an Airfix 1/24 Harrier GR3 in RAF scheme. The paint guides for both this and the 1/48 version show only a side view of the gun pods as completely green, while the rest of the aircraft is grey/green camo.
I've searched it on google images, but the only pictures of the harriers show them without the guns on display at some museum.
Does anyone know if they should be just green or grey and green?
I Was an Armourer on the GR3 / T4 from 79 to 83 in UK and Germany, and in that time all gunpods were Green overall, even the few aircraft we had with L/A grey undersides used green pods. The only exceptions I saw were on jets in the white winter wash which had them either totally or partially white. occasionally I did see a green pod with a white rear fairing.
The pods were in sections, these being the centre section that housed the Aden gun, the front fairing that covered the blast suppressor/barrel, a bottom fairing through which the links and empty cases jettisoned during firing, and the rear fairing that covered the Ammunition tank. There was also a square panel on the side of the main pod section that covered the gun feed chute. Each of these were individually stencil marked in 50 mm black letters with the station code and pod number (i.e. GUT 35 or WITT 51) so you did not mix up pod panels.
The pod was loaded with 120 rounds of 30mm ammo (don't believe what is written in some publications!) The pods were always very dirty as any leaks and drips from the engine found their way down to cover them and any dust or dirt thrown up from the runways would stick, there was also the residue from any gunfiring on top of this. The aircraft sometimes flew with just pods fitted without guns inside. The givaway for this was a cone shaped wooden bung that was bolted in the barrel hole in the front fairing. (again don't belive what has been written about frangible barrel covers!).
If the guns were loaded, a flap in the bottom fairing would be open and the gun lead and plug would hang out showing clearly that the gun was not plugged in and safe. this plug was only connected on startup.
Hope this helps
Selwyn
-
Does anyone know what the Missile fit of The French AF Mirage IIIC was at the very end of its life?
I am building one in the French Blue over Silver AD scheme, from the late seventies. Did they still carry the R530 missile? Was the Magic II missile in use?
Any help greatfully received!
Selwyn
-
Hi
Does anyone have a picture of the rear of a Sea Eagle missile please?
Thanks
Steve
Don't have a picture, but the rear was open and you could see the jetpipe of the Microturbo engine, if you looked up the pipe you could see the engine blades. On the ground the orifice was always covered by a red "Bin lid" Blanking cover.
Selwyn
-
Hi to all
I need some 1000lb GP british bombs for use on a 1/72 Typhoon 1b
there dosn't seem to be any 1/72 out there I can find German and US bombs
but no British any ideas?
If not I will scratch build some but I am unable to find any reference or dimensioned drawings
can anyone point me in the right direction.
Cheers Guys
TB
Just a few bits for interest and accuracy.
The Wartime British 1000Lb MC bomb was 72 1/2 inches long including tail, and 17 3/4inch wide (widest point) I don't know if the airwaves bomb scales out OK. The bomb would be painted bronze green, (can be found as an armour colour) and would have a Eau de Nil (a light green colour) band at the base of the bomb ogive, (that's where the nose starts to curve!) and a red band around the nose.
Selwyn
-
I see, and given that it's the version of the CCG that decides which mark of Paveway the weapon is, it makes sense that the Falklands bombs were PW1s if they had PW1 CCGs.
Or we could be pedantic and call them Paveway 1 1/2, with the CCG from a US PW1 and the tail unit of a US PW2
To be deadly honest, from a Modellers point of view you would have to be unbelievably Anal to be able to spot the differences in PW I and PW II in 1/32 scale let alone 1/48 or 1/72!
Selwyn
-
Could it be that the RAF referred to them as "Paveway I" as they were our first Paveways, but they used the same Paveway guidance kit as the second-generation of US weapons (which were "Paveway II")?
We know the UK Paveway has continued to be developed over the last 30 years, so perhaps at some point a change was made and the powers-at-be decided they were now "Paveway IIs" even though they looked, outwardly, like the same weapon. That's how I understand it anyway...
Bobski they definately had the PW1 MAU 157 CCG and the snap off type canards. (early PW had a one size fits all canard system that was "scored" and you snapped off the top part of it if you were using 500lb Mk 82 as the bomb body!)
Selwyn
-
I'm a bit confused, Selwyn. In an earlier post you said that they did have pop-out fins.
Sorry my Terminology! All British tail units Are designated as "Number" usually written in a short version as "No" so for example a UK retarded tail is a Number 117 tail (No117!)
The No120 tail unit used on Uk paveways is a Modified US MXU 651 folding fin tail. The MXU 651 is normally used on MK 84 2000lb bombs and was chosen as this US store has a similar diameter to the UK 1000lb bomb and could be simply adapted.
Selwyn
-
That's correct. It is not a UK bomb. I used the link to demonstrate the tail unit of the Paveway I. If the tail unit has pop-out fins, then it is a Paveway II (or a III). As I'm sure you know, in the RAF we used all sorts of unofficial names for things. One that springs to mind is CBU, when we should have said BL755. The weapons deployed to the Falklands may have had early versions of the adaptor fairings, but they were definitely Paveway II. As I said before, I don't believe that the Paveway I was ever even trialled by the RAF.
Well thats strange! the bombs I loaded on the carrier deck and Sids strip in 1982 were definately PW1 and had No 120 folding fin tail units..........................!
Selwyn
-
I think there is some confusion between US and British numbering systems. The Paveway I system did not have pop-out fins on the tail. Linky
Paveway 1 was withdrawn long before the Falklands and I don't think it was even trialled by the RAF. The weapons used in the Falklands had pop-out fins. I can state that absolutely categorically.
I believe that the adaptor fairings were slightly different to the later weapons, which no doubt led in some quarters to them being called "Paveway 1" to differentiate them. However, until the introduction of the Paveway 3, I cannot ever remember using the term "Paveway 2" to describe them. They were always just "Paveway".
The Uk 1000lb paveway bomb did have pop out fins! as it used the same modified tail as was later used on paveway II the fixed fins were used on the US Mk 84 Paveway I the bomb you linked to is not a UK 1000lb bomb it is a GBU 11 US 3000 lb M118 bomb (you can see the US fuzing well between the lugs!)
selwyn
-
I've got to be away from the Computer for a few hours but going by memory, the LGB's dropped during the conflict were standard British 1000lb iron bombs hurredly fitted with paveway seekers and tails provided by the USA. I've got some references on it somewhere but I'll have to look them out later.
There was no hurry, British LGB Paveway I were procured for use on Buccaneer aircraft prior to the Falklands. The tail unit used is a british modification of a US 2000lb (Mk 84) LGB tail (Mk 84 due to bomb diameter issues !) with british fuzing provisions installed.
Selwyn
-
The LGBs would definitely be Paveway 2.
You are correct about the fuel tanks. Without them, a Harrier would have about 30 minutes of flying time. Certainly no more. So tanks on inboards and Lepus on outboards. Almost certainly single Lepus as I don't think there would be enough clearance between the two pylons for a twin-store carrier.
Sorry you are wrong!
they were Paveway I !
Saying that, it doesn't make much difference, as a UK Paveway I doesn't look any different to a UK Paveway II anyway! Its very hard to spot the differences unless you know what you are looking for.
Selwyn
-
IIRC, the kit flaps have a circular cut out scored so that modelling the flaps down for an FGA9 is simple enough. Cut out the round bit and affix to wing. I do recall Mike McEvoy saying that pilots who left the flaps down were often 'fined' several pints in the mess later. So leaving the flaps up and scribing the circle should be easy enough.
Apart from that, the only other difference are the two blisters (one on each wing) over the outer pylons which housed a shotgun mechanism which blew the stores off for clean separation.
Some FGA9s flew in Black Arrows style markings in 1991 - I saw a pair in the static park at Scampton that year and a third flying over Eyemouth a few weeks later.
Just to clarify,
There were two methods of release of stores on Hunters the Electromagnetic Release Unit (EMRU) and the Ejector Release unit (ERU).
ERU's were a later addition and were used for the heavier stores on FGA9/F6A the early ERU were quite tall and when retrofitted to the hunter projected above the wing. hence the fairing.
Selwyn
-
I know its not harrier but I include this for interest.
On the Typhoon there are 4 wing stations each side (total eight) and four underfuselage missile stations and a Centre fuselage station, for a total of 13 stations. interestingly the centre fuselage station is officially station ZERO, not thirteen.
Unlucky for some maybe?
Selwyn
-
this website? http://www.mafva.net/other%20pages/Starmer%20camo.htm
oops... not sure if I bought the wrong colour in this case. Thanks, I will check again. Good luck I haven't started to paint it yet.
Alex
Alex,
Army colours were bronze green (Not deep bronze green!)at that time (1939), but the RAF did not start to formally use the Army colour system until early 1941. Matadors did not come into service until 1941 so they were never bronze green. the 1941 greens were usually found on army vehicles so the Refuellers were usually painted in the Brown SCC2 colour sometimes with Disruptive SCC1A Dk brown . Later Matadors were painted in the UK olive drab colour (adopted mid 44). they reverted to RAF blue in 1947/8
Have a look at
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68676
This may help
Selwyn
-
Good afternoon,
I am building the twin tanker kit from Airfix, and maybe it will all end in a small diorama. Are there any good pictures which show the inside of the rear compartment with all the tubes, valves and so on? Google didn't help at all. (not that urgent, if I don't get any good pictures, I will show the doors closed
). As for the colour, I have read that is a dark earth (the RAF colour), with a bit of black, is it correct? Thanks,
Alex
Alex Can't help with the pictures but the Tankers were definately NOT RAF Dark Earth!
All RAF vehicles during the war were Painted in Standard Camoflage Colours (SCC) to ARMY spec. The colour was a Dark brown but the disruptive patterncould be variuous colours over the wartime period.
Go to the (Minature Armoured Fighting Vehicle Association (MAFVA) website for fuller details. Mike Starmer has a great article on British vehicle colours there.
by the way the Bedford in the set displays post war (BLUE) colours and the booms are a post war addition also. it would be the same brown camo during the war.
Selwyn
Tornado Question
in Aircraft Modern
Posted
Proximity of pylons has little effect on stability, what effects stability is the aircraft centre of gravity which is affected by the stores carried not pylons which are mainly a permanent fit.. If you have heavy stores on one wing and nothing on the other is an obvious example, the size of the store also has drag implications.
Proximity of pylons can cause problems during store release due to aerodynamic effects. every aircraft is different in this respect. Your reference to Buccaneers probably refers to problems they encountered aerodynamically with that particular type. If I remember Bucc pylons were repositioned on later build aircraft, probably as a result of those trials at Boscome.
Selwyn