Selwyn
-
Posts
3,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Selwyn
-
-
I was looking through some old copies of SAM and it stated that some of the last Mirage IIIC jets recieved the Blue AD camoflage as used on the Mirage F1. Is this true? Anyone got any piccies of this? I have got a spare 1/48 IIIC in the stash and think it would be a good project.
Selwyn
-
Under normal circumstances I give the advice of "Never take a Canberra model paint guide as gospel" or "Never take any Canberra as a standard" but in this case with the RAFG Mk8's youd have two two choices either Silver or black, and this is one I agree with John, deffo silver on the underside
HTH
Bexy
Some of the B(I)8 Canberras were repainted using light aircraft grey undersides in the late sixties. At this time The RAF changed it's aircraft paint specification from cellulose based paint to polyurethane based, but at that time it was not possible due to technical reasons to produce a Silver polyurethane paint so the RAF opted for what it deemed was the nearest equivelant, which was light aircraft grey.
Selwyn
-
Thanks Simon
I think what Selwyn is saying is that we lazily say that the tailpipe is smaller when what we mean is the tailpipe fairing around it is smaller on the F4/ T7. Have I got that right Selwyn?
Should be possible to illustrate with a couple of pics which I will try and dredge up.
Pat
EDIT - if you flick between the pics below you can see hopefully the difference. T7 tailpipe fairing curves up towards the exhuast, FGA9 is more of a continous line (IMHO!!). Grateful for comments.
http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1197677/
http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1147248/
Pat,
Yes that is what I mean but it is also shorter front to back.
The story goes that the 100 series Avons had problems with gas ingestion when the guns fired causing severe engine stall.It was noted that the Armstrong Siddedley (AS) Sapphire engine which was used in the Mk2/5 did not have this problem.
In the late 50's the UK Aviation industry was nationalised and to put it in VERY simplistic terms AS and Rolls Royce became government owned and ostensibly the same company. The stall problem had been traced to the front section of the Avon so (again in very simplistic terms !) they fitted the front section of the Sapphire to the RR engine which resulted in the 200 series Avon, which gave more power due to improved air flow and also cured the stall problem. it also resulted in the engine having an overall shorter length.
When test run as the Jet pipe was further up the rear fairing, the jet blast impacted on the fairing, hence the redesign.
If I remember correctly there were several rear fairings used.
The original fairing(F1-5)
the 200 series fairing (F6 )
The Fga 9, (f6 with brake chute housing)
the T7, original fairing with chute fairing.
Some export trainers with 200 series had a similar (same?) fairing to the FGA 9.
Selwyn
-
I can't comment on the shape of the parachute housing but the difference in diameter of the tail pipe comes from the fact that the T.7 had a 100 Series Avon engine whereas the FRA.6 and 9 had the 200 Series engine which was more powerful.
Trevor
Trevor, sorry to dissapoint you but the diameter of the Hunter tailpipe was the same on all Hunter marks irrespective of the engine fitted. I know I have measured them! The part no is the same. The difference in the rear fairing was fue to the 200 series engine being shorter thus the end of the tailpipe was further up inside the fairing.
.
Selwyn
-
Hi all.
I have seen some local publications after the Falklands war which referred to the british 1000 lb. bombs as "Mk.17s". I have never been sure if that was a local designation or what.
Now during the war some idiot in the press refered to the BL-755s as "Belougas" and every local publication during the war copied the mistake and referred to them as that, so I am not sure if calling the 1000 lb. as "Mk.17s" is yet another press misconception or that was the bomb's actual designation.
I am of course talking about the "dumb" 1000 lb. bomb, which was used by the Argentine Air Force in that conflict.
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
All the best,
Jorge.
Had a look in my Copies of "Wings of Fame" last night as this book series has articles about A4 and Canberra in the Falklands. There are a few pictures in there showing the British 1000lb on bomb trollies. What was noticable was that they were all displaying a single lug, not a twin lug configuration. The twin lug system was introduced after the Mk12 bomb so it appears that the Argentine bombs were of a previous mark to this.
Selwyn
-
Hi all.
I have seen some local publications after the Falklands war which referred to the british 1000 lb. bombs as "Mk.17s". I have never been sure if that was a local designation or what.
Now during the war some idiot in the press refered to the BL-755s as "Belougas" and every local publication during the war copied the mistake and referred to them as that, so I am not sure if calling the 1000 lb. as "Mk.17s" is yet another press misconception or that was the bomb's actual designation.
I am of course talking about the "dumb" 1000 lb. bomb, which was used by the Argentine Air Force in that conflict.
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
All the best,
Jorge.
STOP THE PRESS! NEW DATA!
Gentlemen I have been consulting my references and I can confirm that the British Bombs used by Argentina are DEFINATELY NOT Mk 17!
The Reason is, Quite simply, that the British mark 17 bomb is a PRACTICE BOMB and is largely inert filled but it did have a small (30lb-50lb ) HE bursting charge for spotting purposes.
so whatever the mark used it wasn't this one!
Selwyn
-
Hello Selwyn. My information sources suggest that Argentine A4Bs - the FAA ones of Grupo 5, and the Armada planes of the 3rd Escuadrilla - had three mounting points, and the wing points had of necessity to be taken up by tanks leaving just the fuselage centreline MER for bombs. The Armada A4Bs used US Mk82s, typically three or four on a MER; I assume the Grupo 5 A4Bs used either the Brit 1000lb-ers or the local/Spanish 250kg bomb, again beneath the fuselage. The Argentine A4Cs of Grupo 4 were equipped with five mounting pylons; as our Argentine member Luis ("Grunepunkt") told me, "The A-4C (air force) usually carried 3 x BRP205 or 1 x 1000lbs bombs this bombs where the old Avro Lincoln/Lancaster 1000lbs bombs, in 1/48 the closest "match" I found are the ones that comes with the Airfix Canberra kit."
Tony
Tony
The mounting points I refer to are the bomb to pylon mounting point not the pylon location on the aircraft.. if you see spilkes picture you can see the three mounting points on the Uk bomb the outer s have bail lugs fitted and the centre point is fitted with the bomb lifting lug used when you are moving bombs by crane.
Selwyn.
-
I finished this a little while ago, but I've only just managed to get some half-decent photos to post. In-progress thread is here: Linky
The kit is the Revell kit in 1/32nd scale, with the following extras added:
Intake blanks, APU exhaust and inboard pylons from TwoMikes, the first two of which are 100% essential
Decals by TwoBobs, which are some of the best Typhoon decals available.
Scale Aircraft Conversions metal undercarriage, which is absolutely essential as the plastic undercarriage in the kit is not up to the task, regardless of whether you add as much resin as I did.
LITENING III LDP from Isracast
Exhausts from Aires, which while superbly detailed require far too much surgery to the kit to make them fit.
Seat belts and RBF tags from Eduard
UK Paveway IIs from Flightpath
Scratchbuilt heat exchange exhaust covers
Scratchbuilt Maintenance Data Panel and access cover
Scratchbuilt Laser Warner Receivers either side of the nose
Scratchbuilt centreline pylon
Brakelines added to undercarriage and main undercarriage bays
From start to finish, subtracting the time I couldn't work on it due to a house move, this kit took me about 40 weeks to complete, which coincidentally is about the same amount of time it takes the final assembly team at work to build and flight test the real aircraft!
Here's a view of the exhausts:
A view showing the Maintenance Data Panel:
And a close-up of the fin:
Comments and critiques are welcome.
Bobski
Critique! No arming wires on the PWII and there should be a RBF flag on the CCG's!
Selwyn
(Rapidly running for cover, you will find me cowering under my desk!)
-
I agree with what you are saying Selwyn,I have somewhere in the back of my brain pan,the memory of an adaptor which allowed bombs with a longer distance between suspension lugs to be loaded to jets with a shorter distance between the ERU jaws.
Spike,
You are obviously familiar with the Mk 20 /22 as you probably loaded them to Tornado. On the top were three mounting points, the centre used as the transit lug and the other two at 14"centres.
The centre mounting is the original suspension point the other two were added on later marks. on earlier jets (Hunter FGA and Sea Vixen definately) the centre suspension lug looked a bit like a "lollipop". and went up inside the pylon ERU The blanks in the 14" points were removed and turned over ( i dont know if you can remember but these had spigots on them) which engaged in holes on the pylon base plate to stop the bomb "spinning" on the pylon.
Selwyn (a very old plum!)
-
I knew, or thought I knew, that the FAA Canberras used British thousand-pounders (at least one book of mine shows these on bomb trolleys in front of Argentine Canberras) but I had imagined that bombs carried by FAA A-4C/A-4P and A-4B/A-4Q Skyhawks were 500lbs, and that these were not British at all. My information is that the FAA (as opposed to the Armada, which used US Mk82 retarded fall bombs) Skyhawks used Spanish-made 250 kg. (approx 550 pounds) EXPAL (Explosivos Alaveses) bombs, which have a distinctly different profile: the centre section of these is cylindrical i.e. parallel sided, not continuously curved. I'd be interested to know if FAA Skyhawks did sometimes carry 1000lb bombs.
Tony
Tony
I understood that the FAA Skyhawks used a single centreline British 1000lb bomb on ops and the Navy skyhawks used two wing mounted 500 lb bombs. The rationale was that a Skyhawk had problems getting off the deck with a big bomb, the installation was not strong enough for catapult launch.
A lot of the UXB's that hit the RN ships were UK 1000lb bombs which proved easy to defuse as they dropped them too llow and did not give adequate arming time, and they used the Uk 947 fuze which the BD guys were very familiar with.
Selwyn
-
As said above - can be flown once. Europeans have indeed developed many weapons with no input from the US, but how well have they sold? International commonality does matter - lots of people have US bombs.
You may perhaps know some other reason why MACE has not been perpetuated on the latest types?
Graham.
MACE is used on US weapons (Mk 80 series ) on RSAF Tornadoes. it is fully compatible with NATO 14 and 30 inch suspension points.
I think it has not been perpetuated on the grounds of cost, only RAF and RSAF tornadoes use it to my knowledge, (german and italian Tornadoes use bail type) remember small production runs are expensive!
it is noticable that the the Typhoon ha reverted to Bail lug suspension.
Selwyn.
-
Hi all.
I have seen some local publications after the Falklands war which referred to the british 1000 lb. bombs as "Mk.17s". I have never been sure if that was a local designation or what.
Now during the war some idiot in the press refered to the BL-755s as "Belougas" and every local publication during the war copied the mistake and referred to them as that, so I am not sure if calling the 1000 lb. as "Mk.17s" is yet another press misconception or that was the bomb's actual designation.
I am of course talking about the "dumb" 1000 lb. bomb, which was used by the Argentine Air Force in that conflict.
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
All the best,
Jorge.
Jorge.
First check out the post from Jane's
It is very hard to destinguish between the Marks of British bombs as they all share the same outer case, the differences in Mark No's being in the method of suspension and the type of explosive filling. in fact some later marks of bombs in service are reconditioned older cases with the explosive fills removed and replaced with more modern explosive types, and re- engineered with NATO standard Lug systems. The bombs originally had single point suspension (The british standard at that time ) when designed postwar. (They are not the same as WWII 1000lb bombs!)
I do not believe that the Argentinian Bombs were Mk 17's. British 1000lb bombs were no doubt supplied to Argentina with the Canberra Bombers (or perhaps with Lincolns? (both aircraft used single point suspension systems) probably before the advent of the MK 17 which has 14" twin store carriage . The only picture I have of an Argentinian 1000lb Bomb in situ (in a copy of wings of fame if I remember ) appears to show single point which means it is probably a much earlier mark. (and no doubt officially classified as unsuitable for external carriage!) but I must stress this is just speculation.
As the Argentinians also used a tail unit which was also externally similar to the current 114, to depict a Skyhawk with a British 1000lb bomb just use any Available British free fall bomb (not retarded or with proximity sensor !) on your model as dimensionally they are indestinguishable. Although I think the external markings may be different. you would have to check references on this.
Selwyn
-
Anybody got any intel on the exact kind of rockets used by the RAF Hunters in the Aden crisis?? Sources say RAF 60 pounders, which can be had in the Fisher Sea Fury. Would those be applicable on a 1/32 Hunter from Khormaksar?
Tks!
J
Jennings I believe the Hunters mainly used the 68mm SNEB rockets. The changeover from 3inch to SNEB took place in the mid sixties so I suppose it is possible that they used the 3 inch early on.
Selwyn
P.S 60 lb refers to the rocket warhead there were a few different sizes of head used on these rockets!
-
You may have seen the pictures of the Oxygen/Nitrogen trolley i posted a few days ago, well its finished and I'm happy with how its turned out:
On site
and with its little friends!
Great little kit, would recomend it to all.
Oh, and to give it some scale
BIT OF A STORY
RAF Wittering Harrier OCU, 1980ish. Friday, Ten minutes to mid day shift change. A FLM - Flight line Maniac (sorry Mechanic!) is detailed by the line chief at the last minute to go down to the gas compound and collect a nitrogen trolley that has just had four new full bottles fitted.
Our man is in a hurry he's off to see a girlfriend on a long weekend, so he speeds down to compound in the old liney landrover to pick it up. On arrival the gas trolley is found pulled out of the now locked compound and the "gas man" has long gone. The bottles are on the trolley but the feed pipes had not been connected (usually done back at the line) he reverses up to connect. "OMG!" no towing pin in the landrover! A quick search through the pocket of his overalls, thankfully he has a large GS screwdriver stashed in the pocket from his last job, that will serve as a quick replacement!
Now he's on his way back to the line via the unused taxiway, a bit fast but he's in a hurry.
Suddenly a thud! Nitrogen trolley detaches from landy and veers away in the direction of a line of parked cars. (belonging to RAF Regiment personnel) Trolley strikes a brand new car side on at speed. One of the top two bottles (not properly secured in the trolley clamps as he didn't check...!) slides forward, punches hole in car door, hits passenger seat frame, diverts upwards and puts large dent in car roof panel.
Enter one VERY uninpressed Flight Sargeant RAF Regiment car owner type person!
Strangly THE FLM did not see his girfriend that weekend..........!
F/S tried to claim from the RAF for a new car. the RAF said he should not have been parked on a taxiway! His case was if he couldn't park there why was there a marked parking space with a sign saying for F/S RAF Regiment ?
Eventually, after a lot of wrangling he did get a new motor out of them.
The FLM got 28 days.
Selwyn
PS It was NOT me! I was an Armourer!
-
Here is my attempt at converting a 1/72 Revell Hunter F6 to a GA11. I bought the conversion set from FAA models which is very nicely moulded and contains both Harley light and PR10 nose, replacement gun-less bay, open airbrake and arrestor hook. However I was slightly disapointed that it does not come with a tailpipe for a less-powerful Avon engine. The FAA Hunters were mostly converted RAF Hunter F4s and as such should have a smaller bore tailpipe. Fortunately Aeroclub do an F4 conversion set that includes a tailpipe and this was what I used. I am aware the the small vents on the fuselage of the F4 are different to the F6 but I chose not to correct this. The aircraft I chose to model was a mid-60s vintage and thus pre-dated the Harley light nose.
The Revell kit is very nice although I did have some trouble aligning the starboard wing. It should be foolproof but mine drooped down further than the port wing. I ended up bending it into a better position but in doing so popped open several seams
I have another Hunter on the go and it does seem that the fit of the starboard wing needs some care to avoid this problem.The Aeroclub tailpipe erplaces the kit one but was maybe 1mm too narrow in diameter. I added a shim of about 1mm to the rear of the aircraft which gave me more room to blend the tailpipe in with putty if that makes sense. Thus my Hunter is a little too long but I don't think it noticeable.
I made the mistake of fitting the droptanks and the little fins on them at an early stage. Every time I picked up the model I brushed against one of the fins and snapped it off. Eventually all four were gone! The kit was painted with Xtracrylix paints, XDSG over white. I mixed a little yellow in with the white as otherwise I think it looks too bright in this scale and a more ivory colour seems better.
The Pegasus marking on the nose came from Modelart set 72-056. I made up the codes myself after finding a pic of this aircraft on Air Britain. Modelart decals are very nice although they need a bit of practice to avoid disasters. They definately need to be pressed down firmly over Micro-soling them, and then they will settle down further with Micro-set. I had to use a Modelart blanking roundel to avoid the colours bleeding through on the fuselage roundel. Other decals were from the Revell sheet that came with the kit. A few sticky-out things weer made from spare card and plastic rod.
Hope you like the pics. I have added some greenery to my background but still not happy about the lack of depth of field I am getting with my camera.
Pat
Just a quick note. Early Hunters didn't have a smaller bore tailpipe! the difference is in the Tailpipe cover fairing!. The reason for the change was the introduction on the Mk6 Hunter of the 200 series Avon engine, which although it gave far more power than the 100 series in early Hunters, was actually shorter in overall length.
The Tailpipe of the Hunter is mounted/supported on a rail system within the rear fuselage. so when the fuselage is split for engine removal the empennage/tail can be pulled back. but the tailpipe, still attached to the engine does not move backwards with the tail. Access to the tailpipe mounting bolts is then obviously very easy.
When the 200 series engine was adopted they did not change the existing Tailpipe length as this would be a major (Read costly!) engineering change, but the tailpipe when fitted to the shorter 200 engine sat "further up" (forward) in the existing tailpipe fairing. It was found that the jet blast from the tailpipe now impinged on the existing tail fairing. so it was redesigned to allow for this (A much cheaper option than redesigning the tailpipe!).
The fairing was then modified again on the FGA9 to incorporate a brake chute.
Selwyn
-
2
-
-
After reading this thread I took my ROG 1/48 Typhoon kit out and discovered that the markings for this jet are included on the decal sheet.
There also seems to be just enough ordnance included in the box to configure it this way as well.
My hope is to build this kit as close to OOB as possible. My question is, what else do I need to know to depict this particular jet at this moment? Are there any changes that need to be made to this kit to accurately depict a current Typhoon flying in support of Operation "Odyssey Dawn"?
Thanks for your help,
Mark
The RAF Typhoons are not supporting operation Odyssey Dawn, they are undertaking Operation Ellamy!
Selwyn
-
Shelled out £14 quid for this on Friday What a dissapointment!
It has obviously not been proof read correctly, loads of typo's, repeats, basic errors, (at one point says how good the Gnat was to fly!) incorrectly labelled Pictures, (a Jet Provost instrument panel with Gunsights!!?) and basic ommissions, (Would it not be simple to mention at some point that the Strikemaster was fitted with internal machine guns under the intakes?).
This book, with a bit more attention to detail, could of been so very much better.
Selwyn
-
Thank you, Edgar. It's been nearly 20 years since I'd been to Australia, and I do remember it was undergoing some restoration work, mainly on the bomb bay and engines. I'm not sure if they flew it, whether at all or just to maintain airworthy status. I'll have to dig those slides out and see if I'm remembering something that wasn't. That last tidbit, about the "2nd. pilot's seat"; I wonder if there was thought to provide a swinging control wheel, but Bomber Command chose not to require (or implement) it?
Regards,
Tim
The jump seat was normally used by the flight Engineer on takeoff and landings to assist the pilot. After takeoff he would go back to his normal position.
A perfect example of this is in the film "the Dambusters" at the start of the film the Flt engineer ( Played by Robert Shaw I believe!)assists on shutdown,at the end of the Gibson crews Last mission of their tour, and again when they go on the actual mission on takeoff. the engineer helps with the throttles,flaps etc.
Selwyn.
-
Would have had to been a single bomb on each belly pylon hardpoint then.
Until we ran out of the 960 Fuze & had to go back to pistols n dets!! (something we didn't learn on our Weps course at Tossford as they'd been withdrawn..
Ahh! wonderful! the delights of the 79 Pistol an 52 Det. Gets me all warm and nostalgic!
Selwyn
-
Not my subject but are the 1000lb bombs in the Revell 1/72 kit the same pattern as those used in the first Gulf War? The kit one are of a revised type with a more pointed nose reflecting a new fuse. Not sure if these were in use by GW1. Easy to modify back if they weren't.
The "Revised Nose" is just an (optional)airburst sensor, all you need to do is file it back to the normal bomb nose shape.
selwyn
-
Is the RAF PWIII not based on the American GBU-24/BLU-109?
I also recall an artcile about thye end of GWI talking about the RAF trialling the mk 84 based US Paveway as stocks of UK LGBs were running out, but I never saw any evidence of this.
The clue is in the question "Based on" is quite right! the Paveway III and GBU 24 superficially Look the same but they are not interchangeable, main visual differences on PW III are the hardback, the "teeth" between the fins on the tail, and The arming vane.
Paveway IV features on Tornado GR4 but not on the GR1 as illustrated.
Selwyn
-
There standard British 1000lb bombs, the ones being carried are training weapons filled with concrete, hence the blue colour.
These are British Mk 22 practice bombs with what looks like retarded tails.(pic not too clear!)
By the way these bombs are not concrete filled they are actually hollow! Earlier marks of 1000lb practice bomb were filled with an explosive substitute, (not Concrete!) the missing weight on these bombs is made up by having a very thick skin construction. These Bombs are consequently very strong and can be recovered and used again.
Selwyn
By the way the blue colour is called officially "deep Saxe Blue" BS 381c Hue 113
-
This is why the US military uses FS595. No names, no interpretation. Just a five digit number, so there's no chance of messing it up unless you're dyslexic.
And that is why The British forces use BS 381c hue 633 (6 =Grey, 33 colour number) and a Official Name RAF Blue Grey, No interpretation needed.
I think everyone accepts all colours to FS or BS or RAL or whatever look different depending on wear, light fading and light conditions when a picture is taken.
So what exactly is your point?
Selwyn?
-
Selwyn you are corect !! I would urge all Spitfire buffs to watch the IWM DVD 'Spitfire -Frontline fighter '.It follows a DI of a 604 Sqdn. Spit Mk1 filmed at Abingdon in May 1940 ..and will answer many other questions beside .Not sure though but some may be available on Youtube.
Have fun
Dave
many thanks!.
Selwyn
I have another Hunter on the go and it does seem that the fit of the starboard wing needs some care to avoid this problem.
French Mirage IIIC Blue camoflage?
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
Many thanks guys!
Selwyn