Selwyn
-
Posts
3,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Selwyn
-
-
9 minutes ago, wadeocu said:
That's a twin bomb carrier on the other side but I think two AR Martels and slipper tanks is plausible. Note that in the painting that Bucc has the newer style slipper tanks which aren't provided in this boxing but the example in this photo has the older style that is provided in the kit. The only real accuracy nit for parts in this boxing is that the parts for swapping the belly light to behind the bomb bay are not in this boxing either, but that is a pretty deep in the minutiae. One thing that bugs me is that the fire panel decal is only provided with the white square inside the outline, but Buccs from the Martel era had the low vis version seen here. That decal will have to be sourced somewhere else for the time being.
Typical RN, create a bung and intake blank set per aircraft, and then spend ages paint marking matching them to the aircraft, and then put them on the wrong jet!
Selwyn
Running for cover and giggling!
-
6
-
-
20 hours ago, David Mooney said:
CPU-123 Paveway II 1/32 - Eduard Store
well, i can only go on the advise i have been given from Tornado weapons instructors
they obviously never read the title page of the Air Publication!
Selwyn
-
4 hours ago, David Mooney said:
The error in the write up was on me as they're CPU-123'S, these were a lovely detailed mould from Eduard...superb!
I was reached out to by a weapons instructor who was involved in operation Telic on the original load out mistake, so I followed his lead on CPU-123's which are Paveway II which was the system in operation circa 2003.
They are not CPU123 either, that bomb does not exist! CPU 123 is a small computer component (Less than 30cm long) in the early models of the MAU169 Guidance system of a Paveway II (UK) Bomb. Its a often repeated error in identification.
Selwyn
-
Just a note. No such thing as a GBU113 i'm afraid, there is a BLU 113 but the RAF have never had this bomb. Were you trying to replicate a Paveway III (UK) bomb? If so the best compromise would be a GBU 24.
Selwyn
-
really lovely build of A NF Defiant.
Just one minor nitpick, the turret would not be in that position on the ground as its would be impossible for the gunner to get in or out. If I recall the guns were slewed to the right so that the sliding panels of the turret were accessable for the gunner to get in.
Selwyn
-
12 hours ago, Steve Noble said:
Hi guys. I'm normally a car and bike builder, but I used to build aircraft exclusively from the late 80's to the mid 90's. I recently stumbled upon the 1/48 Kinetic Harrier GR.3 kit in a local model shop and had to buy it. The Harrier is an aircraft I've always wanted to build for many years now and the Kinetic kit seemed to be an excellent starting point to enable a nice GR.3 model. I'd really like to replace the ejector seat with a resin part and believe it is a Martin Baker MK9? Tried some searching around the internet but as yet cannot find a MK9 seat in resin in 1/48 scale. Can any of the regular aircraft modellers point me in the right direction/suggest any good online stores that serve aircraft model makers. It's all changed since I last built aircraft. Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
The best depiction of a Harrier mark 9 available is the the seat that comes in the kinetic kit! The only thing to look out for if you are so inclined is that Harriers prior to 1981 (GR1/GR3 T2/T4 ) had a very different seat strap arrangement. The long straps depicted in the kit are post 1981.
Selwyn
-
14 hours ago, John Tapsell said:
No - RAF and RN vehicles were repainted to the same instructions issued for the army. Thus, depending on the time period and location of an RAF ambulance, it could be any of a number of different colours and patterns.
The K2 Ambulance entered service in 1940, so they wouldn't have been painted in the pre-war RAF Blue/Grey. Wartime examples would all have been initially probably G3/G4 greens, then SCC2 Brown, with or without 'disruptors' and eventually SCC15 late war and post-war/Korea. They were 'B' (softskin) vehicles and priority for SCC15 repaints was given to 'A' (frontline armoured) vehicles so softskins generally stayed in older schemes for longer. However, K2s remained in service well into the 1950s so post-war RAF examples were repainted in a glossy RAF Blue/Grey.Personally, I'd suggest that SCC2 Brown likely remained the most common colour through the second half of WWII for the K2 in all services in the UK and NW Europe.
Princess Elizabeth didn't start her training until early 1945 and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the specific K2 was spruced up prior to the photo-op.
i understnd that the K2 was not very common in the RAF during WW2, it was mostly used postwar by that service.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 9/1/2022 at 6:49 PM, Pete in Lincs said:
Early afternoon in Melton Mowbray, I spotted a yellow TR7 following behind the draywagon.
Later in South Lincoln, a small Triumph convoy. In font, a 1300/1500 in flat blue paint on Cosmic alloys. Behind that a Herald and then an Acclaim.
They all had large 'Team Triumph' stickers on the side. Perhaps they'd been on a pilgrimage to Rimmer Brothers around the corner?
I think They were a bunch of US enthusiasts that were being hosted in the UK and had been visiting Rimmers, I didn't talk to them but the impression was that they were there to talk about parts supply, as some Rimmers guys were with them, they were at the Bull in Bracebridge having lunch that afternoon.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 8/23/2022 at 5:54 PM, Pete in Lincs said:
I say, Bang on, old boy. Patron, in Absentia, obviously. (I always think that a bit of Latin adds a touch of class to a thread.
I don't think you're allowed to say the B word. The replacement term was a Still. Until Senior Officers banned that one too.
Service Humour. Hopefully it's still allowed. We worked hard and played hard back in the day. You were either a serviceman/woman or a Civvie. That simple.
All due respect to the residents who endured the war, many of whom (I've read) went out of their way to help the forces personnel.
I never got to go down there. I was working long hours & seven day weeks in a support role, back here in Blighty, at a certain Helicopter base.
Another book in my to read pile, 3 Days in June. 3 Para and Mount Longdon. Bless them all
Very sad to hear that the pace of life is getting to you. (As it does to all of us at times. I arrived home from work today feeling ready for a nap!)
Maybe this one should be taken at walking pace, and damn the malcontents and their impatience. So, done by Christmas then?
How long is a Wasp main rotor blade in 1/24th? Will it still fit into your miracle machine?
Can you print a new brain? would it help? I could do with one myself on the odd day (or two).
Get well soon (Does the kettle lead stretch to the fridge?) Pete
You missed one out!
We started to call the locals "Bennys." The locals didn't like this so the term was banned.
We then started to call them "Stills," cos they were Still "Bennys." That was banned too.
One early morning an officer heard a chap remark, "Not many "Andys" around this morning."
When the guy was quizzed about this the answer was: "Andys Still a Benny!"
At this point I think the authorities just gave up!
Selwyn
-
6
-
-
3 hours ago, Brigbeale said:
The underside of the upper wing assembly shows the Bobcat logo with the Heller name below it.
No bulges apart from the wing fences on the leading edge and the two odd smaller ones on the trailing edge
It was a long time ago when i built it but I'm sure there were bulges on my kit as i used a set of italieri pylons and they were a great fit. Strangely my kit was labelled just a Bobcat kit not a Heller, IIRC, I wonder if any changes were made along the line?
Selwyn
-
1 minute ago, The Spadgent said:
Ooops sorry.
“Coaming”
Should of realised myself! On holiday and my brain is in autopilot at the moment!
Selwyn
-
2
-
-
On 8/31/2022 at 8:44 AM, Brigbeale said:
I used a rotary tool to cut the nozzles back after I had removed the side pods. Things then progressed to using a different attachment to completely remove the plugs as well. To set the replacement nozzles, I need to add the heat protection shields and build the rest going forward to set the nozzles at the right depth to the fuselage. A trial fit though appears to show they’re looking better than the originals.
I picked up the Humbrol TM4 Harrier last night.
There’s a grand total of 15 parts for the build!
So that means it could probably be thrown together in about 1/2 hour or so.
As expected, it has fine raised panel lines but, with a cursory glance, they appear to be ok position wise. The air brake flap under the fuselage is highlighted this way, as are a couple of other details.
There is no compressor fan - just blank semi-circles of plastic - so a home made decal of the front of am engine can be placed in there.The Jet nozzles are moulded into the side of the fuselage halves and the landing gear is also moulded to the port half as well, although the rear wheels are separate items.
The top of the ejection seats are moulded to the fuselage halves as well while there’s a separate cockpit tub with the seats moulded in.
The canopy looks nice and clear and has the frame nicely moulded. It fits to the fuselage quite well, but it had fitting tabs which locate onto pins inside the cockpit.
There are two decal sheets. One appears to be the water-slide decal sheet while the other appears to be the peel-and-stick vinyl type- eugh!
On both, the serial numbers look too ‘blocky’ and oversized, so replacements will be made.
And finally the complex instruction sheet!
It should be a fun little build.Think this was based on the italieri (esci) harrier moulds has the bumps under the wings you have to remove to fit pylons IIRC.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
On 8/30/2022 at 12:47 PM, The Spadgent said:
Glad you sorted the combing. “Not as interesting “ you say??? Well I’m enjoying the build so there.
Johnny
Combing? give us a clue!
Selwyn
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, iang said:
I would go with "Tire Black" and then some weathering. 4A at Taranto looks to have had a fresh coat of black distemper, so still quite black.
The correct colour is called "Night" the same as used on the bottom of Lancaster's. It is actually an incredibly dark blue.
Selwyn
-
9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:
Blenheims were being painted in Sky, or something remarkably similar, over the winter of 1939/40. This was some time before it was authorised by the Air Ministry for Fighter Command in the early summer. Sky was similarly adopted for the FAA in September.
The well-publicised Dupont chart showing 71-021 as Sky Type S Grey also has a separate colour called, and apparently a good match to, Sky Grey. This colour was adopted prewar for the FAA, and will have appeared in the the appropriate references made available to the US before Sky was referred to. It seems only reasonable to assume that this chart therefore post-dates the Fighter Command adoption of this colour, so is relevant to the P-40s but not to prewar Hudson. I see no reason for requiring any kind colour name change: Sky Grey existed first and Sky/Sky Type S Grey appeared later. It may be relevant that Sky Grey has a lower Dupont number.
My understanding is that the correct underside options for Coastal Command Hudson was Aluminium or Night. I'm not certain that this was in use before the arrival of the Hudson, but this would appear to be entirely consistent with other CC aircraft, but there was no RAF scheme involving light grey undersides prewar. It can perhaps can be understood as a fair representation of the FAA Temperate Sea Scheme (as correct for the top) with Sky Grey undersides. There seems to be no problem other that perhaps a misunderstanding of the correct underside colour for Coasta Command. Perhaps Coastal Command was assumed to be under the control of the Navy, as in the US, or the RAF, as in the UK, but this is guessing. There is at least one colour photo showing Hudsons painted not in Sky Grey but in Sky Type S Grey. As this was correct for the FAA and RAF post September 1940, this seems to date the photo to after this date, regardless of any earlier situation..
I agree that this may not have completely prevented Curtiss production line using a different colour than the Design Office specified, but it seems unlikely at this stage. However this does open the door to much wider,, if not fantastical, suggestions as to how any particular aircraft in any nation at any time may have been painted. Either way, I find it difficult to see that any modern estimation based upon the analysis of many varied period photographs can be more reliable.
Sky was called "Camotint" before it was Sky. Type S refers to the finish "Smooth." Matt paints were found to be a bit draggy and it became practice to rub down the Matt paint finish, so type S paints with a more satin finish were introduced. If you look at the finish of RAF aircraft in images from the battle of France the aircraft seem to be noticeably duller in finish. I think Sky was the only paint that got the type S moniker as Smoother paints became the norm, you didn't have to differentiate.
Selwyn
-
49 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said:
If you look in TM 9-1950 'Rockets', all HVARs are created equal, with 52" motors and 16.73" warheads, making 68.6" overall length. My Eduard Brassin 648061 rockets conform closely.
However, Navy manual OP 1415 'Rocket Assemblies' shows HVARs of different overall lengths: I noted 62", 68", 70", 84" and 85".
I decided to believe the former
Rob
It will be different warheads with different sizes, I seem to remember a USN Corsair image with what looked to be a long shaped charge warhead. The warheads just screw into the rocket motor. These things are long lived. When I worked in KSA in the 1990's we were prepping these, fitting a TDU14 kit which made them into a TDU11 target rocket for Sidewinders to be fired by the Saudi F5E! The 5" Rockets we were using were ancient, with manufacturing dates of 1952/53 and unbelievably unreliable, We discovered that the Saudi's were buying the rockets off the US at $20 each!
Selwyn
-
3
-
1
-
-
On 7/7/2022 at 11:37 PM, Merlin said:
Nice job, on the figures, also WAAF stockings correct look, why the guys at Airfix decided to put groundcrew into battledress though is odd, for Battle of Britain era certainly they wore tunics.
a tip..Bike and trolley acc though far too an electric blue, RAF blue grey was same colour as the tunics, or thereabouts. see the Tallboy bomb trolley (Type E) at Brooklands which is looking as pre war blue grey.
http://www.sbap.be/museum/brooklands/brooklands.htm
scroll down a few times to see the green/white large bomb and the trolley. Best references are original quality colour pics....
is a genuine colour photo note the tunic and also the Trolley colour immediate aft of the tractor. These colours and the photo are very representative of the true colours in fact.
Never go bright on the blues. If you give them a mild translucent spray of mid grey it will make them more as tunic colour, just dont squirt the flesh areas !
I would ditch the bases and glue brass wire pins into the heels, make them belong to the grass .
Merlin
The bomb trolley is in postwar colours the white bomb is a practice bomb.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RedhillPhil said:
Thankyou.
edit. I've just had a wee look at their website. They're based in Bodmin.....just the other end of Cornwallicus from me!
No need for a passport then!
Selwyn
-
32 minutes ago, Slater said:
I believe "Paveway" was originally a project name assigned to the entire weapon. This was back in the Vietnam era. In those early days, I think that the HOBOS EOGB was assigned a Paveway designation for a short time before the term was eventually attached to LGB's only.
Paveway is actually the registered trade name!
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, cerperal said:
Sorry to continue this, but every site seems to be saying it's a modified Mk82
https://weaponsystems.net/system/189-Paveway+IV
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/paveway-iv-precision-guided-bomb/
PW IV as far as I'm aware is based on the PW II design and as such has the same warhead. Yes, it's a single system as opposed to the add-on PW II but it's still built around a central warhead (all bombs are). You're certainly more of an authority on this than me or random websites but I find it odd everywhere says the same thing, but in slightly different ways. Strange how misinformation spreads as fact!
I Assure you it isnt! don't believe all that you read
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdM9WQFSqf0
Selwyn
-
30 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:
It seems there is a lot of misinformation out there, whilst our paveways do look like the orginal US ones which are based off GP bombs, Raytheon and have quietly changed so much they are totally different systems that only external resemble the GBU's of the same yields. Selywn is in the know
You might find this interesting. its the test of a Al Tariq Precision guided bomb, joint development with UAE and South Africa with glide wings.
GPS guided its dropped about 50 miles from the target and glides there, the Hawk jet that drops the weapon formates with it all the way and you see the wings jettison and then hit the target.
PW IV works in a similar way.
Selwyn
-
11 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:
Sorry, Raytheon clearly don't know what they are talking about, I'm sorry for spreading such obvious nonsense
Obviously relates to a development weapon looking at the date on this.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
Just now, cerperal said:
I thought PW IV was built around a Mk82 warhead, made (at least initially) in Italy? Happy to be corrected.
You are incorrect its not a Mk82 warhead, and its "not built around it." PW IV comes as an all up round. Its not built up. The PW IV warhead is a similar shape to the MK82 but that's about the only commonality.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Julien said:
I thought terminal laser guidance was available for the paveway IV ?
Terminal laser Guidance is available on the PW IV as a secondary capability if required but it is actually a GPS guided bomb.
Selwyn
-
1
-
Ejection Seats for Hawker Hunter F.4 and F.6
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
Early marks used the Mk2 later Marks the 3H, depends what you are building. As tony says above the two seats are visually very similar, it wouldn't surprise me if the 3H seats were actually Mk2 modified up to 3 standards.
Selwyn