Jump to content

Graham Boak

Gold Member
  • Posts

    11,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Graham Boak

  1. Not to mention new fuselage for camera windows, pressurised canopy, intake for pressurisation...
  2. That's absolutely normal. A prize of a night at the theatre/cinema does not normally include the cost of getting there. My family gave me the present of a flight in an F-4 simulator some years back, but assumed I could get to Yorkshire myself. A prize of a trip on the Orient Express wouldn't include the cost of getting to Paris (or starting place of your choice). I grant you that it isn't terribly exciting.
  3. For the 1950s fighters, the late Roger Lindsay's recent trilogy Cold War Shield should be in every interested party's collection.
  4. It is not really curious that the A-9 variant was absent or misunderstood in early reference books: for another example look to the Bf 109K, which was built in much larger numbers but still misunderstood as late as Green's Augsburg Eagle book, which was some time later than the Harleyford Fw 190. There was also late confusion over the Bf 110E-F differences. Then when you look to rarer types such as the Ar 240 - heaven help you still! This is without regarding the early German types which were subject to much propaganda bearing little relationship to the truth. As late as the 50s many if not all books were still being written without reference to much more than a comparative handful of original records, and relying on the work of a small number German researchers. Any mistakes/misunderstandings/lacks in knowledge were simply repeated from one work to another. This is still occurring to this day in less scrupulous works. The simple guide is not to completely trust early works, other than for photographs that are no longer available, and be cautious about those modern works that you do use.
  5. Health concerns are a worry, but the combination of a spray booth (forced ventilation) and respirator should prevent the majority of problems. Both are really recommended anyway when spraying anything indoors.
  6. I've got one at about that stage: I thought it would make a good use for one example of the Tuskagee transfer sheet I've got. Waste not want not, you know, not that it would make much of a dent in the two shoeboxes of spare transfers...
  7. I think that the shortcomings of a Scimitar was summed up (possibly apocryphally) by a US carrier crewman "only the limeys could build anything with that much power just to go subsonic". In truth it was a 1940s design (Type 508) developed beyond the stage where a new design should have been called for. Running away from a dogfight is a "guns only" solution: the Scimitar would be an easy target for a Sidewinder shot or (for an F-4) a short delay then a Sparrow. Alternatively he could just chase until the Scimitar ran out of fuel - but if the Scimitar was running away it was no threat so why bother chasing at all? It might just be a lure with something more threatening coming in.. None of which prevents it being a gap looking to be filled in any collection of FAA aircraft. I recall an Eng.Soc. visit to Yeolvilton just before they received Phantoms. We had a briefing from one officer sounding off (whinging) about the Phantom performance claims, being able to do all sort of things - but not all at once. To which I had the obvious thought "whereas the Sea Vixen couldn't do any of them..." I was cheeky enough then to ask the youngish pilot sitting next to me at the dinner just how the Vixen could cope with a Mig.21. I didn't get an answer. A few years late I was working with the now classic comparative performance plots of F-4 and MiG.21, but the Vixens were gone so I never got an answer. Again, models are another thing. I rather regret I never made a Vixen. I did have a Frogspawn one, but it moved on.
  8. Live and learn. Thank you. I still think the French one would be more interesting, or perhaps one of the Mediterranean ones with the mottled leading edges.
  9. We can guarantee that no turbocharged versions reached service, knowing what we know now about the necessary modifications. There would be absolutely no possibility of confusion with the A-8! Some of the turbocharged BMWs did fly in Ju.388s: possibly some of the L variants may have flown recce missions.
  10. I don't think that the RAF operated any Fulmars, although the Vichy French did have one. RAF operation of the Swordfish was very late in the war on night anti-E-boat operations in the Channel.
  11. I agree that Arma Hobby kits are very good indeed, However this is because they have studied their subjects closely, and have discussed them with people who know the subjects fully. Being fully licenced does not mean a thing as far as accuracy or quality is concerned, just that the companies are permitting you to use what they claim as trademarks without threatening to sue.
  12. A number of the older references refer to the A-9/R11, which would be the single-seat night fighter, and talk about turbocharged versions of the BMW801T, which I am entirely prepared to believe never did exist for production. However later sources refer to a range of variants of the BMW801T, not all of which are turbocharged, and it is one of these which is recorded as being fitted to the A-9 and its 14-blade fan.
  13. Wiki quotes the range as 130km from 6.1 Km release altitude. So 20:1 not 40:1 - This I presume is for the shorter-winged M.II production version. Original requirement was for 160km from a higher altitude.
  14. The Sky band was not part of the markings used in the Middle East, but was a specific Fighter Command marking. Unlike the Red spinner, which was specifically required. At some stage DAF seem to have stopped painting the Sky band out, but before then there is no need to expect any more than a local repaint of the band.
  15. The USN instrument trainer scheme was also prewar. I did do an Airfix one in that scheme many years ago.. I have seen suggestions that these were SNJ-2, and that -2s had an extra 6in on the centre-section to fit the fuel booster pump. A new rudder is needed but I've some doubts about this extra span as it does not appear to be in the slightest different in the wing root u/c bulges, where any difference would be seen. I'd be very interested in reviews of the new kit by someone who actually knows about the aircraft. It looks very good in the photos, and I've seen good comments but they were a bit vague on whether the reviewers were particularly well-informed. I already have more "T-6" kits than I am ever likely to finish, but when did that ever stop anyone?
  16. Mottling isn't present on all Luftwaffe types other than the fighters (not always then) and some late bombers. Of course that does then limit you to largely 70/71, 72/73, all black, all white, all 02, desert 78/79 (two different shades of each), 61/62/63... Pretty severe? Then there are the oddballs such as the 74/76 (if that's what it was) on maritime He.177s or the similar greys on JG 5 fighters and zerstoerers. And a few others.
  17. Look like standard Day Fighter to me, with rather variable colour film effects. The upper surface blue on Malta Spitfires (initially at least) was Dark Mediterranean Blue rather than the rare Deep Sky.
  18. Thanks Mike: the museum T-6G masquerading as a Luke AFB aircraft is an example of the kind of colour and codes that were in widespread use but not AFAIK fully recorded. Not for ease of modelling use, anyway. I'm not sure about the tail striping either, but photo(s?) of X-1 are available. The SNJ described as a postwar example is fairly typical of the kind of variation seen in photos of wartime USN base(s?). An example is in the Monogram USN camouflage and markings book. As you say, so many variations and that's not going into any description of how to distinguish these for modelling purposes. Dan Hagedorn is the best author on the subject, and his Warbird Tech does go through and give detail all the NA contract numbers from the initial NA-16. It is often forgotten that the T-6 was the end of the line rather than the beginning!
  19. Sorry John, it's a J type not a A type so land-based not carriers. Japanese carriers in 1946? Hmm, try A6M-8? Methinks there was a carrier-capable N1K2-J planned. A bit uninspiring as far as What-If scenarios go.
  20. The later Huma kits were very nice indeed. I'm not sure that the DFS 230 was all that late, however.
  21. There are indeed an increasing number of 1/144 subjects. One of my favourite types in 1/72 is the Arado Ar 96 trainer, and this is available in 1/144. This will satisfy you for Luftwaffe types, with a range of other users including Hungarian, Bulgarian and post-war French (and Czech). Not perhaps the widest range of colour schemes, but it is a lovely neat type. If I was much younger I'd be making 1/144 instead of 1/72 because it appears to be an increasingly lively scale whereas 1/72 manufacturers seem to be heading to ever more hundreds of tiny pieces which don't fit together well. However, as an ex-HP man I really don't understand this obsession with the tin tea tray where there are perfectly good Victor kits... When I was at Uni in the late 60s I used to make the Airfix 1/76 tanks just to keep my hand in, and I still do (though not just Airfix). A little later there were the Japanese 1/700 range of warships that could have filled the same need. These would still make a refreshing change but the later better kits have gone down the thousands of tine parts route.
  22. There are some, but there are many more b&w photos showing partial markings and uncertain colour estimates, or bright colour pictures from a distance showing lots of variations but little or no detail of markings. I feel better off with USN subjects than USAAF ones - I admit that being in the UK I may be missing useful sources, but I do try to keep up with this subject.
  23. The Mk.Vs built in early 1943 would have been of little use in Canada late 1944 except as instructional airframes. The UK was still using them as weather aircraft, glider tugs and trainers, but little else.
  24. I entirely agree with your bafflement that it has taken so long, but to be fair it was easy enough to simply paint in the extra cockpit frames, throw away the spinner, and change or ignore the tailwheel and aerials. The main gap has been the lack of the long "Canadian" canopy for T-16s (AT-16s?) and none-US examples, and this was available (to various accuracies) from the aftermarket. Your main problem will, I fear, be finding a good example of a colourful US trainer. Colour was used widely to distinguish aircraft from different bases or sub-units from the same base, but the massive US trainer programmes have been sadly under-represented in photographic and colour guides. Perhaps you will be luckier than I in finding a good range of possibilities to choose from.
  25. Aircraft such as the Harvard have their propeller tips exceeding the speed of sound, and are hence notoriously noisy. However the noise was not, is not, and cannot be described as, a "boom". Recent research has suggested that aircraft such as the Whirlwind and Manchester suffered from supersonic flow near the tips of the propellers, and this would explain the performance shortfalls and vibration problems associated with these types. However, I don't believe anyone reported sonic booms from them. The shock waves associated with comparatively small local areas dissipate rapidly: it takes a large shockwave to reach the ground and make the distinct sharp report.
×
×
  • Create New...