Jump to content


Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TimB

  1. MOD's been there, seen that, bought 6 ex RSAF Pumas and then tried to work out how to convert them to RAF ones... It produced 4 good ac, but at a heck of a cost in time and effort. Don'y ask me how I know... Seriously, the Puma design is about as old as the UH-1, and is not really a suitable battlefield helo any more. The Super Puma 2 may be suitable for CSAR, as with the Caracal, but it's not an agile troop lifter. Not to mention the degree of "stretch" it has had in the transmission and drive. Tim
  2. Good luck. I'm looking forward to seeing you finish it after such a good start. You have got a lot further than I have with my 28 Sqn HC3! Tim
  3. There was a bit of variation on the fin dielectric panels. Some were dark green, some were faded, some were painted... Regards Tim
  4. Agreed on Kinetic for the Harrier - it is MUCH better than the others (Airfix, Monogram, (old) Tamiya). But it does need a fair bit of careful assembly and some fettling of the parts to get a good fit, before you add glue... Regards Tim
  5. That is amazing, and provides a real sense of the real aircraft. It has to be the best model I have seen for a long time, with ealistic detail, weathering and finish. Well done - I wish I could do half as well. Regards Tim
  6. The issue is not deploying the ac - sorry, Mike, aircraft. Moving fuel, munitions spares and GSE forward is a pain. You also need secure, reliable comms., to get your mission planning, int, tasking, etc. The distance makes a difference - the RAF Germany Harrier Force moved most of its support 100km or so forward, but took 500-700 vehicles to do so. Much of the thinking was that roads between the deployment area and Gut would have been impassible in a war, so pretty much everthing would move as early as possible - and then was on wheels to move short distances to keep the enemy guessing on site locations. Anything much further and you either need confidence in your roads or dedicated logistics airlift - the latter if you are in the Outer Hebrides! Rotary needs a lot less support, and the RN, Junglies and AAC are very good at supporting small detachments. Even so, moving an AH regiment plus workshops and logs is not a a small endeavour, and once you are into larger numbers lean support is no longer beautiful but limiting. It can be done, but it is not cheap to buy or to practice... Regards Tim
  7. I think there may have been some variation. I have GR3 photos showing nose gear leg and nose wheel in distinctly different tones - the nose wheel looks light grey, the undercarriage leg is rather bluer. I also have photos where both look light gray. The bluer leg looks very like light admiralty grey, and I remember the legs as being blueish - I think I used RLM65 when I built one back in the day - and matched the colour to the real thing! Given that several other types had the same colour of legs, it is possible that Dowty painted them one colour when new, and they were repainted in service to another. Regards Tim
  8. Just to add my pennyworth; I am using the 737 set of flaps and the CFM-56 engines on the Sky line 737-400, but making it as a cargo conversion. I'm very impressed with the printing - small and easily removable supports, smooth texture and easily sanded. They also fit well, although the instructions need careful scrutiny. I wish my 3d printing skills were that good. Regards Tim
  9. The larger tanks were still used for ferrying GR3s in the 83-86 timeframe. They were unpopular as the weight of the full tank exacerbased the risk of air leaks and blockages so fuel would not feed. In one case, a 4 Sqn jet returning from Deci had to punch off the tanks near Nice due to fuel imbalance (one full, one empty). Only one tank went on the first attempt, leaving an even worse imbalance. Luckily it went on the second jettison selection, otherwise it would have been a Martin-Baker let-down into Nice Harbour...
  10. Hi, I would suggest the Airfix Saturn V is better, but you need to get the reissued one with the correctly sized Command and Service Module. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/airfix-a11170-apollo-saturn-v--109424 For a very top level review, see http://www.ninfinger.org/models/rms_tips/saturn_v.html. The review pre-dates the reissue by Airfix. From there on, you can decide how much to correct/accurise. Almost every mission's configuration was slightly different, and there is a lot of info on-line. If I was building one again, I would only fix a few bits - odd lumps on the second stage and adding foil batting to the engines to show the as-launched configuration. In other scales, the Revell 1:96 needs a lot of work, but an accurate Saturn V can be produced from it with enough patience and/or after market bits. Don't go near the Dragon 1/72 version - pretty much nothing about it is accurate and it looks more like a toy than a scale model. I bought one, but ended up scratch building everything below the Apollo SLA. Regards Tim
  11. That's superb. A lovely build of a unique Harrier.
  12. The Harrier had several sources of dirt. The first was the rear nozzles, which laid down a small amount of soot across the rear fuselage and the tailplanes. The second was the oil breather just below the forward starboard nozzle. This spread a mist of oil, some of which ended up on the starboard rear fuselage, baked on by the jet eflux. The starboard side was usually dirtier than the port. The rest of the oil ended up on top of the starboard wing, covering the inner upper surface and turned the starboard wing into a ski slope if you tried to walk down it! The next was the usual hydraulic/engine oil leaks, mostly from the engine compartment and which flowed back across the under fuselage and across the ventral fin. Next, at least in RAFG, air pollution added a slight mark downstream of each vortex generator on the wing. Finally, field ops in wet conditions could spray mud over the aft fuselage, but this was limited as the aircraft normally took off from roads or Aluninium planking so it was more dirty water than thick mud. The rear fuselage was a pig to clean once it got really dirty. That said, I agree that "less is more" in most cases or "weathering" and a very dirty aircraft was rare On ship, I suspect the aircraft were cleaned more often than was the case on shore, for anti corrosion. Someone else could tell you if they were rubbed down with a version of WD-40, which would have made them clean but glossy. Regards Tim
  13. I think your copy is better than mine. I opened the box earlier this month, and realised that I would have to 3D print all the engine bells and the bases of each of the Stages. The tapered part of the centre stage is short shot and distorted, so that will be a 3D print as well. I also dug out my references, and realised how much else would be scratch-built. OK, back in the box, and I'll look again when the Shelf of Doom is a bit less full! I will follow your build with interest but not envy... Regards Tim
  14. That is a very nice build of the model. I know it is not easy - I've built only one completely and abandoned two! My only advice would be to look at the weathering on areas such as the leading edges of the orbiter and the underside/nose tiles. After a few flights, the different tones really stand out and give it that "used" look that the real thing had. It is not hard to add some areas with a bit of contrast, and I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how effective a little "weathering" can be. But a really good first space build and better than many I've seen. Regards Tim
  15. Hi, Hamiltonian, that is very very nice, and well done to you for a very good result. I totally agree that it is not an easy build - I am desperately trying to finish an HL-10 and an M2-F3 for SMW and they are fighting back all the way. I wish Fantastic Plastic had not moulded the cockpit side walls into the main mouldings - and that the cockpit was a bit more detailed. However, they are better than the Collect-Air versions which I abandoned 10 years ago, and are rather more accurate in size. Tim
  16. Very nice. Love the overall effect from subtle and realistic weathering.
  17. Thank you for these. Lovely pictures but sad to see them go. I have a 1:144 version, built while at GK, next to the souvenir "E-3D Rollout July 1989 " medallion. Doesn't seem 32 years ago.
  18. Given the starting point of the Hasegawa GR3, that is truly amazing! Verv. very well done!
  19. Very nice indeed. You have made a superb job of a difficult model, and done justice to it in full. Brings back memories. It's also nice to see an RW subject portrayed in forward flight, and not just lifting a load. I've bookmarked the build as I have a couple of Pumas in my must-build pile. Tim
  20. Lovely scheme, and nice to see the HC2 still going strong. I was surprised to see a 22 Sqn badge, but then realised that RWOETU has been re-titled. Given 22 Sqn was my first RW unit, my last RAF platform-related role dealt with Puma, with Odiham and Benson featuring somehere in between, it sort of seemed fitting. The Puma 40th celebration was a hell of a party, but I suspect the 50th was a bit more muted with Covid? Regards Tim
  21. Very nicely done. You've caught the look of the LM very well, and both the Ascent Stage colours and the foil work very nicely. Regards Tim
  22. Hi Hoops, I can confirm only 2 grays. The pictures are from scanned 35mm slides, so the colour rendition is not perfect. I built a model of the aircraft at the time, and had the modification leaflet available as reference. The pictures were taken a couple of days after delivery when the finish was still pretty new and the satin still had a gloss component. It soon went matt in the typical conditions over the North German plain. Incidentally, the exhaust and hyd fluid staining on the back end happened in the short time the aircraft spent on air test and the ferry flight from St Athan to Gutersloh. The 4 Sqn badge was 3 tone , based on a design drawn up in Humbrol colours. Regards Tim
  23. Hi Hoops, thanks for sight of your drawing for XV738. There are a couple of minor issues with the demarkation between the greys, and the 4 Sqn badge is a tad too far forward. Also, note the black false canopy on the underside. Hope these help. Regards, Tim
  24. I worked on Harriers from mid 83 to mid 86 at Gut. Few of my photos show the serials, although the undersides of the wing are quite hard to see. One exception was XZ999, photographed air-to air in December 1983, and the serial is visible. One that did not have underwing serials was XV738, the gray Matchcoat aircraft, contrary to Xtradecal and others. I photographed it in some detail soon after it arrived in March 84, and the undersides of the wing are clearly visible and unmarked. Incicentally, the Matchcoat aircraft were not supposed to have squadron markings, but both OCs decided otherwise. Following on from Nick's comments, I think there may have been two reasons. First, wings were moved around very occassionally, usually after cat 3 damage. They did not always fit well... but that was another matter. Second, the serials could not easily be seen in any case against the wrap round camo, given the tanks and pylons. Regards Tim
  • Create New...