Jump to content

Rod Blievers

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 Excellent

1 Follower

About Rod Blievers

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 10/01/1946

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    SE Qld, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

963 profile views
  1. I'm not sure of the ethics of this, but here's an article on the differences that appeared on another modelling website. See: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/whichchipmunkrb_1.htm
  2. I wasn't picking on you, nor did I intend upsetting you -sorry! It's just that the myth that Canadian-built Chipmunk is just the same as a UK-built Chipmunk only with a bubble canopy is very widespread. Even Airfix believed it!
  3. I feel as though I'm constantly repeating myself, but the UK-built Chipmunks and their bubble-canopied Canadian built brethren are VERY different airframes - it's not only the canopy. Here's a few examples of where the DHC-1B-2-S5 differs: Different engine cowlings, lacks ground power plug on forward fuselage, prominent airscoop on RHS under canopy, reinforced mounting on dorsal spine, no strakes, pointier elevator horns, blunter tailcone, different windscreen, cockpit coamings are straight edged, different fuel gauge/cap assembly,
  4. Kir - keep in mind that RAF Chipmunks only had the strakes fitted in 1958, so the Airfix model would be correct for aircraft prior to this. There was also a rudder change in1953.
  5. Oh dear, can I throw a spanner in the works here? When WP833 flew in the "around the World" flight, it sported broad vertical red/white/blue stripes, with the fin being red while the rudder was blue and white. The BA-style "flowing flag" on the vertical surfaces was added by the owner (actually he's a good friend of mine who lives in the US) was only applied late last year. Top marks for getting the antenna fit, rotating beacon fixture, exhaust configuration and stencils correct, but it has to be said that WP833 NEVER flew in these markings while in the RAF.
  6. Patrick: The difference with the Canadian gear mounting/rake is generally not appreciated. The point of tire contact for a Canadian-built Chipmunk is 3 or 4 inches (depending on your reference source) further aft when compared with a UK-built specimen. The Canadian legs are subtly more vertical and the mount position is an inch further aft; very hard to appreciate unless you see the two together.
  7. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, I hope I didn't imply otherwise? If so I apologies, certainly not my intent. I HAVE written my own book Mike, well part of one anyway! Check out "Chipmunk - the Poor Man's Spitfire", arguably the definitive work on the mighty Chipmunk, now hard to get hold of and expensive to boot, which is why I had high hopes for this publication. This is a book intended for "normal modellers", not known as "rivet counters" without reason, and surely they would all definitely be interested in colour schemes, markings and airframe details? I n
  8. I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your rather gushing comments about the publisher's "inability to produce a bad one". If you know anything about Chipmunks, then the shortcomings with this publication are sadly all too obvious. Even the front cover disappoints; an appallingly inaccurate drawing of a Canadian-built T.30 in the corner and a photo of two UBAS Chipmunks which really begs for a more informative caption. This one photo rewards careful study; yet there's not a word here about the two different styles of application of the 3M fuselage strips, two different styles of anti
  9. Is 7/10 maybe being a bit generous here Paul? Even the front cover gives it away; an appallingly inaccurate drawing of a Canadian-built T.30 and a lovely photo of two UBAS Chipmunks which really begs for a more informative caption; not a word here about two different styles of application of the 3M fuselage strips, two different styles of anti-dazzle panels, the not that rare appearance of white canopy frames on an overall Light Aircraft Grey Chipmunk and the spinners marked in the university scarf colours. I've already alluded to the drawings; let me repeat they are ve
  10. Be wary gents, from the preview it would appear that the drawings and some of their captions aren't as good as they should be.
  11. If you're intending modelling a Chipmunk with the RAFC Cranwell from the first period (they replaced their Chipmunks with the Prentice in 1955) note that most, if not all, did not carry the yellow wing bands.
  12. I have little knowledge of AAC schemes, but I'd think they'd have more or less paralleled the RAF. Initially overall High Speed Silver with yellow bands, the bands were replaced in 1959, the process taking around 2 years. Initially painted DayGlo panels, fairly quickly replaced by the 3M DayGlo adhesive strips. In 1966 polyurethane Light Aircraft Grey replaced the cellulose Silver, but the first Chipmunks didn't appear in this scheme until 1969 (and in B&W photos it can be very hard to tell the difference - one clue is that a few Grey aircraft sported white canopy frames). The first permut
  13. Rod Blievers

    D H Chipmunk

    Tweeky - yep, and if you look at my photo there's one (WG478).
  14. Rod Blievers

    D H Chipmunk

    Technically they're spin recovery strakes - they improved recovery (marginally) but had nothing to do with spin entry, however DH themselves called them "anti-spin strakes"! These were retrofitted (rather quickly) to the RAF Chipmunk fleet in 1958 - the RAF's last non-straked Chipmunks were those that returned from 114 Squadron on Cyprus in very early 1959. They remained fitted from then on. So the only RAF Chipmunks without strakes were in the overall silver/yellow bands scheme.
  • Create New...