Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Why?'.
Recently, I've come across some photos of the Mark VII Wellington while doing some research for an upcoming build, and I have to ask... WHY? What was the train of thought behind putting a 40mm on the top of a Wellington? I have read before that some were fitted with the same gun in the nose in an abortive attempt to create an anti-shipping aircraft, just the same as some Australian Beaufighters, and that seems reasonable. Was the turret supposed to be used defensively? What were the performance penalties outside of reduced airflow over the vertical tail? Any info and additional photos or plans would be most welcome. I plan to buy the Airfix Mark II as soon as it's available, and I think now that I will have to buy 2... We'll see. Thanks, Tweener
Like most people I have too little time. But I do like to devote some time to looking and praising at other people's work. I'm not a spammer, but sometimes it's nice to leave more than a click on the 'like' button. Why doi we have to wait x-amount of seconds before another replay to a topic. Thanks for your consideration! Gaz
Director Steven Soderberg has taken upon himself to recut to 2001. One assumes it has TCM/MGMs backing as it is freely available on his website in HD. He outlines his reasons for the recut and reducing the film to 110 mins. http://extension765.com/sdr/23-the-return-of-w-de-rijk My response is why and how can one improve on perfection? Marty...
Note: this thread is not about specific colours or paints, or about Spitfires, and especially not about Spitfire colours. The many very interesting threads about the interior colours for this and that aircraft have got me wondering: why paint the inside of a military aircraft at all? I'm embarking on building a B-26 and I was slightly surprised to find that, while most US medium bombers would have had painted interiors, most B-26s didn't. I would have assumed that painting the insides was standard practice and would have been enforced by the Department of Defense or some such body. Yet it seems as though Martin had determined that there wasn't enough to be gained by adding paint, and no-one seems to have minded enough to insist on it. I can think of a number of arguments for and against adding paint. For reduces corrosion reduces interior glint and other distractions makes it easier to spot damage may psychologically improve crew well-being gives modellers seventy years hence something to argue about Against adds weight increases assembly time takes up cost and resources increases risk of fouling cable runs etc aircrew aren't paying customers so no need for a cosmetically pleasant environment A further complication is that some aircraft (OK, this bit does touch on the Spitfire) seem to have moved from one to the other during their production lives, and some may even have had unpainted interiors painted and vice versa. So, with a plea not to start a fight, I'll throw it open: does anyone know the reasoning either way?