Jump to content

GB Chat


Recommended Posts

Hi folks,quick question,I have an Airfix Tucano lined up for this build which is an aircraft I have never built before so great,but I got a lovely Hobbyboss Twin seat F16

in Thunderbirds colours given as a present.I know it is not a training aircraft but as it is used by their pilots for honing their skills etc,is it eligible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I got a lovely Hobbyboss Twin seat F16 in Thunderbirds colours given as a present.I know it is not a training aircraft but as it is used by their pilots for honing their skills etc,is it eligible?

Bit of a tricky one this... It's an F-16D, which is a trainer, even though it is combat capable. The Thunderbirds are part of the 57WG, which is a dedicated training unit. I reckon it just sneaks in, but only because it is a twin seater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a tricky one this... It's an F-16D, which is a trainer, even though it is combat capable. The Thunderbirds are part of the 57WG, which is a dedicated training unit. I reckon it just sneaks in, but only because it is a twin seater.

Thanks Enzo,Tucano and F16D then! I will make sure the family are out when the decals go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awww... come on... you can't leave it like that...

Right then- I'm in with a Heller 1/48th-ish Piper L-4. It's a kit I don't hold much regard for (had one, sold it, had second thoughts, got another cheap...) and it's very simple (yet perhaps with some challenging bits) so just the thing to blow the cobwebs out with.

Lest someone cry foul, I'm going to be finishing it as N1138V, in which I logged some dual in approximately 1982. I haven't yet been able to lay my hands on any photos of her then (mine are all in storage and probably ruined by now), so I'm going on memory and a more recent photo of her- ironically, she has now moved to France. Besides being my favorite Cub of the litter at Hampton Airfield then, she also has the advantage of being olive-drabbish inside and out, with just a few stripes and insignia (and numbers) for distraction. (Note: I don't remember the insignia being quite so appaling as shown in linked photo, so I'm going to take some artistic license to get them more righter.)

bob

Edited by gingerbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest someone cry foul, I'm going to be finishing it as N1138V, in which I logged some dual in approximately 1982.

Interesting point. Many sports aircraft are also used to train novice pilots. Although they would not normally be considered trainers, if it is an aircraft in which you have learned to fly, then there's no way it can be anything but in. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can find a model of a Piper J3 Cub there might be four. 'Cause, of course, there isn't enough half-finished projects littering the bench as it is... :shrug:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Airfix Hudson that I would like to enter as one of the training Hudsons that were sent over to the UK

I'm not convinced it would be eligible, I'm afraid. Although the aircraft was used in a training role, training wasn't its primary role.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to join in on this one.

I have a Gnat, Hawk, Tutor, Balliol, Provost, Tucano, Anson, S.A Bulldog, Jet Provost.......

Just one question mate. Are builds allowed of trainer types that are wearing special liveries? Hawk (Benevolent Fund), Tucano (Queens Jubilee), Gnat (Red Arrows/Yellow Jacks)?

Cheers

Deacon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced it would be eligible, I'm afraid. Although the aircraft was used in a training role, training wasn't its primary role.

Suits me, that can be used in the Under £10 GB then.

Need to look through my stash for something for this..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good response so far of proposed builds with only a couple days to go before the start.

But for those who are unsure please put on your thinking caps and concentrate on a subject that is a proper training type. I feel boundaries are being pushed with some proposed subjects that are NOT really eligible for the GB theme. I am looking forward to seeing a lot of interesting and colourful subjects over the coming months and course of this GB. So lets all make this a good 'un !!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS; My planned entries are AZ/Admiral Oxford, Pavla DH82CTiger Moth ( WW2 RCAF with skis) Arifix Tiger Moth!!! and maybe something else yet to decide and time permitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember that this GB is four months long... so we have a month longer than we've previously had for standard GBs.

Which is good 'cos I'm eagerly awaiting the Airfix Tiggie!

Wez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for those who are unsure please put on your thinking caps and concentrate on a subject that is a proper training type. I feel boundaries are being pushed with some proposed subjects that are NOT really eligible for the GB theme.

Please read the following as rumination, not challenge: I have the feeling you (not sure who started this) were looking at this from a military perspective. In the civilian world, there's a reason it is called (in the USA, at least) "General Aviation" - there's little room for something as specialized as an aircraft "designed specifically for the training role", nor does an individual aircraft necessarily do only training or only not training.

Taking my intended subject as an example, the Piper Cub wasn't designed specifically for the training role, it was simply designed to be a two-seat workable flying machine. But if you're going to allow civilian subjects, the Cub is one of the quintessential "trainers", even 75 years later, if you're lucky enough to find such a place. There are also no regulations about how civilian aircraft must be painted, therefore there's essentially no such thing as "training role scheme" such as the rules' example of a car in Driving School colours- though there does seem to exist the constant financial and regulatory pressure to make everything "corporate".

My individual subject was built as an L-4 for the military, but once de-mobbing it was considered just another J-3C by the CAA/FAA. While painted in a faux-military paint scheme, at the time I knew her she was, with another L-4 and a "proper" J-3 (in classic Cub paint job), the primary rental/ flight instruction type at Hampton Airfield. Most of the time she was flying with a paid instructor and a student pilot, or a student pilot doing some solo practice- perhaps for the first time! In my preferred flying world it doesn't get any more representative of training than that, and that's probably a major reason I chose it.

As the rules have accommodated, even in the military it often isn't as cut and dried as "a trainer doing training". You can have something like a Tiger Moth or an AT-6 as an operational squadron's hack, and you can have something like an Anson or Wellington as a dedicated trainer in Training Command. Then there's the ship that has now been made non-operational and serves in a training capacity (which I'm having a little trouble visualizing, but nevermind!)

If what was wanted was types designed specifically for training, carrying out the role of training, in markings recognizable as a (dedicated) trainer, the rules should have been left at that. I have considered a Hawk in the Ilmavoimat (Finnish Air Force), but I don't know... they're painted in camouflage (or have been at times), and I think even have limited and secondary offensive capability should the need arise...

bob

Edited by gingerbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...