Jump to content

A pair of Airfix Hawks in 1/72. Finished.


Recommended Posts

2 updates in less than 24 hours ?   Better watch you don't burn yourself out there Steve.  At this rate, you could finish before me!

 

I love this shot - it really shows of those rivets perfectly (and those tubey things)

 

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

 

 

IMG_0001_zpsxksphghy.jpeg

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

I may or may not fix it like that later on.  It may depend on whether or not I think you’ll remember it should be! 

I'll remember .................... 😈

 

But seriously, these Hawks are already masterpieces, and I look forward to the day they might actually appear (say) at Telford ......... 🤨

 

Terry

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hendie said:

it really shows of those rivets

I’m keeping quiet about rivets hereinafter - after the Wessex tail (tale).

 

I’m also not mentioning any brass work following the Wessex gust lock/tail axle reveal (At least until I understand the whole different temperature solder thing......)

 

;)

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/11/2019 at 12:10, Robin-42 said:

You just demonstrated something that surprises non-pilot enthusiasts. If we can’t control it or there is no procedure for dealing with an issue, we study it and promptly forget about it. For example my current work ride can have GE or Pratt engines. Can I tell which one it has by looking at it, nope, not unless there is a decal on the side. Can I fire the fire bottles if required, yup. Procedure is the same. As a modeller, this is appalling. “I just spent more on resin engines than the kit is worth to get the correct ones for the fin I am doing and bloody driver can’t even tell!!!”

 

Long “trivial” posts are why I like it here, especially when they are about trivial aerodynamic devices. Look at the trailing edge of a lot of 40’s 50’s and 60’s rudders for example.  There is a thread buried in here somewhere about them. 

Think you have just hit the nail on the head when it comes to modelers obsession with what's right which often isn't reality when it comes to how much variation there is with the real thing, which would be a 777 by chance ?

 

I built a custom 752 for a good friend who was a senior Britannia captain and I had put details on his A/C that he hadn't noticed in thousands of hours behind the stick !!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along similar lines, but through the opposite side of the lens, I have been categorically told that a Lynx model of mine in a show competition was “wrong”, despite my pointing out that ZD260 / 346 / BW (the airframe in question) was being regularly flown by me at the time, so I knew every inch of it pretty intimately.  Not good enough, it seemed: “stationary helicopter blades droop”.  “Not on semi-rigid heads they don’t”.  And so on until I shrugged, picked up my Lynx and walked out.

 

This was by a competition judge, albeit almost 30 years ago.  I have never entered a competition since.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, hendie said:

2 updates in less than 24 hours ?   Better watch you don't burn yourself out there Steve.  At this rate, you could finish before me!

 

I love this shot - it really shows of those rivets perfectly (and those tubey things)

 

 

That's fabulous work Mr F, I have a increasing pile of hawks to build and a couple of nostalgia builds I want to do but nothing like that detail but I never had the privilege of strapping one on. Despite my so called best mate when he was on 208 telling me he had turned down a trip and I could have had it, to which my response was " well why the F*$% didn't you ring me...…..

 

No wonder he moved so far away 

Edited by Paulaero
Spelling
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

This was by a competition judge, albeit almost 30 years ago

Sad person. There's a saying in Italian for people like him, I don't know the equivalent in English, but it's something like "There's no one blinder than who doesn't want to see"

 

Ciao

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Along similar lines, but through the opposite side of the lens, I have been categorically told that a Lynx model of mine in a show competition was “wrong”, despite my pointing out that ZD260 / 346 / BW (the airframe in question) was being regularly flown by me at the time, so I knew every inch of it pretty intimately.  Not good enough, it seemed: “stationary helicopter blades droop”.  “Not on semi-rigid heads they don’t”.  And so on until I shrugged, picked up my Lynx and walked out.

 

This was by a competition judge, albeit almost 30 years ago.  I have never entered a competition since.

 

2 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Along similar lines, but through the opposite side of the lens, I have been categorically told that a Lynx model of mine in a show competition was “wrong”, despite my pointing out that ZD260 / 346 / BW (the airframe in question) was being regularly flown by me at the time, so I knew every inch of it pretty intimately.  Not good enough, it seemed: “stationary helicopter blades droop”.  “Not on semi-rigid heads they don’t”.  And so on until I shrugged, picked up my Lynx and walked out.

 

This was by a competition judge, albeit almost 30 years ago.  I have never entered a competition since.

I know that some won't like to hear this but the "Rivet Counters" were the scurge of modelling show's, those that thought they knew everything, bought nothing and never built anything but critised others.

 

I remember a very funny one who happened to be earwigging over a conversation one nationals many moons ago when the subject got on to a 'pink' harrier , when this well known RC piped up that RAF harriers were never pink cause they didn't go to GW1, the assembled group almost held there collective breath as said story teller explained that it had been done by the French Airforce and of course said RC interjected with , the French didn't have harriers.

 

It was explained that the 'pink' was applied in retaliation for said story teller 'amending' the badge on the fin of a mirage some thing to do with a duck...….

 

Said RC was still adamant that the RAF never had a Pink harrier to be told in no uncertain terms they did cause I had to clean the bugger off...…..

 

Moral of the story if you don't know what your talking about then STFU    

Edited by Paulaero
Spelling
  • Haha 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paulaero said:

 

I know that some won't like to hear this but the "Rivet Counters" were the scurge of modelling show's, those that thought they knew everything, bought nothing and never built anything but critised others.

 

I remember a very funny one who happened to be earwigging over a conversation one nationals many moons ago when the subject got on to a 'pink' harrier , when this well known RC piped up that RAF harriers were never pink cause they didn't go to GW1, the assembled group almost held there collective breath as said story teller explained that it had been done by the French Airforce and of course said RC interjected with , the French didn't have harriers.

 

It was explained that the 'pink' was applied in retaliation for said story teller 'amending' the badge on the fin of a mirage some thing to do with a duck...….

 

Said RC was still adamant that the RAF never had a Pink harrier told be told in no uncertain terms they did cause I had to clean the bugger off...…..

 

Moral of the story if you don't know what your talking about then STFU    

Am sure if I give said story teller a nudge he will post the pics......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2019 at 5:55 PM, Fritag said:

Wouldn't swap my FJ hours for helicopter ones tho' :winkgrin:  Not even in the beautiful Lynx (well perhaps just a few).  We're all allowed out little prejudices ain't we?.  450kts - night low-level using night vision goggles - now that is for kids......immortality ends in your 30's....:) 

 

 

I've been flying low level using NVG in HEMS role (120 kt.) and I can only imagine the thrill riding at 450 knots using goggles. For me it has been rather magical every time; you can see the stars right down to horizon and so many distant airliners with their flashing anti-collision lights. And you can't see them by naked eye. Now I'm a NVG instructor myself and think that everyone should have an opportunity to see the world through NVG.

 

We used to execute "Run-in and breaks" when we were flying a Learjet 24 in photo survey flights. Quite often the ATC asked if we could land immediately because of other traffic. No problem, 330 knots over the threshold and then into a steep turn to port to kill the speed for flaps and gear. Streaming the drag chute right after touch down it really took a little more than a minute to vacate the runway.

 

Later I have been flying aerogeophysical survey flights in a Twin Otter. Maintaining just over 100 knots and exactly 100 ft AGL over the mountains in Kosovo or in Kenya has been the most demanding flying I've ever done. Here we are approaching Isle of Wight in a Twin Otter:

 

spacer.png

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never enjoyed goggles - probably because at the stage I flew them they were still relatively unsophisticated, not to mention the fact that the cockpits were adapted for NVG in a pretty rudimentary/improvised bodge.  It worked, but it all felt a bit held together with chewing gum & string.  Worst of all in my experience was using them over the sea - and I mean really over the deep ocean a long way from land, so on a cloudy night there is pretty much no ambient light at all.  The idea of having them at all was to help us identify ships / targets at a survivable distance (this is pre-HMA8, so before Sea Owl), but we also wanted to discover whether we could help ‘Mother’ remain covert for as long as possible (radar silent, no lights) by recovering to the deck using NVG.  
 

Bloody terrifying!  Even on a ‘normal’ (i.e. non-NVG, Mk.1 Mod 0 eyeball) night sortie it can be very disorientating indeed to fly the whole sortie on instruments, including the approach to the deck... look up for sight at c. 50’ and 50 yards from the stern, adjust your brain and then land visually.  Doing the same thing from goggles was 10 times as bad.  Horrible experience.  
 

Even in those early versions, over land they were transformational.  On a Harry Blackers night deck recovery, however, they frightened me f*rtless!

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this build powering along now and Ced off galavanting the countryside I simply don't recognize the world any more...

 

Exquisite additions in the usual graceful manner Steve.👏👏

 

The oral histories woven around this are icing to the cake.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paulaero said:

Think you have just hit the nail on the head when it comes to modelers obsession with what's right which often isn't reality when it comes to how much variation there is with the real thing, which would be a 777 by chance ?

 

I built a custom 752 for a good friend who was a senior Britannia captain and I had put details on his A/C that he hadn't noticed in thousands of hours behind the stick !!!

Not a 777. The grownups fly those,  I fly the 767,  it’s older slightly dumber brother. Funnily enough, if I have flown it, I build the kit like a display model, with no detail, if it is a Spitfire, I want to know what the interior of the retractable tailwheel well looks like. Opposite of this wonderful thread! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robin-42 said:

Not a 777. The grownups fly those,  I fly the 767,  it’s older slightly dumber brother. Funnily enough, if I have flown it, I build the kit like a display model, with no detail, if it is a Spitfire, I want to know what the interior of the retractable tailwheel well looks like. Opposite of this wonderful thread! 

Enjoyed some good trips with my friend on the 762 and 763 Still have two of them to finish when the Britannia light Blue scheme came in that certainly made picking them out in the circuit difficult it was blue sky camouflage !!!

 

Has always been a topic of conversation as to why the 767 main legs 'hang' the opposite way , it was told it was to do with retraction but a new first officer said in conversation that it was to being parallel to the tarmac at touch down mean while my friend said " I just bang it down as Boeing intended" !!!  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paulaero said:

Enjoyed some good trips with my friend on the 762 and 763 Still have two of them to finish when the Britannia light Blue scheme came in that certainly made picking them out in the circuit difficult it was blue sky camouflage !!!

 

Has always been a topic of conversation as to why the 767 main legs 'hang' the opposite way , it was told it was to do with retraction but a new first officer said in conversation that it was to being parallel to the tarmac at touch down mean while my friend said " I just bang it down as Boeing intended" !!!  

You made me look that up! Never thought about it, but if you tried to put all the mainwheels down on the runway at the same time during landing on a 767 it would cause a tail strike judging by photo’s. Personally, I try to avoid events that involve subsequent paperwork.  Max pitch with no roll is 8deg, 4-6 would be a normal flare on the -300. 

 

You have to try reasonably hard to bang on a 767. Dash-8 on the other hand............

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovely little piece of detailing Steve. It is these little things that all add up. However, what really impresses me is the fact that you have a drill which can drill around corners. I'll see if I can find one at Telford...

On 11/6/2019 at 3:49 PM, Fritag said:

IMG_0029_zps1rx34mbh.jpeg

 

  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So; shortly after Telford, on the Monday, Mrs F and I went to Krakow for a week.

 

Krakow is a beautiful city with an excellent cafe/food culture and it even has an aviation museum with a fine range of Cold War Warsaw Pact fighters and fighter bombers - oh and it’s even got an ex-6 squadron Jag in such a weatherbeaten and faded wrap around camouflage that even the most ardent ‘weatherers’ amongst the BM community might balk at replicating it :D

 

Anyways.  I only mention this cos I picked a up a cold (or rather a 'man cold') whilst I was out there and have been feeling very sorry for myself ever since we got back.  Sympathy at home has been unsurprisingly non-existent (although I am getting given rather nice hot toddies at bedtime to shut me up). It is however my latest excuse for not having done any modelling :whistle:

 

I have been trying to do some modellling - honest - but the next thing I need to do is the main undercarriage doors and, given that the Airfix offerings are rubbish, that involves scratching and playing with etch and resin; and etch in particular is vulnerable to getting blown into the behemoth that is the carpet monster after a bout of violent coughing....

 

I did however hold my breath long enough to bring together for a group photo some of the the various bits and bobs from which I’ll try to cobble together some undercarriage doors:

 

IMG_0303_zpsbjhtcca5.jpeg

 

Part of the problem is that the Airfix undercarriage bays are very poorly shaped, and this before and after photo shows where I’ve tried to shorten and widen the outboard ends of the bays.  They’re better - but still best described as ‘stand-off’ scale.  Just as well they’re mostly out of sight underneath.....

 

IMG_0302_zpsrc6pbnvo.jpeg

 

The etch I’ve got is mostly accurate - but I’ve got to reshape it slightly so that it looks as if it might fit in to the Airfix bays.  The trick is going to be to modified enough to do that, whilst still looking sufficiently like the real thing to pass muster.

 

Anyways - more of that later when the man cold has passed....

 

One thing I could do with the man cold was clear up my modelling work space; and as I was doing that I came across some old papers that provided me with some nostalgia and that some of you might find interesting.   I mean the sortie reports from my advance flying training on the Hawk :)

 

This one is from trip 11 (I did my first solo on trip 8):

 

29483_zpsqxzcbi8n.jpeg

 

I’m not sure that “yuk” was ever really official RAF terminology for a bad landing! :fraidnot:

 

That said, touching down before the runway numbers probably gave the instructor a bit of a fright :)

 

I should say that the RAF was obsessed, at least for fast jets, with aiming at the runway numbers on the approach and touching down either on the numbers or just slightly beyond. I think that civilian students are taught to land somewhat further along the runway (correct me if I’m wrong).

 

IIRC the RAF was very keen on this, both as a demonstration of accurate flying but also cos it’s just a good idea when you’ve got quite a high landing speed and quite a short runway to make the most of the runway that you’ve got......As the old saying goes runway behind you is useless.

 

Anyways.  This one is my final handling test on the Hawk.  Two days before my 20th birthday and the final hurdle to overcome to get the RAF wings.  I can still remember the relief when it was over.

 

Front:

 

23883%201_zpsygdg876o.jpeg

 

I’d forgotten that we used to take the Hawk to Mach 0.95.

 

See that criticism for getting 100’ high when instrument flying - using  the standby attitude indicator cos of a simulated main AI failure - and combined with a simulated hydraulic failure!!!   RAF instructors are never happy......

 

Back:

 

23883%202_zpsogxzae4q.jpeg

 

I'm gonna lay down now and try for some more sympathy for the man cold.........

 

 

Edited by Fritag
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to train clients to land around the aiming point markers. I hate it, as I've always tried to "hit the numbers" myself. As you say, short runways don't need to be made shorter by aiming 1,000' further down them!

 

Ian

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

So; shortly after Telford, on the Monday, Mrs F and I went to Krakow for a week.

 

Krakow is a beautiful city with an excellent cafe/food culture and it even has an aviation museum with a fine range of Cold War Warsaw Pact fighters and fighter bombers - oh and it’s even got an ex-6 squadron Jag in such a weatherbeaten and faded wrap around camouflage that even the most ardent ‘weatherers’ amongst the BM community might balk at replicating it :D

 

Anyways.  I only mention this cos I picked a up a cold (or rather a 'man cold') whilst I was out there and have been feeling very sorry for myself ever since we got back.  Sympathy at home has been unsurprisingly non-existent (although I am getting given rather nice hot toddies at bedtime to shut me up). It is however my latest excuse for not having done any modelling :whistle:

 

I have been trying to do some modellling - honest - but the next thing I need to do is the main undercarriage doors and, given that the Airfix offerings are rubbish, that involves scratching and playing with etch and resin; and etch in particular is vulnerable to getting blown into the behemoth that is the carpet monster after a bout of violent coughing....

 

I did however hold my breath long enough to bring together for a group photo some of the the various bits and bobs from which I’ll try to cobble together some undercarriage doors:

 

IMG_0303_zpsbjhtcca5.jpeg

 

Part of the problem is that the Airfix undercarriage bays are very poorly shaped, and this before and after photo shows where I’ve tried to shorten and widen the outboard ends of the bays.  They’re better - but still best described as ‘stand-off’ scale.  Just as well they’re mostly out of sight underneath.....

 

IMG_0302_zpsrc6pbnvo.jpeg

 

The etch I’ve got is mostly accurate - but I’ve got to reshape it slightly so that it looks as if it might fit in to the Airfix bays.  The trick is going to be to modified enough to do that, whilst still looking sufficiently like the real thing to pass muster.

 

Anyways - more of that later when the man cold has passed....

 

One thing I could do with the man cold was clear up my modelling work space; and as I was doing that I came across some old papers that provided me with some nostalgia and that some of you might find interesting.   I mean the sortie reports from my advance flying training on the Hawk :)

 

This one is from trip 11 (I did my first solo on trip 8):

 

29483_zpsqxzcbi8n.jpeg

 

I’m not sure that “yuk” was ever really official RAF terminology for a bad landing! :fraidnot:

 

That said, touching down before the runway numbers probably gave the instructor a bit of a fright :)

 

I should say that the RAF was obsessed, at least for fast jets, with aiming at the runway numbers on the approach and touching down either on the numbers or just slightly beyond. I think that civilian students are taught to land somewhat further along the runway (correct me if I’m wrong).

 

IIRC the RAF was very keen on this, both as a demonstration of accurate flying but also cos it’s just a good idea when you’ve got quite a high landing speed and quite a short runway to make the most of the runway that you’ve got......As the old saying goes runway behind you is useless.

 

Anyways.  This one is my final handling test on the Hawk.  Two days before my 20th birthday and the final hurdle to overcome to get the RAF wings.  I can still remember the relief when it was over.

 

Front:

 

23883%201_zpsygdg876o.jpeg

 

I’d forgotten that we used to take the Hawk to Mach 0.95.

 

See that criticism for getting 100’ high when instrument flying - using  the standby attitude indicator cos of a simulated main AI failure - and combined with a simulated hydraulic failure!!!   RAF instructors are never happy......

 

Back:

 

23883%202_zpsogxzae4q.jpeg

 

I'm gonna lay down now and try for some more sympathy for the man cold.........

 

 

Man cold? you try being a Martian with no less than six nostrils to unclog!

 

Unsympathetic of Mars 👽

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice etch Steve :) 

 

Great story too - I was a taught to fly high finals and aim at the numbers too (by an ex-Army man). Didn’t impress my PPL examiner though - he flew Mossies as a Pathfinder and was only used to coming in low and clipping the hedges!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, limeypilot said:

At least you can pick all 6 at the same time!

 

Ian

Just when you think things couldn't sink any lower...…..

3 hours ago, perdu said:

Discretely one hopes...

When you have blue scaley skin and eight tentacles, its a bit difficult to do anything discretely on this planet. Mind you, last night a chap I know said he was looking out for me on the Saturday at Telford but was unable to spot me!

 

Incredulous of Mars 👽

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My instructor was a Hercules driver, so it was usually a Khe Sahn approach, luckily without getting shot at.....!!

 

 

Unless he felt like playing fighter pilot when it was short finals off a smart run and break (well it was smart when he had control!)

 

K

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...