Blacktjet Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) I thought I could see those differences as well but there was no mention in the captions so I thought it was the viewing angles. I know that a modifcation had to be made at the wing junction with the front of the tank when a couple of RN Buccaneers stalled on catapult launch - it could be that the RN tanks had the more faired in versions of the tanks and the later RAF tanks didn't? The RAF used both types, the mod tanks mainly on RAFG a/c (possibly hand-over items from RN) Look here for info on tank mods http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages...pult_Index.html Edited March 5, 2010 by Blacktjet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadeocu Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Getting into to this late, but I think there is some confusion in this discussion about what tanks are being discussed. The mods to the British tanks are not relavant to the longer, higher capacity tanks used on SAAF Buccs. I am fairly certain that SAAF Buccs used a higher capacity (450 gal. if memory serves) tank that were never used on any British Buccs. The mods discussed in the last few posts had much more subtle differences in shape than the difference b/w British Bucc tanks and the high capacity tanks used by SAAF Buccs. All this by memory so please let me know if I am way off base here. - Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacktjet Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) Getting into to this late, but I think there is some confusion in this discussion about what tanks are being discussed. The mods to the British tanks are not relavant to the longer, higher capacity tanks used on SAAF Buccs. I am fairly certain that SAAF Buccs used a higher capacity (450 gal. if memory serves) tank that were never used on any British Buccs. The mods discussed in the last few posts had much more subtle differences in shape than the difference b/w British Bucc tanks and the high capacity tanks used by SAAF Buccs. All this by memory so please let me know if I am way off base here. - Jack No confusion, see post 69 Should have made it clear that my posts are about the standard tanks not the SAAf ones (I don't think the RAF or RN used these either - always thought they were made for the ferry trip to SA!) Edited March 5, 2010 by Blacktjet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4rk Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Picked up one today and have noticed another error on the decal sheet. The RN version is supplied as XV344 (which I see has already been pointed out to be wrong anyway for that version) but the small white serials for the rear fuselage section don't even match (on mine at least). One is the 'correct' XV344 and the other is XV869! Given, its only a small decal and will probably not be noticed when on the finished model but it's a bit of a silly error no? Have I just got a duff sheet? Other than that the kit looks alright, the new sprues look good quality, shame they couldn't re-vamp the older sprues as well but I guess that would require an expensive full re-tool. The canopy is quite poor as well IMO so I will need to change that if one is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catbird Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 My decal sheet has the same fault regarding the fuselage serials. Not too bad a problem if you intend to build/buy 2 buccs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacktjet Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Picked up one today and have noticed another error on the decal sheet. The RN version is supplied as XV344 (which I see has already been pointed out to be wrong anyway for that version) but the small white serials for the rear fuselage section don't even match (on mine at least). One is the 'correct' XV344 and the other is XV869! Given, its only a small decal and will probably not be noticed when on the finished model but it's a bit of a silly error no? Have I just got a duff sheet?Other than that the kit looks alright, the new sprues look good quality, shame they couldn't re-vamp the older sprues as well but I guess that would require an expensive full re-tool. The canopy is quite poor as well IMO so I will need to change that if one is available. Had not noticed that, mainly cos I shelved the kit untill I can get some new RN decals! At least XV869 was an S.2D! Well that's one decal less for Walrus to find, to do 020! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Cornes Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Model Art sheet 72033 had three S1s: XK533/LM/682 700Z NAS, XN953/E/109 800 NAS, XN965/LM/636 809 NAS White anti-flash scheme. This is the only one I can think of other than the Model Alliance one. Thank you for that. I had a look at the Model Art sheet yesterday and, guess what, the only all white one is also the only all white one on the MA sheet! Taht is despite the fact that the Model Art info says that these are transition markings whilst the jet was going from one squadron to another and mentions the side number and LM tail codes in pale blue. You'd have thought Model Alliance could have been a bit more original!! I'm going loopy trying to sort out some anti flash white S1 markings!!! I know Richard Caruana did some for SAMI or MAMI or whatever but printing decals off the internet is too much of a black art for me!! Maybe Fantasy or Xtradecal can do one - with a full anti flash stencil set? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Have looked for a thread without success that discussed the tailplane/ RWR corrections. So rather than open a new thread thought would ask here. The 1/72 kit apparently has some issues with The tailplanes and RWR fairings, though I am struggling to see a great deal wrong. However as the kit is intended as a presentation I want to get it as correct as possible. Would the Odds and ordnance's resin set be accurate for XV869 S.2D Embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '020/R' on 6/10/1975, passed to RAF 27/11/1978 please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Cornes Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Have looked for a thread without success that discussed the tailplane/ RWR corrections.So rather than open a new thread thought would ask here. The 1/72 kit apparently has some issues with The tailplanes and RWR fairings, though I am struggling to see a great deal wrong. However as the kit is intended as a presentation I want to get it as correct as possible. Would the Odds and ordnance's resin set be accurate for XV869 S.2D Embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '020/R' on 6/10/1975, passed to RAF 27/11/1978 please? I don't really know Paul but when I compared the O & O tailplane with the Airfix one, I really couldn't see any significant difference, apart from the deflected 'elevators'!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Thanks Simon Like I said, I keep seeing it said there is something wrong, but not seeing anything. It could be me. The S2D has a different shape on the rear RWR fairing. Guess it would be more of a dum dum bullet rather than the pointed fairing on the kit Is the O&O one similarly pointed please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZK302 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Just checked Freightdogs resin update set and something looks different! The rear fin bullet is shorter than the Airfix kit part - whether its suitable for your S2D I don't know though. http://www.freightdogmodels.co.uk/product_...69ac616601f8c5c As I said lastnight at the club meet I'me going to the Nationals on Sunday... so do you want the set from Freightdog? regards paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Cornes Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Thanks SimonLike I said, I keep seeing it said there is something wrong, but not seeing anything. It could be me. The S2D has a different shape on the rear RWR fairing. Guess it would be more of a dum dum bullet rather than the pointed fairing on the kit Is the O&O one similarly pointed please? I've got both the Airfix and O & O tailplanes in front of me. If we assume that the O & O one is correct then I would say that the front part of the fin extension above the t/plane is extends maybe 2mm forward of the leading edge whereas the Airfix one stops at the le. The O & O has a smooth curve forwards and down whereas the Airfix one curves downward and then drops abruptly to the bullet. The O & O rear bullet is probably a bit more pointed and the upper part of the fin (above the t/plane) is a better aerodynamic shape in plan view. Also the Ant-coll beacon is further back on the Airfix unit. Not massive differences but you may think that £5.50 is a good investment - it depends on how many Buccs you're building. I have 4 so I went to Plan B! To answer your question - not a dum-dum tail bullet so the Freight Dog unit could be a good move. I must say that I prefer the look of the O & O nose and airbrake. Maybe the best bet is to buy an O & O one and file the tail bullet flat? No wing mounted RWR fairings in the O & O kit but I presume not required for a 'D' model ? The O & O one now includes the IFR probe I believe and Cameron is very fair with his postage! Cheers Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Thanks very much chaps! need to have a look again and weigh up options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted November 12, 2010 Share Posted November 12, 2010 Why not look here for replacement nose, airbrake and tailplanes and other items.Robert Oh what have you done? Lots of goodies there including (coming soon) a Lightning T bird conversion for the gastly Trumpeter (finally I might be able to do something with all those horrors in the stash). Thanks for pointing this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now