Here’s what happens when you get to 1/12 scale.

Absolute scale buffs will probably take offence at some of the minor liberties taken but the primary excercise here is to produce a flying model first and a scale model second.

I expect that I will be popping into the historical forum now and again with questions about this aircraft.

Seconded Bex! What an amazing model.

What are you using to power it? Ducted fan or turbine?

The latter would be awesome!!!!

Are you going for a real life colour scheme or a ‘what-if’?

….not entirely in context, but I would like to see the Bristol Brigand TF.1 fully restored, making new wings, undercarriage, fitting engines, etc. and on display. This is the sole surviving fuselage, and really could do with being complete once again.

Does this share wings, undercarriage, with the Beaufighter, Beaufort, Blenheim, Bolingbroke series?

Wings based on Beaufighter (which were also based on Beaufort) but all three have different engines and engine installations so some mods required I dare say.

Good choice.

I remember reading an article last year where a pilot said his favourite from the handling perspective was the PR MkXI. This makes sense to me as it was stripped of armour and weapons and had a lower drag canopy, and a lovely Merlin 66 up front.

£3.69 on Amazon, where some have given it bad reviews based on their view that the runway wasn’t hit and destroyed… Who is right?

edit: just found some material on thunder & lightnings

Yawn. I thought it had been pretty comprehensively proved by now that there was significant damage to the runway that the Argentinians did not have time to do anything other than roughly fill with rubble. There was a thread about it a while back with some pretty compelling material.

Incidentally Pook notes in the book referred to in my last post that when the Harriers got to Stanley after the shooting war, a lot of work had to be done to put the runway back in action.

Pretty poor reason to criticise the book anyway. Was the reviewer a Mr Ward by any chance?!

The facts come from Peter Weston who worked at the Supermarine factory at Woolston before it was bombed. Check his story below, about the ninth paragraph I think

http://members.aol.com/famjustin/Westonbio.html

If I may quote from the above: ‘On the floor above, it used to be the lofting room where wooden mock ups were made of prototypes and experimental types and high up in the rafters was what looked like a Spitfire fuselage with a rounded nose where the engine would normally be and an engine bulkhead each side of it on the wings, it was terribly dusty. When I asked about it I was told that it was originally for a twin engined Spitfire but the idea was abandoned.’

Not a ‘twin Spitfire’ like an F-82 then, but something more like a mini Whirlwind! I bet it would have gone like **** off a shovel.

Time to come clean!
Sorry for the late april fool there chaps, i’m afraid it’s nothing more than a quick photoshop job I put together from a photo of the Bayliss Tr.IX whilst frustrated and slightly bored at work. 😉

Nice try!

Next time try a prototype scheme with yellow undersides and the ringed ‘P’ on the fuse. And would the ‘twin spit’ have needed the outer tailplanes? Surely the large tail plane and elevator joining the rear fuselage would have provided ample stability and control in pitch.

Or am I taking this far too seriously??

A few years ago an author of an article in one of the recognised aero modelling mags pulled a similer stunt at a meet of his local modelling club.

He doctered a set of scale drawings to suggest a twin Spitfire, his varient being from a pair of low back MK.XIV fuselages. He then made a rubber powered model of this invention and with his forged drrawings for documentation took great delight in hearing a lot of the so called experts of the club telling other “less informed” modellers about the history of this little known Spitfire varient.

😀 😀 😀 😀 The lads at Jetex.org will love this!

That’ll teach me to read all the words before posting:o

Edit: aha! Busted. The title of the thread says 1/48

Still, nice kit though. Must take up some space!

An online review of the MiG 17 from AA Kits said the following: ‘Highly inaccurate in outline and detail; poor cockpit; giant sunken rivets; soft molding; heavy engraved panel lines; fanciful ordnance.’ Of course, the Finback may be better. I haven’t yet built a Trumpeter kit but I have several in the build pile and they all look pretty good. Trumpeter also seems to be improving with every kit it issues so I’d say this kit is a safe-ish bet if you want a decent result straight from the box. It’s an interesting looking aircraft.