dark light

XN923

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,066 through 1,080 (of 1,083 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Help with Spitfire project – Duxford 2005 #1422930
    XN923
    Participant

    Absolutely astounding stuff, my heartfelt thanks to all who have contributed.

    In case anyone’s wondering on the model front, the kits etc. I will be using will most likely be as follows:

    P7350 XT-D – Tamiya Mk1
    EP120 AE-A – Revell MkVb (they even offer this aircraft as an option)
    AR501 NN-A – Airfix Vc
    MH434 ZD-B – Italeri MkIX
    MW732 – Italeri MkIX
    PS915 as PS 888 – Czechmaster Resin MkXIV fuselage, wings and canopy modified
    PL965 – MPM MkPRXI
    PT462 Irish Air Corps 161 – Italeri MkIX with Brigade TrIX conversion
    RN201 – Academy XIV with wings clipped
    ML407 – Italeri MkIX with Brigade TrIX conversion and canopy from spares box
    TD248 – Aeroclub ‘bubbletop’ coversion with Spare MkIX fuselage and MkV wings (or a Heller XVI, I haven’t decided yet, but I have all the other parts.)

    I should be finished for the centenary of the BofB…

    in reply to: Help with Spitfire project – Duxford 2005 #1424181
    XN923
    Participant

    Superb, just what I’m after!

    in reply to: Help with Spitfire project – Duxford 2005 #1424572
    XN923
    Participant

    Perfect!! Thanks all.

    Mark12 – you mention ‘specifying underwing serials’ which gives you an ominously official tone…! Could you tell me what colour grey is used for the upper surfaces?

    Thanks

    Oh, and are they 36in?

    in reply to: Merlin sounds #1425752
    XN923
    Participant

    I’d be interested to hear answers to this… At Duxford in September the biggest difference in sound came from two largely similar aircraft – the Griffon powered MkXIVc and MkXIX which I understand are based on the substantially the same airframe, although I’m not sure off the top of my head what mark of Griffon each was using. The XIV had an almost Merlin-y sound, while the XIX had the much more traditional ‘growl’ associated with the Griffon.

    I have heard that the firing order influences the tone of an engine a lot, hence the Merlin and Griffon having substantially similar geometry but completely different sounds.

    in reply to: Modelling resources for Blackburn Firebrand #1343152
    XN923
    Participant

    Thanks all. That Airfix article sounds interesting!

    in reply to: 'Red Baron' to fly again #1350202
    XN923
    Participant

    Captain Alfred Roy Brown

    Ah, great. Not Tom Cruise then.

    in reply to: 'Red Baron' to fly again #1350232
    XN923
    Participant

    I wonder if the dilemma over whether the RFC pilot (captain Wood was it?) or ground fire from Aussie soliders shot down TRB will be resolved by the revelation that it was actually Tom Cruise/President Bush falling through a hole in time in his F14?

    in reply to: Shall we club together and buy a toy? #1350244
    XN923
    Participant

    Nice, but have you got anything in a Sea Fury?

    in reply to: Garden gnomes who needs em! #1361012
    XN923
    Participant

    Ideally a Tupelov ‘Bear’. I don’t have a garden to speak of, but a quick run up of the engines now and again would stop people taking up all the parking spaces!

    …If there isn’t one of those I’ll have a Shackleton MR3 please.

    in reply to: Urgent help needed for Shackleton 1722 #1361440
    XN923
    Participant

    Peter Vallance at Gatwick Aviation Museum http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk has two MR3/3s (WR982 and WR974) and several containers worth of spares. You might want to give him a try as he’s very amenable to helping out other classic aircraft operators/owners for favours/swaps etc.

    in reply to: 3 Warbirds in formation #1362430
    XN923
    Participant

    3 warbirds were in formation over Colchester (Stanway) at 16:55 any body know which aircraft they were one sounded like it had a radial one was blue, one duck eggshell white not sure on the other.
    Many thanks,
    NS

    Total guess, but at airshows earlier in the year, a P47, P51 and Spitfire have been displaying together…

    in reply to: now that the Me 262's are flying… #1363396
    XN923
    Participant

    What else would be in the realistic realm for reproduction to flight? Ta 183?

    gregv

    Don’t encourage them! Next thing you know there’ll be a flying circus of ridiculous ‘Luftwaffe ’46’ creations that never would have flown, let alone seen service! How about painting a MiG 15 camo, sticking some crosses on and sawing the top of the tail off?

    A Meteor NF11 would be nice though.

    in reply to: Buccaneer to fly again in the UK…. #1372041
    XN923
    Participant

    I don’t believe the SU-22 has ever flown in HHA ownership and I don’t forsee her flying for a while.

    For info on the HHA S-22 see http://www.hunterteam.com/sukoi-22-M4_tech_specs.htm

    The website doesn’t make it clear whether or not the aircraft has flown with them since it was delivered in 1999, but seeing as they advertise it as available for defence simulations etc. with 10 hardpoints and supersonic capability, I would have thought it was able to fly. HHA point out that as it was surplus to German airforce requirements after reunification, it was stored in airworthy condition for some time making it their youngest airframe and the one with the fewest flying hours.

    Sadly it doesn’t look like it’s available for airshow displays at the moment at any rate. I emailed HHA and they got back to me very promptly, so if you wanted to know if the S-22 was flying, when and where etc. I imagine they would let you know.

    Matt

    in reply to: Another movie credit for Sally B #1374176
    XN923
    Participant

    Note for enthusiasts: Most of the viewing public can tell the difference between a jet and a prop aircraft only on a good day. As they say, Deal with it. 😉

    Fair point… I can’t help shouting ‘at least put a different canopy on it!’ at the screen sometimes though – but I’m sure that would cost as much as running the plane in the first place. Hence my earlier point about CGI modifications. Ho hum. But great to see Sally B flying again and starring in yet another film.

    Somewhere, there’s a lot of money to be made for someone operating a fleet of 4/5 scale wooden light aircraft or car engined Spits, 109s and FW190s.

    in reply to: Another movie credit for Sally B #1374565
    XN923
    Participant

    Sorry, perhaps I should have explained a bit further – and by the way I am all for using real aircraft (crikey, real anything) in films. Dark Blue World used two real Spitfires from the OFMC (a Mk IX and a Mk V as I recall) for most of the aerial sequences but due to modern digital composite techniques (NOT CGI – this is being able to stick real things over other real things) could make this look like a whole squadron of Spitfires. They didn’t have money for Messerschmidts or Heinkels so they borrowed outtakes from Battle of Britain and ‘composited’ their own Spitfires onto them as well as adding things like trails of spent cartridges, flying debris etc… all of which look a lot more real than the stuck-on explosions from BofB originally.

    There is no substitute for real aircraft, unless perhaps it’s a very big model. The filmmakers said as much and I’m glad of that – but these days digital compsiting gives filmmakers options they never had before. There were hundreds of hours of in flight footage taken for films like Battle of Britain, most of which might never be used – I would far rather filmmakers took advantage of this great, existing footage in the way that new technology allows than make half baked new stuff. I am not for doing away with filming new sequences – DBW had to film loads of new stuff, there is one bit on the making-of documentary where the director phones his dad and says ‘we just filmed the bit where the Spitfires attack the train – it cost as much as the whole of “Kolya”‘. I just think there are aircraft that look more like Bf109Es than T-6s.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,066 through 1,080 (of 1,083 total)