Please lets not repeat the XH558 saga and tear apart a perfectly second ground running airframe in the vein hope that it will one day fly.

DOUGHNUT

Sorry to get back on this but BRUCE wrote

“Showing a big company attitude in the case of the Vulcan got the approval required. I dont think anyone has put the case for the Lightning in quite the same way.”

The CAA has never said that the Vulcan will gain premission to fly, it may have said that it will offer support and that they will consider an application. But no decision will be made, indeed it can not be made untill a aircraft is ready to start test flights. There are far to many ifs and maybes with a project of this scale.

DOUGHNUT

So who is going to tell me that displaying an aircraft like that is reducing the stress on the airframe?

DOUGHNUT

Is the original Hawk Glider on show at East Fourtune? If so I think that BBC research has failed yet again by not mentioning it and including it in the programme.
I saw the programme and failed to see any similarity with the proposed Pilcher Triplane and what was actually flown for the programme. I would guess the modern engine used would have produced more power and weighted less than Pilchers, as well as major differences in wing design and control system. As has been said in the magazines recently the real sucess of the Wright Brothers was their ability to master CONTROLLED flight and to then take their unstanding forward by further testing and design improvements. They also had the foresight to record their work and have a photographer at the ready on the big day.

DOUGHNUT

I would guess that the society is refering to an award such as an Knighthood, sadly he did not live long enought to receive one. As did Avro’s Roy Chadwick?

DOUGHNUT

QUOTE “I’d love to see the Yanks (or the French for that matter) Launch 17 Aircraft in 13 minutes!”

Yeah but the at least the yanks would still have 40+ more jets left to launch. Sound like rats from a sinking ship!!

As model maker myself I have seen such colour variations between models of the same aircraft in different scales, even when built by the same person using the same paint. It should be remembered that the colour as seen by the eye varies because of the light shone upon it and the distance which it is viewed from. So a object viewed from 1m away will look different when viewed from 50m, the affect will be the same with scale models. If you view your 1/72 model from 1m it should appear as though you are the viewing real thing from 72m, I believe this is called ‘scale colour’ By the same rule the detail shown on some 1/72 kits, ie panel lines need not be there. Can you see a rivet or panel line at over 150 feet? Also the finish of models, ie matt, satin or gloss has a great effect to the colour as seen by the eye because of the lesser/greater relection of surrounding colours.

One final point (and I don’t mean to critasize Roger S) what are you comparing your coastal command B-17 colour scheme too? Unless you have actual WW2 paint samples which have been perfectly stored for 50 years and have not faded, I assume you are using colour photos taken at the time. Can we be sure that over the years these colours are a ‘true’ representation of 1940.

It was said on another thread that we trust in the written word of others, the same is true of model making artwork, some colour profiles simply do not look right. Either because the artist used the wrong colour or becasue the printing process did not allow the necessary shade to be mass produced.

DOUGHNUT
Rant over >>>>>

Posted 17th November

“How about the Swiss Guy who flies an restored Morane WW2 fighter (I forget the correct number) or the ex Swiss AF target tug, FFW C3600 which has been converted back to its wartime configuration with a Merlin (Hispano ?) engine.”