Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Simon Cornes

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Simon Cornes

  • Rank
    Glue Required
  • Birthday 08/16/1960

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
  • Interests
    RAF<br />Fleet Air Arm<br />USAF<br />USN
  1. I think you could be right. I had an e-mail from David Lajer from Aries confirming no cockpit for the E, which surprises me as they did the A/C cockpit and the later model ejection seat
  2. Thanks Anthony, That some realy useful opinion!I e-mailed Aries over the weekend to ask about an E cockpit but you've answered my question. Also interesting to hear about Olimp jetpipes. I am clearly going to have to do some research on the E because there must have been a nozzle change at some point as all the Aries jet pipes have conventional 'straight' petals whilst Olimp have scimtar shaped petals - like the kit. A mate has pointed out that the after market units are larger in diameter as there is no conflict with having removable engines therefore smaller diameter burner sections. So your suggestion about Eduard etch make sense and then maybe an Aires seat? I have already ordered Rhino intakes. Seems as though the Eduard exterior set is also highly regarded - pity its expemsive!! Now to find a decent bok on the Super Hornet! Thanks again Simon
  3. Thanks guys, Rhino intakes and wheels ordered today. The cockpit is an issue as Aries do the A/C cockpit but I haven't seen one for the E. Do Zacto do this then? Is the kit seat that bad? If so then I can get an Aries seat easy enough! I can get Olimp exhausts but the Aries ones have different petals? Simon
  4. I picked up one of these last week and I was wondering what you reckon was the absolutely vital upgrades to the basic kit. I can't see that Aries do a cockpit for the E Model but I believe the kit seat headbox may be small? I'm not sure about the jet pipes either as I raed an IPMS USA review which made no comment about the jet pipes. Someone may be able to save me a lot of time with some good advice please! I'm thinking of using the Topcatters CAG markings, even if the yellow may be a bit weak!! Many thanks Simon
  5. Hi Guys, I don't know whether anyone can help me but here is the snag. On Saturday I bough a copy of the Thunderbirds boxing. Over here it sells for the same price as the original kit but is a lot easier to get hold of and in fact mine came with big discount. Because the full prices are the same then I reasoned that the only difference would be the decal sheet. You know I was wrong! I think I am actually missing about 4 complete sprues but I think that I only need two the drop tanks with pylons, sway braces and whatever comes with them. I intend to get hold of Eagle Strike 32074 and go for the 20th TFW jet so I'm not sure whether that could have single or twin Sidewinders inboard? It would be nice to have inboard pylons though, even empty at a push? And then there's the decal sheet. All the reviews I've read say the kit stencils are terrible. Personally I would love to have a set of these 'terrible' decals as the Thunderbirds ones are so lacking in stencils to be useless! So there you are, my original question - can anyone help please? If you could PM me then I'd be grateful. Thanks for reading this far Simon
  6. Hi, I have this decal sheet because I picked up the Monogram kit for friend who is a R/C ship modeller and wanted a Kingfisher for a project. It came with this decal sheet but he was happy with e standard sheet in the kit. No one in the UK seems to want it so I thought I would see if I could trade it here. I would really like to get hold of Cutting Edge CED72211 - B-52's Part 4 and if I couldn't get a complete sheet, well I want the markings for 'Special Kay'. I'm also looking for set(or more) of 1/72nd Mosquito stencils by Tally Ho. Finally, I am looking for decals for a 1/72 Mig 21bis. I have a Fujimi 'MF' but I believe the kit is closer to the bis. All I want is some standard markings , ideally with full stencils, for a natural metal example. If you are interested in a trade then please PM me, Thanks Simon
  7. I need 4 stars'n'bars for a 1/72nd F-111B build. Tailspin Turtle tells me that all 4 are 33.75" diameter across the blue disc. I have the MS decal sheet featuring one of these with the Phoenix test emblem for the fin but no national markings! I believe MS 72-084 was post war USN national markings and included 36" but I'm not sure if that's 36" from end to end or 36" blue disc doameter and I can't get the sheet anyway! I was sent 4 decals for the early camouflaged F-111A but they scale out at abouit 24" diameter blue disc. I reckon that I'm looking for 4 approx 11mm to 12mm diameter across the disc. I would have thought that 33.75" was also used on the early F-111A in gull gray/white? Can anyone help? It shouldn't be this difficult!!! Thanks Simon
  8. Hi Tommy, Well those photos certainly show how complicated undercarriage units and there associated doors are, even back in the early 60's! I will do my best to incorporate some of that mechanism! One. hopefully easier question, you may be able to shed some light on. How big are the fuselage and wing stars and bars? The reason I ask is because the Microscale sheet I have for '972 has had the national markings removed so I will have to find replacements. Any suggestions as to the size - and what other aircraft may have used the same size - would be very useful. I have the Scale Model World show in a few weeks time and I can look for a set, if I know what size I need! (This is all 1/72nd by the way!) Many thanks Simon
  9. Okay, just a standard blade with a pitot on the right and then upper and lower blade aerials. Strange to put them off centreline and, now you mention it, I see the lower blade is alongside the TV pod, mabe 24" or so forward of the nose bay doors? I wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't said! Will also check for photos of the l/h pitot - its starting to look Russian!!
  10. Thanks for the additional clarification Tommy. The boom is definitely coming off the! A black and white barber pole had an appeal but the jet still looks better without it! I think thats pretty much clarified things for me. As I'm mating essentially a Revell radome onto an ESCI airframe there was a bit of filling required, but not a great deal. We'll have to see how the line of the nose/windscreen looks when the canopy is on - the cockpit is stuffed with tissue and masking tape right now but, hopefully, it will look something like when its finished. I notice from the photo that '972 has vane on the forward lower fuselage side and another one pointing upwards on the right hand side of the upper nose. Is the first an AOA sensor and the second a yaw vane, maybe in lieu of a nose probe? The lower vane is in the same position as the F-111A/E AOA sensor(?) and there is one on each side? Regards Simon
  11. Geoff, Many thanks for sorting out my photos!! Tommy, what gorgeous photos! I'm not sure about that boom. F-111 in Action shows an illustration of the 3rd prototype with boom and also a photo purporting to be the 3rd prototype but with the fin code blanked by the taileron/elevon! To be honest I think it looks prettier without the boom! Thanks for highlighting the bottom edge of the splitter - an easy fix but a fairly vital correction! This also clarifies the ducts over the under wing vents - I thought they were just flush openings but the ducts would obviously improve air extraction. Do you think the forward edge of the wing root/module is white or is the light making it look like that? Presumably a dielectric aerial fairing and normally black on air force 'vaarks. Also interesting to see that the natural metal finish on the slats extends all the way back on the underside and, I presume, an equal distance on the top surface? The nose on my conversion is basically the Revell nose (I now have a mold!)but the upper view suggest that the upper line of the nose is almost a continuous line, including the windscreen line. Ah well, hopefully it will look something like! As it stands I'm using standard wheels on the basis that they were used from time to time on the 'B' but, no doubt, not on 972!!
  12. Hi Tommy, Thank you for going to all this trouble to research the retraction sequence! I will have a look at the YouTube video to see if it helps! I'm part way through my build of 972 - photo's below - and maybe you can clarify another point? I think that the splitter plates were painted light gull gray? I know that the first two airframes were white and I think that the imagery that I have suggest LGG as being most likely for my airframe but it would be good if you could confirm! [/img] [/img] Best regards Simon
  13. Hi Tommy, The geometry of this gear door is more complex than that of the wings! These exchanges have brought home to me just how low the door sits. In my mind it was quite close to the underside but in reality its about 1/3rd or so of the distance between the underside and the ground.I know that there's a working u/c unit in one of your museums which is used to demonstrate how the gear folds away but that's probably from a later unit with the vertical fixed door. I don't suppose there are many 'A' models left with the early door? I notice that the TACT airframe was one though but, no doubt it has been scrapped a long time ago? Turning back to your drawing, I thought that the length of the linkages changed between gear up and gear down but I help up a piece of paper to the screen and I can see that they are the same! You realise that the next thing will be to knock up something out of cardboard and pins to see it work in profile?!! Thanks again Tommy - and for clarifying that Revell's method was non-scale! Simon
  14. Thanks Tommy, I can sort of see the retraction sequence but I'm having problems with linkage B. The point where B revolves must move forward and up into the gear bay as the u/c retracts? Link A appears to attach to and to pivot at the rear end of the gear bay? Wouldn't it be great to have photos of the two linkages as B seems to be a real strange shape - straight in your drawing but bent (hinged?) in the Grumman illustration? Maybe the easy answer is to just make two open triangles and attach the top to the rear edge of the bay?!!
  15. Thanks Guys, As usual, Tommy's stuff is inspirational! I am building '972 and I hope that your drawings and images will help. Even with these it still hard to visualise where the linkages attach to the airframe and main gear but I will look a bit harder. Sadly I passed on my Revell TFX without taking enough notice of the gear door attachment but I built it back in the 70's and I know that the whole thing folded up pretty well - until plastic fatigue set in! Thanks Andre, I'd looked at Jim's site last week but the one thing it doesn't show is the early gear mechanism. Rats!
×
×
  • Create New...