Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BWP

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/25/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  1. Note that the front nozzles are not "exhausts". They blow air that's redirected before it gets mixed with the fuel and burnt (I think it's still pretty hot, though). Generally there's no reason not to paint them in whatever colour is appropriate for the aircraft. However, it does appear to be the case that RAF/RN Harriers typically (but not always) had the front nozzles in a bare metal finish, thus appearing similar to the rear nozzles. I don't know if the front nozzles are actually "unpainted" or are actually painted in a metallic finish. In most photos I could find they appear as a light-coloured metal, while some others (e.g., Spanish aircraft) have them in a very dark metal. Hmm. A bit more digging indicated that RAF 1st-gen Harriers almost always did have the front nozzles painted, usually dark green. Sometimes (?) the port nozzle (only) was painted dark sea gray. The nozzles were interchangeable, so on some aircraft, at certain times, they'd have a gray nozzle on a green section of fuselage, and vice-versa on the other side! You'd need specific photos of specific subjects at a particular time-and-date to know for sure. I have no idea what the painting policies for 2nd-gen aircraft were. 1st-gen aircraft that appear to have unpainted front nozzles may represent a high degree of wear-and-tear? The air coming through those front nozzles is going to be hot and at a high pressure, you'd imagine that over time there'd be some sort of discoloration effect! Only the rear nozzles are exhausts in the traditional sense, which is why they don't get painted. They invariably take on a normal burnt-metal appearance. You'll note that only the rear nozzles have a "blast shield" protecting the sides of the fuselage.
  2. RLM81 is a particularly contentious colour. See here for a detailed discussion: RLM81 discussion on Britmodeller Short answer appears to be: it's correct if you think it is.
  3. The Matchbox 1/76 AFV kits were. with only a couple of exceptions, exceptionally well-detailed without being overly complex to build, with the nice bonus of including interesting little diorama bases. The only real drawback of these kits -- as with many other AFV kits of the era -- were the vinyl tracks, which were generally fairly terrible -- although IIRC the PzII tracks were (relatively) decent. Most of the kits are still available today in Revell-DE boxes. They're easily identifiable because they are clearly labelled as "1/76", as opposed to Revell's own 1/72 kits.
  4. Glynn, Sure, happy to have them if it's no trouble. Let me know what you'd like for them.
  5. Hey, cheers, much appreciated. Wheels would be great! I don't really have much stuff I can trade but am happy to pay any reasonable price + postage.
  6. Hi ... if you have built your Hasegawa, Revell (Monogram) or ESCI/Italeri 1/72 F-104 Starfighter kits "wheels up" and have the undercarriage parts spare and unwanted, please allow me to take them off your hands ... drop me a line.
  7. Just a minor clarification: unlike the GR.3/Sea Harrier FA.1 kits, the ESCI GR.5 is a different kit to the Italeri GR.5. (The Revell GR.5 is a rebox of one of them, but I forget which; the ESCI, I think.) The reputation of both is pretty bad. Either the Airfix or Hasegawa GR.5 kits, or any Airfix/Hasegawa GR.7 kit with suitable modifications (the nose, mainly) will do the job.
  8. You could always contact Round2 and ask them if they would be able to supply you with the missing saucer parts. Round2 Models Polar Lights is now owned by Round2 and that kit is still in production -- although the box art can vary a bit (it's an excellent kit, btw, although if my experience is anything to go by, you'll need a good supply of filler). Enterprise NCC-1701
  • Create New...