Fidd88

For any readers of this old thread, my apologies for the malfunctioning links to youtube films. Either my account was hacked, or it was cancelled by Google, I couldn't get a straight answer out of them as to what had happened. So none of the films are now available.

Hubert, that's a superb post, thank-you so much for taking the time to post it. Evidently I do not agree completely with your view, but I do very largely so. I also agree with you and Martin concerning social-media, which I too eschew for the reasons raised.

Some very sensible replies there I think. I especially agreed with HubertB. There's another "politically-correct" wokism I've noticed of late, that runs in tandem with sensitivity to aircraft markings in both RC modelling and plastic-modelling. This one concerns the makers of documentary films concerning WWII and the Third Reich. This involves referring to "Nazi tanks" or "Nazi aircraft" or "Nazi ships", rather than "German" ones. This is troubling on two scores, for a start the Kriegsmarine and to a lesser degree the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, were not infrequently luke-warm towards Nazism. Secondly, of course, if we're to learn anything from history, is that perfectly ordinary, non-Nazi Germans were capable of committing atrocities and did so with little or no push-back towards the authority requiring them to do so. Calling them "Nazi" or "Nazi German" creates the impression that it was only enthusiasts for the party who did so. Extensive recordings of German POW's at Trent Park (and other places) proves the reverse. The only reason these did not result in war-crimes trials was that getting Germany back on it's feet was considered more important in '45. It's noticeable how there's a generational change at work here. My father, who served in the wartime RAF, invariably referred to them collectively as "Jerry" or "Germans" (always pre-fixed by "bloody"!), my generation likewise, although we dropped the "bloody" on occasion, but the millenials now make this distinction of referring to "wartime Germans" as "Nazi Germans", and never ever just "Germans". Interesting no? Such are the nuances of history corrupted by the pc brigade to the point where we fail to learn from it - and have to repeat it, as the saying goes. IMHO of course.

I've been out of the kit-building hobby for 40 years, and these days am a scratch-building models. Nevertheless I was very interested in the video below which addresses the way "cancel culture" (or self-censorship to avoid it) is starting to affect the hobby. For now I'll reserve my own opinion on this, but as you may imagine it is not in favour of "cancel-culture"!

I was in ground school for my commercial flying license when "Black 6" went down, with a very senior RAF officer at the controls. We had an ex-RAF lecturer, who first thing in the morning breezed into the class-room, stating "I see the RAF claimed it's last 109 yesterday!". Nothing starts a day of "loading" instruction (much mathematics) like a bloody good laugh, as we were near weeping with boredom by the end of the day!

Gentle bump for an update!

I suspect that there's a "rule" to the application of these that we're not getting. I suspect that when both are visible at the same time, they're the same orientation, but, if they're in a position where they cannot be simultaneously observed, then the port-side one is done one way around the one on the starboard was done as mirror imaged. This might account for why WW2 era aircraft seem to have differing orientations of the Polish insignia when on the forward fuselage. This, in a sense, is merely a similar rule as that applied to RAF fin-flashes, where the red if always on the forward edge of the insignia, white in the middle and blue on the aft edge, ie the starboard fin flash is the reverse colour sequence left to right, as that of the port side fin flash, Maybe the Poles adopted an RAF "rule" and then came up with a more sensible one later?

and yet,,, (from circa 1940/1)

That's fine, You've probably just had us all looking through our display-shelves at models of Polish aircraft: "Wrong, right, wrong, wrong, wrong, right.." (et cetera ad Polonium)

Thankyou SO much for clarifying that. So basically I've done it wrong for a 1940's Hurricane, and have applied the "modern" form of it. Am I correctly stating that?

Lads, there's something that foxing me a bit at the moment. On the square "checker-board" Polish insignia, as painted on the starboard nose (pic attached) I've seen examples on film, on the internet and so forth oriented both so that the red squares on the marking are NE/SW as well as NW/SE. Can anyone cast light on why this is, and which do you consider correct? Was there, for example, a rule that has the marking in one orientation on the starboard side, and a different one on the port?? I'd really be grateful for a definitive answer here.... Are these right?

Lads, there's something that foxing me a bit at the moment. On the square "checker-board" Polish insignia, as painted on the starboard nose a few posts above (or on the preceding page of posts) I've seen examples on film, on the internet and so forth oriented both so that the red squares on the marking are NE/SW as well as NW/SE. Can anyone cast light on why this is, and which do you consider correct? Was there, for example, a rule that has the marking in one orientation on the starboard side, and a different one on the port?? I'd really be grateful for a definitive answer here....

Hi all, I'm absolutely elated here. Chuffed to bits. There's been a "show-stopper" on the Wellington build for the last year almost, which has completely stymied further progress. In the standard geodetic joint, which occurs all over the airframe, there are two butterfly-shaped fittings in the middle of the joint. I'd looked into having these produced by a CNC milling-machine, and that proved madly expensive, even from China. You can see the joints here: Making these as a 3d shape, came out at over $16.000! I then looked into casting them, but for the numbers I need, and the amount of post-casting work it was not feasible either. Last night I realised that if I extruded the basic shape, but made it wider than it needed to be, then the "rail" could be secured to a CNC table without difficulty, and if the shapes were partially cut out, leaving 1mm thick tabs to keep the parts oriented properly, I could then drill the two holes in the "wings" of the butterfly. The parts could then be removed from the stock, cleaned up and then the final hole through the middle can be drilled whilst they are clamped in a jig. So theoretically, that should be much cheaper to make, as there's only a single CNC milling tool-path, rather than the multiple paths required for the $16,000 method. So I'm really pleased about that, as it's the final problem now solved before the build can commence.

Hi all, The last few weeks have been "a game of two halves" as we say here. The first half is continued strife with the electronics in the Hurricane, but as yesterday was the first time I managed to go flying the RC "Apprentice" foamie, the 2nd half looks to be improving after being grounded for well over 5 weeks now. I was climbing the walls! It was, it must be said, a bit of a silly day. The wind at surface level was 35-45 knots or so, and bitterly, bitterly cold. I'd gone dressed with my heavy Royal Navy submariner's jumper, and a heavy hooded duffle-coat, and even then was only just barely warm-enough, The flying was "lively" to say the least, with the model geostationary at 70% throttle S+L heading upwind, extreme turbulance from the trees in some places, and a really marked wind-gradient whereby the wind at 300' was a good 20 knots faster. Approaches had to be flat at 8 feet or so, so as not to find oneself going backwards on finals! It was nevertheless some much needed and highly entertaining flying, especially climbing up to 300' way upwind, then turning the aircraft back towards me, which of course rendered some epic ground-speeds! And so home for hot-coffee in the workshop thawing out in the workshop and recharging batteries. Good fun. Silly, and unwise, but good fun! I've finally sourced some appropriate electronic jacks, so I can now shorten some of the sillier overlong cables in the Hurricane, and so reduce the rats-nest of cabling required to be stuffed out of the way. But first I need to get it all working properly. The new folding support for assembling the aircraft at bench-height at the airfield worked fairly well. Needs a few adjustments such as a container to put batteries, leads, and rubber-bands in, but otherwise is there. Pic to follow, I'm quite pleased with it, as when it's folded flat in the boot of my car, it also functions to prevent the model being damaged by movement as the car goes around bends etc. I hope all your projects are going well. I've been helping a few lads with various turrets, and hope to do some remedial work on mine shortly. I want to get rid of the twisted fabric covered wire which holds other wiring to parts of the turret, and will use very thin strips of very thin lead instead, painted to resemble electrical tape, and see if I can get all the lights and lamps/gunsights working properly!

Utterly stunning sir, bravo! Just a thought, if the model is "under repair" in the diorama, it'd be normal to put the undercart legs onto axle-stands, or large wooden blocks, rather than having the bottom of the oleo's on the ground, I would think,