Egilman

Yep, it was a cast iron plate that we had made specifically for that job weighed around 450 lbs all by itself.. Machine refurb took place on the open floor and we had overhead cranes to do the lifting and moving... The largest machine I ever ran was a Shaft Lathe, it was used for turning propeller shafts for ships, had a chair you rode on while operating it.... 40 foot long bed and could swing 42 " The definition of heavy industry....

When I was working for a machine remanufacturer, we did milling machines on a steel plate... Once we got the case from the builders we would bolt it to the plate and it acted as an index plate.. we could take it from machine to machine and do any machining you needed to do, parallel, perpendicular, horizontal boring, vertical boring all from the one plate... Made the job much much easier saving a lot of setup time....

Correct, Then it wasn't the Nuclear armed penetrator version... The purpose of the slipper tanks was to extend loiter time over the target area... So really you can close up the bomb bay and not worry about it if you like or open it for the extra detail of an empty bomb bay... Either way works well for the version you have, although since they were set up for the Martell, it would have the avionics in the bomb bay for that... So on deck, aboard ship, the bomb bay would be closed most of the time... (top secret stuff and all that) Martell's, Paveway's or a CBU package with a closed bomb bay is probably the easiest to do... (and the most common scheme)

According to the texts I have, It depends on where it served and what era... The original Buccs serving with the RN filled the same role as our A-4's, low-medium speed delivery of multiple weapons... As time went on the role changed... The Bucc's had outstanding low level flight characteristics and with the bomb bay designed to deliver Nuclear Weapons she was phased in as the RN's nuclear penetrator aircraft, the same as our navy's Vigilante's It's last role was with the Royal Airforce, it served the same function as our F-111's, high speed, nap of the earth nuclear delivery, in fact the Royal AF decided to take over retired RN Bucc's instead of purchasing new F-111's.... In this role hard points were added to the wings for guided munitions, and the bomb bay was filled with either a partial droppable fuel tank or a full bay long range fuel tank that was not droppable... They served in this last role until the aircraft was finally retired due to airframe stress failures that overtook the aircraft... And a note on my sources... I have three books on the Blackburn Buccaneer's... When I found the info in them, I inquired to the publishers of I could post some photos and selected texts from them to the forum... They told me no.... They do not allow free use of their materials... (even though most of those materials they obtained for free) They insisted their copyright's be honored... That's why I can't post this stuff for your own eyes which is my usual practice... Those books are available on the internet if you know where to look... {chuckle} (and they know it) If anyone else has more info, please chime in I hate doing things this way, I prefer to share openly...

Amen brother...

Wow, Rubber is not something I've ever removed paint from... I wouldn't use any volatile paint thinner, too afraid of melting the rubber.... There are some non-caustic paint removers and some cleaners that do well at removing paint without damaging the underlying material... Do you have any sprues made from the same material? If you do I would suggest superclean, straight out of the bottle it does a great job of removing paint... what I would do is drop a scrap piece of the rubber into it and see what it does first.... My Admiral suggested hot boiling water, (old household remedy) causes the rubber to expand which usually breaks the surface tension connecting the paint & rubber... Then use a soft brush to lift the edges of the paint and peel what will come off easy and re-soak if any remains... Interesting problem....

The first patent on the aileron control system was granted to the British scientist and metaphysicist Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868. He introduced the concept of three axis control in his 1864 paper "On Aërial Locomotion". He was the first to conceive an aileron flight control system... 39 years before the Wright Brothers used wing warping.... (the brothers had a copy of his paper in their library covering the engineering history and theories of heavier than air flight, they knew all about it) Yep, they took the wing curvature pressure table from Lilienthal, (and corrected it) The wire braced Pratt Truss design from Chanute, (and modified it) The wing control method from Boulton, (combined with their own inspiration to make it work mechanically) Then built upon those contributions with their own experiments narrowing down the engineering and applying their inspirations from said experiments in making what they understood actually work... So yes they were the first systems integrators as well as being scientists, a very unique combination of engineering and creative thought.... Not bad for a couple of bicycle mechanics...

More like tempting god in this case, (or the Admiral, if she finds out first)

Actually, it is the branch of science called Fluid Dynamics, something the Wright Brothers were the first to actually understand applies to gases/vapors under pressure as well as liquids.... Live Tails, (or as they are commonly called today Stabilators) are the result of a long period of trial and error relearning something the Brothers knew instinctively from observations of a simple wing profile in a wind tunnel.

I just grabbed Sunwards last G1, resistance was futile.....

Simply Outstanding.... Very impressive piece as well... Will be even more impressive when the complete train is together... (gun tractors and lorries) Nice work...

Hey Brothers, I've been doing some research into this tailplane issue.... Yes the ledge is there, it was there on all Blackburn Bucs.... The Horizontal stabilizer is a live surface, fully moveable, It never had an elevator, and the round fairings moved with the livetail... Those surfaces that look like elevators are flaps, they are designed to provide uplift to the nose of the aircraft at low speed as the aircraft at low speed tended to pitch down... The flaps were automatic and moved as aerodynamics dictated.. The flying tail also had boundary control as well as hot air deicing... There was no need for downward deflection flaps on the aft edge of the tailplane so they were designed to remain neutral when not active and the ledge in the aft fairing made it mechanically sure to never go into a pitch down situation.... Not my opinion brothers... Will provide references if desired....

It's a live tail.... The whole horizontal stabilizer turns up and down.... And yes, it is to effect better control and eliminate leading edge compressibility issues at high speeds... The trailing edges are a throwback to when the aircraft was first designed with conventional elevators... (much like the F-86 was) On the F-86, the former elevators became the new trim tabs.... I suspect much the same happened here, probably saved them several millions of development pounds/dollars....

Yep, and it fed the gear train driving the twin camshafts on the opposite side of the camshafts driveshaft to slow down the oil loss.... Excellent find brother...

Just my opinion, in the images of the completed bike that were posted above, it has to be an oil tank.... The reason I say this is it is the only way it makes sense and the line from the tank goes to the rocker assembly.... Since the oiling system on all these early bikes was gravity flow or hand pump fed, this has to be an early form of oiler.... The large tank feeds the crankcase, the small tank feeds the head... On the opposite side rising from the crankcase to the head is the drive tube for the camshaft, I see no other provision for getting oil to the camshaft journals... Harley used a similar system on some of it's very early bikes....

it's almost become a lost art..... Of course I would be one foolish enough to try it.... {chuckle}

They really have turned it up a notch in a accuracy department....

I'll bet it didn't feel anything like "Tiptoeing thru the Tulips" {chuckle} What is it with veggies? they getting a taste for human proteins now?

Hey brother, I do have Profile Publications #81, The Hawker Typhoon.... Probably the best reference I have available.... I'll see if I can post it... I also have Wydawnicta Militaria's volume on the typhoon as well... (but it is in polish) You have a PN brother...

There are references my friend... See if you can find a copy of... Thomas, Chris and Christopher Shores. The Typhoon and Tempest Story. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1988. ISBN 0-85368-878-8. Thomas, Chris. Hawker Typhoon (Warpaint Series No. 5). Husborne Crawley, Bedfordshire, UK: Hall Park Books Ltd., 2000. Shores, Christopher and Chris Thomas. Second Tactical Air Force Volume Four. Squadrons, Camouflage and Markings, Weapons and Tactics. Hersham, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd., 2008. ISBN 1-906537-01-1 Chris Thomas is the guru of everything Typhoon and Tempest, there is no better source.... I'm currently looking thru my library brother to see if I have a copy of Warpaint #5.... If I do I'll let you know...

Well your correct, it was designed as a 400kt+ interceptor to counter the FW-190 which was kicking Spitfire tail when it was introduced... and once the aircraft was proved, the air ministry pre-ordered 1,000 craft... but that order was never completed they were the Typhoon Mk 1A's... It's issue were engine and structural related which made it's fighter role problematic... The aircraft was redesigned with improved engines and cannons rather than machine guns and structural improvements which weren't completely successful... (the Typhoon Mk 1B) The typhoon had a bad reputation for shedding its tail in flight... Although they got that issue down to acceptable levels, it never completely went away... During '42, the Germans developed a new tactic using the FW 190 as fighter bombers launching low level harassing raids on the southern english coast... the Typhoon achieved it first small run of success during this period where it managed to intercept and shoot down many of the fw-190's, but I believe this was because of the 190's overloaded condition.... After that partial success, it was decided because of it's low level flying characteristics, fast and heavy armament load... They decided to try it out as a fighter bomber.. so mounts were installed in the wings to accept bombs or rockets, the rocket launchers and bomb racks used the same mount and firing circuitry... the intention was to field mixed units of rocket and bomb armed aircraft to do low level sweeps over enemy territory... In practice though, this idea was found to be impractical, as both dropping bombs and firing rockets on target took completely different skillsets, so they broke the bomb and rocket aircraft into separate squadrons flying form the same airbases... In this role the Typhoon Mk1B was a huge success... (although is still had the structural issues that were never fully resolved, and an engine that was underpowered and not completely reliable which was also never fully resolved) But yes all typhoons (except for a few early Mk1A's remaining) were bomb and rocket capable, and both types, bombs/rockets, used the same electrical firing circuits, so yes they all would have the stencil... (even the Mk1A's that were brought up to Mk1B standards) it didn't matter if they were a rocket or bomb equipped typhoon... (By D-Day, the RAF's 2nd TAF fielded 11 RP ("Rockphoon") squadrons and seven "Bombphoon" squadrons. I can keep digging up more, but British aircraft are not my strong suit.... You are correct brother, it was not designed as a fighter-bomber, I though it was... But it became very clear that ground attack was it's very best role... (and it became the basis of the Hawker Tempest, which was the best Fighter Bomber of the war bar none... (with all due respect to the IL-2 and P-47 crowd {chuckle})

All Typhoons had the capability of firing rockets, they were designed from the start as tank busters, ground support aircraft.....

Ras, I've owned and rode two cycles in my younger days, the first was a Harley M-50, loved that motorcycle... from back in the days when Harley made some of the best dirt/trail bikes around... Got a little older and built a 650 Triumph Bonneville, tuned engine, extended springer fork etc. etc... Had a very distinctive sound.... Classic chopper when building a harley chopper was way to expensive for a teenager and Triumphs were cheap and easy to work on.... My brother still has his 650 Maico Modena.... (and will never part with it).... Wish I still had either of mine today..... I don't have any pics of it wish I did... Your classic is going to turn out beautiful.... Early Protar kits had their issues just like any of the early manufacturers... You will do this one justice I think my friend....

Beautiful job!!! Looks like you have the putty technique down.... Perfect soft edge camo.... Well done!

I would suggest Formula 560 or Gators Grip... They are a flexible PVA glue that dries ultra thin and clear and are designed to glue canopies and PE to plastic very tightly.... Water cleanup and take most any paint or wash when cured... They work very very well...