It was a pleasant day at Pearl Harbour on 7th December 1941. The cloud was broken, the winds were light and the temperatures mild- one might say that it was a good day for flying. Ratings and officers at the United States Naval base and the adjoining Naval Air Stations were just getting started on another day when, at about a quarter to eight, the first wave of around one hundred and eighty Japanese aircraft arrived, releasing bombs and torpedoes at the fleet resting in the harbour and also bombing and strafing the Naval Air Stations on Ford Island together with Wheeler and Hickam fields where many United States aircraft were destroyed.

The attack was a complete surprise and, following a second wave of aircraft arriving about one hour later, the total cost to American servicemen was a little under 2,500 lives lost, with four ships sunk and eight damaged. Following this attack, the United States declared war on Japan the next day. It was sheer good fortune, by the way, that several aircraft carriers were not also at Pearl, or the damage inflicted could have been much worse.

The immediate effect of the attack was to unify a nation against a foe that some had previously perceived as a minor threat. The other effect was to prompt an investigation into how this attack could have come as such a complete surprise and there is much in the way of detail that we will not cover in that one, fairly simple, statement. Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short (O/C Naval and Army forces respectively and both responsible for the defence of Pearl), were relieved of duty, although history records that they were not the subject of courts martial and to a great extent have been exonerated as it is now felt that a great deal in the way of intelligence that was known in Washington prior to the attack appears not to have been passed on the top brass at Pearl Harbour.

With America now in the war, the public demand for an immediate retaliation was strong. In the immediate aftermath of the Pearl harbour raid, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with the US joint chiefs of staff in order to make known his desire to see Japan bombed in quick time. This, he felt, would have two effects- to bolster morale at home and to introduce into the Japanese people a sense that their archipelago was not invulnerable to attack from enemy forces.

The question however, was what to do and how. There appear to have been a number of plans mooted in response to Pearl Harbour. The carrier plan was, of course, the one eventually used but amongst the others were submarine attacks from close range, seaplane bombing attacks using PBY Catalina aircraft and a plan to build an airfield in the Aleutian Islands from which to attack the Japanese mainland with B-24 bombers.

The idea for a carrier borne raid seems to have originated not from James Doolittle, but from one Francis Low- a Navy Captain and, it would appear, an expert on submarine warfare. The story goes that he was at Norfolk Chambers Field watching take off drills of twin engine bombers, (it is not clear which type), that were being conducted over a painted outline of a Navy carrier deck. Having reported his observations and conclusions that flying a twin engined bomber from a carrier deck might be possible, the raid was then mooted and assigned to Doolittle who undertook the planning and management of the operation.

A number of different aircraft were looked at for the mission, amongst those being the B26, the B18 and the B23. These were discarded for various reasons including larger wingspan, (which would have interfered with the deck superstructure) and questionable take off characteristics of some of the aircraft from a carrier flight deck. Notwithstanding that, any aircraft when selected would require fairly extensive modification in order to complete the mission.

Let’s now look at the modifications that were made to the B-25B Mitchell bomber chosen and used in the Tokyo raid. I cover the general aspects of the aircraft in the review you may have already looked at, so I won’t be looking in depth at those facets. Essentially the key points are as follows:

• A doubling of fuel capacity: The standard range of a B25 was around 1,300 miles which was clearly insufficient for the job at hand. The capacity was extended from five hundred and thirty gallons to nine hundred and fifty and doing so improved the range to around 2,500 nautical miles which would encompass the raid followed by the subsequent flight to China.

• Removal of Lower gun turret, rear gunner’s weaponry and station, Norden bomb sight and liaison radio: These measures removed a significant amount of weight allowing the introduction of additional fuel capacity, thereby extending range.

• Installation of Broom handles in place of the rear guns: This seems to have been both a weight saving measure and perhaps also a last line of defence- presumably one might throw the handles at approaching aircraft somewhat in the manner of a spear or javelin. I am joking of course. In any event, the resistance to the raid was light and defensive measures seem not to have been required.

You may wonder about the removal of the bombsight and how the bombardier would be able to target the 2,000lbs of ordnance carried by each aircraft in the raid. At the time the Norden bombsight was a highly secret device whose presence in any American aircraft was thought not to be at all well known in enemy circles. It turns out that this was not in fact quite the case, but nevertheless the accuracy of the device was said to be orders of magnitude above that of other bomb aiming units, especially at altitude.

The Norden M9 bombsight itself was replaced on the B25 B aircraft with a device which became known as a “Mark Twain” sight and was both extremely simple in operation and most inexpensive to produce. I gather that the cost of fabricating this sight was mere pence. Photographs show a sheet of dural of approximately one foot in length and around two inches wide, folded at each end and with a ‘V’ cut into those ends; then folded down one side after which it is then attached to a radiused piece of Dural with angle markings. This was placed in the same position as the original Norden sight.

This gadget was designed by the armaments officer and pilot for the raid, one Ross Greening. Whilst weight saving was most important, it was also known that the Norden device was at its best above 5,000 feet whilst the Doolittle Raid was planned to be carried out at 1,500 feet. Greening incidentally piloted the B-25 named “Hari Kari-er” which is presumably a nod to the platform from which the bombers were launched.

The final plan made was for the sixteen heavily modified B-25B bombers to take off from USS Hornet at a distance of around 500 miles, (that is to say proper miles rather than those nautical ones) from the Japanese coast and fly to Tokyo and fly from there on to China where they would land. Furthermore, the raiders would fly at wave-top height towards the coast and then ascend to an altitude of 1,500 feet, from there to bomb the selected targets with both bombs and incendiary devices. It was known that Japanese defence and early warning system did not use Radar, but instead deployed a series of what are known as “picket boats” which the attackers had to slip by.

Having embarked at NAS Alameda in California amid much secrecy on 31 March and 01 April, the task force steamed to the mid pacific on 2 April, reaching a point north of Hawaii to be joined by the USS Enterprise, which would provide air cover if required. From thence, the task force sailed to their last refuelling point where the two oilers withdrew.

Following that, the task force made the journey at approximately 20 knots for the take-off point. Somewhat prior to to arriving at the intended point, the task force was sighted early in the morning of 18 April by a Japanese picket boat- the Nitto Maru. It was sunk by an accompanying cruiser, the Nashville but not before it had succeeded in transmitting a warning to the Japanese mainland.

This gave the task force commander, Captain Mitscher and Lt Col. Doolittle a decision to make. Would the attack go ahead from the original launch point, which would extend the time for the enemy to prepare, or launch immediately and lose the fuel advantage they were holding to travel away to China with? In the event, Doolittle elected to go immediately and preparations were set in place.

Six hours later, at around midday local time, the aircraft arrived over Tokyo and began their missions. They flew in groups of two to four units and attacked targets in Yokohama, Kobe, Nagoya, Osaka and Yokosuka. They met their objectives encountering only light anti aircraft fire and few, if any fighters. All the aircraft were able to escape the area with fifteen of them flying over the South China Sea and the last one, which was very low on fuel electing to fly towards Russia where it landed near Vozdvizhenka, (that well known misprint), and the crew were interned, but well treated.

The remainder of the crews either crash landed or bailed out over China with some casualties. It is fortunate that a tail wind allowed these aircraft to travel rather faster than planned, otherwise they might have had to ditch into the East China Sea- not the best prospect. Doolittle himself had bailed out with his crew and landed (I understand) in a dung heap. History seems to record that he was somewhat grateful for this as doing so protected his previously injured ankle from breaking. Many of the crews were aided by the Chinese, but some perished in accidents whilst bailing out and three crew members were killed in action against the Japanese forces they encountered. Having said that, sixty nine airmen survived the mission which has taken its place as the longest B25 mission ever undertaken at around 2,250 nautical miles.

The fate of the air crewmen is well documented. Those captured by Japanese forces were not well treated and three in fact were executed by the Japanese authorities. Eight men who were captured but not killed in captivity were returned to allied hands in 1945 although one of their number died in captivity owing to very poor diet and harsh treatment. The remaining servicemen were able to return to the allied forces and continued to play a part in the war in various theatres- commitment to the cause that deserves fulsome recognition here.

Although Doolittle himself felt that the mission might be looked upon as a failure, it was, in fact, viewed as a great success for a number of good reasons. Firstly, the effect on the American public was positive. The people were happy to hear that their government had struck a blow to the Japanese mainland following what was perceived to be a cowardly attack on Pearl Harbour. Secondly, the psychological effect on the Japanese people was significant owing to the perception, which was then common in Japan, that the islands were something of a fortress. Additionally, the concept of “shuttle bombing”- that is, to take off from one location and land at another was to some extent proved and such a concept became very useful for carrier raids as the launching carrier was not required to remain on station for protracted periods.

It can also be argued that Admiral Yamamoto, who recognised the threat posed by the American carriers, sought to destroy them immediately after the raid, but failed to do so. His action was an attempt to sink the US fleet at Midway and was decisively defeated there, losing a number of aircraft carriers and to some extent neutering the Japanese capability in the mid Pacific. We might say that this was the beginning of the end for the Japanese intentions in this theatre.

Later raids, (including the B29 atomic bomb attacks) were conducted from much closer and also from liberated islands like Tinian in the Northern Mariana Island group and a number of other locations. “Seabees” expeditionary units were instrumental in constructing or upgrading many of the island airstrips and became famous for their ability to conduct both rapid construction and combat operations at the same time. This may be the subject of a future perambulation, who knows…

After the second world war, James Doolittle and his crews continued to meet and salute their colleagues for many, many years afterwards. Indeed, as the numbers were reduced by the passing time, their steadfast honour to their friends remained undimmed. The reunions carried on until 2013 when the final one took place at Eglin AFB on 18 April with Robert Hite being the only veteran to attend. The memory of the action, its effect and the brave servicemen who took part continues to be recalled to this day with the “Children of the Doolittle raiders” raising money for scholarships and funding and also remembering their family members, all of whom were unflinching and loyal in the face of hardship and in the remembrance some of their number who, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, laid that most costly sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

It is right that these people are remembered.

Sometimes one comes across a model kit that one cannot ignore. When I acquired the Special Hobby Tempest a little while ago, I became interested in the series of aeroplanes that both preceded and followed it. You will, in all likelihood, be aware of the Hawker Fury and its Navalised version- the Sea Fury. When DBMK models announced their plan to tool the latter, I placed an order which has not yet arrived. It probably will do at some point in the not too far distant future. However, I felt that timing this piece to pop up at around the launch of the kit might be a nice idea. I am only one day late…

When the kit arrives, I’ll take a look in the box although I suspect many will have done this before me. It is no matter- we can also take a look at some of the aircraft history in that video and perhaps that will be interesting.

I should add here that I thought that the DBMK launch was a well thought out affair (from what I have seen) and undertaken in the “Navy Wings” hangar at Yeovilton right in the shadow of a Sea Fury and surrounded by Sea Fury ephemera of all sorts including a Bristol Centaurus engine. Having looked at some of the launch material, it is clear that the work that DBMK and their partners have done on their depiction of the engine is substantial and, even though said engine is so closely cowled that very little can be seen from the front, it would appear that an opportunity exists to expose the detail from the side cowlings and this just what I may do when build time comes around.

I noted that the Sea Fury on display appeared to have a four bladed propeller fitted which I think is somewhat unusual as the kit is likely to contain a five blade propeller. There two possibilities for this- either the displayed aircraft is a prototype and the unit is a four blade Rotol or the engine, originally a Bristol Centaurus, has been replaced and mated with a four blade unit. Some research on this is clearly required!

The main thrust of today’s symposium however, is an extension to my earlier treatise about the Hawker Tempest in which I wrote about the capabilities of that fighter and some of the challenges that needed to be overcome in its production. It seems sensible to pen another article, this time on the Sea Fury because it may be possible to highlight some of the changes made to the design of the Tempest in order to turn it into the Fury and from there to the Sea Fury.

Approximately nine hundred Sea Furies were built by Hawker. This is not a large number by any measure and it seems that only six examples remain. I gather that some surviving aircraft have been modified to take part in air racing in the United States, but my principal interest is in the original aircraft and its intended use as a carrier based fighter deployed by the Fleet Air Arm just after the second world war. As you will know, many if not all of the aircraft used in air racing are extensively modified and, whilst the shell of an aeroplane may remain, very many of the key components are replaced.

As an aside, I am sure that you will also be aware that when researching aircraft for your own projects, it is a good idea to ensure that you are obtaining the best possible data as restored aircraft are often rather different inside than the originals. You will particularly note this if you look at the Tamiya 1/32 scale range instructions and additional material- in particular at the F4U1D Corsair about which I have written before. It would appear that some of the example photographs used in the supplied material are of restored F4U4 variants which the highly visible chin scoop makes plain.

The first Sea Fury prototype flew in February 1945, around seven months before the end of the Second World War, but the “Navalised” versions which had folding wings didn’t fly until 1947 and were only then made operational in 1948.

Readers will know that the Sea Fury is strikingly similar to the Tempest. The wings are nearly identical, being of a laminar flow design but shorter than those of the Tempest. Laminar flow wing sections are a feature which I have discussed in a small amount of detail before now and maybe you will recall that these improved profiles allowed aircraft using them to travel faster than a traditional wing section due to the lessening of boundary layer drag that occurs at the top of the wing.

The advantage conferred on the smaller wing section was, (as we have discovered before) an increased roll rate coupled to an increased sink rate. The Sea Fury could roll at around 100 degrees per second. Whilst the Sea Fury’s wing folding mechanism was required to allow efficient stowage of the aircraft on a carrier, its impact on the aerodynamic capability of the wing section was negligible. Having said that, the wings did need to be properly deployed- durrr.

The other visible differences you will notice are that the cockpit is slightly raised giving the pilot more visibility over the front and to the sides of the fuselage- something of an advantage when landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Also, the vertical stabiliser is slightly smaller than the Tempest and the Sea Fury is slightly smaller overall. This smaller size conferred the additional advantage that stowage of the aircraft was made simpler- the Tempest was quite a lot larger than (for example) the Spitfire or Seafire, and a navalised version would have been challenging to move around below decks.

As I mentioned earlier, it won’t have escaped the notice of readers that whilst the Tempest used a four bladed propeller (made by de Havilland or Rotol), the Sea Fury employed a very recognisable Rotol five bladed propeller. There appear to have been two distinct purposes for this choice, the first being that the latter gave better control at low speeds than the four blade variant and second, (a feature which is harder to spot) the five blade propeller had a slightly smaller diameter- the reason being that this lessened the likelihood of a propeller strike on the deck.

To expand slightly on the matter of propeller strikes, it is rather important to avoid this occurrence for a couple of reasons. The decks of Royal Navy carriers were armoured steel in general and therefore quite solid. Not only would a strike critically damage the propeller, but would also be very likely to cause consequential damage to the spinner gear, final drive and possibly to the engine as well as a result of the sudden stopping of the rotation of the drive train and gearing mechanisms.

In the event of a carrier landing accident damaging the propeller gear, it is highly unlikely that a pilot could recover by regaining the air and this leaves limited choices, one of which is ditching. This would be a risky venture as the chance of “going in” upside down is quite real and such an entry to the water carries with it obvious and considerable risk.

Furthermore when launching or landing aircraft on an aircraft carrier, it will be steaming at full speed and therefore will not be able to turn or stop quickly enough to pick up a ditched pilot. This may leave him in the water for a considerable period leaving one of the carrier group escorts needing to turn and rescue the ditched pilot and, in rough seas, this is hazardous to say the very least of it.

In the case of a carrier with a straight deck, the worst case scenario would be the damaged aircraft travelling off the bow of the flight deck having failed to be trapped by the forward safety netting which is sometimes known as the “barricade.” In this case, the aeroplane would be falling into the path of the carrier. The results of this are highly likely to be fatal. Even in the case of the angled deck which was developed by the Royal Navy in the 1950s, travelling off the front of the landing deck is still fraught with problems. Clearly propeller strikes, or any other carrier landing mishaps are to be avoided.

Amongst the most celebrated stories are those where piston engined aircraft have shot down jet fighters and the Sea Fury can boast just such a story. Flying from HMS Ocean on this occasion, a wing of four Sea Furies of 802 Naval Air Squadron were flying a reconnaissance mission over Pyongyang and searching for weak spots in the railway system to bomb. The idea was to attempt to stem the flow of rail traffic moving south in support of the communist forces who were invading South Korea. Normally, missions of this kind could expect anti aircraft fire, but strangely on this day early in August there was none.

The reason soon became apparent as the Fleet Air Arm wing of four aircraft flying in a line abreast formation was engaged by eight Mig 15 fighters from above. This was the standard tactic for the Mig fighter which, on paper at least, was superior in performance to the Sea Fury. A quick look at the specifications will show you that the Mig 15 could operate at 50,000 feet (maximum) and its rate of climb was more than double that of the Sea Fury so, in theory at least, the outcome of an encounter of this kind was not likely to go in favour of the propeller aircraft.

The four propeller fighters performed a split manoeuvre with the two pairs of Sea Fury fighters turning towards the threat. Having said that, this was still a “four on two” fight. During the first encounter it appears that all of the pilots got off bursts towards the Migs and scored some hits. It would then appear that one of the Migs attempted to turn behind the Sea Fury of Sb. Lt. “Schmoo” Ellis. As Ellis himself has recounted it’s not possible for a Mig 15 to dogfight a Sea Fury because the latter, although slower, is much more manoeuvrable. The Mig entered the slot too quickly and flew past the pursued Sea Fury whilst attempting to slow down by opening up his air brakes. The move placed him into the firing line of Ellis’ canons and he fired on the passing Mig hitting it several times. It was seen to go down but Ellis could not confirm the kill as the remaining fighters were still being engaged.

It seems pretty clear that the MIG was shot down, but attribution of this kill to an individual pilot has been difficult owing to the lack of gun camera footage and the passage of considerable time. However, what is without doubt is that the Sea Fury is one of very few propeller driven fighter aircraft to take on a jet and to win. There is a lot more behind the story of Lt “Hoagy” Carmichael, Sb Lt. “Schmoo” Ellis and his colleagues on that flight and I would invite you to look into it and perhaps draw your own conclusions.

In any event, Lt. Carmichael was awarded a DSO as a result and it is supposed in some quarters that this was because he was leading the sortie at the time and Royal Naval tradition dictates that the commanding officer in an engagement tends to be decorated for the team.

Being a late propeller driven fighter, an aircraft like the Sea Fury was always going to be quite high on the “speed list” for piston engined aircraft. The record in level flight is officially held by a very modified Grumman F8F Bearcat at 528 mph, but the unofficial record is claimed to be held by the Sea Fury at 547 mph.

It is likely that the Sea Fury claim is not true because it cannot be confirmed despite many searches. It is the case that any record attempt must be subject to FAI ratification, measurement and independent observation, before being accepted and the Sea Fury claim, with no such independent verification may therefore fall into the realms of folklore.

By the way, many of the speed record numbers recorded were for modified racing aircraft, so I suppose that, to some extent they don’t count. However, none come close to the speed record for a propeller aircraft in a dive which is still held by a Mk XIX Spitfire at 690 mph.

Notwithstanding this, the Sea Fury was one of a very small number of aircraft to operate on the cusp of the jet age. The development took place at a key moment in aviation history- one where rapid change swept many things aside and when the technology leapt forward in so many ways. The Sea Fury, in my view, takes its place in the pantheon of high technology propeller aviation. It’s rather like the “Flying Scotsman” of the aircraft world I suppose and perhaps is best celebrated in much the same way.

This is a model I will acquire quite soon and quite likely depict it as the aircraft shown at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Somerset. It will form a part of my personal collection. along with the TSR2, Canberra, Mustang, XB70A, M52 and Fokke Wulf 190A8.

The British aircraft industry has a justifiably high reputation for aircraft development at the leading edge of technology. Those amongst you who read my appalling drivel on a regular basis will know that I have droned on endlessly about many aspects of British innovation from the TSR2 to the advent of the jet engine. The companies who operated from around the turn of the last century up until the early parts of the sixties have provided us all with much to talk about. The names are household ones- Gloster, Avro, Hawker, English Electric, Supermarine, De Havilland and numerous others. The test pilots are likewise- Roland Beamont, Eric Brown, Roly Falk, Neville Duke, Bill Waterton and Jimmy Dell to name but a few and, of course, Peter Twiss.

This piece is about Fairey Aviation and especially about an experimental aircraft that made an impact beyond our shores- the Delta II. It is also about the pilot who flew it to its record breaking speed in 1956. We’ll come to that a bit later, but for now let us take a look at the early days of the company shall we?

The Fairey Aviation Company was founded in 1915 and that I suspect may very well be the simplest thing that I can report about this organisation. The fact is that across a life that extended from 1915 until 1960, when Fairey Aircraft was sold to Westland, the company grew in any number of directions. Some examples would be subsidiary companies in Canada, Australia and France as well as several UK engineering sites covering a number of disciplines including aircraft, marine and vehicle components. Fairey subsidiaries also produced missiles, drones and surprisingly, dinghies with such entertaining names as Jollyboat, Flying Fifteen, Dinky and Duckling.

We can safely say without too much fear of contradiction that this is a truly broad range of products amongst which celebrated Naval aircraft like the Swordfish and Gannet take their place, as well as the much discussed Rotodyne helicopter, or “compound gyroplane” if you prefer. The totality of the aircraft production was forty five different models and their selection of names was just as sparky as we have come to expect from a “between the wars” aircraft manufacturer: Fantome, Ferret, Fox, Faun, Fleetwing and Firefly. That is just the letter ‘F’s by the way. Having mentioned those, I could not depart from the subject of names without alighting briefly upon some examples (from Fairey Marine) that might be filed under the heading “what were they thinking?” I would proffer two for your consideration: The Hamble Baby, and the Tipsy Nipper, one of which sounds like a newborn from Southampton and the other, a child who has been at the communion wine.

In addition to the original Fairey Aircraft portfolio, the company also manufactured under license and this output included Halifax Bombers, (where a little under 600 in number were built), Beaufighters (around 500) and fair numbers of two separate jet fighters for De Havilland, the Venom and the Vampire.

The Delta II was the culmination of a research and development programme aimed at producing a delta wing aircraft to travel at transonic speeds and to thoroughly investigate aerodynamics and performance at those speeds. I assert this point because the Delta 3, which some of you will be aware of, was designed afterwards and never got off the draughtsman’s board despite it being planned to extend the capabilities of its precursor. It is perhaps a subject that I might cover another time, but is a similar story in some respects to many that I have recounted before now.

Trans sonic research was of great interest to both the Ministry of Supply and to the RAF which clearly understood the implications of high speed flight in the combat arena. The concept of “first generation” fighters had not been brought into common parlance at that stage, but in essence, the RAF wanted aeroplanes that would be able to routinely travel at high altitude and high speed. At that point, Meteors and the like were not supersonic and the RAF wouldn’t possess a supersonic aircraft for some years, (the Hawker Hunter) and, even then, many would only be capable of mach 1 in a shallow dive.

The desire for research and development initially resulted in the Fairey ‘Type R’ which was eventually known as the Delta I, the first British aircraft that employed a delta wing planform. Only one example was produced which was, by all accounts, somewhat hard to fly although it did have a very high roll rate. I would note here that the ministry of supply wasn’t particularly supportive to Fairey in this period and the Delta I project cost Fairey Aircraft £382,000 of their own money. To put this into some perspective, the average wage for someone in the early 1950s was around £10 per week and an average house might have cost about £1,750. Clearly just under £400,000 was an awful lot of money at the time. This is a position we will encounter again later. Nevertheless the data obtained from flight testing became enormously valuable to the Delta II project.

To digress briefly, we have talked before about the research in the early to mid forties aimed at building an aircraft that would travel faster than sound. An awful lot of the thinking at the time pointed towards the delta planform as being possibly the best design with which to do this. Despite this of course, the Bell X1 employed a straight short wing, as did the not quite finished Miles M52. However, the delta form, with its natural sweep of the wings also provided for a high wing surface area as well as an easy means to avoid the control surfaces from intersecting the conical supersonic shockwave that tended to interfere with the control surfaces of aircraft with longer straight wings.

The Delta II, which was itself initially known by the natty appellation ‘Type V’ was requested by the Ministry of Supply following the Delta I trials. The Ministry of Supply stipulated a “transonic research” aircraft and it appears from what I can gather that the aircraft was designed with what are known as “irreversible hydraulic controls” with mechanical feedback systems. This system was designed in owing to what was then known about pilot’s difficulties in controlling aircraft at high subsonic speeds. Similar, but much more advanced systems are much more common in today’s aircraft and remove physical workload from pilots to a significant degree.

All the of the control surfaces were operated through hydraulic valves with tension springs to provide some feedback to the pilot. This type of system was right at the forefront of development at that stage but was in no way similar to later “fly by wire” systems of the kind used in (for example) the F16 which give the pilot aerodynamic feedback in the same way that a more traditional control system would do.

Just to provide more perspective here and to highlight the perceived danger to test pilots, (who, quite obviously, are a valuable commodity), some aircraft developments, like the Vickers Swallow used remote control, thereby allowing a pilot to “fly” the aircraft from the ground. Fairey however, amongst others, felt that piloted aircraft would be much more beneficial owing, I suspect, to the ability of a pilot to recount his experiences of the performance and response of the aircraft in a much better way than via the medium of remote control and data collection systems which I think we can safely say were somewhat rudimentary in those days.

Following much in the way of discussion with the Ministry of Supply and subsequent altering of designs, the technical drawings for what was to become the FD II were finally issued in late 1952 and the development work could begin. It looks to me that Fairey had, from the very start, intended to produce an aircraft that would exceed the parameters set by Air Ministry specification ER.103, one of which was that the design needed to have been capable of Mach 1.5. It is commonly understood that ER.103 was the design parameter against which the Lightning was designed but this is not quite true as the Lightning, (formerly the English Electric P1) came about as a result of F23/49 which arguably was a more advanced specification. In any event, for Fairey, it appears that exceeding Mach 1 was the absolute minimum requirement.

The Ministry of Supply ordered two examples of the FD II and, two years later, in 1954 the first of those, (numbered WG 774) took to the air at the hands of Peter Twiss. It was powered by a Rolls Royce Avon engine and initial flights appear to have been uneventful aside from the early indication that flying the aircraft was likely to require fairly intense concentration, probably owing to the nature of the hydraulic control system mentioned earlier. It was on 17 November 1954 during the 14th flight that WG774 suffered an engine flameout caused by a structural failure of the collector tank which ensured a consistent fuel supply to the combustion chambers.

Occurring at around 30,000 ft one can imagine the position of the pilot. We might suppose the choices to be threefold- attempt an engine relight, eject, or guide the aircraft in for what is known as a “dead stick” landing. Being of stout heart, Peter Twiss opted for option three and brought the Delta II back to Boscombe Down for a landing. The engine failure affected the hydraulics and only the nose under-carriage deployed, leading to damage that took around 8 months to put right, but the aircraft was saved- an act which garnered Twiss the Queen’s Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air. Well deserved I think it’s fair to say.

Following repairs, much of the flight testing was carried out in Southern England and repeated supersonic flights led to complaints from members of the public who presumably were disquieted by the sudden loud noises. I suppose that one might be shocked somewhat by a loud report when one is on the throne, but perhaps that’s the price of progress. Anyway, the outfall of this was that the government banned supersonic flights over the UK just so that some delicate folk could perhaps take a dump in peace.

The nett result of this move by the UK government was that the test programme was moved to France where the French aircraft manufacturer, Dassault were most helpful to Fairey during the process. I would note that the Dassault engineers took a particular interest in the testing process and we can surmise that an awful lot of what they may have seen during these tests informed the subsequent development of the Mirage III which was strikingly similar in appearance to the Delta II. This is a theory and you may draw your own conclusions, but what remains clear was that Fairey and Dassualt had a very good working relationship.

What we can also say with certainty of course is that many supersonic tests of the FD2 were carried out over both France and Norway and no legal actions ensued as a result, so perhaps the continentals aren’t quite so bothered by a sudden loud noise when they take a crap.

Both Peter Twiss and the Fairey development team were certainly of the opinion that their new aircraft was very much more capable than had been previously thought and this seems to have been confirmed in their minds as the Delta II easily exceeded Mach 1 in level flight without lighting the reheat. Given the apparent capability of this new aircraft, the Fairey team felt that an attempt on the absolute world speed record might be appropriate, bringing as it would much prestige to both the nation and to Fairey Aircraft. It would appear however that the UK government were not so willing to take part in such an attempt and this led to Fairey once again supporting the project themselves.

What then ensued was a series of rapid and highly secretive actions on the part of Fairey to put themselves in a position to attempt to set a new world speed record. The preparations were carried out across the South coast of England and involved a good deal in the way of set up including installing radar tracking, ground markers and measurement cameras as well as a number of test runs to ensure that the equipment functioned properly. A number of record runs were then made, but due to the highly complex methods being used coupled with what one might call “the number of moving parts,” in the system, nearly all the runs failed for various technical reasons. Breaking records is an exacting business and one cannot simply turn up on the day with a tape measure and stopwatch and hope things will turn out well.

In what might be looked upon as a “boys own” story, it seems to have been on the final possible run that the Fairey Delta II broke the existing speed record and set a new one; that of 1,132 mph. It was exactly seventy years ago on 10th March 1956 (as at the original release of this piece) that a British designed jet aircraft surpassed 1,000 mph- the first time anywhere in the world that this had been done. This was an amazing achievement, there is no other way that I can think of to describe it.

It is perhaps harder, after all these years, to fully appreciate the impact that the Fairey Delta II had at the time that Peter Twiss flew it to its outstanding record speed. To put things into perspective, the previous record, held by a North American F100 “Super Sabre” was surpassed by over 300mph. This was greeted by amazement and disbelief in equal measure, not only by the general public, but also by members of the flying community. It is said that Peter, who was chief test pilot for Fairey at the time, had as good an idea as anyone of the potential of this aircraft and appears to have been one of the driving forces towards the record attempt.

After his world record flight, Peter Twiss continued to work for Fairey until it was taken over by Westland Aircraft in 1960 when he joined Fairey Marine, later going on to become a director for some ten years. Following this, he spent ten years as a director of Hamble point marina. I gather that before all of this, he had briefly considered becoming an airline pilot, but discounted the idea as he felt that it would be a little like driving a taxi, or a bus. One can quite understand this point of view.

For some excitement, (I presume), I gather that Peter entered the round Britain powerboat race and also flew a Fairey Swordfish in the film “Sink the Bismark.” It is said that he lived quite anonymously in Titchfield for the last part of his life and passed away in 2011. Apparently ordinary men in your own street may very well have done extraordinary things- so it turns out to be in this case.

Cosford houses the one of the only two FD II aircraft built, (WG777), whilst the other resides at the Fleet Air Arm museum at Yeovilton. However, the second example, WG774, and the one that broke the speed record, was converted into a BAC 221 in order to test elements of the aerodynamics for what was to become Concorde. For this reason, the exhibit can be seen beside the Concorde 002. It is somewhat dwarfed by it, but it is easy to see nevertheless and one might like to consider when standing beside it that it was once the very fastest jet aircraft in the world.

The gleaming potential that rested in front of the UK government in the form of the Fairey Delta II perhaps highlights the intransigence and stubborn refusal of both politicians and civil servants to recognise exactly what this aircraft offered and is a matter to ponder for while. The idea that missiles would completely take over the task of air defence was proved to be utter folly and it was this unfounded and ludicrous thinking that passed the chance to quickly develop a Mach 1.5 capable aircraft to Marcel Dassault who achieved this aim with the Mirage III, a series of aircraft by the way, used by many air forces around the world in various forms and which has generated countless millions in revenue for Dassault and retained jobs for many, many French employees.

I might also mention once again here that the subsequent FDIII also falls into the category of lost potential and despite the test bed that spawned its design about which I have written today, it never got off the design desk. A mach 2 interceptor capable of meeting the Operational Requirement F.155 would have been something to see, especially for the export possibilities it could have offered.

To conclude, we can see that both politicians and civil servants in this country carry on, to this day, a magnificent tradition of stupidity and poorly constructed thought processes with regard to the best use of British innovation and the defence of this nation. One might of course take a more charitable view on the matter and hold the position that the future is difficult to predict and that would be an entirely reasonable stance. Given the fairly routine action to cancel projects on the part of numerous governments of around that time, I am more inclined towards the view that those in the government were not all that thoughtful about this sort of thing. Not all politicians and civil servants are dullards of course, but we seem to have had more than our fair share of them in this country.

For the record, RNAS Yeovilton Museum, in addition to the Fairey Delta II, curates the largest collection of Fairey aircraft in the world, so anyone who is interested can go and look at them all. This includes a Barracuda which is currently in restoration and the progress of which can be seen on a day to day basis. This museum is a treasure house for all those of you with an interest in the Fairey Aircraft company.

I saw the millipede on the TV the other day at one of those committee meetings where someone asks him a specific question and he either answers some question that wasn’t asked, or gives a very short and uninformative answer to the question posed.

So, I am going to take a leaf out of his book with specific regard to the question above:

No.

There now, that was easy wasn’t it?

See you next time…

When one decides to write about jet age aviation in the UK, one is blessed with a good deal of potential material from which to choose. If I was asked to furnish a list of subjects I would like to write about, it would be simple to provide a good many examples. Some aeroplanes were more successful, (Canberra and Lightning for example) and some didn’t quite make it, (M52 and TSR2), despite the best efforts of the companies who laboured on them. The Vulcan is one example which perhaps I should have looked at somewhat earlier than I have done, but I have decided to correct that now. I hope you will allow me this indulgence.

I have not either purchased or constructed a model of the Vulcan and, although I do not rule out the possibility of this, I can say that it isn’t on the radar for at least a little while. This article will remain on Substack for those who are interested to read it and maybe it could support your own researches in some inconsequential manner. I expect you will all know that Airfix have produced a couple of versions including the most recent 2014 moulding which I gather is still a good seller. They also produced an earlier variant in the 1980s and perhaps some examples might still be available somewhere. There was also a Great Wall Hobbies kit produced and I believe that it is still available in 1/144 scale which of course would make the finished model of a much more manageable size.

One can visit many aircraft museums across the UK and find nose sections of this Cold War veteran aircraft. Just two of the examples I could suggest would be the Museum of the jet age in Gloucester and the nose section at the aircraft museum at Hurn in Bournemouth. In relation to complete examples, there appear to be around 20 left in the world today, either used as gate guardians or static museum pieces. If you decided to travel around the UK, you would find around 15 of them. Only three are maintained to provide the possibility of ever running or flying again, but since the ‘permit to fly’ of the last flying Vulcan, (XH558), expired in 2015, it seems quite likely that no Vulcan will ever take to the skies again. This presents problems for those wishing to move a Vulcan from one place to another, but that is quite another story.

AVRO is a compression of the name “A. V. Roe and Company” which was founded in Manchester in 1910 by Allliot Verdan Roe and Humphrey Verdan Roe. Alliot was the technical expertise whilst Humphrey was on the finance side of things and it is fair to say that AVRO was one of the first aircraft manufacturers in the world. During the fifty-three years it was in business in its own right, the company built an amazing number of different aircraft- just under one hundred in total. It’s around two for every year they were in business. Additionally the list of more than 130 unbuilt projects illustrates the work rate of the AVRO designers who clearly spent their lives in a perpetual state of development and invention. It’s really quite impressive.

As both of my readers will be aware, I derive some entertainment from reviewing aircraft names and Avro provides a long list of them, nearly all of which evoke a profoundly British flavour: York, Lancaster, (and Lancastrian), Lincoln, (and the Lincolnian- both a variant of the Lancaster by the way), Andover, Aldershot, Manchester and Tudor. This of course is not to forget the Anson, Ashton, Avenger, Cadet and Commodore. Judging by the names alone, AVRO was a quintessentially English company and I revere them enormously for that.

Those who are familiar with the “Roe” name in aviation may well wonder if there is a connection between Saunders-Roe and AVRO. Well, there is. When, in 1928 Crossley Motors sold Avro to Armstrong Siddeley Holdings, Alliot Roe left and formed Saunders Roe alongside John Lord when they assumed control of SE Saunders. That, of course, is another story.

The Vulcan came about as a result of the development of Air Staff Operational Requirement 1001 in August 1946 which related directly to the then government’s intention to produce atomic weapons. Following from this and as a natural development came the identified need for a delivery system and the Vulcan was one of the responses to the Air Ministry's requirement B35/46 to meet that need. By this stage, Roy Chadwick was technical director at Avro and he led the design team alongside chief designer, Stuart Davies. The immediate challenge in this project was to meet the weight requirement which was challenging, stipulating as it did, a maximum laden weight of not more than 100,000lbs. Along with that, an operating altitude of 35,000 to 50,000 feet and a range of 1,500 nautical miles, (that’s about 1,700 proper miles) was also called for. The cruising speed was set at around 500mph. We have seen many times that the kind of requirements issued in those days were exacting to say the very least of it. This was no exception.

Avro responded to the type requirement with an initial design which was coded ‘698.’ Comparatively little was known about high speed flight and less about delta planforms at the time, but the design team at Avro were aware of some research and decided to use this as it was felt that a conventional design would have two drawbacks. The first was that a swept wing design would not be able to meet the weight requirements and the second was that they knew that a swept, (or delta) design would improve longitudinal stability, (ie in the pitching plane).

It was from this thinking that the delta form without a stern horizontal stabiliser arose. Having said that, the original design did not deploy the conventional vertical tail fin that we see in the final design, instead using wing tip fins which give the design a decidedly odd look. The four engines appear to have been configured in a “one above the other” formation on each side of the fuselage in a stacked design similar to the Short SA.4 Sperrin seen somewhat later and envisaged as a possible alternative to the V bombers. The bomb bays were then set outboard of the engines.

When, in 1947, Roy Chadwick was killed in a crash, (in a prototype Tudor), management changes took place. It was a most unfortunate accident and removed from Avro a key player who had been a part of the organisation for many years. However, the ‘698’ project continued to move forward and design changes to the proposal were made which resulted in the more familiar shape we see today. The wings were thinned down and the engines were placed side by side next to the fuselage and hidden within the wings. All that can be seen are the intakes and the exhaust pipes. Those wingtip fins were done away with and the tall central vertical stabiliser was then introduced. The updated design is much more rakish if you ask me.

In addition to the model 698 design, Avro also designed several smaller test bed aircraft to examine aerodynamics and control at low and high speeds owing to the paucity of performance data on delta wing aircraft. As I have pointed out many times, aviation in those days could be a dangerous business, especially at the edge of knowledge and technology. The small delta wing test aircraft received the design numbers ‘707’ with two being earmarked for low speed trials and two for high speed.

The first test bed, VX784 made its maiden flight in September 1949 and was only the second delta wing aircraft to fly, but crashed after less than one month claiming the life of Sqn Ldr Esler DFC. AE. It appears that VX784 wasn’t equipped with an ejection seat which meant that when the pilot lost control at low speed in what I assume must have been a stall, he could not escape and perished. The official cause of the accident was never established and I pay tribute to the squadron leader here.

By this stage, other manufacturers were presenting designs. There were six responses and the Handley Page design, later to become the Victor, seems to have been an early leader. Making excellent use of innovative aerodynamics, the Victor and Vulcan nevertheless both presented rather futuristic designs and appear to have been very much in favour even though they were designed at the limits of current knowledge. Readers will also know of the Valiant which made up the triumvirate of V bombers and this was ordered owing to its safer design when looked at in terms of known quantities.

Much in the way of testing was carried out with the smaller model 707 aircraft and also with scale models of the larger aircraft in wind tunnels and such tests led to the alteration of the wing form to the wider and slightly curved form we see to this day. Aerodynamically, these changes were made to combat compressibility (amongst other things) which would have restricted top speed and to ensure better pitching stability. They all appear to have worked very well as we will see later.

The first full sized prototype (VX770) took to the air on 30 August 1952 at the hands of Wing Commander Roland ‘Roly’ Falk who was to be almost the only pilot for some while to test the aircraft. Indeed, he took it through all of the most hazardous parts of the test programme and also demonstrated the aeroplane at 1952 Farnborough SBAC show where he performed an (almost) vertical banking manoeuvre. It seems that this created something of a stir as bombers were supposed to be large and lumbering things, plodding along and getting the job done, not bouncing around like some sprightly youth leaping into the air and turning sharply. Bear in mind that VX770 had only flown for the first time three days previously and you will understand that this was somewhat out of the ordinary in terms of the sort of procedure you might see today.

This, of course, was as nothing when compared to the SBAC show in 1955 when Falk piloted the second production B.1 which was designated XA890 in a display to the crowds. The biggest surprise of the day was that, on his second pass above the crowd, Falk executed a climbing barrel roll. This was a sensational display and attracted the ire of the airshow authorities who told him not to undertake such a dangerous move in future. It didn’t really matter though, the roll was already done and the Vulcan had secured its place in history, proving to the world that it was most manoeuvrable- far more so than one would expect of an aircraft weighing around 69 tons and with a wingspan of 99 feet.

The Vulcan was seen into service in 1956, the production models being sent to number 230 operational conversion unit in July of that year with the first fifteen units being powered by Olympus 101 engines. Many were painted in the “anti flash’ white colour that is a little tricky for modellers to acquire. The B.1 units were not strengthened for low level operations and so were withdrawn in 1968. Later B2 units had redesigned wings and were powered by Olympus 201 engines. The twelfth example delivered to the RAF was the very well known ‘XH558’ and it was also the last Vulcan to be retired in 1992 before enjoying a very considerable “Indian Summer” displaying to delighted crowds across the country before finally ending its flying days in 2015.

The Vulcan gained an almost legendary status across its service lifetime and reflects the very best of Avro’s output in my view. The type was involved in long range and high altitude activity including the famous “Black Buck” raid undertaken during the Falklands conflict which, at the time, was regarded as the longest duration bombing mission undertaken. The logistical requirements of such a mission were very significant, requiring as it did, multiple mid air refuelling operations from 11 Victor tankers. The V bombers working together.

Leading on from my previous point, it would be most unwise to forget the crews who operated RAF aircraft who were, and still are, amongst the best trained in the world. The operational hardware gives you a great head start but the people behind things are what give you the edge. So this turned out to be in exercises like Operation Sky Shield where V bombers were successful in penetrating the continental United States and reaching targets like New York, Chicago and Washington DC. This series of three exercises demonstrated that the US was somewhat vulnerable to high altitude bombers, particularly those deploying electronic counter-measures as Vulcans did. It was also a great demonstration of the RAF crews’ ability to carry out long range high complexity operations and cemented the position of the RAF as a highly able and capable service.

I once spent short period in Cyprus and was able to see Vulcans flying from RAF Akrotiri alongside numerous other aircraft, some of which were “not supposed to be there,” (that is another story) and it is a great shame that we will no longer see Vulcans gracing the skies above this country. Never again will we be able to see the “half loop and roll off the top manoeuvre” that so impressed watching crowds whenever it was performed, or to hear that most distinctive “howl” caused by air rushing into the large intakes as the Vulcan went to full throttle. These things, along with the very rapid takeoff, taking around 13 seconds from brakes off to unsticking demonstrating its apparent ability to “leap” into the air from the runway will remain in my memory however.

The Vulcan: a bomber that flew like a fighter- you don’t see so many of them.

(Vulcan photograph courtesy of Alastair Barbour)

You will all know that, for some reason or another, the excellent MOS6510 invites me onto his Monday evening gatherings and last Monday’s activities and questions involved the market place for models and how this market might develop.

I have my ideas and others have differing ones, so I am happy to discuss these opinions in such a forum. It may be that sometimes we convince each other to adopt a new position, but we always think about the things that are said. The conversation was lively last Monday and I think everyone had something to say.

One of the points raised concerned the distribution of the so called “STL” files that are the basis of 3D prints for components in a model. It would appear that the Airfix club has made an STL file available to allow their members to print a component for the club member’s model kit. Now I will say at the outset that I am not a member of the Airfix club (boo! hiss!!), but haven’t ruled out joining at some stage. I think that the suggestion raised about “proof of concept” was a sound idea and I did not explain clearly why I think this is the case, so I will try to do a better job now.

Proof of concept (in this case) might be defined as a test that allows companies to decide if a new sales or marketing initiative has the potential to be commercially profitable without spending excessively to find out. I think that the Airfix scheme is a good one and there are two reasons:

• Providing an STL file in this case is not risky in terms of loss of income as the club market place is very limited. Whilst an individual might choose to print off a number of examples of the component in question, this cannot reasonably be classed as a significant loss as the club model mould runs might very well be quite small and probably not made available in volume to the general market. Such a plan may very well not be used if, for example, a 3D part associated with a 1/24 Bf109 was made available as the sales potential is far higher. As I said, in such a case Airfix may very well sell the printed unit rather than lose this potential revenue to either a pirate or a professional after market manufacturer.

• “Vox Pops” of this kind might well give an excellent barometer into the market potential. Airfix are polling loyal customers and attempting to assess market size by reference to their known membership. By using download data and then looking at demographics like age and purchase habits, one can extrapolate some fairly meaningful forecasts on potential sales. In this way, Airfix can evaluate the potential sales success or failure of this plan in any number of different ways. I suspect that the results they obtain would be illuminating.

My own view is that, (as mystic Zin prophesied), Airfix will make forays into the “aftermarket” as to do so is likely to generate significant additional sales at higher margin and that this margin, when amortised across the whole of the sales effort will improve the end of year result. There are no losers.

Another significant part of the subject matter was about how the online world affects the retail seller- the so called “bricks and mortar” dealer. My own view on this is that there should always be a place for retailers because many people like to buy from people and value that relationship. It is not because they have an inherent mistrust of things electronic, or think that the computer will capture their souls, but simply that such people, (I am one of them) like to talk to people. I have found over many years that if you talk to folk and really listen to what they say, they will tell you amazing things. I don’t always listen properly, but I try to.

The commercial point I made on Monday, (and one that I think bears repeating) was that whilst the online world cannot be un-invented, “bricks and mortar'“ sellers can and should develop. Much of the question is about how they might do this in a market place that has been commoditised to a great extent. The answer I felt, at least to some extent, is by sellers developing a relationship with their customers. There are numbers of ways of doing that and I will single out Ben who spoke most convincingly about his experiences as a retailer. The underlying message was “expertise.” Ben mentioned his own sphere of influence in his outlet and noted that his colleagues had different specialist areas and that it appeared to him that the system worked rather well.

This is an immensely valuable point if may say so. It is one that I agreed with at the time and feel that retailers miss the point on this in their hurry to sell at the lowest price they can manage. One more or less constantly hears the shout about online retailers “flogging it cheap,” or similar phrases. There is an old aphorism in business that goes “if you don’t value what you do, no one else will.” It’s quite correct.

It is my view that retail businesses, (a point I make again here) will fail and fall by the wayside for many reasons. Some retailers will get larger- this is the nature of markets and it will not always be the online seller who succeeds at the expense of the “bricks and mortar” retailer. It has always been the case that businesses need a plan and that plan is likely to involve how one defines and then secures one’s customers, then keeping them into a notional future.

In the case of model shops the sure way to keep customers is to talk to them. Let us think for a while about what retailers might do by way of a plan:

• Invite your customers and prospects into your emporium of models. Show them that you are keen on models too.

• Ask your customers to put their work on display in your shop. Perhaps have a “model of the month” award. Give a small prize for this. Take a picture and start a winner’s wall.

• Invite your customers to meet your suppliers, (like Airfix or Heller), if you can get your suppliers to visit, (that’s a tall order), but can be done.

• Take an interest in the history of the models you sell. Curate the selection of models so that you can tell a story about the products. Encourage your staff to learn about the models they build and their place in history- this is a convincing way to sell.

• Invite local historical experts into the shop to make presentations to customers on a couple of evenings a month. There is a wealth of knowledge out there- use it.

• Focus on different parts of your business each month. Give customers a chance to see that you sell other things. Perhaps a “toolbox talk” or an “airbrush forum.”

These are some of the activities that model shops can undertake to preserve their businesses. One need not be fatalistic about the future of retail. It is important to be the architect of your own destiny. If you simply wait for customers to walk into your establishment, they will probably not come in because, as the excellent Mr Rifle said on Monday, “it’s easier to buy it online!” He isn’t wrong.

As I said, retail sales outlets must develop themselves and evolve in order to remain in business. They will not destroy the online seller, but it is my view that they can certainly do things that online sellers cannot do. The human factor may very well be the most important part of that.

“Antics” and the retailer photograph is reproduced from the Antics website. ZZ Scale Modelling is not connected in any way to “Antics.”

You may find my review here:

Now, there is a small cabal of people who groan at what they see as the more or less constant supply of Spitfire models entering the market. It seems to me that such people don’t often stop and wonder why this might be. I would venture to suggest that it is probably because so many variants of this iconic aircraft (24 in total) were developed across its service life that there are quite such a large number of scale representations on the market. One might draw certain parallels with the Hurricane, Lancaster and Mustang to name but a few. We all see complaints beginning “oh no, not another … (insert model name here),” and these seem more regular where the Spitfire is concerned.

Perhaps it is the case that model companies produce these kits because there is a buoyant market for them? I believe that it could really be that simple.

That of course and the fact that Spitfires are all so pretty to look at. Even those very late ones which are really quite different to the original aircraft. It is the case that there is much in the way of choice depending upon your own preference of historical millieu, (so to speak) and, even in the hands of a sub par modeller like me, Spitfire models can all be made to look really rather good.

By the way, as you will have seen, I just used that word: “iconic.” How many of you guessed that it would be in paragraph two? You did? Well, you win then! Do award yourself a prize. It doesn’t matter what, but take a moment to feel a bit smug- you deserve it…

This Mk VIII kit has been around for a couple of years now and when it was released onto the market, I decided that I wouldn’t bother with it, but only because I thought it too large. However, as you will know, in an inconsistent and somewhat reckless move, I acquired the P51D Mustang in the same scale and have recently taken some time to build up the engine. Following this, I will do the same with the Mk VIII engine to make a comparison video in order to show the differences between the new engine and the rather older one. We will, of course see that the trajectory in terms of detail is upwards as we come towards the present day- we will see that moulding and part details get better. That is the plan anyway.

Lets take some time now to look the Mk8 itself. It was not produced in great numbers- just a few over 1,650 of the (about) 20,000 and was used more or less exclusively in foreign parts. Consequently, we don’t see too many of them around these days. Mind you, it is possible to see one unrestored example in South West Wales- Carmarthen to be precise. I toured the Welsh Spitfire Museum a little while ago because it was one of those surprise discoveries one encounters from time to time. I made a video of this visit in my normal style and you can find it here:

The markVIII was a development from the mark VII which as many will know used, (like the mark VI) a partially pressurised cockpit because it was designed to operate where the air is thin in order to counter the threat of German high altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. I intend to look particularly at high altitude flying another time, so do look out for that article.

So, with the numbers on the ground being somewhat thin, there aren’t so many to see flying and consequently it may be harder to tell the Mk VIII apart from earlier and later variants. There are some points to take into account. First of all, the aircraft’s length was increased by around 7 inches forward of the frame 9 cockpit bulkhead (as with the Mk VI) to accommodate the larger Merlin 60 series engine. The reason for this is that the two stage supercharger and intercooler which sit behind the main body of the engine needed to be put somewhere.

The other internal differences are significant. With the extension in length to accommodate the engine came significant strengthening of the airframe which took in future changes for more powerful engines and greater speed as the aircraft developed further. Changes to the engines at this point included modifications to the carburettors which allowed negative G manoeuvres which had not previously been possible as they caused flooding and cutout of the engine. This, I believe, is related to Miss Schilling’s orifice which sounds jolly rude but is not.

The tail fin is visibly larger than earlier variants and the rudder comes to a point rather than following the gentler curve of previous marks. This larger vertical assembly helps to mitigate the torque imparted by the much more powerful merlin 60 series engine and helps prevent the aircraft from spinning in the opposite direction to the propeller as a result of Newton’s third law, (action and reaction are equal and opposite).

Aside from that, the over wing bulges, placed to allow the Hispano cannons to be fitted are somewhat smaller, the undercarriage doors have a slightly concave design and the wheel wells were redesigned to create more space within the wings which did away with the undercarriage bulge which can be seen on the upper wings of earlier variants.

Additionally and quite noticeable, you will see that the torque links for the undercarriage are facing forwards and not backwards. The torque links are the scissor like structures that prevent the oleo suspension from twisting under landing forces and were not fitted to early Spitfires. This forwards facing arrangement came about as a result of the increased forces placed on landing gear owing to the greater weight the gear were now supporting. This particular orientation was used as the links did not then interfere with the undercarriage doors.

A further minor point would be on undercarriage indicators which were in use on some Spitfire variants. These indicators were small plates that emerged from the upper side of the wing and operated mechanically, being linked by a sort of push crank at the extreme upper end of the undercarriage leg when the undercarriage is deployed. This can easily be seen by any modellers who have (for example) a Kotare Mk 1 mid or early model on examining the top of the oleo leg. The arrangement is rather clever and foolproof.

The early Mk VIII units did have these indicators, but they were removed in later variants, (I understand from serial number JF5… onwards), as the cockpit indicator lights were considered sufficient for the purpose of showing pilots that the wheels were indeed down. Still on the subject of over wing indicators, it would also appear that the mechanical flap indicators that flipped up when the flaps were lowered was also removed and again replaced with a further cockpit indicator light.

The Mk 8 also used a retractable tail wheel and the doors can easily be seen when the aircraft is on the ground. Such a move also contributed to better aerodynamics as a result of lower drag.

If you have very sharp eyes, you will also be able to see that the ailerons are slightly shorter than previous marks as it was felt that aileron flutter was a problem in high speed dives. Shortening the ailerons does not however appear to have radically affected roll rate.

A look at the radiator inlets will show you that they also are different to the earlier marks. The markV for instance had a rectangular profile radiator on the starboard side and a circular profile oil cooler on the port. With the advent of the more powerful engines came a need for greater cooling capacity, hence the addition (from Mk VI onwards) of the matching rectangular apparatus on the port underside. These units served the engine, intercooler and oil cooling and this can be seen when one looks into the ducts as the panels are different for each type of cooling requirement- in short, starboard side- radiator and intercooler and port, another radiator and oil cooling. Maybe this change could possibly have affected yawing trim to the good, but I cannot confirm such a thing as this supposition only exists in my own fevered imagination.

As an aside, you will note that all Spitfires when started up are taxied and pushed into the air very rapidly. You may have wondered about this and it is due to the nature of the cooling ducts and the positioning of the oleo legs. The legs in fact interfere with the flow of air into the ducts and so the undercarriage must be stored as quickly as possible to avoid engine overheating. It is also the case that the ducts require positive airflow through them in order to operate properly- there is no forced air mechanism, like a fan, to promote a cooling effect from the flow of fluids through the radiators.

Other internal changes included the addition of port and starboard wing fuel tanks and an increase in the size of the on-board tanks from 85 to 122 gallons which by my reckoning is quite substantial. This increased the range to 660 miles. Another internal change related to the removal of cockpit pressurisation which was present on both the Mk VI and the Mk VII, evidence for which can be seen below the starboard exhaust stacks on both of the earlier aircraft.

A final change on all later marks of Spitfire was the use of flush riveting in all areas of the fuselage. This change reduces drag and contributes to the overall top speed which for the Mk8 was 408mph at 25,000 feet. We can therefore say without too much fear of contradiction that the Mk VIII was no slouch.

One peculiarity of this version is that the Mk VIII appears in the production line after the Mk IX. The reason for this was that the Mk IX came about as a result of the recognition that the the FW190 was superior to the Mk V and the RAF were routinely suffering losses as a result of encounters with it. The development of the Mk VIII was under way but time was of the essence, hence the changes on the fly (so to speak) to the Mk V which introduced the Mk IX.

A small number of early Mk units were converted with the introduction of a new Merlin engine with a different supercharger which improved the engine power to around 1585 Hp and rate of climb to a little over 4,700 feet/ minute. However the real change came when the Merlin 60 engine was levered into the Mk V airframe. Jeffery Quill described the improvement as “a quantum leap” and this redressed the balance against the FW190. About 300 Mk V units were converted to Mk IX and the rest rolled off the production line as Mk IXs “out of the box” as it were. Thus, the longer Spitfire was born.

By the way, Jeffery Quill, Supermarine’s head of operational flying was recorded as having asserted that his favourite Spitfire was the Mk VIII. I would suggest that his opinion would be one to take at least some account of as, having flown all of the variants he had a chance to review the aircraft really like no other. The increase in engine power gained through first, the modification to the supercharger, and then by addition of a second supercharger allowed a fundamentally good aircraft to keep pace with what our (then) enemies were doing to gain an advantage.

It is, I think, also instructive to consider the backdrop to all of this development and building work because perhaps a point exists here that can be easily forgotten. This country had to mass produce aircraft in order to maintain the numbers available for air defence. At the time, Supermarine’s factory in Southampton was being routinely bombed, as were many other important locations, all in an effort to stifle this country’s ability to wage war.

It is one thing to effectively produce cutting edge machinery reliably and constantly, but quite another to do so when hostile nations are dropping ordinance on your factories on regular basis. I believe that these two points make the fact that this nation survived the Battle of Britain all the more incredible, but survive it we did. The patriotism and commitment of the people of this marvellous nation served together to oppose what was perhaps the greatest threat to it that we have seen in many years.

I believe that this attitude is still at large in this nation of ours. Perhaps it will be seen again if we face similar adversity.

Well, it’s that time of year again and the anticipation train is in full flight for the Airfix product range update! This is an event that happens every year at about this time and the social media pundits all get their two pen’oth in one after the other and regard their crystal balls very closely in an effort to outdo one another. We all expect this and next Wednesday I am sure that many will tune in to the MOS6510 models live stream as he watches the progress in his own unique and highly entertaining way.

I’m working elsewhere next week, so I won’t be able to tune in and as a result, I hope that you will accept my own thoughts on this just now. Here we go!!

Hornby are working hard to turn the group around and the three year recovery plan seems to be going reasonably well up to now. We can see that turnover has risen and costs are being cut in a number of ways. Divesting loss making parts of the company and reducing inventory has had an effect on this but that is only part of the story. Expansion into new markets and new subjects in terms of modelling will also help drive the companies’ fortunes both now and into the future and the new range introductions have been very much seen in the past as the bellwether of the upcoming year.

I hope you will allow me to be “Mystic Zin” for a short while as I make some guesses. However, let’s leave my crystal balls out of this shall we?

Accessories: Looking at the new product and accessory developments from last year, it seems to me that it’s highly likely that we will see at least some extension of the after market additions to the Airfix range. Such a move would be both low cost and potentially high return. Masking sets and 3D printed resin upgrades could form a part of the new line up this year- there are many modellers who want more detail and easier work to paint, so why not add to the range of masks available?

Perhaps in addition to canopy masks, we might see camouflage masks for 1/72, 1/48 and 1/24 aeroplanes? These allow less skilled modellers to achieve great results with minimum effort- even when using a brush to paint finish. I would certainly consider these accessories as a part of the new lineup because they are low cost and high margin. This would be a perfect addition to the range of a company which is looking to drive sales at good margin.

Lysander: The new tool 1/48 Mk1 or Mk3 Lizzie proved to be a bit of a hit last year and, if the after market are anything to judge it by, is likely to be a hit for some years to come. Last year’s released version subjects depicted in the first moulds released are not so well known in my opinion, but have certainly proved to be very well designed and executed kits- my model fell together and had the sort of delicacy you would expect of an aircraft like the Lysander.

I think that it is a racing certainty that we will see the SOE variant released this year. The changes from the existing mould will be minimal and it will continue the sales momentum that I think will have built up to a significant degree since last year’s launch.

Stalwart: This 1/35 release attracted much attention when launched, sometimes for the wrong reasons it would seem. Having said that however, the completed kits that we have seen on internets local to us all depict well finished and attractive kits with good levels of detail. Those interested in a more recent armour variant seem to have found this release most invigorating. The problems, such as we saw, (sink marks and some fitting problems it seems) look to have melted away and I think that there is a high chance of a new variant being released this year.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we might see an artillery tractor variant, especially as the “Stolly” was capable of towing up to ten tonnes, either as a limber or an ammunition carrier.

Now, here’s where the limb is. What about a new mould artillery piece to go with the new Stalwart? I think an L118 howitzer might fit the bill. That was the pre-eminent piece from the days of the Stalwart. Not only that, but the combination of the two would provide a premium pairing that would suit not only the the armour modellers, but also the diorama folks out there. There’s no doubt that this is a little bit out there, but with the need to expand the appeal of Airfix, this combo would certainly move the dial in terms of providing a pathway to the dio modeller- and there are lots of those people about.

Finally and perhaps somewhat controversially, I think we may yet see some space subjects this year, maybe with some sort of Sci fi tie in. I think there is at least some possibility of such happening, after all Airfix need to expand their appeal into new markets especially as the success of marques like Warhammer show us that there is money to be spent there.

We have also heard Heller say that their competitor is Netflix. Why would Airfix not think the same way? Adopting a partnership with some “celluloid whimsy” franchise might generate sales from an entirely new customer base. Simple to assemble kits which open the door to the hobby would offer a perfect strategic move which, whilst more costly than re launching existing moulds, would be a worthwhile gamble.

So, there we have it- “Mystic Zin” provides his prognostications on what Airfix might offer this year- we shall all have to wait until next week to find out…

I hope that Airfix will not object to my shamelessly plagiarising their web banner- it seemed most appropriate and I believe that no press is bad press. I trust that they feel the same…

Zinzan scale modelling is not affiliated to Airfix and does not seek to represent it in any way. Th opinions of ZZ Scale modelling are his own and not those of Airfix.

“Aviation is not in itself inherently dangerous, but to an even greater degree than seafaring it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect”

You may recall my recent article on the De Havilland Dragon Rapide in which I described the problems encountered by its predecessor, the DH.86 Express which seem to have been caused by abrupt changes to the centre of gravity. Such changes caused a number of crashes and these occurred not only at a time when investigation into mishaps and crashes were not perhaps as exhaustive as they are today, but also in a number of cases where the aircraft concerned were totally lost and any investigation was therefore not possible at all.

It would appear that, in such cases as a crashed aircraft could be examined, that some investigation was carried out which led to some improvements being undertaken in Australia where a good number of the aircraft I mentioned were sold. However, it wasn’t until a UK organisation called the “RAF Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment” carried out an investigation into the DH.86 in the wake of three fatal crashes more locally to the UK that the real shortcomings of the type were properly understood. Even then, the report written following testing was not made public for another forty years.

We may reasonably conclude that such secrecy would not be the case these days. Indeed, the reports into the crashes of the Boeing 737 max aircraft which led to the prolonged grounding of that entire fleet is most instructive in this regard. The role of crash investigation is clearly of significant importance, not just to gain a technical appreciation of the cause and then to recommend remedy, but also to project this outwards to ensure continuing public confidence in aviation. Owing to these reasons, accident investigation must be open and effective.

There are three factors that underpin the whole of the work of the Air Accident Investigation Branch today-

1. That the body is independent: The AAIB cannot be placed under pressure to arrive at conclusions that might advantage certain parties, thereby disadvantaging others.

2. The the role of the AAIB is not to apportion blame or to place liability at the feet of any individual or organisation.

3. That the AAIB has mandated power to operate.

Many people will perhaps be vaguely aware of the AAIB and understand its place when a fatal crash takes place, but perhaps will not be as aware of its function in the administration and continuing improvement of the processes and practices of commercial and private flying. Leading on from the article on the DH.89 I felt that it might be useful to take a quick look at the AAIB in just a little more depth.

It might be suggested that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch was essentially formed in around 1915 following an investigation by the Royal Aircraft Club into the crash of a Brooklands Flanders monoplane in 1912. It was felt at the time that some form of organised and managed process should be put into place alongside regulations governing aviation in the UK. The resultant investigatory body however did not take the form we know today, but was instead a committee of engineers and aviators who wanted to get at the truth of what might have occurred in that particular case.

However, whilst major accidents were investigated since the very early days of powered flight, such investigations were somewhat ad hoc and lacked any legal power at all. Most of the time and in particular for serious accidents, a public enquiry was convened which investigated in much the same way as a public enquiry might be conducted today.

In terms of smaller mishaps, one might assert that the aviation industry was investigating itself. I would accept that this might not be absolutely the fairest assessment of the situation, but until after the Second World War, this appears to be essentially what happened. A large accident where many lives were lost for example was investigated by way of a public enquiry in perhaps a similar way to the investigation of some form of parliamentary mishandling of an affair of state. This has drawbacks and lacks regulatory teeth in some sense, although an enquiry of this kind would be chaired by a high court judge or similar senior member of the legal profession. Smaller accidents were investigated by sub committees of the Aeronautical Research Committee.

We can see a change to this way of operating in 1946 with the bringing into law of the “Air Navigation, (Investigation of Accidents)” regulations which gave statutory powers to the “Accident Investigation Branch,” which became the first permanent body set up to investigate aviation accidents in the UK.

It was in 1987 that the name was changed to that which we see today and at the time the AAIB was then made a part of the Department of Transport as it was then known. When, in 2002 a further re organisation took place, the AAIB was moved to become a part of the newly formed Department for Transport. This, I gather, reflects a change in focus from simply running the roads and railways as if they were owned by the government to a more public focussed organisation. This country’s government website spouts a load of silly twaddle about this and I might be cynical here in asserting that the whole change just cost more and made infrastructure changes more difficult. Some may agree- it certainly seems to have been of little import to the AAIB who have thankfully continued their work unhindered by a load of petty bureaucrats, little tin gods and self serving tossers in government which is a blessing if you ask me. Safety in the air is more important than they are- the useless kents.

You may also know that the AAIB has, since 2021 been appointed the “Space Accident Investigation Authority.” It now has the power to investigate any spaceflight accidents over the UK. I would assume that this will include the sort of mishaps we see now and again during the launches of space vehicles. We can see that with the advent of space flights from the UK, an authority to look after safe practices was necessary and I am sure we are pleased to see this change happen.

Let us now look at the type of accidents or incidents that receive the attention of the AAIB. Essentially there are two types- an accident involving death or serious injury and ones involving the serious damage to or loss of an aeroplane. Then there are occurrences which are described as incidents- for example when a near collision occurs or when an aircraft strays into controlled airspace, or landings and take-offs which are either thought to be dangerous or were aborted for one reason or another. There are a number of slightly more minor sub categories also investigated and these would include what are known as runway excursions and incursions amongst other matters.

The types of aircraft monitored include commercial and general aviation which really means anything with a pilot and passengers- so we could example this with commercial airliners right down to gliders and single seat aircraft like Spitfires and other vintage aeroplanes. Also included, and this is of importance, are drones and other small craft known as “Unmanned aerial vehicles.” Those of you who fly these small devices will know that the rules are well documented and one needs to follow them. The air space in this country is the preserve of the CAA and they have teeth.

As I mentioned earlier, the investigations and findings of the AAIB are all public without exception and so it is possible for members of the public to access the reports and I would invite you to do so for yourself if you are minded. The reports take a standard form in the sense that they outline the aircraft type, the date of the occurrence and some details of the pilot’s time on type and so on. There is then a synopsis of the incident followed by a full investigation. You can see an example from December here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6929809e345e31ab14ecf6f4/Spitfire_MK_26B_G-ENAA_01-26.pdf

The details are extensive, as are the investigations and conclusions and this is especially true where a fatality is involved as it is in this example. This accident concerns a failed take-off and the aircraft, (a replica Spitfire) turned over having left the ground and quickly crashed without leaving the environs of the aerodrome. There is no attempt at all to obscure any details (excepting the identity of the pilot) and what is immediately obvious is that the pilot in this case was very experienced in every respect. Clearly incidents such as this are not restricted to new flyers. This is a very detailed examination of the events that led to the most unfortunate death of a pilot and I have kept this in mind as I mention this particular report.

The conclusion is academic only in the sense that it briefly records the events that led to the aircraft crashing and suggests that the pilot may have become incapacitated at some stage during take off. Some may view this reporting as a reductionist view in the sense that the life of an individual is encapsulated in those last moments, but that is not the case. This report details the last moments of a very experienced pilot and attempts to pinpoint a cause so that if mistakes were made, then they can be prevented in future. This man was probably a father, maybe a grandfather, a husband and, in all likelihood, a well respected and liked member of the aviation community and I pay my respects to him here.

By investigating in this painstaking and dispassionate way the Air Accident Investigation Branch contribute to flying safety in this country. Their thorough approach is what will continue to keep both pilots and passengers safe.

That changed when I purchased a 1/32 scale Hasegawa 190 A8. I reviewed it here:

The “back story” (so to speak) is that this was one of a number of kits offered by Nigel- he of Nigel’s Modelling Bench in support of a charity drive supported by the excellent Luke at Black Rifle Model works. They were both supporting “Kits for kids” which is another most worthy charity on which I was pleased to spend my money to take part. I do honestly believe that the deal I made was a good one for everyone concerned- the charity was enriched by Nigel’s generous donation of models and I was also the benefactor because I got the opportunity to build this kit. We’ll see how it turned out later.

Focke Wulf was founded in 1923 by (predictably enough I suppose) Heinrich Focke and Georg Wulf. It was relatively quickly merged with another aircraft company known as “Albatross” which went bankrupt and where Kurt Tank was working as an engineer and test pilot.

Kurt Tank was a test pilot and lead aeronautical designer at Focke Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He designed a number of aircraft for Focke Wulf, but perhaps the FW190 is the most notable. What is interesting about his qualifications is that he was in fact an electrical engineer by training but took an abiding interest in aircraft and aerodynamics. His flying career was not without incident and it is said that he survived several accidents and crashes. One might suppose that this is a likely outcome when one tests aircraft at the leading edge of the technology of the day.

There is something that can be observed by seeing how Focke Wulf dealt with the challenges in airframe and system design. Often (and we see this in the FW190) Tank deployed electrical devices in order to undertake the tasks that other engineers used hydraulic machinery to deal with. A good example of this is the flap and undercarriage operation- both of which were electrical and operated by switches situated very close to the throttle lever. These electrically operated systems were highly engineered and meet closely with the German ethos for high quality engineering in my view. There is much about the FW190 that is utilitarian, but it all serves a purpose and all the components in the cockpit were arranged to make the pilot’s life easier. We shall see more of this a little later,

I found out during the course of my FW190 project that operation of the primary flight controls (rudder, elevators and ailerons) was mechanical but, unlike the Spitfire and other similar aircraft, Tank used push rod and bearing systems rather than cables and bell cranks. This alternative method was not often used at that point and was useful because it made the control systems harder wearing in operation and obviated the need for constant examination and adjustment of cable tension.

Another outstanding feature of the FW190 was the throttle and engine control system- a device known as “Kommandogerat.” This was a kind of analog computer and considerably eased the workload for pilots of the FW190, allowing as it did, automatic control of fuel and air mixture, propeller pitch, boost control and engine RPM all at once. It also controlled both ignition and magneto timing as well as the gearing and speed of the supercharger. Kommandogerat was situated just behind the exhaust stacks and approximately level with the instrument panel- a position which allowed it to be easily connected into the systems it controlled.

Readers will be aware of the Spitfire throttle quadrant on which propeller pitch, boost and throttle control were effected and probably know that these controls had to be altered carefully and often in a specific order. FW190 pilots had only a throttle control to employ when flying and this combination of the stick and throttle with limited extra controls, (the throttle had a propeller pitch manual override and a friction adjuster to prevent creep of the lever), can be thought of as an early version of “HOTAS” which stands for “hands on throttle and stick.”

When pushed into service in around 1941, the FW 190 was immediately superior to the Mk5 Spitfire which at that stage employed a single stage supercharger in its engine- later Merlin engine models used a two stage supercharger which redressed the balance somewhat against the 190 and also significantly improved high altitude performance in addition to boosting the available power.

Amongst other things, the advantage that combatants in air warfare were seeking was high altitude performance- being able to maintain an edge where the air was thinner and engine power was depleted to a fairly significant degree compared to much lower altitudes. A key element of success in battle was the ability to manoeuvre and fight the aircraft at altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet, so high altitude performance became very important. The FW190 had the edge there.

Another key aspect of aerial combat was manoeuvrability- the Spitfire was certainly superior to the Bf109 in many areas and could out turn that aircraft, allowing it to move inside the bullet streams sent in its direction- there are some videos available on the internet of this happening- it was a major advantage. They could do the same thing with the Fw190 as well- this aspect of flight is known as “sustained turn rate.” The advantage conferred by the Fw190 was that its roll rate was significantly in excess of that of the Spitfire. In an aerial combat move known as a “snap roll” the Fw190 proved its capability as it was able to rapidly roll away from danger within one or two seconds and use the generated advantage to get behind the enemy prior to “going to guns.” Let’s look at how this works.

A snap roll involves a decrease in forward speed and the introduction of a stall in one wing- normally by pulling up sharply and feeding in a severe aileron and on occasion a rudder deflection. This action causes the aircraft to spin about the rolling plane, (the longitudinal axis) and can move the pilot away from the danger of flying bullets, but also causes the chasing pilot to overshoot as his speed is significantly higher than that of his quarry. At close range, (450 yards or so) it is very hard to counter the snap roll manoeuvre- remember that the Spitfire’s guns converged at around this range and are much less effective outside this narrow band. Consequently, the chase pilot flies past the aircraft he is pursuing. The pursued pilot may now choose to “bug out” or turn to make an attack. In the hands of a top pilot, this move placed him in prime position to turn defence into attack.

There were around 20,000 of the FW 190 produced across the war and they were pressed into a number of different roles which required slightly different armament. Some were modified to carry torpedoes, some even carried a rocket powered aerial mortar which was aimed into the centre of bomber formations. Mostly however, they were fighters during both day and night. Well armed and versatile, this German aircraft was a foe to reckoned with.

My completed A8 was finished in the 1944 camouflage of the RAF and marked as a captured aircraft. There is evidence of an A8 landing on British soil in the latter part of the war and standard practice would have been to recolour it and send it to be tested and flown against the allies’ best fighters in order to establish their weaknesses and to devise strategies to defeat them in combat.

You will note the “P” markings and the yellow underside which make the ownership of the aircraft very obvious- Royal Observer Corps operators were trained to recognise aircraft by their shape and then colour, so the yellow underside meant that “friendly fire” incidents were kept to a minimum.

The Hasegawa kit assembled without incident and there are plenty of opportunities to improve the look and feel of the completed project. I chose to use the HGW seat belts and also the rivet decals, which add to the look of the wing and fuselage surfaces, but I would counsel caution when painting as too much paint will obscure the appearance which is subtle at best. If you look at the build series, you will note that I also added significant detail to the engine, (a BMW 801 unit), in the form of various pipes and tubes as well as ignition wires. It is unfortunate that not a great deal of this can be seen owing to the large cooling fan which is situated directly inside the cowling but it is still there! I have often said that the way to improve at anything is to practice it and it is often a good idea to do this in places where it deosn’t matter if you get it wrong. This engine seemed an excellent place to do this and also to show it.

I wish you luck if you choose to have a go at scratch building!

Nigel’s modelling bench may be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/@NigelsModellingBench

Black Rifle model works can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/@BlackRifleModelWorx

I recommend them both.

To answer that question and to provide with some visual material to support today’s meandering, I have commenced the assembly of the 1/24 scale Mustang engine from the venerable Airfix kit I acquired and reviewed some while ago. The kit itself is a “vintage classic” having been first produced many years ago and, whilst I pointed this out in my review, I was careful to add that we should not view kits first produced in the 1970s through a modern day lens as to do so would not be fair given how far things have come since then.

The scale (at 1/24th) is sufficiently large for the addition of various extra components which I have committed to myself that I will scratch build from plastic stock at hand and also lead wire. In these days of 3D printing, I believe that it is a good idea to retain and develop one’s skills in this area, although I have acquired prints of components found elsewhere in the kit and think that these will enhance the finished product. I find myself oddly motivated to add scratch build components for a change. The work may very well prove to be exacting and I suspect that I will take a look at this in a video.

Here’s a little sneak preview of the engine at the time of building. Some modifications have been added by this stage, although this project is by no means complete. As you will see, this is now simply primed, but it is possible, (just about) to make out some of the additional details that I have added to this 50 year old engine in order to start the job off:

It would be most interesting to make a comparison between the engine manufactured for this model and a newer variant that was of a similar type- perhaps a Spitfire Mk8 in 1/24 scale. I may yet do this at some point as now seems a very good time to buy a Mk8 given that they are £60 and not £99. Maybe. There should not be a great deal of difference to see- the coolant pumps will probably be different, (we’ll come on to that later), but the rest should be pretty similar in terms of the look. However, we can expect to see a considerable amount of additional detail within the engine components and it would not surprise me at all to see much more in the way of pipework and wiring than we see in the Vintage Classic Mustang kit. The trajectory of development in model detail is sure to be upwards.

Regarding the title of this piece, I was originally going to make a study of the Merlin engine as a subject in its own right and then to include the Packard engine as an element of this, but my additional research suggests to me that an examination of the Packard variant would be a useful exercise for reasons which, (if I do my job properly), will become apparent a little later.

Those who are familiar with the Merlin engine series and the Mustang P51d will know that the variant in the Airfix kit is a Packard model V-1650 which was built under license by the Packard Motor Car Company. They produced an amazing 55,500 of them which represented around 33% of the total production of Merlin engines. The V-1650-7 version was the main power plant for the Mustang and contained a two stage supercharger just like the Merlin 66 and which developed (according to Rolls Royce), 1,720 hp at 3,000 RPM (boosted). It seems that the Merlin 66 and the Packard V-1650 are essentially interchangeable.

We looked briefly at augmentations to piston engines when we examined turbo chargers used in conjunction with superchargers on the Allison power plants fitted to the P38 Lightning. As we found out, the aim for this combination is to attempt to replicate ground level pressures for fuel/ air mixtures, typically up to around 25,000 feet or so in order to maintain engine performance as the air gets thinner at higher altitude.

As you will have noted, the turbo/ supercharger combination we saw in the P38 Lightning is replaced by two superchargers in the Merlin 66 engine- this is called a two stage system. The system was also a two speed one, with the first speed operating to an altitude of 8,000 feet and the second speed operating at 18,000 feet. The Merlin and Packard engines also deployed an intercooler which prevented premature detonation- a problem in all sorts of arenas I gather. In this case of course, the premature problem was with fuel.

In terms of other differences, there weren’t that many from a construction perspective with engine blocks and major components adhering strictly to the Rolls Royce Derby production designs.

Some changes to certain components were made however and it is sensible to assume that those changes that were made in U.S. production would have taken place owing to better local access to various sub assemblies and materials. To put some detail on this, some components were standardised to the American variants, so Magnetos were altered, as were the bearings in some areas of the engine. The water pump- a key component was re designed adding an improved impeller with a spring loaded gland seal on the shaft which together enhanced the reliability of the pump.

The magnetos used in the Packard units also rotated in the opposite direction to the British made Thompson Houston or Rotax units. The outflow of this is obvious- that spares, like driving gears and cogs in addition to the magneto itself would need to be kept for repairs to the differing engine if the aircraft was be deployed by another air force. The changes taken as a whole are said to have improved the reliability of the engine based upon the operational plans for the aircraft it was to power.

So, whilst we see some small differences, the real change was in the way the engine was used from an operational perspective. The British unit used 100 octane fuel and was cleared to operate at an absolute maximum of +18 lbs boost pressure which delivered the 1750hp. The Packard unit however was cleared (in the Mustang) to operate at +25 lbs boost with richer fuel/ air mixtures. Together these changes delivered in the region of 1950 hp- a fair increase. However, (and this is a quite significant point), the increased power was only permitted for a maximum of 15 minutes on what was described as “war emergency power.” You may also encounter this term in relation to the Corsair and other aircraft powered by Pratt and Whitney radial engines with water injection amongst others.

The advantages created took the Merlin to another level in the hands of the Packard engineers and so these arrangements together with the engine modifications greatly boosted the Mustang when compared to the originally fitted Allison engine. Taken together with a longer overhaul interval, we see some real improvements.

The underlying Merlin design had to be hardy to withstand this uprated performance and it is because of the preparatory work done at Derby that the engine was able to withstand the rigours of being operated at a higher level. The fundamental product was taken and improved because it could be.

Many Packard V1650-7 engines remain to this day, most being used in air racing and to power speedboats and other high performance transports and racing vehicles. I believe that it is fair to say that the Merlin engine and its variants continuing to be sought out demonstrates its undoubted pedigree across the years. It is also possible to see examples in museums as I am sure you will already know.

Perhaps I could add that the unassuming men at Rolls Royce who worked to create the engine that powered a number of the second war’s most iconic aircraft don’t really receive the plaudits that they ought to. RJ Mitchell and Sir Sydney Cam are rightly venerated in all quarters for their exceptional aircraft, but they are as nothing without a worthy engine.

The engineers at Rolls Royce designed and built an operationally exceedingly tough power plant. This is an assertion which I believe is borne out by the American use of the same basic unit and then improving it in areas which allowed it to be run at rather higher power output for periods than the British did until later in the war. However, it is this operational toughness that allowed the subsequent development of the power plant and contributed in no small amount to the outcome of air battles in the second war.

I am sure that gentlemen like Cyril Lovesey and Stanley Hooker never sought notoriety, instead preferring to get along with the next challenge stolidly and steadfastly just as they did before and, I might add, when the chips were really down. Of course, it’s likely that these boffins never looked at things in quite that way- what person ever does, especially when the end result is not certain and one may be thwarted by many things along the way? No, these people carried on and did their work quietly and efficiently perhaps preferring to be in the background but knowing that they contributed to the war effort at the time. Perhaps afterwards they afforded themselves some feeling of satisfaction at hurdles overcome and a job well done- that only is right and proper.

It is people like those who developed both the Merlin engine and its supercharger system to whom we should allot their share of the praise. They deserve it.

The initial set of parameters which spawned the P38 arose from the jauntily named “circular proposal X-608” written in early 1937. This proposal was quite strenuous for the time, requesting as it did (amongst other things) a maximum speed for the proposed aircraft of at least 360mph at 20,000 feet; the ability to climb to 20,000 feet in six minutes or less and a capability to operate at full throttle for one hour. These requirements came about as a result of the desire to improve on the capabilities offered by the then pursuit aircraft, (the term then applied to fighters, hence the “P” prefix given to aircraft at the time), and were driving manufacturers towards a high altitude and long range capability.

It is said that the term “interceptor” was used in the requirements because this would move the design away from the “pursuit” designation, the guidelines of which were considered to be somewhat restrictive and in fact specified only single engined aircraft. The dual engine design was deemed to be useful, as we will discover later.

Anyway Lockheed, whose subsequent reputation for developing highly advanced aircraft has proved to be unassailable, (as we have seen), formed a team to address the specification as given which included Hall Hibbard and none other than Clarence “Kelly” Johnson. This team worked somewhat in secret, but certainly away from other engineers in the Lockheed team and in a similar manner to the famous “Skunk Works” of subsequent years. In so doing, they came up with several design options, all of which employed two engines. The P38 represented the first military project won by Lockheed.

The eventual design, that with twin tail booms, was advantageous because in the first place, the booms provided accommodation for the turbo-chargers which were required in order to meet the altitude capabilities as laid down. They did so by boosting the power of the supercharged Allison V1710 engines by the way. In the second place, because the pilot accommodation also contained a selection, (dependent upon variant), of machine guns and cannons. This concentration of weaponry within the nose is similar to that deployed in the De Havilland Mosquito and dealt with the well known problem of convergence.

We have raised two challenges here, that of engine power and convergence- let us look at both of them separately.

Allison’s engines were rather good but, like all piston engines, their performance was limited by the degree to which they can take in and compress their air and fuel mixture. At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, at altitude, there is less air available. For this reason, normally aspirated engines do not operate so well. Some were better at this but all required some form of additional support, especially when the air available to combine with fuel is thinner.

This is where superchargers come into play. You will no doubt understand the fundamental principle of the supercharger- it is a fan assembly that is connected directly to the engine and very rapidly delivers a stream of compressed air which is combined with fuel and burnt. The faster the engine runs, the more compressed air and fuel it delivers.

This is unlike a turbo charger which depends for its motive power on the exhaust of the engine itself. You may have heard of the term “turbo lag,” especially if you are a car enthusiast. This is a delay in the further boosting effect of compressing the air/fuel mixture as the fan that runs the turbocharger will act more slowly than a supercharger to the power output of the engine. The same thing happens in aero engines and it would appear that combining the two components allows such a delay to be mitigated somewhat.

It is also the case that heat is a major challenge in keeping aero engines running smoothly and avoiding unscheduled combustion of the fuel which is more or less guaranteed to occur when the air and fuel mixture is compressed by both a supercharger and a turbo charger. This has to do with the compression of the air/ fuel mixture causing a phenomenon known as kinetic heating. The molecules of gas rub together much more as they have less space in which to move and this creates the heat. A solution to this challenge must be found.

The answer is a device called an intercooler. At an altitude of around 20,000 feet, the temperature outside an aircraft (dependant upon season, latitude and weather conditions) can be anywhere from -15 celsius to -20 which I would suggest is on the frigid side. An advantage of this is that there is plenty of cooling air available to prevent those pesky pre-combustions and this air is channelled through the radiators and other engine components to cool them.

You will note from my review that the turbo chargers for the engines were placed on the tail booms- much further from the engine than in a more conventional design. You will also notice how the fans are exposed to the air flow across the top of the boom which allows this cooling to take effect. Within the tail booms, there are also an array of radiators which allowed heat to be moved away from the engine. Furthermore, the intercoolers (a very necessary part of this system) were in fact placed within the wings with cooling air being channeled through two small ports at the front and to the sides of each wing. It’s really bloody clever.

As an aside, it is said that cockpit heating on early versions of the P38 was not good which caused something of a problem to pilots who got rather cold at altitude- much like the crew of the B17 bomber used to. This is somewhat inexplicable given the prodigious amounts of heat being moved around the twin engines which of course were close by. This problem was resolved however on later variants, much to the relief of pilots I have no doubt.

“Convergence” is the problem that must be solved by aircraft manufacturers and pilots when guns are mounted on the wings of aircraft. A decision must be made with respect to how the guns are to be directed in order to concentrate fire onto a point in space ahead of the aircraft so as to create the most destructive effect from firing weapons. This means that wing mounted guns must be angled slightly inwards to a notional point- typically around 400 yards ahead of the aircraft. It is easy to imagine how the bullets behave in this sort of circumstance- they converge at 400 yards and then spread out rapidly after that and this leads to the weapons having much less effect at ranges outside the 400 yard mark. When the guns are very close together, as in the case of the P38, dealing with convergence is much less of an issue. Nose positioning of the weaponry confers the larger advantage that the deployable range of the guns may be up to 1,000 yards in the hands of an experienced pilot.

It is also notable that the oft mounted 20mm canon was arranged at a slightly more upward angle than the 0.5” calibre machine guns in order to take account of the greater “bullet drop” for the heavier round. This meant that “going to guns” against an enemy at ranges between 400 and up to 1000 yards was much more potent in terms of damage done when firing.

After a period of pretty secretive development, the XP38 made its maiden flight at the end of January 1939. The process of bringing the aircraft to flight wasn't without problems, but what new aircraft flew without any issues at all? Flap linkages failing and brake problems were two issues solved “on the fly” if I may use such an aphorism.

Proving the capability of this new aeroplane was done in a rather public way in the sense that the Lockheed team sought to challenge the speed record for travelling across America. This record was held at the time by a little known individual called Howard Hughes who took about 7 1/2 hours in his “Hughes H1 racer.” The XP38 made the journey in a fraction over 7 hours, but the record was not established as the aeroplane crashed onto a golf course prior to landing in a more expected way at the end of the flight. Nevertheless, the reputation of the P38 for speed was nicely set up and the US Army Air Corps ordered 13 examples for testing and evaluation.

As the P38 was somewhat unusual in its design, it took several years and a number of iterations to arrive at the form we see in the first operational variant. Beyond the brake and flap issues, problems with turbulence owing to the cockpit side windows being inadvertently left open were overcome and issues with compressibility were eventually overcome by the addition of dive flaps underneath the wings, but these were not seen until the J variants and beyond.

The inability to pull out of high speed dives in a P38 perhaps deserves a brief explanation, so I will attempt one. In aerodynamic terms, air flowing over the wings at high speed (near to and at the speed of sound) caused the centre of gravity of the aircraft to move forwards and lessened the authority of the elevator to such an extent that the aircraft increased its dive angle in a cumulative way which, beyond certain speeds which was not always recoverable. This was known as “mach tuck.”

We can once again see the effects of compressibility which I have discussed before in my article on the Tempest and we see that this increasingly became a feature of earlier high performance aircraft operating in the trans sonic domain. Many pilots met their ends when unable to pull out of high speed dives owing to insufficient elevator or aileron authority caused by this (at the time) little understood phenomenon.

The first P38 Lightnings to enter service did so in the Mediterranean and North Africa and it seems to be here that it came by its well known soubriquet- the “fork tailed devil.” The nickname appears to have been coined by a German aviator who was shot down by a P-38 and doubtless represents his frustration at being downed.

Lockheed began an illustrious career of producing high performance military aircraft when they produced the P38 Lightning. In the three years it operated from 1942 to 1945, it was deployed in a number of theatres including the Pacific against the Japanese and North Africa and distinguished itself in those areas by being one of the most versatile fighter/ bomber/ aerial reconnaissance aircraft of the second war. It was much liked by the pilots who flew it and, despite its shortcomings, it was an operationally tough and enormously capable aircraft. It is this operational toughness which we repeatedly see in allied second world war aircraft.

In operations in the Pacific theatre particularly, two engines were a real advantage especially when there was a necessity to fly over vast tracts of water and where engine failure of a single engined aircraft of any kind would place the pilot in real danger of being lost at sea. The ability of the P38 to fly on one engine was extensively demonstrated by test pilots in the early days of its development and the aircraft was shown to be benign when being driven by only one engine. Some video footage exists of this and would invite you to take a look around a local internet to you.

The P38 was, like many WW2 American aircraft, built in large numbers with just a shade over 10,000 rolling off the production lines. It was also the first military aircraft to fly faster than 400 mph. Much admired and liked by pilots, it was the first of many exceptional machines to subsequently emerge from the Lockheed stable.

I think it likely that I will scheme this aircraft to the Pacific theatre variant used in “Operation Vengeance” and make an effort to depict a well worn and highly used example. The challenges of doing this are many fold and whilst I have some skills in this area, (not that many you understand) it is good to develop them, hence my choice. There will be a short series of videos of the project which I hope that both of my viewers will watch and thank them in advance.

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,

England mourns for her dead across the sea.

Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,

Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal

Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,

There is music in the midst of desolation

And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,

Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;

They sit no more at familiar tables of home;

They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;

They sleep beyond England’s foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,

Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,

To the innermost heart of their own land they are known

As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,

Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;

As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,

To the end, to the end, they remain.

The latest instalment in the self proclaimed “I’m gong to save the world” saga is being penned not by Ed Millipede, but instead by Dale Vince- that well known eco zealot and self appointed king of wind. His recent investment into the world of electric aviation is not going without incident. For starters, he decided to call it “ecojet.” Right now, this is a misdescription in some sense as the aircraft his company is looking to use at the moment are not in fact jet aircraft, but modified turbo prop craft. Ecojet, you see, plans to commence operations using traditional aircraft, like the DHC Twin Otter shown above, for short distance commuting and then to replace the current engine technology with hydrogen fuel cell powered engines. Passengers will be given vegetarian food on board and plastics will be “verboten” as well from what I understand. What a joy.

Meanwhile, Dale asserts that his electric jet aircraft would be silent. I have one word in repsonse- cobblers. In turbo prop aircraft, propeller wash is a major component in noise, as is the mass flow of gases from the rear of any jet engine as he well knows and presumably hasn’t the courage to say.

However, Dale’s experiments have run into problems as EcoJet has had to delay its commencement of operations for various reasons. The initial launch date was 2024, but this was delayed to mid 2025 and has now been further delayed until sometime in 2026. It may be that this delay will move further into the future as the challenges that the company currently faces are not overcome and fresh ones appear.

You might wonder what the challenges actually are. There are a number of key ones, some of which I mention in the piece below:

As you will recall from my previous article on the subject, powering aircraft with electric motors is far from simple. As we have seen, the motors now available are somewhat powerful, but storing the energy to allow them to be used is challenging at best. The energy density of batteries is much lower than that of kerosene and their weight makes cost effective use rather difficult. Hydrogen fuel cells require a store of fuel and whilst light, Hydrogen is very hard to store effectively as it has an annoying tendency to seep through almost all materials. The storage tanks are, like batteries, very heavy.

There are also regulatory issues relating especially to commercial air transport and these will have impacted very heavily on Ecojet’s plans. I have mentioned them before, but they bear repeating in this case. To begin with, fuel reserves are a key area to consider- it is very important for an airliner to retain a percentage of its fuel capacity in reserve in case problems are encountered which necessitate a diversion to an alternative airport in case a landing cannot be performed at the planned location. Other scenarios might include contingencies- where an in-flight minor replanning of route is called for, or for a scenario where an airliner may be held in the pattern above an airfield for an extended period. Such a period might be up to two hours. These fuel plans are known in the regulatory arena as “contingency, alternate, final reserve and additional. These rules significantly affect multi pilot routes and impact directly on new technology like hydrogen fuel cell aircraft.

We can, to some extent discount the need for type approval on a new aircraft as Ecojet proposes merely to alter the power plants on an existing one, but in the event that a company chooses to develop a new ultra light passenger aeroplane, this would be another major consideration.

Twin Otter aircraft, which are one of the types that Ecojet has chosen are small local airliners that have a limited capacity and range. The DHC 6 variant, which is the current one carries around 20 passengers (depending on the model) and baggage with a ferry range of about 750 nautical miles which is around 850 everyday miles for those who aren’t inclined to make the calculation. It is hard to establish exactly the range an electric motor powered airliner of this kind would have, but we may very reasonably assume that it would be somewhat more limited than the kerosene powered Pratt & Whitney power plants currently employed, the ranges and practical limitations of which are very well understood.

Advancing further down the Hydrogen fuel scenario, it is hard not to note that there are currently very few Hydrogen refuelling stations around the country and also that the cost of setting such a network up would be exceedingly high. Add to this the fact that generating Hydrogen is also rather costly and that, according to estimates that I have seen, would currently be around 6-8 times more costly than Kerosene. The cost of setting up and using Hydrogen refuelling plants as well as the generating plants would have to be borne by someone. I guess that this cost would be placed directly onto the passenger. I would surmise at this point that it is likely to be the case that Hydrogen fuel cell powered aircraft would effectively price themselves out of the air passenger transport market.

Not only that, but it would appear that funding is increasingly becoming a problem because Dale’s initial million didn’t go very far. Ecojet, which initially had employed 12 people, had to trim its workforce to just two a little while ago owing to funding constraints. This I suspect has to do with a difficult investment climate, (if you will forgive my terminology), which means that few if any people are willing to come forward with serious cash to pour into this experiment.

This leads me to think about where Dale’s aeroplane cash actually comes from. It is somewhat ironic that a goodly amount of his wind companies’ turnover comes from constraint payments. As you will know, constraint payments are those contracted sums paid to “green” generators when their power is not required. This happens much more often than you might think- take the “Seagreen” windmill farm as an example. We might assert therefore that, as the taxpayer pays for his windmills not to generate electricity, we fund his pipe dream to produce short range, low capacity hydrogen powered aeroplanes. My own view is that this is inequitable.

I have always been of the opinion that those who go into business should stand (or fall) on their own merits. In the case of windmills and solar panels I note that the business model seems to involve an absolute need for subsidy and constraint payments. You may like to consider that a business that needs this sort of funding in order to survive may not have the strongest basis for operation. It is all very well to suggest that subsidy is required in order to provide a starting point for new businesses in the green sphere, but my own view is that this is not an acceptable reason to subsidise. I note that AI businesses, for example, are not being subsidised and seem to be doing pretty well by setting up their business and driving their business case with their prospective customers. This is how private businesses ought to work rather than by receiving taxpayers money as a cornerstone of their model.

As I have said elsewhere, if you want to run a windmill company, then get on and do so, but do not rely on the taxpayer to fund you when the wind doesn’t blow. Not only that, but find something else to do with your spare electricity when the grid doesn’t need it.

What we need in this country are reliable and cheap forms of energy and also reliable and cost effective forms of transport. With Dale’s little projects, we get neither.

You can see above an example of such a problem. The cockpit of this 1/48 scale Gloster Pioneer has been inserted into the fuselage halves which I cemented together just forward of the combing. This allows that assembly to be placed inside the halves through the gap where the wings join the fuselage and subsequently fitted such that the rear cockpit bulkhead is level with the fuselage shell. As there are no locating pins or mould lines of any sort to assist us, this was the only way I could see of completing this task.

I should add that the cockpit lower side panels are in fact the upper inside sections of the air passages that channelled incoming air into the engine. You will recall that the Pioneer had a single engine with a nose mounted air splitter through which the air was routed to the engine. The cockpit controls were fairly minimal from what I can see and these were placed around the pilot and sometimes on top of those intake channels. The result is a curved cockpit side which cannot quite be seen on the photograph.

Eventually, and after some filing and fitting the cockpit fitted as you saw, but we were left with a phenomenon you can observe below. The necessity to fit the front fuselage sections together precisely to form the most obvious nose section of the model kit has resulted in the rear sections being “out of whack” to use a common aphorism. I believe that this was caused by one or both of the fuselage halves bowing when they were still warm from the mould. We have a problem to solve here.

What can be done? It is pretty simple really- one tapes the two halves together and then cements them with extra thin quick setting whilst ensuring that the rear sections that you can see above don’t spring back before the glue dries. I have tended to further strengthen such a joint with the Tamiya white cap cement, (which I call “extra thick”) on the inside of the joint. I am not at all certain that this makes it stronger, but doing so makes me feel better which is the main thing I suppose.

As this rumination is in danger of becoming a “modelling blog” (which is a route I never intended for it), I am going to move in a slightly different direction. I have read this type of blog in the past and I note how they quickly become little potted histories of one modellers’ activities. Not that this is a bad thing you understand- I do the same thing, but on video and I am hopeful that it interests some people. However, what goes on beyond the whole “I paints this grey and glues it to that bit there which was brown, is rather more interesting in my view as it allows me to think about why I behave in the way that I do.

It strikes me that it is sometimes possible to be discouraged by challenges of the kind I described earlier. In a hobby one undertakes in order to relax, such impediments like this might be regarded as “a bloody nuisance.” This is understandable and we can all sympathise, but I’d like to weigh in on this if I may.

I have said for some time that modelling is about overcoming the series of small problems one faces on the way to creating a finished product that looks as much like the original article as we can make it. We will often use aids to help us and there are many of them these days and it is the case that detailed modelling is being enhanced by new technology which gives rise to all manner of new ways to make various parts of our projects look really quite outstanding. I wrote about Quinta recently and you will know what I think about such upgrades.

This is something different however. Encountering bends and bows caused, (in all likelihood) by bending pressure placed on the component after removal from the mould halves is something that we will all encounter from time to time. Solving the problem seems to be a matter of confidence and practice in that order. The application of a deft touch and engineering feel, (remember I talked about this ages ago?) allows modellers of any skill level to accomplish marvellous things if they want to.

You will all know that polystyrene plastic is a friendly and forgiving medium to work with. One can file it, heat it, add all manner of putties and fillers to it, score it and scratch it and it will allow you to create an end product which you can be happy with. It is that flexibility as a medium which in some sense is its downfall- it is terribly vulnerable to mishaps during the production process and afterwards. One must be prepared to compromise a tad when working with such a material. It is not like steel which can be machined and then treated really quite badly whilst all the while maintaining its shape and purpose.

It seems to me that this is not an often remembered point. That which is easy to work may have some problems associated with it. It is likely that we may need to think hard sometimes to deal with challenges. Perhaps doing so and succeeding makes those simple jobs and projects rather more satisfying. Additionally, the knowledge of having met a problem head on and solved it results in increased skills and a more practiced and expert touch. One becomes better- more competent.

It is easy to forget the limitations of polystyrene and then perhaps to expect too much from it. Doing so may bestow an unreasonable expectation on an imperfect medium. Being presented with a problem may lead to annoyance and disappointment. The desire to stop looking at the project becomes strong and takes over. A kit one spent a king’s ransom on then gets stowed in an inaccessible place because we don’t want to look at it. Quite probably because we forgot that the material from which it was fashioned had limits.

In looking at the Pioneer and dealing with such small demons as it has- it’s 1/48 scale after all, has encouraged me to look again at some other projects which I have shelved. For example, the Chinook deserves a second chance even though it is an Italeri kit and the canopy doesn’t fit. The Challenger 2 needs to re-emerge from storage and be completed, as does the Sherman.

I beseech you not to dismiss your half finished build attempts. I know that they are in the wardrobe on the other side of the room and you will need to remove the spare duvet and that old coat your wife doesn’t want to throw out as well as your daughter’s old wooden toy house she used to play with endlessly years ago before you can dive in and retrieve them, (well, I do anyway), but doing so is worthwhile. I have rediscovered this after losing sight of it for a time. The Pioneer is teaching me a lesson that perhaps I can pass on:

The patient application of one’s skills can overcome all the problems one faces and the “unbuildable” suddenly becomes buildable after all.

I do hope you can build your skills- overcoming plastic problems makes them smaller and is perhaps the best of things.

You can find the video series about the (as yet incomplete) Gloster Pioneer here:

I started to think once again about the matter of why one makes videos after looking at Richard’s latest missive. In it, he explains with a good deal of honesty and directness what his current thinking is. Briefly, he tells us that he has been making models for many, many years and when he started making videos of his hobby he decided to see how large a channel he could make and made a solid plan to be successful. This is a reasonable aim, but that wasn’t the whole of it by any means.

Richard is a very quick worker. I think that comes of doing something for a long time and understanding the mechanics of it, then applying the processes very efficiently. All of this means that he can make models very quickly and then edit videos with equal facility. His output is most professional in this way. Videos appear with almost metronomic precision and are most polished as well as containing an essence which is unique to him. This is all to be applauded, but it’s difficult to do. Not only that, but it is costly, both in monetary terms and also in time.

The long and the short of it is that content creation is something of a full time job. It will be difficult to consistently create content and maintain the spontaneity that is required for content to be engaging unless one is supremely dedicated. I suspect that this difficulty comes after about 18 months to 2 years or so and when the creation aspect starts to become a job. I have seen this with other channels and I believe that I can understand what changes in people’s minds- I’ll explain why a little later.

There are some things to bear in mind- views are king and subs appear to be the oil which garners the views. Unless you have a lot of views, then you won’t make a lot of cash with modelling. It turns out that each 1,000 views gives you about £3. Here’s where the cost comes in. It is not possible to fund the supply of modelling videos using the fees, unless one has an alternative income which the video making income supplements and if you are making four models a month, some of which are priced at upwards of £60, you can see where the costs begin to spiral. It would appear that one needs to spend a lot to gain lots of views.

Turning to myself, I have considered the question of motivation over the course of the time that I have made videos. Why did I start to do this? What is my aim? What am I offering? All of these questions are important in a business plan which in some ways is how the YouTube game should be looked at in my view. As you have read this far and have in all likelihood read other parts of my output and seen my videos, perhaps I owe you an explanation on why I decided to start doing this.

There was a point a few years ago when I started to see that cameras on phones were beginning to get good. Really good. Videos were not just jerky, pixelated, disjointed little “cute cat” shorts of the kind you sometimes see to this day, but were becoming more professional. Long form interviews were beginning to appear. Candid street videos had a character that lots of folk seemed to find most interesting- myself amongst them. Perhaps, I thought, if others could make videos, then so could I.

17 of my first 21 videos were not modelling related at all, but what I described as “peregrinations from the boundary.” A stream of words about a Cricket club I was visiting with the team I play for. Literally tens of people watched!! Mind you, it seemed that those who watched, liked them. My first model video garnered just under 800 views, which amazed me as I had five subscribers as I recall. The sound was a bit gash, and it was made on my dining table and many might say that I haven’t changed much in the succeeding four years, but I have carried on in the attempt to improve.

My reasons were simple- I present and speak to rooms full of people during my work and have always felt that speaking extemporaneously was an important faculty. Not using, or relying on notes whilst speaking, (worse still reading them) was an important part of the process and presenting on YouTube gave me a chance to practise my techniques and continue to improve. What I was cultivating was the ability to think on my feet in the heat of battle, (so to speak). This is a facility that can be improved and so it has turned out to be. I also decided right at the start that none of my output would be edited. Viewers would see every little thing I did and if things went wrong, then so be it. I am imperfect and why therefore should I pretend to be otherwise?

Right at the start, I decided that it wasn’t that likely that I was going to make any money delivering content on YouTube. The mathematics, (as Richard points out in his video) just don’t add up. Accordingly, I decided to present my own misadventures in an unvarnished way so that others could see it. Viewers may learn something and I hope that they do. Mainly however, I hoped that what I presented was entertaining and did not contain the word “um” too often. It is possible that I have failed on one, or both of these fronts, but 2,100 subs into this project perhaps I have achieved a small measure of success. I will leave that to others to decide.

My hobby is model making and also making videos on YouTube. I have other hobbies too. I play Cricket and keep fit. Some will know that I play the piano too, but I won’t be putting up any videos of that as I think the laughter would be heard from Saturn. What I didn't expect however was to discover a whole community of people who are like me. The huge benefit was that one makes friends. I have attended live streams a time or two and now regularly attend the Monday evening bash that MOS6510 hosts although I do feel like something of an impostor as all of the people who attend are much more knowledgeable about the subject matter than I. Therefore, I contribute where I can and hope that no one points and laughs.

So, I suspect that the reason that so many people with between 2,500 and 6,000 subs suddenly stop making films is that they lose motivation for one reason or another. It may be that they can’t afford to make lots of models, or that they simply don’t want to keep on the merry-go-round of making films. This is understandable. The pressure of feeling that one must make a video in order to keep being seen perhaps drives the joy out of a hobby that should allow one to relax. That is why we started building kits I suspect.

The drive to keep reinventing oneself may also be a factor. That is a fairly constant pressure that I am sure some do not want to be bothered with. Some of the most successful modellers on the YouTube have done this and people like MOS6510 and Nigel’s Modelling Bench show us what is possible with perseverance and a good deal of hard work. Youtube is a fast moving enterprise. I suspect the best approach to take is one where the new Youtuber starts with no expectation of ever making any money from this venture. None at all. That way, if you do make a shekel or two, that is a pleasant surprise and a bit of a bonus. Enjoy what you do and make models, (and videos) when you want to, not because you wish to drive the numbers although that’s a valid reason on its own.

One of the things I have also found is that there are many people out there in what I describe from time to time as “modelling land” who share their talent with others in a most unselfish way. They are friendly and good hearted. They share in the successes and empathise with the failures which, by the way, are inevitable. It is a reward beyond money that so many of you are so generous with your thoughts and comments. I should add that even the negative remarks can be most amusing. Do you know that, on one occasion, a viewer called my content “the most boring he had ever seen”? Imagine that…

I was so pleased, I pinned it to the top of the comments.

I suspect that my desire to continue to improve my presentations and to boost my ability to make realistic scale models is, I suppose, what maintains my recent sojourns to the modelling desk which are slightly more infrequent than some other content creators. As I mentioned, I have not monetised my output, either here or on YouTube and have not reached a decision on when I might do this in the future. I may never do so. Having said that, I have often said that if one doesn’t attach a value to one’s output, who else will? Mind you, the visitors and returning commenters tend to show that my thinking in this regard is slightly flawed, so what do I know?

Those who visit regularly and comment are also a most pleasing fillip to my YouTube project and so, I will keep delivering content in the hope that you will all find something within my videos to entertain you. Many thanks to you all.

Especially Richard, whose thoughtful remarks caused me to think again about video making.

In the world of scale modelling there appear to have grown up amongst modellers a series of what we might call “genres” of subject. Military aircraft would be a broad genre in itself and that could be sensibly sub-divided perhaps into pre and post WW2 subjects, or maybe even propeller driven aircraft and ones powered by jet engines. Perhaps we could make a division between civil and military aeroplanes as well? Anyway, the list goes on and on, and on some more. Maybe you will be acquainted with my output, (such as it is) on the YouTube and understand that, in the main, I have only really built military aircraft, but I intend to depart from that as you can see from my recent acquisition which I show below:

It is still possible to see surviving examples of the Dragon Rapide and, having seen G-AGTM up close at Duxford recently, I was greatly taken with the lines and general appearance of this vintage aircraft. It is a reminder of the Art Deco styling that was very much in vogue at the time it was designed and which can also be seen in furnishings and utilitarian articles made from around 1910 to about 1940. The geometric lines of the front canopy which lead into the form of the fuselage lends a look that one might say is very much “of the age” in which it was built. The Dragon Rapide is a lovely object to behold and so I have resolved to build one.

An investigation of the history of the DH.89 shows it to have been quite a successful short haul airliner used for both civil and military use. Not only that, but a couple of examples became a part of the Royal Flight, being used to ferry Edward viii from place to place and I make reference to this in my missive to camera which may interest you if you haven’t seen it before. I hope that you will forgive the really quite shameless plug of my own video.

Anyway, the Dragon Rapide was an aircraft whose design originated in the DH.84 Dragon from which the DH.86 Express emerged. The Express was a four engined early airliner capable of carrying up to ten passengers and designed for the Australian market. If you look at the appearance of the DH.86 and also the earlier DH.84 Dragon, you will be able to see striking similarities between them all with the exception of the engines where you will note that the DH.86 had four engines whereas the DH.84 and the Dragon Rapide had only two. The idea behind the Rapide appears to have been to produce a smaller and faster aircraft to address another market by employing a previously made design and updating it. This, on the surface of it, seems to be a sensible way of producing a new aircraft provided that the original design has no real problems that need ironing out.

This brings us to another consideration, which would be the necessary updating of an aircraft to modify out any problems with the design. We have seen such modifications being added in the case of the Hawker Typhoon when the design was altered to create the Tempest. This also seems to have been the case with the DH.86 Express which did not enjoy a particularly successful run.

The first four examples of the Express were built with single pilot cockpits which was a layout rejected by Quantas as they felt that pilot fatigue in a long haul aircraft would be a significant problem. Therefore all of the remaining DH.86 examples were built with dual seat cockpits. Single seat cockpits would be somewhat less of a problem for a short haul aircraft like the Dragon Rapide and the smaller design therefore retained the sharper single seat nose section.

Another, more serious problem with the Express was the balance of the aircraft which led to directional stability issues which appear to be partly related to the aircraft’s sensitivity to changes in its centre of gravity. Aircraft have a notional centre point through which gravity acts and around which the weight of the aircraft can be arranged in order to allow stable flight at all times. Trimming in flight helps to deal with small changes in weight distribution, such as altering fuel loads as the aircraft flies along and (in an airliner) weight distribution changes accounted for by the movement of the passengers around the cabin. This would particularly be so in the case of an aeroplane of the size and very light construction of the DH.86.

History records that several DH.86 aircraft crashed, some in circumstances which have prevented a full investigation. What investigations that did take place into accidents befalling the DH.86 would appear to indicate that abrupt changes in weight distribution may have caused serious problems in controlling the aircraft. Problems with maintaining directional stability occurring at low altitude and speed would clearly have hindered recovery to smooth flight as there would be insufficient airspace to perform recovery manoeuvres.

Allied to this, it was felt under investigation that the very lightweight construction for the size of the aircraft made it more vulnerable to rapidly changing conditions and that the Gypsy six engines probably lacked sufficient power. I would surmise that, taking into consideration all of these problems, flying in all but relatively calm weather conditions would be riskier than one might want.

In short, in rough weather, a couple of heavy passengers moving around the cabin may have caused critical balance issues. Aviation in those early days was dangerous.

Looking back, we can see that this potential danger was exacerbated by the rapid design and movement to production which was brought about by Quantas placing an order for the DH.86 before any example had been designed. This is a somewhat startling action when one looks at it through a modern day lens. Essentially the DH.86 went from design to a prototype being constructed in only four months with a first flight on 14 January 1934. The Quantas rejection of the single pilot cockpit lead to modifications, however the first Express to enter service did so in October 1934, but with a single pilot with the remaining prototypes being modified to a two pilot arrangement.

Problems seen in the DH.86 were cured to some extent in later variants, but I would suggest that they were dealt with more completely in the subsequent DH.89 which of course was smaller than its earlier variant. Accordingly, the Dragon Rapide had better fortune than its predecessor and around 700 examples were produced in various guises, both civilian and military. I might also mention here that the DH.90 Dragonfly which was built as a smaller and faster executive transport also achieved some success with a very similar design.

After that brief foray into the design roots of the Rapide, let us return to the subject in hand. The DH.89 airframe itself was (like its predecessors) constructed of plywood and the framework was covered with fabric. Readers will be aware that such methods were a weight saving measure and often used in the early days of aviation alongside biplane configuration with tension wire systems. I have mentioned the underlying principles of tension wire systems in a previous piece on the Gloster Gladiator.

Such methods allowed the possibility of flight at a point when engines were much less powerful than those that became available only a few years later. However, travelling in such aircraft was noisy and beset with vibration- therefore not quite the experience that one might be accustomed to these days but considerably faster than using the train or a car for those who could afford it.

Having said the foregoing, technology was moving forwards rapidly in the mid to late 1930s and it was quickly becoming commonplace to see aircraft with stressed aluminium skins placed over alloy frameworks which made them much stronger. Rather like the Gloster Gladiator, biplane aircraft of wooden construction were being overtaken by bigger, stronger monoplane aircraft. It wasn’t the end of the wooden aeroplane, but let us say that they became much less common.

Dragon Rapides were of course impressed into service (alongside all other civil aircraft) during the second world war and were used as liaison aircraft or couriers as well as air ambulances. Of the 727 produced, approximately 500 were manufactured by both de Havilland and Brush Works as the “Dominie” which became the service name of the Dragon Rapide and under which two variants were produced.

After the Second World War, de Havilland produced a more modern replacement for the Rapide and the smaller Dragonfly which was called the Dove. My own view is that whilst it is a superior aircraft using tricycle undercarriage rather than the “tail dragger” setup of the Rapide and would undoubtedly be a more comfortable transport, it is not nearly as nice an object to look at. Its more familiar and generic appearance harks forwards to the modern day rather than evoking a time between the wars.

As an aside, de Havilland produced their own engines for nearly all of their aircraft which were designed and built by the de Havilland engine company. DHEC was wholly owned by the de Havilland Aircraft company and produced engines from 1926 until 1961 when it was merged into Bristol Siddeley Engines which subsequently merged with Rolls Royce. So that you are aware all the conventional engine names began with the letter G and rocket engines began with the letter S.

The Gyspy series of engines had a common feature which was that they were inverted. In other words, the pistons fired upwards and the crank shaft was at the top of the engine. The reason for this arises from the requirement for better visibility over the nose of an aircraft and to allow the propeller to be placed to give adequate ground clearance. Inverting the whole engine was a solution that did not affect engine performance and delivered on the requirements for a single engine aircraft. I can only assume that the configuration was retained for cost purposes and ease of manufacture as the Gyspy Major, the Gypsy Six and the Gypsy Queen variants all kept this somewhat uncommon setup.

As I conclude I would mention the expression “if it looks right, it is right.” I have applied this soubriquet to many a thing, but chiefly aeroplanes. The de Havilland Dragon Rapide is a lovely object to regard at almost any distance and its gentle burble as it moves around on the ground is also a most agreeable sound. I have a soft spot for Art Deco and have had since I was on Honeymoon and we chanced across a hotel in the Azores that was furnished and decorated in the style of the thirties. Whilst I acknowledge that it is a style very much of the first part of the last century, for me it retains a timeless quality and it is possible to see examples of such a form up to today. Duxford correctly retain this lovely example of flight from yesteryear and it is still possible to fly over London in this wonderful old biplane. I am sure that I will do this at some point.

Some of those who went there did not return.

Of those who did return, we began to understand a little more about the effects of putting such brave people in harms way. You will all have heard the terms- combat stress, PTSD, Shell Shock and numerous others. The outward effects can be discerned, but are not that obvious and the internal effects, which are very hard to see, can be devastating, not only for the sufferers but for those around them.

Soldiering is a dirty, difficult and dangerous game. For almost as long as there have been people around, they have formed themselves into groups to deal with threats to themselves and their friends. The first threats came perhaps from large animals, but as mankind developed, the threats began to come from other groups of people. Every now and again nations call upon their people to undertake duty in defence of many things- a nation, an idea, a belief perhaps. Sometimes the population are called upon to defend against a belief. Such is what we saw eighty years or so ago.

Soldiering is not normal. The men who do this job are changed by it. Those who survive these tribulations come back from whichever theatre in which they operated and are returned to the arms of their families and to the company of their friends where they attempt once again to live normal lives.

Although many will return with minimal hardship, this is not as easy as it sounds for some soldiers, sailors and airmen. These days, we are more far aware of the adverse effects of placing men into combat and are more able to treat the after effects of such strains. This leads me to the subject of today’s piece.

MOS6510 models, that very well known modeller, YouTuber and all around good egg invited Malcolm to from “Models for Heroes” to join him last Monday. I must confess that I was not completely familiar with this exceptionally worthy charity until then and hope you will forgive me for this, but came away with a strong impression that Malcolm, who drives the whole thing forward works very hard and does an excellent job of it. It is no surprise that he has made Models for Heroes so successful when one observes his easy manner and simple, direct communication style- people like him and trust him, of that I have no doubt.

Perhaps it may surprise you that a charitable organisation that started out not so many years ago in the back bedroom of Malcolm’s house has, to date, delivered 14,000 models to ex servicemen and emergency service workers who have been referred to them. That is a considerable achievement when you just consider the logistics of it. The charity and the work they do has grown and expanded as a result of the commitment of the volunteers and the directors and this is something that I would suggest is worth our time and our attention.

So, 14,000 kits delivered and counting, but it isn’t just kits. M4H helps its beneficiaries by providing glues, sanders, tweezers, decal solutions and magazines amongst other modelling ephemera. As all modellers know, these are important parts of the armoury and without them the build results might not be as good. M4H recognise also that sometimes modellers need help to build kits and to improve, so they undertake modelling shows, often on YouTube where they impart the skills and pointers required. This is in a strikingly similar manner to many content producers that you all look at, I suspect sometimes on a daily basis.

I believe that the online presence is a most important facet of the work that M4H do. Loneliness and isolation has long been recognised as a damaging feature in life. Humans are social creatures- they depend on contact and Malcolm and his team provide that contact and fellowship to the very people who, in turn, depended upon it during their professional lives and who might be without it since leaving the services. When subjected to danger on a daily basis, the small jokes and comments as well as the quiet fellowship of your friends are amongst the social interactions that get one through the difficulty. Reunions of old soldiers are vital because they can remember the bond they felt and when they meet again, perhaps they remember that their sacrifice was worth it.

Such soldiers, sailors, airmen, ambulance staff, fire crews and all manner of other workers who run towards danger rather than away from it are helped by friendship after adversity and I am sure it must go some way towards healing the wounds that cannot be seen. Video feeds where modellers can interact therefore must be a valuable asset and perhaps even a lifeline to those whose lives have taken an unexpected turn. Perhaps they can also be a stepping stone to some people as they find their way away from isolation.

There is a field of the medical profession known as Occupational Health which I understand covers the relationship between work, stress and home or other life. It is well understood that some aspects of ones work might have effects on ones health and perhaps also mental well being. I am sure that you can imagine that this would particularly be the case for those operating in a hostile environment like a theatre of war, although it might equally apply to adversity of a different and altogether more everyday, (if I might beg to call it that) sort. You will, I hope, understand that I am not seeking to reduce or make light of the challenges met by everyone on a daily basis.

It is the case that in your life you will all encounter difficulty and the ways that you chose to deal with that may differ depending upon your personality and a host of other things. You have, (many of you who read this) a super hobby of model making and this allows you to manage the strains of your life and the hardships that it may, from time to time, impose upon you. You use the hobby to disengage and to relax, (even though you may be annoyed by your project from time to time) and in so doing, your problems are placed into another place for a time. That is a healthy and useful means of dealing with stresses.

When you return to thinking of your everyday life with its challenges, perhaps you will find that your pressures have eased a tiny bit. That mountain you seek to climb may not be so tall. The world hasn’t become less of a scary place, but you have become braver.

As Frederich Nietschze said “that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

The small assistance that M4H provide to so many people with the fellowship and the generosity they share to those perhaps most in need is helping those people to meet their challenges and prevail, perhaps making small steps to overcoming their difficulties. By meeting their challenges, our heroes overcome the personal hardships and M4H do their bit to help. I suspect far more than many realise.

The continued support of many, many people who selflessly give both their money and their time to this charity allows it to keeping helping and to keep growing.

By any measure, the people of this country show once again that they kind and helpful. We assist where we can, sometimes in a small way, sometimes in a large way, but the degree of that help is always great. The generosity and care shown by Models for Heroes for others, often those whom they have not met is something that has the power to continually surprise and please. It is when things are at their worst for many that others show themselves at their very best. As it was in battle, so it is now for those who survived thanks in part to Models for Heroes.

I take my hat off to them all.

Models for Heroes may be found here:

Models for Heroes

“Energy security, lower bills, cleaner air, good jobs, better health” (14 June 2025)

“Britain’s green Industrial Revolution” (28 March 2023)

“For Energy security, lower bills, good jobs and climate” (17 June 2025)

“One billion solar panels on roofs around the country” (10 December 2024)

“Climate and nature crisis” (14 July 2025)

I am sure you will have seen these mantras before. We could call them other things as well- incantations, cantrips, spells, prayers and invocations. The full list goes on and on and they are trotted out one after the other by the Secretary of State for energy and net zero. What all of these soundbites seem to lack however is any depth. What comes after these pious statements, full of self aggrandisement and pompous virtue signalling is nothing at all. No logic. No structured argument. No reference to solid research. Just more wind and piss if I may use a rather vulgar aphorism.

It was good to hear Mr Trump making his voice heard on the matter of windmills recently. Whatever else you might think about the President of the USA, he seems to have a good handle on unreliable power sources. It would appear that the government over the pond has outlawed these outlandish and inefficient devices and you can see a clip of his point (from 59 seconds onward) about these things below:

You can see what he says-

• These windmills ruin the countryside. They invade the land and prevent the unspoilt look of the English (and Scottish) hills. By the way, they do this at the same time as the eco mentalists drone on about “rewilding” the land to return it to what they are trying to tell us it used to look like. There is something that jars about the two plans eh?

• These infernal windmills generate very expensive electricity. In fact, they are probably the most expensive form of generation. Never mind all this noise about “free energy from wind and solar,” there is nothing whatsoever to support such a ludicrous premise.

• It is very hard to dispose of the windmills at the end of their short lives. The Blades cannot be recycled, or buried. The concrete foundation is exceedingly hard to remove and turn into anything else. After a few years the steel used in construction of the pillar starts to rust and the maintenance costs are astronomical for the power they generate.

This, in one minute, was summed up at the end of the clip with the statement “the whole (wind power) thing is a con job!”

Let us compare the two countries- GB and USA. In the UK we have the most expensive electricity in the world. We are driving at full speed towards the so called “clean energy”target which drives this seemingly perpetual cost increase. We have ended coal fired electricity generation. We have an aged fleet of gas power stations and only a few nuclear stations.

In the US, they don’t build windmills. They are exploiting fracked natural gas. They are using nuclear. They have some renewable generation, but only where it is cost effective to do so and it is important to point out here that in the main, it is not subsidised- think of the Hoover dam. Consequently, their citizens and businesses have power that costs an infinitesimal amount of money compared to ours.

Imagine that you are an AI entrepreneur. You have the choice of UK or USA. Given your energy requirements, which will be prodigious, where would you go?

The fact of the matter is that having outsourced nearly all of our industrial production to foreign countries, (principally China), in order, (it would appear) to lower our “Carbon emissions,” we will find it very difficult to maintain a good balance of payments as a result. We will, as a country, be less able to withstand financial shocks from global markets and the value of our money will dwindle.

As our economy flatlines, our government borrows more to finance the cost of everyday expenditure. Rachel from accounts can’t seem to balance the books and must find ever more ways to generate money in the form of taxes.

Less investment in this country means less income and fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means less tax receipts and therefore less capital to power what is a frankly enormous public services bill. This bill is swollen still further by an enormous amount (by the way) taken to pay for keeping hordes of illegal immigrants who enter the country by small boats and who, it seems likely, will never leave. The bills are going up and the available money is going down.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Cuadrilla found and was in position to exploit major reserves of natural gas trapped in rocks beneath Lancashire. This of course was prevented by the virtue signalling green nutcases. We can extract our own gas and not pay for liquified gas to be shipped from other countries which is both ludicrous and unnecessary. We could effectively ignore the international market for natural gas and set our price at a rate which allows reliable and low cost electricity to be made available to the public and businesses in this country. We could do this for probably fifty years and the world would not end by the way.

We could also drill in the North Sea for gas, but do not. Instead we buy LNG from Norway who extract gas from the same field we don’t drill into. Is this the stupidest thing you ever heard of?

We have, in Rolls Royce, a company that has been producing small modular nuclear reactors for maybe sixty years. Up to this point, they have been installed in nuclear submarines and have proved to be most reliable and safe. With a small amount of gumption and some deregulation, we could generate nuclear electricity safely and over time could replace the aging gas stations with nuclear ones. Such installations could easily be set up in the same places as the gas power stations and doing so would prevent the need for installing stacks more high voltage transmission lines at considerable additional cost.

How does one finance this? One path which would help would simply be to end subsidies for wind and solar. In particular one stops constraint payments which are a huge cost placed upon the bills of customers in this country. One then tells wind power companies that they are welcome to build in places where no one can see their monstrosities and take their chances in the free market. One should do the same with solar producers too. You realise of course that all of the wind and solar companies would fold up their tents overnight and disappear, because it is the case that their business model is built around subsidy. They would not survive without it.

Anything that requires a subsidy may not be such a good proposition.

Rather than do this and, in a bit of a panic, Rachel from accounts is now thinking about putting her avaricious little hands further into the pockets of those who have saved hard throughout their lives by looking at other ways to take money from the old in the way of inheritance tax. This is little more than regulated thievery if you ask me, but is not the direct point of my missive today. However, the downstream effects of net zero in this country are that ever more people will be pursued for tax on money upon which they have already been taxed several times. Quite a lot of this “stolen” money will be thrown into the net zero and carbon capture lake.

Ed Millipede of course is so far down the rabbit hole, he won’t back down, despite the huge body of evidence regarding the unacceptable cost of his “unreliables.” He continues to utter his spells in the vain hope that people will believe what he says. Almost no one does- of this I am convinced.

The picture you see below shows a satellite view of both North and South Korea at night time. What is obvious is that the communist North is almost without light. That is because it is poor. Access to electric power is low. In the South however, there is plentiful access to affordable electric power so that the people there may light their way at night.

As a result, people in South Korea can work at night. They can study and learn. They can have a social life after work. They can do all of these things much more simply than their cousins in North Korea.

Think about this for a second. There is no difference between prosperity and access to affordable electricity. If the grandest plans of the current government come to pass and in England we use sunshine and sea breezes to power our fair land, then what you see in North Korea could very well become the position in our country too.

In conclusion, there seems little to say other than that milliband is a crackpot, a crank, a zealot and an ideologue. He seems to care little for reasoned argument and less for facts. His actions suggest that he is not interested in making life easier for the poorest in society either. If he was, he wouldn’t be driving this country into penury.

Alongside his incapable and incompetent colleagues, he simply pursues this idiotic and ludicrous idea that this country must outsource its industry to other parts of the world and we must cover the land with ugly and unreliable windmills and solar panels in search of an impossible dream. If allowed, it seems that he would cheerfully bankrupt the country and then offer no excuse apart from “the climate and nature crisis,” for having done so. Not only that, he does not and would not offer any credible evidence of the existence of said supposed “crisis.” It is an appalling prospect for the people of this country.

Mind you, a bankrupt country with no power, no industry to speak of and no working services might just be a part of the grand plan to stop illegal immigrants pouring over the, now non existent, borders. Perhaps this is the reason the communist err, “liebour,” government is working so hard to beggar us all.

I am amused by Lord Monckton who said- “The unit of idiocy is the Miliband.” Quite right too.

This has turned out not to be necessary because it would appear that around forty five years ago, perhaps sensing that I would want at some point in the distant future to perhaps try to improve upon my original effort, I already bought one. It also turns out that I started to build it as well and then completely forgot that I had done so until I had a conversation with my father, who produced a box with the kit inside it. There was another kit as well which was also started and perhaps this will be the subject of another brief history.

Like the Sherman, which I completed a short while ago, I will not review the kit, but instead complete it from the box as a part of what I have termed elsewhere a “simple tanks series.” Since a goodly part of the work is done, I am not certain quite how I will deal with this for video- perhaps an archaeological examination of my techniques from those days? I will give this some consideration.

Enough of such reminiscences. What about some history?

The Chieftain arose from the continuing need to upgrade and modernise the British armies’ fighting vehicles during the Cold War and was developed principally from the Centurion which established itself across the world as a very fine main battle tank. Some weaknesses were identified in its make up, most especially its vulnerability to shaped charges against its turret armour which was somewhat squared off.

As we have seen in our peregrinations into aviation history, defence companies often carry out development work on designs prior to the award of a contract for a new vehicle and this same thing happened at Leyland, who produced the Centurion. Examples of their early developmental handiwork can be found at the Bovington Tank Museum and go under the natty title of “FV4202.” You will note that the design is strikingly similar to what would go on to become the Chieftain.

In short, the more upright turret was replaced with a heavily angled one and the mantlet was removed. The main hull was lowered slightly and the front glacis plate was similarly heavily angled. The means used to achieve this resulted in the driver being placed into a reclined position when the hatch was closed- the so called “supine” driving position.

The reason for angled armour is simple. In the diagram below two identical shapes are arranged next to one another:

Let us imagine that these two shapes are armour plates. The line shows a potential pathway that could be travelled through the shapes by a projectile. You can see that the shape on the left presents less barrier at a given point for the shown trajectory than the one on the right. You will be able to see that this is because the shell has to pierce less armour when that armour is arranged in a more upright orientation. The arrangement on the right gives a further advantage- if the shell travels at the trajectory shown, there is an increased chance that the projectile will simply bounce off the surface with no effect. Sloped armour therefore provides greater protection for the same material used.

Following a number of research studies conducted in the early 1950s, it was decided that the successor to the Centurion would mount a high velocity gun and also should deploy what are known as “bagged round” charges. Rather than use a conventional brass casing to contain the charge used to propel the round being fired, a flammable bag would contain the charge and this bag would burn away when the round was fired. This method is similar in almost every way to the charging methods adopted by Navies around the world with their large guns mounted on capital ships.

This method, when used in the confined space of a tank therefore offered more space in the crew compartment as stowage of the spent casing was not necessary beyond the vent tube. Readers will no doubt be aware that the vent tube was the primer for the bagged charge and contained the percussion cap plus a small quantity of propellant. This device was quite small and therefore took up very little space. The vent tubes appear to have been stored in magazines of ten rounds and then loaded as required.

This method of charging a tank gun was known as “breach loading” as opposed to “quick firing,” which is the term given to rounds loaded in one piece where the propellant charge is contained in a brass casing. Despite the increased work for the loader, rates of fire for Chieftain tanks are recorded at ten rounds per minute for the first minute and six rounds per minute for the next four. This is somewhat comparable to tank guns of the day when looked at over a five minute spell, but the Chieftain was slower in absolute terms of rate of fire.

The power plant for the new tank was specified as a Leyland L60 engine which, owing to a NATO directive was to be capable of running on almost any kind of fuel. This, in itself, did not lead to difficulties, but the engine proved to be fairly unreliable. It exhibited a range of problems from cylinder jackets cracking to delivering lower than expected power. As the Chieftain went through its life many of these issues were ironed out and later engines delivered significantly improved performance although the rough terrain speed was always rather slow by comparison to other main battle tanks. Later Chieftains were fitted with much higher power engines, (up to 850BHP) but this did little for the cross country speed due to the limitations imposed by the suspension which had already been upgraded in the early design stages to accommodate a heavier weight than was originally anticipated.

The first Chieftains off the production line were fitted with a co-axially mounted 7.62mm machine gun within the turret which was used as a rangefinder weapon. This is what you see on the kit I show although things are somewhat confused by its continued presence on the Mk 5 depicted in the model from Tamiya. It appears that the gun was retained as some sort of adjunct to the laser rangefinder which was itself said to be effective at up to 10 kilometres. This was an enhancement that significantly improved the Chieftain’s ability to effectively engage targets at distance.

The Chieftain was the mainstay of the British Army in terms of main battle tanks for nearly thirty years with the first deliveries being completed in 1966 and subsequently being withdrawn from service in 1995 after some 22 variants encompassing a number of additions and improvements as well as with differing applications- for example bridge laying and armoured recovery vehicles. It was considered capable in combat until it was replaced, although its performance in the Kuwait theatre could be viewed as less than successful suffering as it did from rather serious engine problems. In engagements with the Iraqi forces’ T62 and T72 tanks in 1990, some 136 units were lost leaving only 7 survivors.

Leaving aside the failure in this theatre, the Chieftain was considered to be a good main battle tank during its lifetime and was sold to several nations in numbers totalling around 900 units. This was about half of the total production, the rest being deployed in the British Army.

The Chieftain was finally fully replaced in 1995 by the Challenger which had been introduced in 1983. There appears to be some overlap as well with the Challenger 2 which was introduced at around the same time that both Challenger and Chieftain tanks were being replaced.

Many improvements over the Chieftain were made by the Challenger, not the least of which was a significant development in the rough ground performance of that tank compared to its predecessor. Also introduced was the so called Chobham armour which was a composite material and greatly improved safety compared to the traditional rolled homogeneous armour used in the Chieftain.

It is possible to see running Chieftain tanks these days and, as ever, names like “Mr Hewes” pop up in searches of the internet. His slightly off beat style and informal delivery as well as the deep and encyclopaedic knowledge of the vehicles he both services and restores with his team make his YouTube channel one of the more entertaining destinations if you are interested in historical tanks.

It would appear the above picture demonstrates an ideal means of resolving those awkward parking issues around the town, although I suspect that the insurance cost might be on the hefty side.

I gather that AW Hewes is involved in an annual tank regatta in the Northampton area where it is possible to see a variety of armoured vehicles skulling around a muddy, (or sometimes dusty) field. I am sure that such a get- together would be most diverting and, if you are in the near area, a visit would be most worthwhile.

This article was written before the passing of Shunsaku Tamiya. I pay tribute to his commitment to his company and his steadfast duty to it over many years. I extend my sympathies to his family and friends.