Jump to content

vince14

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    1,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

vince14 last won the day on November 13 2023

vince14 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

3,954 profile views
  1. Yes, a decent 1/32 MiG-17 is sorely needed. Served with something like 40 air forces, lots of different and unique schemes…
  2. I think I'll be in, covering both silver and 25...
  3. Yep, Bud Holland was the kind of pilot the Air Force should have weeded out long before he had the chance to kill himself and his crew. Sadly a good ol' boys attitude of 'Well, that's Bud just doing Bud things' prevailed within the senior ranks above him. All the warning signs were there, but those who should have acted didn't.
  4. Lukgraph have just confirmed their latest planned releases: Phönix D.I in 1:32 and 1:24 Phönix D.II in 1:32 and 1:24 Hansa Brandenburg CC in 1:48, 1:32 and 1:24 Should be available within the next six months.
  5. I had a response from Jim: 'I am not really accepting orders anymore. I still draw a lot, but it is mostly for me, for fun. I print very little, mostly just for my own modeling projects. My website is still there, but the shopping cart has been deactivated. If you try to use it you get a message explaining why I was forced to retire (health problems). Andrew at ABOVE AND BELOW GRAPHICS is buying some of my art files so as to continue their availability. If you contact him with your request, maybe he will buy more files from me.'
  6. It's an interesting debate. Taking the emotion out of it, I think that overall the use of waist gunners was acceptable in 1943, debatable in 1944, and completely unnecessary in 1945. When 'The bomber would always get through' concept failed in the early war years the emphasis shifted to adding more guns in an attempt to defend better - hence why waist gunners were added into US designs. As the USAAF moved to Europe to begin the daylight bombing campaign the Luftwaffe tried a number of solutions to attacking the bombers, which included beam attacks that could be countered by waist gunners. However, by 1944 the Luftwaffe knew that the most effective form of attack against a four engined bomber in daylight was a head-on attack (hence the beefing up of the nose armament in the B-17). This gave a German pilot a 3-4 second attack run against a single B-17 (and, correspondingly, a 1-2 second defence window for the nose gunner, as he was aiming at a significantly smaller target). However, the waist gunner effectively had to contend with a target zipping past him at over 300mph. On top of that, frontal attacks meant that waist gunners could not actually defend their own aircraft, instead only really having the opportunity to shoot at fighters who were attacking adjacent aircraft. Add in the time-sink required for a waist gunner's eyes to spot a fighter going past them, have the brain process that thought and send signals to the arms and hands to act, then have the muscles react and counteract the weight of the gun - which is a few microseconds, but a significant chunk of time when the gunner has less than a second to act - then I would say that the overwhelming probablility is that all waist gunners were shooting behind the attacking fighter for the vast majority of the time. That's not to say these men were not brave, or that some waist gunners did actually manage to shoot down an attacking fighter, it's just that the form of attack used by the enemy rendered their defence largely ineffective. When you add in the fact that flak was more dangerous to the crew of a B-17 than a fighter, especially by 1945, then the validity of sending along two men for no other purpose than to act as an ineffective defence against one form of attack, whilst still leaving them exposed to another, becomes questionable.
  7. To add to the above post, CSM have stated that markings in the kit will be for 'British, Belgian (most likely), US, French and Italian' aircraft with three versions planned for release:
  8. There's a couple of sets of JBOT Decals I'm after, but I've heard contradicting stories on whether they're still in business or not. Does anyone know the true situation?
  9. Another interesting aspect of defensive armament on bombers in WWII - it was largely ineffective at shooting down the enemy, but had a very positive impact on the morale of the crew. The vast majority of claims by bomber gunners can be discounted and overclaiming was rife - for example bomber crews claimed 288 German aircraft shot down in the first Schweinfurt/Regensburg raid, but the Luftwaffe only lost 40 aircraft that day to all causes. There was another mission where the USAAF claimed to have shot down more fighter aircraft that the total Luftwaffe fighter inventory on the Western front! This was understandable, as a fighter going head-first through a bomber formation would typically start an attack run slightly higher than the bomber formation, as this gave a better chance of hitting the flight crew, and emerge slightly lower before diving away. This, combined with exhaust gases from the engine being mistaken for smoke from a fire, meant that a single Bf 109 going through a formation might be claimed by multiple gunners, even if it wasn't hit. The high-ups at both the RAF and USAAF knew that bomber crews were significantly overclaiming, but allowed scores to stand to let the crews believe that they could be effective against fighters, which would improve morale and lessen the risk of crew mutiny. A similar story goes along with the 'Bomb-in-a-pickle-barrel' myth - this was partly spread to mitigate the potential morale impact on USAAF crews, who might otherwise have doubts about bombing military and industrial targets surrounded by civillian housing in the cities of an enemy which hadn't directly attacked the US itself (obviously, this didn't apply to RAF crews). Being hit by flak was seen by crews as a random chance of good or bad luck - there was nothing you could do about it, but you could do something about a fighter attacking you. As anyone who has ever been under fire can tell you, simply having the ability to fight back against an enemy is invaluable for your morale, even if it turns out to be ineffective.
  10. They absolutely do destroy items. I've had it happen to me in the past, when I sent a kit that contained enamel paint after the ban came in. Instead of removing the paint and allowing the parcel to continue they destroyed the lot - and I couldn't even claim back off their insurance. They're allowed to destroy parcels, because the law permits them to do so - it's the responsibility of the sender to ensure their package complies with the law. That's why, when you send a parcel, they ask you what it contains. They're not being nosey, they're actually trying to prevent you from sending a parcel that might be destroyed. Last time I check about 10-15% of internal UK mail was sent via air - but there's no way of knowing whether your parcel will go via air or not, and therefore whether it will be inspected or not.
  11. Just a heads-up - from 22nd April this year Royal Mail will prohibit the sending and receiving of bladed items in the post, which includes ‘knives that can be used for hobbies and trades (regardless of whether they are marketed as knives, for instance, utility knives and snap-off cutters)’. Essentially, if you’re sending bladed items to, from, or within the UK you’ll have to use an alternative courier service (DPD, DHL etc.). Packages containing bladed items going through the Royal Mail will be totally destroyed, which means that if you sell a kit and put a sprue nipper in the box both the nipper and the kit will be sent to the furnace.
  12. I don't get it. You're leaving LSP because you think the forums and/or website promote Russian aircraft, but on December 3rd you complimented a member for choosing to build a Yak-28 Firebar?
  13. The wings were specific to the W.4. They were larger than the D.II (9.5 m wingspan instead of 8.5m) and were of equal span - the D.II's lower wing was 0.5m shorter than the upper wing.
  14. The W.4 used the same fuselage and engine as the D.III, but the wings were new and the tail surfaces had a greater span as well. Lukgraph hasn't mentioned a standard D.III as part of their 2024 plans (they released the Oeffag Austro-Hungarian D.III late last year). Of the remaining announced kits, the JN-4 is on it's way and the Phonix D.I/D.II is expected later in the year. They did have two 'secret' projects that are unanounced, though.
×
×
  • Create New...