Jump to content

RLWP

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    1,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

RLWP last won the day on June 1 2018

RLWP had the most liked content!

About RLWP

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kenilworth, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So did I: From Wikipedia Isn't that a lovely picture Richard
  2. Indeed. The problem isn't how the numbers were written, it's that the Russians almost identified new batches as different models I got obsessively interested in Nieuports when modelling my 17 and X Richard
  3. For Nieuports, things seem to have changed around the Nieuport X. Everyone seemed to use roman numerals up to that model, afterwards they diverged. Russia seems to have got particularly complicated Richard
  4. Mine has got 9 points on it... That's a lovely build, and good to see it has a shiny finish. Richard
  5. Then please accept my apologies. I'm very aware that text based forums like this are open to misinterpretation It still leaves 'British' aeroplanes being built in Canada and Australia - and I doubt either country would think of themselves as British* Richard *I lived in Quebec for a while so I'm aware of what they may think of Brits
  6. Go on then. DeHavilland Canada built Tiger Moths. Australia built Tiger Moths. Wikipedia (yes, I know) lists New Zealand, Sweden, Norway and Portugal as builders - not assemblers It isn't easy to dig that information out of McKay's 'DeHavilland Moths in Detail' as the cronology of production is spread through the various model types so I'll ask you How many countries of production are you disputing? Richard
  7. I've just looked it up - there are several more 'or's Richard
  8. Been there, done that Have you tried binning a failed project? It's incredibly liberating Richard
  9. For a BoB display, I can't see the wheel wells are going to be important, or interior detail for that matter. Richard
  10. Oh no - another horror! Yes, cycle threads, NPT, weird UNF small sizes - these all enter my life from time to time Richard
  11. Now just a minute... The standards that were in use at the time were British Standard Whitworth (BSW) for coarse threads and British Standard Fine (BSF), both based on the diameter of the bolt. BSW, named after Joseph Whitworth was the world's first standardisation for threads - previously nuts and bolts from different manufacturers wouldn't interchange WW2 forced standardisation between the US and the UK, so Unified National Coarse (UNC) and Unified National Fine (UNF) were created and parts could be interchanged. WWII is where things had to change, for some threads the Whit/BSF threads are interchangeable with UNC/UNF This is the every day reality in my workshop where I'm regularly working with BSW/BSF/BA/UNC/UNF/BSP/Metric depending on what comes in That's the lovely thing about standards, there are so many to choose from Richard And at least we had an Empire to lose!
  12. And: From here: https://www.aircraftrestorationcompany.com/lysander Richard
  13. I also found this: Westland Lysander Mk IIIA - 870-hp Bristol Mercury XX radial - Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, Hamilton, Ontario by edk7, on Flickr Richard
  14. It is surprisingly difficult to find pictures of the back of a Bristol Mercury on the internet. They are manifolds, I'd guess inlet manifolds: That's from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Mercury Spray them, then drybrush some grot onto them Richard
×
×
  • Create New...