Wrong Turn 6 In Hindi Dubbed 72046
Marta Berteau
Now that I've put the F-14 build to bed, I can get started on the Hunter. I'll be using the Revell 1:72 kit, and the Xtradecal sheet 72046 which has the colorful markings of 4 FTS, specifically XF526 at RAF Valley in 1972. I've never built a Hunter before, and can claim no special knowledge other than what's in the box. So I'd like to ask some questions first to make sure I don't make any big mistakes right up front.
There appear to be no Sabrinas on this Flying Test School aircraft. Does the Revell kit require any fuselage modifications in the place where the Sabrinas would normally be? It doesn't look like it, as the fuselage seems quite smooth in that area, and the curvature is the same as the surrounding areas.
I have the Quickboost resin air brake. I suspect that this is another one of those things that should be closed while the aircraft is parked, but I sometimes like to keep these open just to add some visual interest. What colour would the inside surface of the air brake and well be?
What colour are the wheel well, hubs, and landing gear? The Revell instructions say aluminum, which sounds right to me but better safe than sorry. It wouldn't be the first time that I've had to re-paint after the model was finished!
I also have the Eduard PE set with the color zoom for the cockpit, plus some external details. Black is correct for the cockpit and bang seat? The PE also includes lowered landing flaps which I probably won't use, unless one of you talks me into it!
I've looked at this and all you should need to do is fill the locating dimples for the Sabrinas BUT, as the rear one falls in a panel line you either have to be very careful how you do that or you could ignore it and hope it blends in.
Wheel wells, hubs and undercarriage components were silver (aluminium). The mainwheels on the Revell kit are undersized, you may not want to do anything about this but then again as you're planning on using some AM stuff in the cockpit etc you might. I'll be using the Aeroclub set V233 to correct mine, if you're having trouble locating it through your normal sources try contacting JohnAero on this site, Aeroclub is his business.
Looking forward to this one Bill. Agree mostly with Wez, don't forget that the cannon troughs will also need to be faired over as well. The outer wing pylons were seldom fitted , so just carried a pair of 100 gallon tanks inboard. As for the colours - the red should be Signal Red - which is brighter than Roundel Red. Don't know Gunze's colour range so can't advise onthat, but I use Games Workshop's/Citadel's Blood Red. The grey is Light Aircraft Grey - again not sure of a direct Gunze comparison.
Photographs suggest that these aircraft's surfaces matted down quite a lot, they would have started off in a glossy finish, but I suspect the weather in North Wales soon took the gloss off! Undercarriage's and bays were matt silver. athe tail pipe ring shiny metal.
As for the airbrakes - normally they wouldn't be seen lowered at the same time as the undercarriage. If both were lowered simultaneously in the air, the pilot would be in big trouble apparently. That said you do see photo's with the airbrakes lower(ing) - as much a result of something going wrong somewhere than anything else!
The undercarriage and airbrakes were interlocked so if the airbrake was already 'out' when the u/c was selected 'down', it would automatically retract, so it's not possible to have both airbrake and u/c deployed simultaneously in the air. Clearly this is because of the position of the airbrake which would hit the ground when landing if deployed.
Hunters seen on the ground with the airbrake 'sagging' are generally ones that have been sitting idle for a good while. Once the hydraulic pressure drops off a little, the airbrake will start to droop. In a properly maintained, operational aircraft, the airbrake will be tight shut when the u/c is extended.
As it turns out, Gunze makes Light Aircraft Grey BS381C-627. It's their number H332. Although they don't have a direct match for Signal Red, most sites (including the excellent model paint cross reference site provided) say to use H3 Gloss Red. Bill, you mention using Citadel's Blood Red, which would suggest to me a bit darker colour than regular old red. Is that the case? Gunze makes a nice red called "Red Madder" (Japanese English for Angry Red I would guess) that might just fit the bill. And I love that Gunze colour, it's really deep.
I also found something on-line about the location of some tubes (cannon eject tubes maybe?) that are in a different position depending on whether or not Sabrinas were ever fitted. Any idea if the particular aircraft that I'm modelling ever had Sabrinas?
Some other information that I stumbled upon last night concerned part of the canopy "framing" that was really just a step in the Perspex, and therefore shouldn't be painted along with the rest of the frame. Is that correct for the F.6?
GW's/Citadel's Blood Red is an excelent match for Signal Red...I used it on my Lightning....its not a "deep" colour. Have a look at photo's of the Red Arrow's - thats the shade you need to be aiming for.....a bright almost flourescent (in rare British summer sun-light!) red.
One quick question - most photos that I have found on-line of the 4 FTS Hunters seem to show that the pylon ejector fairing (top side of the wing, painted blue because its inside the roundel) is present. It seems to be there regardless of whether the outboard pylon is attached. However, these fairing are not part of the Revell kit. If I don't mount the outboard pylons, can I leave the ejector fairings off, or should I add them?
The ERU was introduced to ensure that certain stores would clear the aircraft cleanly when jettisoned, the clue to their fitment being the bulge on the upper wing covering the breech mechanism. Prior to this, the Hunter was fitted with EMRUs (Electro-Mechanical Release units) which were fully contained in the wing - hence no bulge.
As for the name, "Ejector Release Unit" was the 'proper' name, but I too have heard them referred to as Explosive Release Units in reference to the fact that they contained a cartridge charge, but it's an unofficial term I believe.
Hi Bill, I had a Revell FGA9/FGA58 to hand so I had a look in that. There are TWO pairs in the kit. One pair on the spprue containing the 230 gallon tanks and another on the "Swiss" sprue, so its unlikely they'd be included in the F6 kit. Shame really...but get your hands on an FGA9 kit and you'll be made up!!
I daresay I won't need all of my FGA9 ERU's Bill. I may have a spare pair I can send over if you like.......(though not sure if I should use this forum to do that! Maybe I should post in the Wanted/for Sale section!!)
2003 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 6: With a runner at second base and two outs, the batter hits a single to right field. The runner misses third base and scores. The defense does not immediately appeal, and the ball is made live. With a right-handed pitcher on the mound, in contact with the pitcher's plate, the pitcher illegally turns his shoulders to check the runner. A balk is called, and the runner is awarded second base. With the ball being dead, the defensive coach asks for an appeal of the runner missing third base. Is the defense allowed to appeal? RULING: No, the pitcher's balk constitutes an illegal pitch and the defense loses the right to appeal the base runner's error. (2-3-1, 8-2-5 Penalty)
It is NOT a balk for the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, to throw to an unoccupied base IF it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. (Note that the pitcher does not have to step back off the rubber to make an appeal play.)
So there's "no provision" for Fed. Mr. Childress says himself that as an umpire, I will have to decide the proper ruling, but he suggests I treat it the same as NCAA. Got it, and I'll keep that in mind. Given the discussion and rules/interps posted, I will state that my "no step on an appeal is a balk" is technically correct ("no provision" in Fed), but probably the wrong side of the stick to grab in practice.
If you had added the BRD's Fed "No provision" line with it, I wouldn't have been "irritated" (your words, not mine); I would have been educated. My point remains that you gave NCAA and OBR rules in a Fed discussion, with no context toward Fed itself.
Maybe we're talking in circles here, but my assumption was the WHOLE appeal part of this thread was based on two aspects of F1's movement: "throwing to an unoccupied base for an appeal" and "not stepping to make the throw for an appeal". And, based on the discussion, BOTH of those aspects were legalized in OBR and NCAA, and Fed was quasi-legalized. Ignoring the confusion around OBR and NCAA being brought into a Fed discussion, it ultimately helped in understanding the "No provision" statement in the BRD.
b37509886e