- The Airfix Tribute Forum -

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 12:45 pm Post subject:

Ayup Hardtarget...

That's why i said no to this Aircraft being accepted as FAA. it was RAF...
_________________
Airfix Member 022... Jolly Boy.

Remember: 'The Dude Abides'...

'It's GOOD to be the King !'

Hardtarget · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 12:46 pm Post subject:

Yep, i know

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 12:48 pm Post subject:

Ayup Ht..

I wasn't being picky for its own sake, though.
_________________
Airfix Member 022... Jolly Boy.

Remember: 'The Dude Abides'...

'It's GOOD to be the King !'

Hardtarget · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 12:57 pm Post subject:

Yep i know

XN923 · Bronze Star Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 1176

Didn't mean to throw the cat among the pigeons!

I should add that for anything to be RAF it would have to be the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF between 1918 and 1937! There are specific flights and squadrons.

WW2 would have to be a Naval Air Squadron - First line (operational) squadrons were generally in the 800 series (later the 1800 series was added). These were usually carrier-based at some stage, although many were seconded to the RAF at times, such as those fighting in North Africa or protecting the Channel. Then there were the second line squadrons, in the 700 series. These were training squadrons, fighter affiliation (i.e. getting bomber and attack crews used to dealing with fighters), fleet requirements - usually target towing for ship AA gunners to practice on, etc etc. These were all largely land based, though units like the deck landing training squadrons and TBR/fighter training squadrons would do quite a bit of deck operation.

With many of these squadrons, particularly the fleet requirements units, equipment would have been similar in many cases to RAF. Many aircraft would have been passed from RAF stocks, such as the early Douglas Bostons which were used for training and then passed to the FAA for FR work. Ditto the Beaufighters, Defiant target tugs and so on. In many cases only the codes would have been changed, so many paint schemes would be rather similar, if not identical, to RAF ones. Doesn't alter the fact that if the aircraft was not on the books of a Naval Air Squadron at some point, it would not fall under the remit of this GB.

There were a very small number of Sea Mosquito TR33s, which had larger elevators, folding wings and hooks, but were never operationally used from aircraft carriers. The FAA used plenty of Mossies in second line squadrons though.

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 14:54 pm Post subject:

Ayup 923...

Absolutely not !

The more you tell me, the more i know. But THAT scheme's still an RAF scheme. if NT950 had changed codes, but not number, then OK. but it didnt.

I appreciate your argument, but i guess ANY aircraft could have been used wherever it was needed. and just because the FAA used it, it doesn't mean it was an 'FAA' Aircraft. let's face it, they coulda 'Borrowed' Gibsons Dams' Lanc for some or another esoteric mission. It doesn't mean it was an FAA plane proper though.
_________________
Airfix Member 022... Jolly Boy.

Remember: 'The Dude Abides'...

'It's GOOD to be the King !'

XN923 · Bronze Star Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 1176

Sorry, I think we're talking at cross purposes - I'm not arguing that any aircraft that at some point was an FAA aircraft is allowed - I'm in complete agreement with you. I.e. the model built has to represent an aircraft that was naval aircraft at that time.

It doesn't have to look like a naval aircraft, but the model built has to represent an aircraft at a time that it was 'owned' by the RN. Clearer?

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 15:57 pm Post subject:

Ayup 923...

I think for the purposes of this GB, the subject must be a type flown by the RNAS/FAA in appropriate markings.

NOT RAF co-opted as in NT950 and Sqn. 236's case. Therefore, NT950 doesn't qualify. Or any other RAF aircraft whether 'Begged, Borrowed, or Stolen....' they remain RAF.

For my money,Provenance of the aircrafts service must be demonstrable.
_________________
Airfix Member 022... Jolly Boy.

Remember: 'The Dude Abides'...

'It's GOOD to be the King !'

XN923 · Bronze Star Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 1176

AFCBGeorge · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 17:13 pm Post subject:

Just to Clarify, as there seems to have been some controversy, Is an Aircraft from the Royal Navy Fighter Squadron Acceptable?
Don't patronise peeps, it's just the aircraft I have in mind wasn't ever anywhere near the sea!
_________________
--.. --- -. . / -.-. .- .-.. .-.. / .-- --- --- -..

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 17:39 pm Post subject:

AFCBGeorge · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 17:45 pm Post subject:

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 17:57 pm Post subject:

AFCBGeorge · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 18:04 pm Post subject:

Haha Sorry Feanor, couldn;t resist

Hurricane Mk1, Royal Naval Fighter Squadron, Western Desert, WW2.
I assumed it would be fine, but then thought maybe it wouldn't be as I certainly wouldn't like to be landing it on a carrier!
_________________
--.. --- -. . / -.-. .- .-.. .-.. / .-- --- --- -..

feanor · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 18:12 pm Post subject:

Ayup George...

Stoppit you teenager !

Yes, i think it will be o.k. you really should GOOGLE you know...
_________________
Airfix Member 022... Jolly Boy.

Remember: 'The Dude Abides'...

'It's GOOD to be the King !'

AFCBGeorge · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 18:19 pm Post subject:

walrus · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 19:16 pm Post subject:

some of those would surely be valid

http://www.britmodeller.com/forum...7793&hl=royal+navy+hurricanes

what about a guideline the Royal Navy sig on the fuselage?

there was a photo of one of theses desert hurris somewhere on bm recently

AFCBGeorge · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 19:31 pm Post subject:

The first one's the exact one I'm building, & I even PM'd that poster to get the serial! He's been lovely & sent me some really good references & advice.

_________________
--.. --- -. . / -.-. .- .-.. .-.. / .-- --- --- -..

XN923 · Bronze Star Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 1176

walrus · Posted: Thu 26 Feb 2009 21:41 pm Post subject:

glad it proved fruitful George
gonna have to do one myself some time