[basuroy]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I'm lost about what next to write - 'IAF History in pictures' or 'MiG-21' or (when it is in full service) the 'Tejas' or maybe something else like the 'Indian Navy action in 1971' or 'IAF transport aircraft'. In aviation the interest on Team BHP is limited to a little bit of photos on fast combat aircraft..

How about the Navy in 1971 war- especially the Osa class missile boats.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I always wanted a Spitfire and what better than one in IAF colours. This creation of Basuroy has fulfilled that wish. Basu has an eye for detail and a skill for painting to perfection including the rough ‘used’ look. This one with the old Chakra roundels makes it a rare piece, or so I believe.

I am so glad that you liked it

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

[b]Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIX :: IAF :: Custom made 1:72 scale plastic

Great addition to your collection, Sir. Fabulous work, as always basuroy

However, I believe this one is a FR. XIV and not PR.XIX.

The PR.XIX in was unarmed and dedicated Photo Reconnaissance variant, had elliptical wings and it had camera ports on both sides behind the canopy.

Spitfire PR.Mk.XIX



The FR. XIV on the other hand was an armed fighter reconnaissance variant with a bubble canopy and the ones in IAF/RIAF service had clipped wings like your model. A few XIVs in IAF service also had a single camera port behind the cockpit.

Spitfire FR.XIV

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Great addition to your collection, Sir. Fabulous work, as always basuroy

However, I believe this one is a FR. XIV and not PR.XIX.

The PR.XIX in was unarmed and dedicated Photo Reconnaissance variant, had elliptical wings and it had camera ports on both sides behind the canopy.

Spitfire PR.Mk.XIX

The FR. XIV on the other hand was an armed fighter reconnaissance variant with a bubble canopy and the ones in IAF/RIAF service had clipped wings like your model. A few XIVs in IAF service also had a single camera port behind the cockpit.

Your knowledge is simply superb. That extra 4 feet (or was it 8 feet) of wingspan is very useful for that extra 4000 feet of altitude in an FR or PR variant. I forgot to refer to my (not so detailed) book on Spitfires and struggled to triangulate data via the web while writing that post. Your assessment is correct about this being a FR.XIV. Great piece of detective work skanchan95 Once in a second hand book shop in Manchester I found a big book on Spitfires and another on the Sukhoi Su-17 family and bought the latter as my sole carry on bag could not accommodate two thick books. I can see Comrade Foxbat, yonder, clapping!

[basuroy]

Oh yes that is the Mk.14.

We had the mark VIII( highback), XIV( highback and bubbletop) and the XIX in limited number. Also the two seater trainer.

[V.Narayan]

skanchan95, Foxbat, basuroy,

Question for you to seek your advice. Recently bought a Hobby Master Nakajima B5 torpedo bomber - the ones used in the attack on Pearl Harbour. Unfortunately, and not for the first time I find that Hobby Masters stands do not have any appropriate holes within which to fit the appendages to put the aircraft on a stand. Is this a problem you have faced?

The only solution seems to be is to glue the stand as shown in Photo 4. Of course then the aircraft can never be displayed, on its landing gear, without the stand. The other option is to not use the stand at all. I usually like using the stand for smaller sized models so that the same shelf space gets utilized better.

Look forward to your suggestions and experiences. Thanks in advance for your inputs and efforts.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

skanchan95, Foxbat, basuroy,

Question for you to seek your advice. Recently bought a Hobby Master Nakajima B5 torpedo bomber - the ones used in the attack on Pearl Harbour. Unfortunately, and not for the first time I find that Hobby Masters stands do not have any appropriate holes within which to fit the appendages to put the aircraft on a stand. Is this a problem you have faced?

The only solution seems to be is to glue the stand as shown in Photo 4. Of course then the aircraft can never be displayed, on its landing gear, without the stand. The other option is to not use the stand at all. I usually like using the stand for smaller sized models so that the same shelf space gets utilized better.

Look forward to your suggestions and experiences. Thanks in advance for your inputs and efforts.

Do not use glue but small pieces of double sided tape which can be ordered from Amazon. These can be easily removed and any left over residue can be removed with some soap and water.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

skanchan95, Foxbat, basuroy,

Question for you to seek your advice. Recently bought a Hobby Master Nakajima B5 torpedo bomber - the ones used in the attack on Pearl Harbour. Unfortunately, and not for the first time I find that Hobby Masters stands do not have any appropriate holes within which to fit the appendages to put the aircraft on a stand. Is this a problem you have faced?

Sir,
I faced a very similar predicament with the stand of my HM 1:48 P-51D, till I realised I was doing the "Inflight" mount all wrong. Like you I thought I the front two paws would go inside the wheel wells and that the stand supplied with the model was wrong. I realized much later that the front two paws "clutch" the wings, under the leading edge. With the wheels in "deployed position, the stand cannot be mounted and the stand is meant for "wheels up" position only.

P-51 "On ground"


"In flight"- notice the front paws under the leading edge of the wings. I believe it would the same case with your B5N2


Also , please check for a "plug" behind the torpedo which has to be removed. It might be the groove where the single fork would go in (Open the image in a separate window to view it in high res version).


On my HM Tomcat, I had initially set up the stand in the wrong way....The two paws were supposed to face towards the engine and support the back side but I had mounted facing towards the nose. Considering the incorrect way I had mounted it, I was lucky the stand held the weight and I did not end up wrecking my precious HM Tomcat.

The incorrect way:


The correct way:


EDIT: Re-checked the photos of the model. The front two paws go under the leading edge of the wings






The single paw goes into a groove behind the torpedo - which means the "plug" has to be removed (remove the torpedo before attempting this).


Hope this helps.

A very good alternative to glue is a thing that recommended to me by a fellow collector - "Blue Tack". It is basically adhesive clay that you can make into any shape & size and stick things "temporarily" on walls other such surfaces. It can also be used to stick landing gear & weapon attachments to models "temporarily" (i.e the attachments can be removed safely, in case you need to store it back in the model box - something which you cannot do if you use glue). On Amazon, it is available as "Faber Castell Tack it".

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Do not use glue but small pieces of double sided tape which can be ordered from Amazon. These can be easily removed and any left over residue can be removed with some soap and water.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Sir,
I faced a very similar predicament with the stand of my HM 1:48 P-51D, till I realised I was doing the "Inflight" mount all wrong. Like you I thought I the front two paws would go inside the wheel wells and that the stand supplied with the model was wrong. I realized much later that the front two paws "clutch" the wings, under the leading edge. With the wheels in "deployed position, the stand cannot be mounted and the stand is meant for "wheels up" position only.

A very good alternative to glue is a thing that recommended to me by a fellow collector - "Blue Tack". It is basically adhesive clay that you can make into any shape & size and stick things "temporarily" on walls other such surfaces. It can also be used to stick landing gear & weapon attachments to models "temporarily" (i.e the attachments can be removed safely, in case you need to store it back in the model box - something which you cannot do if you use glue). On Amazon, it is available as "Faber Castell Tack it".
Attachment 2113059

Gentlemen & Fellow Aircraft Lovers, Thank you ever so much for such prompt and useful responses. I am fortunate to have friends like you I will purchase both the Blue Tack and the double sided tape and go to work soon again. Unfortunately the claw portion is not thick or wide enough to 'grip' the leading edge. So I'll try the sticky-sticky route you both have come up with above. Wifey dear has given permission to have her sideboard in the dining room serve as a temporary maintenance depot as my study table is too crowded. Oh the joys of life.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Unfortunately the claw portion is not thick or wide enough to 'grip' the leading edge. .

In that case, I suggest you hold for a while as the stand part in the box could be wrong. I have read that HM is very prompt in sending part replacements if it is proved that the stand part supplied in the box is a mismatch. Take this up with DBJets (assuming you bought this model from him).

However I would urge you to look for the "plug" again an compare them with the photos I attached in the last post. The front two claws look like they will hold the model under the wings- but you need to remove the "wheels down" attachments & replace them with "wheels up/gear door" attachments to display the model "in flight" position for the stand.

[V.Narayan]

HAL Ajeet, IAF, light fighter :: 1:72, plastic, hand painted

Gentlemen, presenting to you the HAL Ajeet, the worthy successor to the legendary Folland Gant. India's first (and successful) attempt to take a license design and upgrade it. This model was custom assembled and hand painted by none other than our very own @basuroy - artiste par excellence. He is a man who loves his hobby and it shows. The hand painting has been done to reflect the bare metal aluminium finish that most Ajeet's sported.

I won't dwell on the parameters of the Ajeet or the Gnat here. There is a full thread on these aircraft on Team BHP at https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...-page-6-a.html (Indian Aviation - HAL Ajeet, the Folland Gnat Mk II. EDIT: 1965 war IAF documentary on page 6)

The Ajeet prototype first flew in 1975 and the production version in 1976 served the IAF from. It served the IAF from 1977 to 1991 finally bringing down the curtains on the IAFs 32 year old love affair with the Gnat/Ajeet.

This scale model at 1:72 is armed with the 2 x 30mm Aden cannons on the Air intakes and 2 SNEB Matra 68mm rocket pods. It carries the almost mandatory 300 litre tanks. I always wonder how we could have enhanced the competence of the Ajeet by marrying it to the Magic Matra AAM or even to the Soviet K-13 (AA-2 Atoll or Advanced Atoll). But we did not. Or what would it be like to have married the airframe with the Rolls Royce Adour.

Photo also shows the Ajeet positioned by the side of a Hawker Seahawk of the IN, the MiG-17 and the MiG-21 to show relative sizes and wingspans. In many ways the MiG-21 had the same concept as the Gnat i.e. a nimble light weight fighter. And in some ways the Tejas follows the same philosophy.

[FrozeninTime]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

HAL Ajeet, IAF, light fighter :: 1:72, plastic, hand painted

Gentlemen, presenting to you the HAL Ajeet, the worthy successor to the legendary Folland Gant. India's first (and successful) attempt to take a license design and upgrade it. This model was custom assembled and hand painted by none other than our very own @basuroy - artiste par excellence. He is a man who loves his hobby and it shows. The hand painting has been done to reflect the bare metal aluminium finish that most Ajeet's sported.

Congratulations for acquiring a beautiful model.
Slightly off topic:
Sir you need to give a detailed guided tour of your Air Museum.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

Congratulations for acquiring a beautiful model.
Slightly off topic:
you need to give a detailed guided tour of your Air Museum.

Thank you for your appreciation. I always like to show off my scale model collection, like a mother showing off her baby or a lady showing off her diamonds. But I have no idea how it should be done - a photo of each model or a video of the show cases? I'm not very good at these things. But maybe one day. The count is at around 115 to 120 not counting the 25 odd I gave away on retirement.

[FrozeninTime]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for your appreciation. I always like to show off my scale model collection, like a mother showing off her baby or a lady showing off her diamonds. But I have no idea how it should be done - a photo of each model or a video of the show cases? I'm not very good at these things.

May I suggest a panoramic shot of models displayed in display case along with separate photos of models you have yet to post in this thread.
Thanks

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

HAL Ajeet, IAF, light fighter :: 1:72, plastic, hand painted

Gentlemen, presenting to you the HAL Ajeet, the worthy successor to the legendary Folland Gant. India's first (and successful) attempt to take a license design and upgrade it. This model was custom assembled and hand painted by none other than our very own @basuroy - artiste par excellence. He is a man who loves his hobby and it shows. The hand painting has been done to reflect the bare metal aluminium finish that most Ajeet's sported.

Congratulations on acquiring this stellar model Basuroy incredible work The paint work is just immaculate.

How are these models shipped? I have many assembled models which will sometime have to be transported and they have no box which fit them with all their antennas and wing attachments perfectly to avoid damage.

25+ years ago when I faced this problem I had to give away my entire collection of models for lack of any transport options.

Currently work in progress, can anyone identify this Duck with a bed, toilet and kitchen ?

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^^
A side by side two seater?? Su-34, but the nose isn't broad enough? Knowing its yours it couldn't be an F-111 :-) . Blackjack?