Anyone fancy a bomber build?
Moderator: PaulBradley
- Dazzled
- Modelling Gent and Scholar
- Posts: 9592
- Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:08 pm
- Location: Mid Glamorgan, South Wales
- Contact:
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
I would sign up for this one as I have a couple of bombers I'd like to build but the unpredictability of my job means that I can't commit to the time constraints of a GB.
COLD WAR S.I.G. LEADER
Wherever there's danger, wherever there's trouble, wherever there's important work to be done....I'll be somewhere else building a model!
Wherever there's danger, wherever there's trouble, wherever there's important work to be done....I'll be somewhere else building a model!
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
So, when do we want to do this? Unfortunately, I cannot propose & go atm & I am involved in the Matchbox gb in Feb so would not wish a clash with this. 6 weeks starting in March or later?
Regards
Martin
Regards
Martin
Martin R
"the 'R' stands for 'Representative'."
"the 'R' stands for 'Representative'."
- Kitaholic
- Modelling Gent and Scholar
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: November 10th, 2014, 7:53 pm
- Location: 5 mins from SMW
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
march sounds good
Regards
Gord
Desperately trying to find his MOJO, don't know where I left it
Gord
Desperately trying to find his MOJO, don't know where I left it
- JohnRatzenberger
- Why is he so confused ?
- Posts: 15736
- Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
- Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
6 weeks, roughly centered on March would be good for me.
Just to clarify, this is a "generic" bomber GB -- anything designed to carry bombs (as primary mission/ordnance). Torpedo and army-coop were excluded -- which I assume also excludes fighter-bombers, patrol bombers, and some other mixed role aircraft.
So that would allow heavy, medium, light, attack, scout/dive bombers ? Or should we further define it ?
Are experimental (not whiff) aircraft allowed ?
Just to clarify, this is a "generic" bomber GB -- anything designed to carry bombs (as primary mission/ordnance). Torpedo and army-coop were excluded -- which I assume also excludes fighter-bombers, patrol bombers, and some other mixed role aircraft.
So that would allow heavy, medium, light, attack, scout/dive bombers ? Or should we further define it ?
Are experimental (not whiff) aircraft allowed ?
John Ratzenberger
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
I was going to say operational only but I do have a 1/144th Sperrin so I'm good either way. I also fancy getting around to my airfix b-24.jRatz wrote:6 weeks, roughly centered on March would be good for me.
Just to clarify, this is a "generic" bomber GB -- anything designed to carry bombs (as primary mission/ordnance). Torpedo and army-coop were excluded -- which I assume also excludes fighter-bombers, patrol bombers, and some other mixed role aircraft.
So that would allow heavy, medium, light, attack, scout/dive bombers ? Or should we further define it ?
Are experimental (not whiff) aircraft allowed ?
Hoping to return to modelling sometime this year!!
Owner of Marky's Model Emporium since 2013!.
Owner of Marky's Model Emporium since 2013!.
- Stuart
- Raider of the Lost Ark Royal
- Posts: 19451
- Joined: February 25th, 2013, 4:55 pm
- Location: North Wales
- Contact:
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
It'll be interesting to see how this develops - When you get into the jet age I think then line between Bomber/Ground attack/Multi-role starts to blur - I mean the Tornado is technically a bomber.
Stuart Templeton I may not be good but I'm slow...
My Blog: https://stuartsscalemodels.blogspot.com/
My Blog: https://stuartsscalemodels.blogspot.com/
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
John,jRatz wrote:6 weeks, roughly centered on March would be good for me.
Just to clarify, this is a "generic" bomber GB -- anything designed to carry bombs (as primary mission/ordnance). Torpedo and army-coop were excluded -- which I assume also excludes fighter-bombers, patrol bombers, and some other mixed role aircraft.
So that would allow heavy, medium, light, attack, scout/dive bombers ? Or should we further define it ?
Are experimental (not whiff) aircraft allowed ?
That's my way of thinking; if it's designed primarily to carry out a bombing mission only, then it's in.
Regards
Martin
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
Hi Stuart,Sir T wrote:It'll be interesting to see how this develops - When you get into the jet age I think then line between Bomber/Ground attack/Multi-role starts to blur - I mean the Tornado is technically a bomber.
The GR1/4 is absolutely a bomber in my book. However, I wouldn't necessarily include the Jaguar or the Harrier GR variants; I would define them more as CAS types. The Buccaneer of course is in.
F111, B-52, B-1, B-2 yes; F-15E, no.
[edit:in my first post, I wrote that an F-15E would be eligible; by my original logic, it wouldn't]. The basic airframe must have been designed 'to carry bombs for the bomber role'.
Regards
Martin
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
So would a Nakajima B5N "Kate" be out the window?
Daren
Half-assed Spitfire builder!
Half-assed Spitfire builder!
- Kitaholic
- Modelling Gent and Scholar
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: November 10th, 2014, 7:53 pm
- Location: 5 mins from SMW
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
Would the F-4 Phantom class as a bomber? It was more than capable of many roles but would that detract from it's bomber role?Martin R wrote:Hi Stuart,Sir T wrote:It'll be interesting to see how this develops - When you get into the jet age I think then line between Bomber/Ground attack/Multi-role starts to blur - I mean the Tornado is technically a bomber.
The GR1/4 is absolutely a bomber in my book. However, I wouldn't necessarily include the Jaguar or the Harrier GR variants; I would define them more as CAS types. The Buccaneer of course is in.
F111, B-52, B-1, B-2 yes; F-15E, no.
Regards
Martin
Regards
Gord
Desperately trying to find his MOJO, don't know where I left it
Gord
Desperately trying to find his MOJO, don't know where I left it
- fredk
- Modelling Gent and Scholar
- Posts: 6196
- Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
- Location: Donaghadee, N'rn Ir'n
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
The F4 Phantom II was primarily designed as a missle-only armed air defence fighter.
Although used as a bomber in the Vietnam war its primary function was as a B-52, F105, etcetera fighter defence thus the reason a gun-pack was developed for it then the E version with the gatling gun in the nose
Think Spitfire or P51; fighter first, late models [Spit.VIII and later] carried bombs but retained their fighter first role.
Although used as a bomber in the Vietnam war its primary function was as a B-52, F105, etcetera fighter defence thus the reason a gun-pack was developed for it then the E version with the gatling gun in the nose
Think Spitfire or P51; fighter first, late models [Spit.VIII and later] carried bombs but retained their fighter first role.
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
Couldn't have put it better meself, Fred.fredk wrote:The F4 Phantom II was primarily designed as a missle-only armed air defence fighter.
Although used as a bomber in the Vietnam war its primary function was as a B-52, F105, etcetera fighter defence thus the reason a gun-pack was developed for it then the E version with the gatling gun in the nose
Think Spitfire or P51; fighter first, late models [Spit.VIII and later] carried bombs but retained their fighter first role.
Martin R
"the 'R' stands for 'Representative'."
"the 'R' stands for 'Representative'."
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
Hi Daz,DazDaMan wrote:So would a Nakajima B5N "Kate" be out the window?
According to Wikipedia, the Kate was designed as a torpedo bomber, so no.
Wasn't the Val a dive bomber?
Regards
Martin
- fredk
- Modelling Gent and Scholar
- Posts: 6196
- Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
- Location: Donaghadee, N'rn Ir'n
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
I'll be sticking to something that doesn't need too much discussion; something like a H.P. Halifax or Boeing B-17
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
Re: Anyone fancy a bomber build?
The Val was indeed a dive-bomber.Martin R wrote:Hi Daz,DazDaMan wrote:So would a Nakajima B5N "Kate" be out the window?
According to Wikipedia, the Kate was designed as a torpedo bomber, so no.
Wasn't the Val a dive bomber?
Regards
Martin
The reason I ask about the Kate was because they did drop modified armour-piercing shells on the Arizona during the Pearl Harbor attack. In fact, I believe the Airfix kit is one of those aircraft, but I could be wrong. They were also used as land-based bombers later in the war.
I reasoned that, if I didn't get to do the Kate in the Pearl Harbor GB, I could have used it in this one. It's no big deal, though!
Daren
Half-assed Spitfire builder!
Half-assed Spitfire builder!