AZ Models

[PR19_Kit]

I am really looking forward to the SR-53, but I would have thought that the RAuxAF would have been a more likely recipient for these to help back up the SR-177 which the main squadrons would be operating. 

Good thinking Jim, bags of scope for VERY colourful schemes, I must look out my Modeldecal Vampire and Meteor sheets.

Of course that would have been after the '53s had been dispersed from their initial operational deployments with the main squadrons while the '177 was being fully developed. 

[Thorvic]

Note that Freightdog will be releasing his own boxing of the kit with different decal options next year so might be worth asking Colin off forum what options he has lined up as the ones your thinking of may be in his release 

[Weaver]

If the SR.53 illustrations reflect the shape of the Firestreaks in the kit, then those look awfully like dummy shapes used for flight testing rather than real missiles, which have an octagonal glass nose, a reduced diameter forebody and two rings of fuse windows.

Then again, from a Whiff PoV you could always claim them to be 'Radar Firestreaks' and swap them onto a non-existent Lightning/Javelin/Meteor NF model (i.e. something early and with a radar).

I've got a pair of white metal Fireflashes which The Wooksta found in a box at a show and very generously gave to me: those would make for a different SR.53 if I could modify the nose of the plane to carry the neccessary Ecko ranging radar...


Is the MB.6 purely a product of AZ's imagination or was such a thing projected? Either way, it's begging for a post-war Cavalier-Mustang style COIN makeover....

[PR19_Kit]

As far as the plastic's concerned, it looks as if they just added tip tanks to the MB5 airframe.

[Dizzyfugu]

...and obviously a second seat behind the cockpit, much like converted post-war Mustang two-seaters. For my taste, it's a bit too little to warrant a new designation, even if it is whif? To me it rather looks like an M.B. 5a?  I am not really sold. The wing tip tanks suit it well, though, and I wonder if a tricycle landing gear could be mounted?

[Thorvic]

No its a spoof, the MB6 was something very different and its really just a later mark MB5, produced purely as a Whiff, so not complaining 

[PR19_Kit]

...and obviously a second seat behind the cockpit, much like converted post-war Mustang two-seaters. For my taste, it's a bit too little to warrant a new designation, even if it is whif? To me it rather looks like an M.B. 5a?  I am not really sold. The wing tip tanks suit it well, though, and I wonder if a tricycle landing gear could be mounted?

I think it uses the same canopy though, doesn't it? Or has it been lengthened too?

A nosewheel would be difficult to fit in under that very close cowled Griffon, and the mainwheels would need to be moved rearwards too.

But I bet that doesn't stop you doing it Thomas..... 

[kitnut617]

...and obviously a second seat behind the cockpit, much like converted post-war Mustang two-seaters. For my taste, it's a bit too little to warrant a new designation, even if it is whif? To me it rather looks like an M.B. 5a?  I am not really sold. The wing tip tanks suit it well, though, and I wonder if a tricycle landing gear could be mounted?

No, it's not a second seat. It's the radio equipment ------ but I agree that it would be an MB5b or c

[JayBee]

...and obviously a second seat behind the cockpit, much like converted post-war Mustang two-seaters. For my taste, it's a bit too little to warrant a new designation, even if it is whif? To me it rather looks like an M.B. 5a?  I am not really sold. The wing tip tanks suit it well, though, and I wonder if a tricycle landing gear could be mounted?

I think it uses the same canopy though, doesn't it? Or has it been lengthened too?

A nosewheel would be difficult to fit in under that very close cowled Griffon, and the mainwheels would need to be moved rearwards too.

But I bet that doesn't stop you doing it Thomas..... 

It is not that difficult, he says modestly, I did it with an Italeri P-51D to create the Kelpie FR7.

[zenrat]

Good job.


There would be more room for the nose gear on an MB6 if the Griffon was replaced with a Dart.

[PR19_Kit]

I agree that it can be done plastically, but in the metal there's all sorts of air ducts and stuff under there, so you'd need some more space for the wheel. It'd have to swivel sideways too, like a Hellcat's main gear.

[Hobbes]

If the SR.53 illustrations reflect the shape of the Firestreaks in the kit, then those look awfully like dummy shapes used for flight testing rather than real missiles, which have an octagonal glass nose, a reduced diameter forebody and two rings of fuse windows.

I just checked some photos:
the Firestreak at Cosford has the octagonal glass nose and fuse windows, but no diameter reduction. It does have raised 4 strips on the missile body, at the base of the 4 fins.

one at Elvington:

[TheChronicOne]

That Kelpie is TOO COOL for SCHOOL! 

[Weaver]

If the SR.53 illustrations reflect the shape of the Firestreaks in the kit, then those look awfully like dummy shapes used for flight testing rather than real missiles, which have an octagonal glass nose, a reduced diameter forebody and two rings of fuse windows.

I just checked some photos:
the Firestreak at Cosford has the octagonal glass nose and fuse windows, but no diameter reduction. It does have raised 4 strips on the missile body, at the base of the 4 fins.

The reduction in forebody diameter is a subtle thing that doesn't show up well from some angles, including the one in your pic. You can see it better in this pic:

[PR19_Kit]

Hmm, the Firestreaks in both those pics look pretty worn, which is weird because they can't have fired them already or they'd be on the deck at some range or underwater by now, so why are they worn?

Does wizzing around at M 2.0 attached to a Lightning wear the paint off that much?