More wiffery in the July Model Aircraft

[NARSES2]

3 yes 3 Wif builds in the July edition of Model Aircraft all the builds are to do with the search for a Canberra replacement and are :

P.1121, Mirage IV and Avro Arrow 4.

Makes a nice collection especially as they are all in different RAF schemes 

It's a good edition this month - Buccaneer pic's ramjet P-61 and the final installment on German WWI seaplane fighters amongst others

Chris

[scooter]

Buccaneer pic's ramjet P-61

Chris

A ramjet P-61? 

[NARSES2]

Buccaneer pic's ramjet P-61

Chris

A ramjet P-61? 

Yup real life NACA project with a ramjet fitted under the fusalage so they could test it - sorry if I got your brain going in overdrive.

[scooter]

Buccaneer pic's ramjet P-61

Chris

A ramjet P-61?  

Yup real life NACA project with a ramjet fitted under the fusalage so they could test it - sorry if I got your brain going in overdrive.

::already begins pondering the next P-61 build::


(Official NASA photo)

[NARSES2]

Thats one of the pics in the article Scoot

[Nigel Bunker]

An interesting article, though I'm not sure about the main undercarriage on the Arrow. But always good to see some whiffery in the modelling press.

By the way, am I the only one who dislikes the "counterfactual" name some are giving to whiffery?

[PR19_Kit]

By the way, am I the only one who dislikes the "counterfactual" name some are giving to whiffery?

Definitely not.

It seems to be the way the uber-JMNs have of justifying their own slavish adherance to 'accuracy'. This of course totally ignores the fact that 90% of their models (if they've actually built any.....) are made from styrene. Are there ANY real world aircraft that are made from styrene??? 

Some magazine eds appear to be using it more and more too, in an effort to justify their own editorial policies of ignoring us and our ilk. 

[RussC]

By the way, am I the only one who dislikes the "counterfactual" name some are giving to whiffery?

Definitely not.

It seems to be the way the uber-JMNs have of justifying their own slavish adherance to 'accuracy'. This of course totally ignores the fact that 90% of their models (if they've actually built any.....) are made from styrene. Are there ANY real world aircraft that are made from styrene???  

Some magazine eds appear to be using it more and more too, in an effort to justify their own editorial policies of ignoring us and our ilk.  

 The key words were - if they've actually built any.

 Ultimately, in every hobby and every profession and in most gatherings of humans there are those who just plain like to marginalise others, for whatever deep seated reasons that they have. I suspect many of the reasons are poor upbringing, such as toilet training or a really bad early social net.

 Its really not worth anyone's time to try and correct this, even if it can be done.

 Of course my darker side would enjoy communicating with them in sign language-

 But again, not worth the time spent.



  I don't really mind titles or any references, as long as they are practical and not demeaning.

  We are a breed apart and very misunderstood.
 
 

[NARSES2]

By the way, am I the only one who dislikes the "counterfactual" name some are giving to whiffery?

It's been around a long time Nigel, and I find it very pretentious. I first saw it being used in books when some authors of alternative history were trying to see themselves as "serious" alternative historians rather then people who just make things up  Personally I just chose to giggle rather then cry 

  We are a breed apart and very misunderstood.
 
 

Agreed Russ, but in the UK at least we are becoming more understood, and the benefits of our take on the hobby are rubbing off on a fair few modellers. One reason for that is the presence we have a so many shows thanks to Martin our "Glorious Leader"

[Old Wombat]

I find "counterfactual" to be a bit .... OK .... very pompous but nothing to get upset about.

Sometimes I think it even gives we "counterfactualists" an aire of academic integrity beyond mere "real worlders".



Guy

[Alvis 3.14159]

Having been building What-If models since the early 70s, through times and places where nobody did any model that wasn't heavily researched and proven to be a million percent accurate, I don't care what anyone decides to call the concept. Luft '46, Luft What If, Whiff, What If, really, who cares what anyone else calls it? They can call it Susan for all I care, I'm building what I want when I want with whoever I want, and if some uppity magazine editor wants to run What if models, that's bloody fantastic news.
Every time a what if model is shown, a JMN dies a little bit inside. Who can't get behind that? Unless, of course, the whole idea of the what if becoming mainstream is too hard to bear. It's far easier to exist in that little box of self pity constantly crying out "They don't understand us" when the box isn't opened to anyone new. Additions only dilute the pity! I'd much rather see What if a thriving community of freely exchanged ideas than a bunch of grumpy old farts, jealously hording ideas and pining for the days when we made our Whiffs out of mud...
Then again, that's my outlook.

Alvis Pi

[NARSES2]

I'd much rather see What if a thriving community of freely exchanged ideas than a bunch of grumpy old farts, jealously hording ideas and pining for the days when we made our Whiffs out of mud...
Then again, that's my outlook.

Alvis Pi

[Old Wombat]

I'd much rather see What if a thriving community of freely exchanged ideas than a bunch of grumpy old farts, jealously hording ideas and pining for the days when we made our Whiffs out of mud...
Then again, that's my outlook.

Alvis Pi

Agreed!

[Nigel Bunker]

I just got home and looked at the article.

The Arrow has pylons under the wings with tanks on them, the rear part of which house the undercarriage. I think that these should have been conformal tanks which would let the undercarriage be attatched to a wing spar. Recalling my engineering degree all those years ago, I remember being taught that load bearing items should be attached directly to structural members and not through ancillary pieces. Trms like nodes, vibrations and transmitted loads crawl to the surface of my ancient mind through the detritis of years.

Apart from that, it's a cracking build. Gromit agrees.

[RussC]

I find "counterfactual" to be a bit .... OK .... very pompous but nothing to get upset about.

Sometimes I think it even gives we "counterfactualists" an aire of academic integrity beyond mere "real worlders".



Guy

I like that term ! After all, in order to step past it, one usually has to have fully sampled the real world already and yearns for more and even better.