De Havilland Hornet|FROG F239|NOVO

FROG F239 De Havilland Hornet

FROG 1964

FROG F239 De Havilland Hornet, Rovex Tri-ang, 1971-74


de Havilland D.H.103 Hornet F.3

FROG model aircraft 1932-1976, R. Lines, L. Hellstrom

F239 1971-1974 G1(R) 150000 2xRAF
F239 1974-1977 H(R) 55000 2xRAF
Modelling World
JAMES GOULDING
Another "Meatbox" from Frog

There are a number of Royal Air Force types of this era that have not been adequately covered in kits. These include the Vampire, Hornet, Javelin, and Canberra. The Javelin and Canberra have been available in early Frog kits in 1/72 scale, and the Canberra is available in a Revell kit—but not to one of the popular scales. It would be nice to have some new kits of these types.

AIRCRAFT ILLUSTRATED 1970-07


Modelling world
New Frog kits
Frog's de Havilland Hornet

The de Havilland Hornet, smaller brother of the Mosquito and one of the most elegant aircraft of all time, has long been awaited in kit form. The Hornet marked the transition stage in the Royal Air Force from the piston-engined to pure jet-propelled fighter. Its design characteristics and aerodynamics belonged to the jet generation and the basic wing aerofoil sections were the same as used in the Gloster Meteor, de Havilland Vampire and high-speed wing version of the Gloster E28/39. On the power of two late-series Rolls-Royce Merlin engines the Hornet's maximum speed was not much below that of the Meteor 3 and Vampire 1, and higher than the Meteor 1, reaching 485mph in the prototype and 472mph with full military load.

Although it was too late to see service during World War II and was naturally overshadowed by its jet-powered contemporaries, the Hornet served with distinction in seven RAF squadrons and other training units, and as the Sea Hornet saw much service in the Royal Navy. It appeared in a variety of colour schemes. It is, therefore, not surprising that modellers have been eager to add this beautiful aircraft to their collections.

Frog's 1/72 model has been awaited with anticipation but sad to say this is an extremely inaccurate and disappointing kit. It is hard to understand why so many errors have been made in this model, because the Hornet is one of the most completely documented of all wartime designs. After a succession of excellent models, such as the Tal52, Vengeance and Wyvern, it seems unbelievable that a kit of this standard can be marketed by such a world-renowned manufacturer.

The basic outline is very inaccurate, particularly in respect of fuselage, fin and rudder and cockpit canopy shape. The wing is satisfactory in planform but is much too thick throughout. The aerofoil sections of the wing are blunt, ugly and quite unlike the beautiful contours of the true EC1240-EC1040 sections used. The true aerofoil shape had its maximum thickness at 40 per cent of the wing chord (width) back from the leading edge. The thickness/chord ratio of the sections (that is, the thickness of the aerofoil in relation to the wing width at a given point) was 12 per cent at the wing root, and thinning to 10 per cent at the tip. The model aerofoil is also symmetrical whereas the EC1240-1040 aerofoils were based on a cambered elliptical curve.

The windscreen and hood shapes are quite incorrect, having none of the distinctive elegance of the original. On the full-sized version the highest point of the canopy was immediately aft of the windscreen arch and thereafter it sloped down in a gentle curve to the top on the fuselage. The canopy in the kit is a nondescript shape which could come from any kit.

The engine nacelle shape is not entirely correct but passable, but it does look too deep. The Merlin engines of the Hornet were very closely-cowled, in fact more so than on any other types powered by these engines, including the Spitfire. This did produce some servicing problems in squadron service. The spinner and propeller shapes in the kit are good.

The fin and rudder shape is very incorrect and much too thick in section. The shape of the basic fin and rudder is more or less symmetrical in the kit whereas in fact it was more curved on the leading edge. The long fin extension has too great a radius at the joint with the fin.

The fuselage shape is not correct. The nose is too symmetrical and blunt in side view. It should be somewhat longer and more tapered, and also with more downward slope. The nose plan view should also have more taper. The rear fuselage sections, due to integral moulding with the fin, look peculiar. The rear fuselage is also a little too deep in places.

The tailplane is correct in shape and thickness. One of the best items in the kit is the undercarriage, which looks convincing but possibly a little too tall. The wheels have axles which press into the undercarriage legs and the system works well. The wheels themselves are nice.

I have been trying ways to make this model look more like a Hornet, but it does require a lot of extra work and patience. The work, however, presents a challenge and is equal to that involved in a major conversion. In some ways it would be better to make new wings, fuselage and fin and rudder, and try and fit the existing nacelles and tailplane. Trying to fit the existing nacelles would be a major task however and it is, therefore, better to try and improve the existing components.

First of all the wings can be reduced in thickness by filing down all the mating joints of the two wing and nacelle halves. The top and bottom of the forward part of the wing sections can then be filed fo a better shape. Fortunately the upper surface of the Hornet's wing was very smooth, being constructed with a plywood/balsa sandwich skin, so that loss of detail does not matter too much. The lower surface of the Hornet's wing was metal-skinned with flush rivetting, and extensive use was made of metal-to-wood bonding in the internal structure.

Improvement to the fuselage shape can be made by completely cutting away the fin and rudder as a first step. This leaves a slit along the top of the fuselage, but cement can be put into the gap and then closed together. This should be tightly bound together with an elastic band and set aside to dry really hard. When thoroughly dry the rear fuselage can then be filed extensively to improve the cross sections and depth. The extreme nose really wants cutting away and a new portion added for complete re-shaping, but the existing shape can be improved by filing. An entirely new fin and rudder is required, probably best made of Plasticard. However, a spare component from, say, an old Mosquito could be adapted, with a Plasticard extension. The Hornet Fl, of course, could easily be modelled, as this did not have the long extension—at least not for most of its service life.

Improving the cockpit windscreen and hood presents serious difficulties. The component supplied is not correct and nothing can be done to make it look like the Hornet canopy. It is, therefore, necessary to adapt transparencies from other kits. In my case I used an old Meteor 8 windscreen and hooding, which was adaptable by cutting through the component just behind the windscreen arch and resetting the rear half at a steeper angle. With additional filing and polishing, and a final coating of polymer varnish, the resulting windscreen and hooding is a reasonable representation of that used on the Hornet.

Armament in the kit consists of four 60lb rockets mounted on short-length rails, and two bombs. The rockets are excellent, although the tail fins could be thinner. The bombs look crude and unconvincing.

The transfers are for Hornet F3s from 19 and 41 Squadrons. The aircraft from 19 Squadron is finished in the high altitude day fighter scheme of Medium Sea Grey on upper surfaces and PRU Blue on the undersides. The Hornet from 41 Squadron is in long-range intruder markings of Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and PRU Blue undersides. The design of the transfers is, as usual, of high quality, but samples from two Hornet kits had rather poor adhesive qualities and it is to be hoped that this does not signify a lowering of standards.

This kit is a great disappointment but the Hornet is such an important aircraft that it is worth the extra effort involved in trying to make this kit into a reasonable model of de Havilland's superb twin-engined fighter. It is not likely that any other manufacturer will produce a Hornet in 1/72 scale, at least for some time, so this is the only chance to add this type to our collections.

The price of the kit is 26p.

ABOVE: de Havilland Hornet 3s of 41 Squadron in one of the colour schemes suggested for Frog's new model. Incidentally, the serial of the Hornet 3 illustrated last month was misquoted; it should have been PX362.

Aircraft Illustrated 1971-06


NEW AND IN VIEW
New Aircraft Kits
ROVEX TRI-ANG (FROG) LIMITED. De Havilland Hornet F3. Red Series. 1/72 scale. Price (U.K.) 26p.

Moulded in medium grey plastic the various component parts of this kit are of a good fit and free of flash but, unfortunately, the outline accuracy of the mouldings leaves something to be desired.

The nose shape is too pointed in side elevation and not deep enough on the underside of the nose radius; similarly the fin and rudder chord is too narrow above the point where the fin fairing smoothes into the fin proper. The cockpit canopy is clear but in side view the bulge should be much further forward and not as moulded.

The most unfortunate error though is the grossly over-thick wing section and almost square-section leading edges. The wings require thinning down in a constant taper from root to tip and the leading edge radiator intakes on the inboard wing section are both too shallow and should be angled upwards from the root.

The engine nascelles with separate exhaust inserts are excellent as are the neatly detailed undercarriage oleo and wheel doors. The propeller blades and spinners are also near perfect but the instruction sheet fails to point out that the propeller units were 'handed' and should be fitted to the model so that the pitch of the prop blades turns towards the fuselage on each engine.

Decals are for an F.3 of 41 Squadron 1950 in the then current 'Intruder' scheme of Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey/PRU Blue while the alternative markings are for another F.3 of 19 Squadron, 1950 in Medium Sea Grey upper surfaces and PRU Blue undersides; decals include full national insignia, squadron crests, markings and fuselage stencil panel.

Box art is excellent as a painting guide but the colours are inaccurately reproduced. Use HUMBROL camouflage paints for this model endeavouring to obtain a smooth surface sheen rather than a high-gloss finish.

The IPMS magazine, MARCH 1971 Vol. 8 No. 3


Air Enthusiast 1971-07 vol.01 no.02
MODEL ENTHUSIAST
My wife doesn't understand met

A Frog quartet

From the viewpoint of the modeller, one of the most neglected periods in the entire history of aviation — neglected, that is, by the kit manufacturer — is that immediately following WW II. The last generation of piston-engined combat aircraft had no opportunity to gain laurels comparable with those earned by its wartime predecessors, and thus, to the model kit manufacturer, lacked the glamour necessary for quantity sales. From time to time, of course, the occasional kit of a warplane of the immediate post-war period has appeared, and we are happy to see that Frog has courageously issued a kit of one such aircraft, the de Havilland Hornet, which makes a truly worthy subject for a model and a fitting companion for this company's recently-issued Westland Wyvern and Gloster Meteor IV.

Frog's Hornet, which, in outline, represents the F Mk 1 version with the long dorsal fin added later, gives an overall impression of accuracy, but is at fault on a number of detail points. For example, the fuselage aft of the wing is too long, and this excessive length is exaggerated by an* undersized fin. The tailplanes have too great a span and, in fact, represent those of the Sea Hornet F Mk 20, though the arrester hook and camera windows of this variant are not included in the kit, and the engine nacelles are inaccurately shaped, being too broad in planview at the wing leading edge, not extending sufficiently aft over the upper wing surface, and tapering too sharply forward to meet the slightly oversized spinners. All these errors can be corrected, but it would seem a pity that Frog did not check the outline drawings more carefully before cutting the tools for the kit.

The component parts are flash-free and assemble well, while the straight-line surface detail is commendably fine. The instruction sheet is satisfying as far as it goes, but suffers a rather important omission. The Hornet had handed airscrews, and these are provided perfectly correctly in the kit, but the instruction sheet fails to indicate which airscrew should be fitted to which nacelle. In fact, the airscrews rotated inwards, and part No 17 should therefore be fitted to the port nacelle and No 18 to the starboard. Incidentally, on the model illustrated by Frog's publicity photographs the airscrews are mounted the wrong way round! The decal sheet, which provides markings for aircraft of both Nos 19 and 41 Squadrons, maintains the usual high Frog quality, and the coloured illustration on the boxlid provides other kit manufacturers with an outstanding example in the presentation of marking detail.

Released simultaneously by Frog were re-issues of three kits that have existed for some time but have now been redesigned for motorisation. To accompany them there is a set containing two tiny electric motors with the necessary wiring and copper connections. This is a first class idea, for which we award full marks. The kits concerned are Bristol's Beaufort and Beaufighter, and the Junkers Ju 88A-4, and the motors are 0-8 in (2,0 cm) in length and 0-45 in (1,14 cm) in diameter, and thus slip easily into 1/72nd scale radial engine cowlings. Their shafts are offset, which may enable them to be used for some liquid-cooled engine installations, though nacelles such as those of the Hornet are too slim to accept them. The motors are driven by means of a pen-light battery housed within the fuselage of the model (and accessible by means of a detachable panel in the fuselage underside) and are started and stopped simply by turning or stopping the airscrew. The price of the entire motorisation set is only 42^ pence in the UK, and we foresee a wide application for this clever device.

Turning briefly to the kits themselves, the Beaufighter is an excellent model, and has now been provided with the bulge forward of the windscreen that characterised Australian-built variants and an excellent new decal sheet for a Beaufighter 21. The Ju 88A-4 is a kit of older vintage, and suffers a number of inaccuracies, notably concerning the shapes of the wings and nacelles. The new decal sheet provides markings for examples of this aircraft that served both in North Africa and the Soviet Union. Oldest of the trio is the Beaufort, but it has stood the test of time well, and is generally a very good model if one throws away the atrocious engine cowlings and replaces them with suitable cowlings from another kit. Incidentally, despite the statement on the boxtop, the markings of neither aircraft provided by the decal sheet are those of a Beaufort II (W6476 was a Taurus-engined Mk I while A9-408 was a Twin Wasp-engined Mk VIII). The cowlings of the two types of engine were noticeably different, and the box art is in error in showing the Australian machine with the forward collector rings and long exhaust pipes of the Taurus installation.
W R Matthews

RECENTLY ISSUED KITS
CompanyTypeScalePrice
AirfixTriStar1/14485p
AirflxJ 35F Draken1/7224p
FrogHornet1/7226p
FrogBeaufighter (M)1/7236p
FrogJu 888A-4 (M)1/7236p
FrogBeaufort (M)1/7236p
AuroraDC-101/144$2-50
RevellOH-6A Cayuse1/3249p
RevellHurricane I1/32£1-05
VEBMil Mi-10K1/100

Air Enthusiast 1971-07 vol.01 no.02



FROG 1974 Green series logo

FROG F239 De Havilland Hornet, Rovex Tri-ang, 1971-74


NOVO logo

NOVO De Havilland Hornet, Novo Toys Ltd., Макси, Питерборо, Англия PE69HQ, 1980


de Havilland D.H.103 Hornet F.3
Novo Toys Ltd., Maxey, Peterborough, England PE69HQ
Period: 1976-1981

Few, if any other kit companies have been subjected to as much rumour spreading, speculation and ill-informed guesswork as NOVO. Neither has any other company name been so misused, and perhaps it is best to start by putting this straight.

As can be seen above, NOVO was a British company, and it always was. Although the company name itself was derived from NOVOexport, their Soviet trade partner, NOVO was never owned by the Russians. In recent years, NOVO has been used as a collective name for any ex-Frog kits coming out of the USSR, but nothing could be more wrong or misleading. Only kits actually packed in NOVO packaging should be called NOVO kits. Anything else can only be described as kits by the Soviet factory in question (BFI, Krugozor, Tashigrushka etc.). If a collective name is really necessary, then one might perhaps use MLI (for the Soviet Ministry of Light Industry, who supervise most of these factories).

The events leading up to the creation of NOVO have been covered in the Frog history section of this book and will not be repeated here. Suffice to say that a General Agreement was reached between Dunbee-Combex-Marx (the owner of both NOVO and Rovex) and V/O NOVOexport in August 1975. This agreement stipulated that DCM was to deliver moulds, tools and materials to NOVOexport, who would pay for them by sending back finished goods from the same moulds. It must be pointed out that apart from model kits the agreement also covered a wide range of other toys. NOVO Toys Ltd. was set up by DCM in 1975 to handle this business.

The finer details of the arrangement were set out in twelve contracts, three of which concerned the ex-Frog kits. A theoretical value (based on remaining production life and other factors) was set for each mould. These were totalled for each contract and a suitable mix of kits to the same amount was worked out, meaning that payment for a particular mould did not necessarily consist of kits from that very same mould only.

Once the agreed quantity of kits had been delivered by NOVOexport, the moulds were considered their property and all future purchases by NOVO had to be paid for in cash. In the event, no such follow-up orders were ever placed by NOVO.

The first moulds were sent out to the USSR in early 1976 (i.e. almost a year before Frog production by Rovex finally ceased) and these were distributed among the several Soviet factories undertaking the actual production. With the exception of the Dennis Ambulance, Firefly Dinghy and the Axis aircraft sold to Revell, all Frog moulds still with Rovex in 1976 were shipped to the Soviet Union over the next year or so. Of these, the Britannia, R-100 and the car kits were considered to be of little interest to the Western market, and consequently no NOVO numbers were ever assigned. Although not specifically mentioned in any contract, it is believed that the Soviets also took delivery of the old Drifter and Tug Boat moulds.

The NOVO kit number incorporated the original projected year of release (e.g. 76001). Some kits were in fact delivered to NOVO in 1976, but not until 1977 was a marketable range available and released. Due to this, no additional kits were planned for 1977, but instead delayed until 1978 and given numbers starting with 78. The many gaps in the sequence were partly filled by other NOVO products.

Getting the Russians to keep up with the delivery schedule was the main NOVO headache. From the very start and until the very end, NOVOexport were constantly behind in their deliveries. The reasons were of course many, but a few of these warrant some comments.

Problems with production facilities and moulds were common. Although certain Soviet factories were fairly well-equipped, others had obsolete and unsuitable machinery. Staff competence and maintenance levels also sometimes left something to be desired. This not only slowed down production, but also led to some moulds being damaged. The Mirage mould, for example, was left out-doors one winter and was of course thoroughly rusty by spring! (It was later restored to usable condition.)

The mould for the old Typhoon, when returned to the UK for repairs, was found to be missing all six original locking bolts holding the two halves together. These had been replaced by four new ones of inferior material. Had these broken during operation (remembering that plastic was being injected with a pressure of over 500 p.s.i., or 35 kp/cm2), the mould would probably have been completely destroyed along with the injection machine and its unfortunate operator. The same mould had also been repaired by the Russians, using brass instead of toughened steel.

All in all, NOVOexport complained about problems with some two dozen moulds. Of the eight subsequently repaired in the U.K., five had damage caused by the Russians.

But the main problem was the inferior plastic used in the USSR. All Frog moulds were tuned to use Shell SI73 polystyrene (or equivalent), having a Melt Flow Index of 35. Soviet polystyrene, on the other hand, was found to have an index of around 4! This meant that, in order to make the plastic fill the mould, the temperature had to be increased by some 50°C and the injection pressure up to 100%. Not only was this very damaging to the moulds (several subsequently had to be repaired), but also often led to sub-standard mouldings. This since the extreme pressure forced the mould halves apart, letting plastic overflow into the gaps and form flash.

Neither was the low MFI the only problem with the plastic. An independent evaluation carried out in 1978 reads like a catalogue of faults: "Izod (= impact strength) very low .. . abnormally low I.V. (= inherent viscosity) . .. colour is poor and contamination excessive ... poor surface finish and gloss ... extremely brittle and not very rigid .. . must make good colouring difficult and appearance of finished article to be doubtful quality."

The third major problem was politics. Soviet laws take a pretty grim view of anything "fascist", which was why all German, Italian and Japanese aircraft were sold to Revell instead of being sent to the USSR. But other problems were to come up.

The original boxes for the Tupolev SB-2 showed one Luftwaffe marking alternative. NOVOexport refused point-blank to touch these and NOVO eventually had to print a replacement batch of some 105,000 box bottoms. The Luftwaffe portion of the decals were also cut away.

Later on, the Soviet Ministry of Culture classed the Fokker D.XXI as a "fascist aircraft" since it had been used by the Finnish AF in WWII. The fact that the Finns also used e.g. M.S.406, P-40, Lysander, SB-2, Hurricane, Gladiator and Blenheim - all of which were also included in the NOVO range - did not seem to bother them, however. Subsequent NOVO attempts to get this decision changed were all in vain. It should be noted that NOVO had replaced the original Finish AF marking alternative with a Danish one, to avoid this very problem.

The next casualty was the Sea Fury. Due to a slip-up, the 1980 NOVO catalogue described it as having shot down some MiG-15s during the Korean War. NOVOexport were much upset by this and refused to deliver any more Sea Fury kits! Only a few kits from an earlier trial consignment ever reached the market. The same fate probably befell the Sea Venom, only this time the catalogue mentioned Egyptian MiGs destroyed in 1956. Only a small number of Sea Venoms were delivered, anyway.

Despite all difficulties, business was good for NOVO and their kits sold well - mainly due to very competitive prices made possible by the unique set-up of the production. The downfall of NOVO was thus not caused by economical problems as has often been suggested, at least not directly. However, Dunbee-Combex-Marx Ltd. fell into severe financial difficulties in 1979 and eventually had to go into receivership. Since DCM owned NOVO, legal requirements forced NOVO to do the same and the company passed into the hands of the receivers in February 1980. No buyer could be found in time and NOVO Toys Ltd. was wound up later in the same year, although formal liquidation only took place five years later.

The last Soviet deliveries were made in mid-1980 and all kits had been sold out by early 1981. Remaining stocks of boxes, decals and instruction sheets (all printed in the UK) were handed over to NOVOexport together with some original box artwork and other bits and pieces.

Box styles, artwork, decals and instructions were in general very similar to the late Frog issues. Indeed, early box mock-ups were almost identical to the Frog boxes except for the removal of the Frog logotype. Apart from the mock-ups, a small batch of similar test boxes were also printed before the style eventually used was finally agreed upon.

Although most NOVO kits were boxed, it should be pointed out that kits 76001-76031 were packed in plastic bags with header cards.

Apart from box style, there were also some changes in artwork and decal sheets. Sixteen of the kits used completely new box top art and a few others had slightly changed versions of the Frog originals. In addition, five kits used art previously only utilised on Air Lines boxes.

The only all-new decals were those for the Dart Herald, F-82, Baltimore, VC10 and Boeing 707, although the first three probably had the new designs completed while still with Rovex. Either way, the design work was carried out by Dick Ward of Modeldecal. Apart from the previously mentioned Tupolev and Fokker, the only other known change was that the P-38 had its Chinese markings alternative replaced by a second USAAF one. Although the HMS Trafalgar box art showed the ship with the "RO9" pendant number of HMS Cadiz, the actual decals gave "D77" which was the post-war number of Trafalgar.

A great deal of speculation has taken place over the last few years as regards which kits NOVO actually released. And this with some right, since it is indeed a very complex subject.

To begin with, a large number of kits were undeniably released. The kit listing which follows gives production quantities for these.

Secondly, certain kits belonging to the third phase of the third contract were definitely never released. They arc all marked "t" in the list, and for these kits no boxes, decals or instruction sheets were ever printed.

This leaves us with some twenty-three kits which were never officially released but nevertheless had all boxes etc. printed. In the list they all have the official production quantity zero. Regrettably, this does not represent the whole truth, and that for two reasons.

The first one is that trial consignments were often received by NOVO and, although not included in the official production quantity, these kits were eventually sold by them. It is also possible that a few batches of slightly faulty and previously rejected kits were also sold out at a discount when NOVO closed down. These consignments might number anything from a few dozen to several hundred kits, in some case perhaps more than a thousand.

In connection with this, the Boeing 707 is a special case worth mention. A batch of some 3,000 707s were received by NOVO and quickly distributed. However, it was soon found that most kits suffered moulding defects and in the end all but a very few were recalled by NOVO or returned to them by irate buyers.

The second reason is that when NOVO closed down, NOVOexport held enough "paper work" to produce another 2,750,000 NOVO kits. It is a fact that some of this has since been used by the Russians. In many cases only the box has been used, omitting the decals and substituting the instruction sheet with a Russian one (or a photo-copy of the NOVO original). But sometimes all three original items have been used and the only clue that these are "fake" NOVO kits might be the somewhat odd plastic colour (NOVO usually managed to avoid the more disgusting ones of the strange shades apparently beloved by Soviet plastic producers). However, in a few cases even this gives nothing away. Since these kits are produced in the same factories as before, using original NOVO boxes, decals and instruction sheets, they are - for all practical purposes - NOVO kits.

To give some (admittedly subjective) indication of the quantity known to exist of the "zero production" kits, one or two pluses have been added. Thus "0+ + " indicates that a reasonable quantity - perhaps a few hundred - has found its way on to the Western market. "0+" indicates that very-few, or none, have yet been seen. But this may of course change at any time; who knows when the Soviets decide to make use of their 46,000 sets of Twin Mustang packaging...

Finally, the four Russian aircraft - Anatra, MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-3 - must also be mentioned. Produced by Rovcx in accordance with the 1975 DCM-NOVOexport agreement, the moulds were kept with NOVO in England for many years. But for various reasons they were never included in any of the actual contracts with NOVOexport, nor were kit numbers assigned. When NOVO closed down, the Russians were most interested in buying the moulds but lacked the hard currency needed. Later attempts by the receivers to sell them to other kit manufacturers - including Lindberg, Monogram, Revell and Starfix - all failed. Not until 1983 were they finally disposed of, to Red Star (which see).

Throughout the list, the NOVO number has been given as kit number. But all the kits also carried the old Frog number on the box; indeed, on the 76xxx kits this was more prominently displayed than the NOVO number.

FROG model aircraft 1932-1976, R. Lines, L. Hellstrom

Qty
78079D.H.103 Hornet F.315000


+ Project only, never released
* Existence probable but as yet unconfirmed
** Existence possible, information uncertain
*** Existence unlikely but not totally impossible
0++ indicates that a reasonable quantity - perhaps a few hundred - has found its way on to the Western market
0+" indicates that very-few, or none, have yet been seen.

Ogoniok 1983 logo

Index 239, Long Range Fighter-Bomber, MOEZ ‘Ogonyok’ Moscow, MG085-01-5707, 1983


  • 16.10.2022